PDA

View Full Version : Mental Health is the real problem - Government ignores


GunOwner
12-16-2012, 2:18 PM
An interesting perspective - focus on the cause not the implements of action. Where is Diane Feistein and the other idiots on this issue.

http://gawker.com/5968818/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother

wjc
12-16-2012, 2:21 PM
I was glad to hear, in the news shows, that they even mentioned the Mental Health angle.

I fear that the Legislature will still go for the easy fix because of the complexity of Rights, Mental Health, and Gun policy.

Paul S
12-16-2012, 2:24 PM
An interesting perspective - focus on the cause not the implements of action. Where is Diane Feistein and the other idiots on this issue.

http://gawker.com/5968818/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother

Good luck with that. Mental health care has been reduced to nearly non-existant levels across this nation. The current mental health facilities are state prisons nationwide.
It is so much easier for politicians to focus on guns than to deal with the root problem they will never do it.

tamalpias
12-16-2012, 2:25 PM
they rather ban or tax something in the false guise of safety because it is simple rather than address the real issues.

nick
12-16-2012, 2:28 PM
Mentally ill individuals don't threaten the state. In fact, they can be useful. Now, civilian gun ownership is seen as the threat by the state that doesn't like having a check on its power. Hence the focus on the civilian gun ownership.

HUTCH 7.62
12-16-2012, 2:37 PM
they rather ban or tax something in the false guise of safety because it is simple rather than address the real issues.

gotta love beaucracy

vantec08
12-16-2012, 2:40 PM
Excellent article, OP. Mental illness is the Great Untreated malady, as much as some would have us believe otherwise. Mass shootings, chronic homeless and a lot more point to a society that is failing. "Progressives" have made a lot of crime and illness acceptable thru pop culture and stupid laws.

boingo
12-16-2012, 2:43 PM
Also, I would like to see how head meds were involved. Once someone begins a regimen, they often have to continue for life. If they stop, they often experience horrible withdrawals and extreme psychiatric symptoms. The pharmaceutical industry is a multi-billion dollar industry which has been flooding the mental health care industry with often poorly understood "medicines" and the mainstream media with billions in advertising dollars over the years. The prescribing of head meds especially exploded in the '90's and continues to grow today. I want to know if there are links and what they are.

Oh and btw, if the media completely ignores this and at the same time continues to glorify these psychos with plastering their pictures, manifestos, tweets, life-history, etc to encourage the next psycho to commit the next massacre, then the media is complicit in the crime.

LMTluvr
12-16-2012, 2:46 PM
they rather ban or tax something in the false guise of safety because it is simple rather than address the real issues.

Agreed.
They also operate that way because a majority of them don't care. Their not truly interested in a solution. They want their big checks, benefits and control. Instead of representing the people they yearn to control the people. An armed society in their eyes is not under control.
Anyone with a brain can see mental health is a factor. They can also see that gun free zones are nothing more than open killing zones.
The best defense against a gunman is well. A gun!
They know this but you can bet the bank they will never admit it.
This ideology that banning guns will stop this type of tragedy just amazes me.
Ask a citizen of Mexico how the no gun theory is working out, I'm sure if the cartels can smuggle in metric tons of marijuana they can smuggle in guns to those willing to pay the price and obviously willing to break the law.
Then were all just sheep for the slaughter.

Mulay El Raisuli
12-16-2012, 2:51 PM
An interesting perspective - focus on the cause not the implements of action. Where is Diane Feistein and the other idiots on this issue.

http://gawker.com/5968818/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother


They're avoiding it. Just like always.

But we can do something about this. We can post a link to the article on our Facebook pages. We can also add to it.

Following the Australian gun buy-back (following the Port Arthur shooting in '96), crime actually went up in Australia. For two years. After that, it dropped. What changed? The Australian govt greatly increased funding for mental health services. It was only then that the crime rate started to drop.

My problem is that while I was able to find sources for this info before, my Google-foo has weakened considerably & I can't find it again. If anyone else can find links to that info, I think it would be very helpful to post it here so I, and anyone else wishing to be helpful, can spread that truth around as well.


The Raisuli

tcrpe
12-16-2012, 2:52 PM
There seems to be a problem with firearm access and people with mental "issues".

Government will address this soon.

cruising7388
12-16-2012, 2:59 PM
Good luck with that. Mental health care has been reduced to nearly non-existant levels across this nation. The current mental health facilities are state prisons nationwide.
It is so much easier for politicians to focus on guns than to deal with the root problem they will never do it.

Mental health facilities would be a plus on a number of levels but it requires skilled professionals and this would cost a lot more than chump change. Everybody wants it but nobody wants to pay for it. In the current environment disposed to cutting expenditures to meet budget deficits, I think it's a non-starter. Also, not only is it a resource applied too little - it's applied too late. The lesser goal is to bring adult crazy people back to sanity. The greater goal is to figure out what makes sane young people go crazy and what we can do to stop that process before homicidal thought turns into action.

trevilli
12-16-2012, 3:02 PM
I think trying to use the political system to "fix" any problem is a risky proposition at best. I don't think it's any secret that people such as Senators Feinstein and Schumer want to reduce the number of guns that are out there by any means available to them. What I'm afraid of is that anybody who sees a mental health professional (therapist) for any reason will suddenly be labeled as a 'threat'. I can see the Dept of Homeland Security saying something like: Depression? Marriage counseling? Trouble focusing at work? Well, we need to take your details, and put you into a database and very carefully monitor your activities! Perhaps we should create a Mental Health Watchlist, much like the Terrorist Watchlist and the No Fly List, because after all, we really don't want people with a mental illness getting guns, do we? The net result will be that people will be reluctant to seek help because they will be viewed by the system as a threat Part of the challenge in treating mental illness right now is the stigma associated with it. People are afraid to be labeled nuts, crazy, etc and this prevents many from seeking the help they need. It's a very delicate balancing act, and I just really hesitate to say 'Government to the rescue!' Especially the federal government, which I think of as a very blunt tool, that would be attempting to solve a highly nuanced problem.

DrVino
12-16-2012, 3:05 PM
Also, I would like to see how head meds were involved. Once someone begins a regimen, they often have to continue for life. If they stop, they often experience horrible withdrawals and extreme psychiatric symptoms. The pharmaceutical industry is a multi-billion dollar industry which has been flooding the mental health care industry with often poorly understood "medicines" and the mainstream media with billions in advertising dollars over the years. The prescribing of head meds especially exploded in the '90's and continues to grow today. I want to know if there are links and what they are.

Oh and btw, if the media completely ignores this and at the same time continues to glorify these psychos with plastering their pictures, manifestos, tweets, life-history, etc to encourage the next psycho to commit the next massacre, then the media is complicit in the crime.

As physician, I have to correct a few of your inaccuracies:

1. People continue life-long on meds because their disorders are life-long. Period. Some people are born "wired" a certain way. There is no way to "un-wire" or "re-wire" them.

2. See above as a response to your notion of "withdrawal".

3. There are limitations to what is generally understood about psych disorders and psych meds. But remember that the neurotransmitter model of psych disturbance is only about 70 years old. Much is being learned daily to add dimension to our understanding.

4. There are no links between taking meds and these events. There ARE links between NOT taking meds or the wrong ones.

DrVino
12-16-2012, 3:07 PM
There seems to be a problem with firearm access and people with mental "issues".

Government will address this soon.

Yes.... but HOW?

vantec08
12-16-2012, 3:10 PM
As physician, I have to correct a few of your inaccuracies:

1. People continue life-long on meds because their disorders are life-long. Period. Some people are born "wired" a certain way. There is no way to "un-wire" or "re-wire" them.

2. See above as a response to your notion of "withdrawal".

3. There are limitations to what is generally understood about psych disorders and psych meds. But remember that the neurotransmitter model of psych disturbance is only about 70 years old. Much is being learned daily to add dimension to our understanding.

4. There are no links between taking meds and these events. There ARE links between NOT taking meds or the wrong ones.


well said, sir

DrVino
12-16-2012, 3:12 PM
Mental health facilities would be a plus on a number of levels but it requires skilled professionals and this would cost a lot more than chump change. Everybody wants it but nobody wants to pay for it. In the current environment disposed to cutting expenditures to meet budget deficits, I think it's a non-starter. Also, not only is it a resource applied too little - it's applied too late. The lesser goal is to bring adult crazy people back to sanity. The greater goal is to figure out what makes sane young people go crazy and what we can do to stop that process before homicidal thought turns into action.

It's not that we need more mental health facilities or professionals.

We need to untie their hands.

The only time a person can be reported to law enforcement is if they make clear statements of intent.

Current laws prevent simple measures like adding people with high-risk disorders to NO-BUY lists.

The only time something can be done is *after the fact* but as we've seen recently, most of the time, the person kills themselves at the end of the spree.


Interesting blog post here: http://anarchistsoccermom.blogspot.com/2012/12/thinking-unthinkable.html

"When I asked my son’s social worker about my options, he said that the only thing I could do was to get Michael charged with a crime. “If he’s back in the system, they’ll create a paper trail,” he said. “That’s the only way you’re ever going to get anything done. No one will pay attention to you unless you’ve got charges.”

kcbrown
12-16-2012, 3:18 PM
There seems to be a problem with firearm access and people with mental "issues".

Government will address this soon.

Tell me: what kind of law forbidding access to those with mental illness would have prevented this tragedy?

The answer is: only the kind that would somehow have forced this guy into a mental institution and kept him there.


You can't fix this problem by passing laws that control access to firearms. There were already several in place that this guy violated.

Any law which depends on the target obeying it for its efficacy is entirely impotent in the face of a determined evildoer.


So either you force periodic mental health checks on the entire population (because just targeting gun owners does you no good -- that wouldn't have helped here either because the firearms didn't belong to the evildoer) and throw anyone who doesn't pass into a mental institution for life, or you make it possible for the good people who are actually there to respond effectively. And note that, thanks to the fact that psychiatry is a rather "soft" science, the former option will miss some people, so it won't actually eliminate the problem anyway.


You can't eliminate risk from the real world. That's the nature of the real world. What you can do is ensure that those who live in it have the option of responding to it in the most effective manner possible.

Funny how liberty is the most effective real world answer to this problem.

kcbrown
12-16-2012, 3:19 PM
Current laws prevent simple measures like adding people with high-risk disorders to NO-BUY lists.


What kind of no-buy list would have prevented this tragedy?

Until you can come up with an answer to that question, your proposal lacks merit, at least with respect to preventing tragedies like this one.


If you can guarantee that your proposal will have no false positives, then it's worth considering. But if it is going to result in people having their rights stripped from them when they shouldn't be, then it shouldn't be considered until there are no better alternatives left.

And there are better alternatives, and interestingly enough, they do relate to your proposal somewhat. In the end, the problem is that people with mental health issues aren't being treated properly. That has to change. Forbidding access to firearms will do nothing, but removing any roadblocks from those people getting the help they need will help quite a bit.

tcrpe
12-16-2012, 3:19 PM
Yes.... but HOW?

I've already, twice, posted one method to provide for selective mental competency testing. Another hoop in 4473 so to speak.

ElvenSoul
12-16-2012, 3:21 PM
We Need To Remind Them Why They Need Us - Quote from a movie about revolution.

We need to employ
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Questions_and_Replies_between_Tang_Taizong_and_Li_ Weigong

ElvenSoul
12-16-2012, 3:21 PM
We Need To Remind Them Why They Need Us - Quote from a movie about revolution.

We need to employ
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Questions_and_Replies_between_Tang_Taizong_and_Li_ Weigong

DrVino
12-16-2012, 3:22 PM
Tell me: what kind of law forbidding access to those with mental illness would have prevented this tragedy?

The answer is: only the kind that would somehow have forced this guy into a mental institution and kept him there.

No, a simple NO-BUY list is sufficient.


So either you force periodic mental health checks on the entire population (because just targeting gun owners does you no good -- that wouldn't have helped here either because the firearms didn't belong to the evildoer) and throw anyone who doesn't pass into a mental institution for life, or you make it possible for the good people who are actually there to respond effectively. And note that, thanks to the fact that psychiatry is a rather "soft" science, the former option will miss some people, so it won't actually eliminate the problem anyway.


Have you heard of "argument ad absurdum"?......

trevilli
12-16-2012, 3:24 PM
Tell me: what kind of law forbidding access to those with mental illness would have prevented this tragedy?

The answer is: only the kind that would somehow have forced this guy into a mental institution and kept him there.
Funny how liberty is the most effective real world answer to this problem.
Sorry, but the irony is a bit much. You can't "force" someone into a mental institution unless he/she

-makes explicit threats to hurt himself or others
-or is so gravely disabled that he cannot provide every day care like feeding and clothing himself.

The reason? We don't deprive people of "liberty" unless it's absolutely necessary. We don't have all the facts, I haven't heard if this young man was threatening people, but maybe you know something I do not.

Furthermore, the argument I'm hearing from the antis is about the mother, and if she should have had those guns in the house given the condition of her son. I'm not saying I agree with it, but that's what I'm hearing. We don't know yet if her guns were secured in a safe, and if so, how the son was able to access them.

kcbrown
12-16-2012, 3:25 PM
No, a simple NO-BUY list is sufficient.


Good. Then tell us how it would have prevented this tragedy.

tcrpe
12-16-2012, 3:28 PM
Tell me: what kind of law forbidding access to those with mental illness would have prevented this tragedy?

Well, since you seem adept at and somewhat hysterical in jumping to conclusions, who here proposed forbidding access? Not me.


The answer is: only the kind that would somehow have forced this guy into a mental institution and kept him there.

Again you are hysterically jumping to conclusions, I certainly never suggested any such thing.

You can't fix this problem by passing laws that control access to firearms. There were already several in place that this guy violated.

Any law which depends on the target obeying it for its efficacy is entirely impotent in the face of a determined evildoer.


So either you force periodic mental health checks on the entire population (because just targeting gun owners does you no good -- that wouldn't have helped here either because the firearms didn't belong to the evildoer) and throw anyone who doesn't pass into a mental institution for life, or you make it possible for the good people who are actually there to respond effectively. And note that, thanks to the fact that psychiatry is a rather "soft" science, the former option will miss some people, so it won't actually eliminate the problem anyway.


You can't eliminate risk from the real world. That's the nature of the real world. What you can do is ensure that those who live in it have the option of responding to it in the most effective manner possible.

Funny how liberty is the most effective real world answer to this problem.


How about this, Francis? The government could easily add another 4473 requirement that if the applicant had ever received SSI benefits for mental "issues", directly or indirectly, they would have one more hoop to jump through, having a mental health professional take the responsibility of signing the application off.

That would subject millions to a little more appropriate scrutiny.

Don't argue it with me. And stop trying to argue that any system involving people must be 100% perfect, that is simply a foolish defense.

kcbrown
12-16-2012, 3:28 PM
Sorry, but the irony is a bit much. You can't "force" someone into a mental institution unless he/she

-makes explicit threats to hurt himself or others
-or is so gravely disabled that he cannot provide every day care like feeding and clothing himself.

The reason? We don't deprive people of "liberty" unless it's absolutely necessary. We don't have all the facts, I haven't heard if this young man was threatening people, but maybe you know something I do not.


I don't know if there was any previous evidence of mental unbalance on the part of this person, either. And therein lies another problem.

I agree, we don't deprive people of liberty unless it's absolutely necessary. I wasn't offering up the mental screening option as a serious option, only saying that it's the only other option that would have prevented what happened (and that assumes that the tests in question would have flagged this guy).


That leaves only the option of liberty: make it possible for people to respond effectively in the face of evil.


Now, we can do lots of things to improve the mental health picture, but that is not a guarantee of anything. It only reduces the risk of another tragedy. It doesn't eliminate it. Nothing does.

kcbrown
12-16-2012, 3:29 PM
How about this, Francis? The government could easily add another 4473 requirement that if the applicant had ever received SSI benefits for mental "issues", directly or indirectly, they would have one more hoop to jump through, having a mental health professional take the responsibility of signing the application off.

Don't argue it with me.

That could help. But how would it have prevented this specific tragedy from occurring?

DrVino
12-16-2012, 3:31 PM
Good. Then tell us how it would have prevented this tragedy.

If you argue that the instant federal bg check at the time of attempted purchase we have is sufficient, then it would have to be integrated with that.

trevilli
12-16-2012, 3:32 PM
Now, we can do lots of things to improve the mental health picture, but that is not a guarantee of anything. It only reduces the risk of another tragedy. It doesn't eliminate it. Nothing does.
I agree with that. Allowing people to own things that can harm others, guns, cars, gasoline etc carries the risk that they may decide to do something evil with them. I don't think you can eliminate that risk until/unless you can completely eliminate evil.

tcrpe
12-16-2012, 3:34 PM
That could help. But how would it have prevented this specific tragedy from occurring?

1. Don't argue it with me.

2. No system involving people is 100% foolproof.

kcbrown
12-16-2012, 3:38 PM
If you argue that the instant federal bg check at the time of attempted purchase we have is sufficient, then it would have to be integrated with that.

Even if it's integrated with that, how would it have prevented the Connecticut massacre?

Look, this whole "no buy" list approach is your idea, not mine. Tell us how it would have prevented the Connecticut massacre from occurring.

Bet you can't.

DrVino
12-16-2012, 3:42 PM
I agree with that. Allowing people to own things that can harm others, guns, cars, gasoline etc carries the risk that they may decide to do something evil with them. I don't think you can eliminate that risk until/unless you can completely eliminate evil.

That goes without saying.
But we should be proactive in efforts to diminish risks. It's the responsible thing to do. Otherwise, digging in our heels and doing nothing will come around to bite us in the *** later.

tcrpe
12-16-2012, 3:42 PM
That could help. But how would it have prevented this specific tragedy from occurring?

1. Don't argue it with me.

2. No system involving people is 100% foolproof.


ETA:

Is this the broken record argument?

"But how would it have prevented this specific tragedy from occurring?"

If it is, it isn't applicable to the discussion at hand.

Carry on.

tcrpe
12-16-2012, 3:44 PM
Even if it's integrated with that, how would it have prevented the Connecticut massacre?

Look, this whole "no buy" list approach is your idea, not mine. Tell us how it would have prevented the Connecticut massacre from occurring.

Bet you can't.

Your broken record argument is made absent a lot of facts. Kudos on making it twice in one post!

Unless you are in possession of secret knowledge. If you are, post it up.

DrVino
12-16-2012, 3:44 PM
Even if it's integrated with that, how would it have prevented the Connecticut massacre?

Look, this whole "no buy" list approach is your idea, not mine. Tell us how it would have prevented the Connecticut massacre from occurring.

Bet you can't.

See my comments above.

Look. You can be difficult about this, or you can realize that the only way to keep our guns is to accept a higher threshold to ownership. Or keep doing what you're doing. Wait 'till you see what that gets you when there is a clear trend in the opinion of this country that does not favor guns.

tcrpe
12-16-2012, 3:47 PM
See my comments above.

Look. You can be difficult about this, or you can realize that the only way to keep our guns is to accept a higher threshold to ownership. Or keep doing what you're doing. Wait 'till you see what that gets you when there is a clear trend in the opinion of this country that does not favor guns.

You may be arguing with a Paulestinian or Johnstoner.

Give it up.

trevilli
12-16-2012, 3:47 PM
That goes without saying.
But we should be proactive in efforts to diminish risks. It's the responsible thing to do. Otherwise, digging in our heels and doing nothing will come around to bite us in the *** later.
I don't trust the people who will be implementing the solution to implement one that will be fair to all. I think just doing "something" is dangerous, especially if we go along with it just cover our ***.

kcbrown
12-16-2012, 3:48 PM
1. Don't argue it with me.


I was responding to this:


There seems to be a problem with firearm access and people with mental "issues".


I thought that this was an observation you were making. If you were merely reporting what someone else was saying, then you have my apologies for misconstruing your position.



2. No system involving people is 100% foolproof.

Precisely. And that has consequences.

The consequence is that there is a point not just of diminishing returns, but beyond which any additional efforts will actually make the overall problem worse.

Any system which has the potential of forbidding someone from lawfully purchasing a firearm is one which has the potential of improperly doing so, precisely because no system is 100% foolproof. So you then have to answer the following question:

Are more people saved by having the system in place, or are more people killed by having the system in place? A false denial can lead to the death of the person falsely denied, because their means of effective self-defense would be denied at that point.

Now factor in that a mental health screening is nowhere near foolproof and, worse, carries with it the potential for abuse. The current NICS check is quite a lot more objective than that, because whether or not someone was convicted of a felony is a matter of fact, not of opinion. Whether someone is considered to be sufficiently mentally sound that they can be entrusted with the responsibilities of owning a firearm is a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact.


Do you really want your right to keep and bear arms to be subject to someone else's opinion? I most certainly don't.

DrVino
12-16-2012, 3:49 PM
You may be arguing with a Paulestinian or Johnstoner.

Give it up.

sigh.....

kcbrown
12-16-2012, 3:54 PM
See my comments above.


Your comments above do not answer my specific question at all. Please do so, or admit that your proposal would not have had an effect in this case.



Look. You can be difficult about this, or you can realize that the only way to keep our guns is to accept a higher threshold to ownership. Or keep doing what you're doing. Wait 'till you see what that gets you when there is a clear trend in the opinion of this country that does not favor guns.

If "being difficult" is what it takes to ensure that our right to keep and bear arms remains in place, you're damned right I'm going to "be difficult".

I've no issue with a higher threshold of ownership so long as that threshold is an objective one, that said threshold can be proven to be necessary and proven to yield a real and substantial benefit, and can be proven to not improperly strip anyone of their most sacred right.

I don't see any evidence whatsoever that your proposal can meet that burden. We are dealing with a fundamental human right here, not some privilege that you can alter at will.

tcrpe
12-16-2012, 3:58 PM
"But how would it have prevented this specific tragedy from occurring?"

"But how would it have prevented this specific tragedy from occurring?"

"But how would it have prevented this specific tragedy from occurring?"

"But how would it have prevented this specific tragedy from occurring?"

"But how would it have prevented this specific tragedy from occurring?"




Let's build a time machine, then we wouldn't have to worry about this stuff.

elSquid
12-16-2012, 4:01 PM
An interesting perspective - focus on the cause not the implements of action. Where is Diane Feistein and the other idiots on this issue.

http://gawker.com/5968818/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother

As pointed out in another thread ( and I apologize for forgetting the handle of the calgunner that brought it up ) the murderer's family was quite wealthy.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/adam-lanza-20-deeply-disturbed-kid-article-1.1220752

Lanza was living with his devoted mother, Nancy, in the family’s four-bedroom, 3,100-square-foot estate.

Nancy Lanza divorced Adam’s father, Peter, in 2008. Peter Lanza, now a vice president of taxes for GE Energy Financial Services, agreed to annual alimony payments that started at $240,000 and would have reached $298,800 in 2015.

The couple had married on June 6, 1981, in Kingston, N.H. — where Adam Lanza was born — and the divorce hit Peter Lanza hard, his lawyer said.

“He was very upset that he was getting divorced, but he didn’t want to take it out on anybody,” said attorney Gary Oberst.

He said the Lanzas were deeply devoted to their children. In fact, Peter Lanza insisted on handing over more money than his lawyer initially suggested.

“He did more than he had to with the divorce,” said Oberst. “When he came in to consult with me, I said, ‘This is what your obligation is.’ He said, ‘That’s not enough. I want to do more.’ ”

The family insider described the Lanzas as “lovely, very generous people who were very kind to each other during the divorce.”

The family clearly had the money to financially deal with any mental health issues, so to say that this massacre could have been prevented by increased gov't funding for mental health programs would seem to be incorrect.

-- Michael

kcbrown
12-16-2012, 4:09 PM
"But how would it have prevented this specific tragedy from occurring?"

"But how would it have prevented this specific tragedy from occurring?"

"But how would it have prevented this specific tragedy from occurring?"

"But how would it have prevented this specific tragedy from occurring?"

"But how would it have prevented this specific tragedy from occurring?"




Lets build a time machine, then we wouldn't have to worry about this stuff.

Heh.

Why should we increase the chance that we'll be denied our rights for something that can't even be argued to be effective?

I'm all for keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally unbalanced. But how do you do that when they, like criminals, can get their hands on firearms anyway? If you refuse to address what happened in Connecticut, or what happened in Portland, then where's the value of the discussion?

Why should we make it any more likely that our rights will be taken from us when the changes being proposed wouldn't even do a damned thing to stop those incidents that have already happened? Where's the upside here?


By "compromising" in that way, you do two things:


You further diminish our right to keep and bear arms
You guarantee (because you made the compromise knowing that it wouldn't have prevented what has already taken place) that the same kind of thing will happen again, and that you'll be put right back into this same position


Is that really what you want? Keep doing that, and you won't have anything of the "right" left.

tcrpe
12-16-2012, 4:26 PM
Go read the "Commission" thread here.

DrVino
12-16-2012, 4:27 PM
Your comments above do not answer my specific question at all. Please do so, or admit that your proposal would not have had an effect in this case.




If "being difficult" is what it takes to ensure that our right to keep and bear arms remains in place, you're damned right I'm going to "be difficult".

I've no issue with a higher threshold of ownership so long as that threshold is an objective one, that said threshold can be proven to be necessary and proven to yield a real and substantial benefit, and can be proven to not improperly strip anyone of their most sacred right.

I don't see any evidence whatsoever that your proposal can meet that burden. We are dealing with a fundamental human right here, not some privilege that you can alter at will.


If I wanted to go in circles, I'd ride a merry-go-round.

tcrpe
12-16-2012, 4:29 PM
:rofl2:

kcbrown
12-16-2012, 5:21 PM
If I wanted to go in circles, I'd ride a merry-go-round.

If my argument is circular (i.e., the presumptions depend on the conclusions rather than being freestanding and independent of the conclusions), then please show where that is the case.

But absent evidence of logical fallacies on my part, it is on you to address the points I raise, not to dismiss them with the wave of your hand, for the points I raise arise directly from the very incidents that kicked this entire line of thought off.

kcbrown
12-16-2012, 5:27 PM
Your broken record argument is made absent a lot of facts. Kudos on making it twice in one post!

Unless you are in possession of secret knowledge. If you are, post it up.

What "secret knowledge" is needed here? The fact is that the firearms that were used in the Connecticut massacre did not belong to the bad guy. They weren't his. He didn't buy them. Since he didn't buy them, there is no way a no-buy list could have had an effect on him. Moreover, the laws that were already in place already forbade him from possessing, much less acquiring, them.

Unless, of course, you're proposing that a no-buy list be applied to anyone who is a relative of someone who has mental issues, or who knows someone who has mental issues (the Portland shooting was done with a weapon stolen from someone the bad guy was acquainted with, not a relative).

And even that wouldn't be sufficient, for nothing would prevent the bad guy from stealing the weapons from someone who had acquired them before the two were introduced to each other. So are you, then, going to propose that if you come to know someone who is mentally ill, that not only should you be denied the ability to buy any further arms, but you must now also be deprived of the ones you already have?

kcbrown
12-16-2012, 5:32 PM
Have you heard of "argument ad absurdum"?......

The charge of "argument ad absurdum" presupposes that there exists a reasonable (less absurd) proposal that will have the same effect.

I've seen no proposal from you that would have prevented the Connecticut tragedy.

The tragedy is an existence proof that laws which forbid access to firearms are wholly ineffective in the face of a determined evildoer, because there were several that the evildoer broke in this instance. Everyone needs to understand that those laws did nothing.

A law which depends on the evildoer obeying it cannot be effective. The only laws that can be effective are the ones that fully circumvent and/or constrain the will of the target. No-buy lists are not such laws.

SgtDinosaur
12-16-2012, 6:07 PM
The politicians are blatantly dishonest. If they wanted to address the issues behind this shooting they should look at mental healthcare, not guns. Banning guns won't fix the problem. It's obvious they are only using this as an excuse to further their agenda. People should be outraged at their cynicism.

tcrpe
12-16-2012, 6:10 PM
I've seen no proposal from you that would have prevented the Connecticut tragedy.

Without all the facts, it is impossible to construct such a proposal.

So, unless you have such secret information, you're just a broken record.

Merry-go-round indeed!

I posted a proposal to address mental illness (see thread title) you ignored it.

This is what needs to be addressed today:

By Andy Sullivan
WASHINGTON | Sun Dec 16, 2012 4:43pm EST
(Reuters) - Several Democratic lawmakers called for a new push for U.S. gun restrictions on Sunday, including a ban on military-style assault weapons, in the wake of the Connecticut massacre in which 20 children and six adults were gunned down in a school.



You lack the coherency to frame the discussion, so carry on :troll:.

vantec08
12-16-2012, 6:16 PM
The politicians are blatantly dishonest. If they wanted to address the issues behind this shooting they should look at mental healthcare, not guns. Banning guns won't fix the problem. It's obvious they are only using this as an excuse to further their agenda. People should be outraged at their cynicism.

Indeed. As DrVino pointed out, everyone was better off when the ill had to take medicine daily in the presence of a medic or technician. Left to themselves, they will ignore or play with it - resulting in predictable madness.

kcbrown
12-16-2012, 6:17 PM
Without all the facts, it is impossible to construct such a proposal.


Without all the facts, it is impossible to construct a proposal that you can guarantee won't be shot down later. So you have a fair point there.

But that doesn't imply that the proposals in question aren't already shot down by what we know now. What we know now is sufficient to shoot down the proposals being discussed here (no-buy lists).



I posted a proposal to address mental illness (see thread title) you ignored it.


I haven't ignored it. I haven't found that thread yet. It doesn't appear to be in the 2nd Amendment forum. Which forum is it in? A link would be the most useful thing, if you wouldn't mind providing it...

kcbrown
12-16-2012, 6:24 PM
Indeed. As DrVino pointed out, everyone was better off when the ill had to take medicine daily in the presence of a medic or technician. Left to themselves, they will ignore or play with it - resulting in predictable madness.

And you'll get no argument from me whatsoever about the necessity of dealing with that situation.

That said, wasn't there some speculation that some of the psychotropic drugs actually cause the issue in question? Which is to say, they may help in some respects, but are not necessarily a complete cure, and may have additional detrimental effects?

That is most certainly something that psychiatric experts should be able to answer more definitively.


It'll be most interesting to see what winds up being discovered about the evildoer in Connecticut, and we'll need to have a frank and honest discussion about anything that's discovered there.

tcrpe
12-16-2012, 6:34 PM
And you'll get no argument from me whatsoever about the necessity of dealing with that situation.

That said, wasn't there some speculation that some of the psychotropic drugs actually cause the issue in question? Which is to say, they may help in some respects, but are not necessarily a complete cure, and may have additional detrimental effects?

That is most certainly something that psychiatric experts should be able to answer more definitively.

It'll be most interesting to see what winds up being discovered about the evildoer in Connecticut, and we'll need to have a frank and honest discussion about anything that's discovered there.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=9935195&postcount=26

The Dems want an assault weapons ban and Obama wants an assault weapons ban (see my other posts), the Repubs are in a deal making mood (see the MSM).


And we all appear to agree that the mentally impaired should not have access to firearms.

kcbrown
12-16-2012, 6:40 PM
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=9935195&postcount=26

The Dems want an assault weapons ban and Obama wants an assault weapons ban (see my other posts), the Repubs are in a deal making mood (see the MSM).

Connecticut already has an assault weapons ban. So does New Jersey. So all of the territories involved in that tragedy are covered by one. We see how well that worked.

How is an AWB supposed to prevent what happened there?


Look, I'm not arguing here that the other side is not going to attempt to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms here. They always do. But if we're to work towards eliminating the incidents that give them more political capital on that, we have to implement solutions that actually work. Because otherwise, all that's going to happen is that the same kind of tragedy will happen all over again and we'll be right back here.

marcusrn
12-16-2012, 6:44 PM
Dr. Vino +1

tcrpe
12-16-2012, 6:47 PM
Connecticut already has an assault weapons ban. So does New Jersey. So all of the territories involved in that tragedy are covered by one. We see how well that worked.

How is an AWB supposed to prevent what happened there?


Look, I'm not arguing here that the other side is not going to attempt to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms here. They always do. But if we're to work towards eliminating the incidents that give them more political capital on that, we have to implement solutions that actually work. Because otherwise, all that's going to happen is that the same kind of tragedy will happen all over again and we'll be right back here.


You keep chasing your tail, I'm moving on.

Foebia
12-16-2012, 6:48 PM
Agree, first hand exp... Pt in icu for 5150 hold. Suicidal and homicidal. After the psych eval we found out he would be walking away. All psych facilities full, cant arrest, cant keep in acute care hospital. Not my pt so cant say specifics but that what i heard from the nurse. Also there was a downs syndrome kid with random outbursts/anger managment issues. he lived in the ER for a week because they had nowhere to place him. Colorado was the state.

TKLBC
12-16-2012, 6:52 PM
Newtown is the home of Fairfield State Hospital, which was a psychiatric hospital in Newtown, Connecticut, which operated from 1931 until 1995. At its peak the hospital housed over 4,000 patients. It is set on beautiful and rolling hills, and the patients were housed in lovely and well maintained old brick buildings which rivaled any of the famous Ivy League campuses. It was closed during the de institutionalization movement which left so many of America’s mentally ill homeless and in the streets of America.

Read “Madness in the Streets : How Psychiatry and the Law Abandoned the Mentally Ill by Rael Jean Isaac and Virginia C. Armat (Aug 1, 2000).”

http://www.ruthfullyyours.com/2012/12/15/my-say-on-the-tragedy-in-newtown-connecticut/

TKLBC
12-16-2012, 6:56 PM
"A failing system

When the government began closing state-run hospitals in the 1980s, people with mental illness had nowhere to turn; many ended up in jail. Leifman saw the problem first-hand decades ago in the courtroom. When individuals suffering from mental illness came before him accused of petty crimes, he didn't have many options."
We need to stop being knee jerk about terrible events such as what we saw this past Friday, and think about how to help people, and prevent (I am not saying stop, because there is no silver bullet) things like Sandy Hook from happening. http://www.npr.org/2011/09/04/140167676/nations-jails-struggle-with-mentally-ill-prisoners

skyscraper
12-16-2012, 7:00 PM
It's not that we need more mental health facilities or professionals.

We need to untie their hands.

The only time a person can be reported to law enforcement is if they make clear statements of intent.

Current laws prevent simple measures like adding people with high-risk disorders to NO-BUY lists.

The only time something can be done is *after the fact* but as we've seen recently, most of the time, the person kills themselves at the end of the spree.


Interesting blog post here: http://anarchistsoccermom.blogspot.com/2012/12/thinking-unthinkable.html

"When I asked my son’s social worker about my options, he said that the only thing I could do was to get Michael charged with a crime. “If he’s back in the system, they’ll create a paper trail,” he said. “That’s the only way you’re ever going to get anything done. No one will pay attention to you unless you’ve got charges.”

Thanks for your input Dr.

It seems also that nobody here wants to believe when someone is deemed unfit to own a gun because they dont trust psychologist. Or they feel their rights are being violated, even if there is clear intent/threats. So many are quick to call the media liars(rightfully so, in some cases). Even when there are threats made and a persons guns are confiscated,,,there are cries of unconstitutional actions. Its a lose/lose situation.

kcbrown
12-16-2012, 7:02 PM
You keep chasing your tail, I'm moving on.

That's your right, of course.

May we all survive this with our rights intact.

vantec08
12-16-2012, 7:28 PM
And you'll get no argument from me whatsoever about the necessity of dealing with that situation.

That said, wasn't there some speculation that some of the psychotropic drugs actually cause the issue in question? Which is to say, they may help in some respects, but are not necessarily a complete cure, and may have additional detrimental effects?

That is most certainly something that psychiatric experts should be able to answer more definitively.


It'll be most interesting to see what winds up being discovered about the evildoer in Connecticut, and we'll need to have a frank and honest discussion about anything that's discovered there.


I dont know of a medicine that caused such behavior, but I am certainly no MD or expert. I do know that the successful treatment of a patient takes weeks and even months to find the right meds. and right doseages. It is not a magic pill cure.

GrizzlyGuy
12-16-2012, 7:43 PM
The only time a person can be reported to law enforcement is if they make clear statements of intent.

Current laws prevent simple measures like adding people with high-risk disorders to NO-BUY lists.

The only time something can be done is *after the fact* but as we've seen recently, most of the time, the person kills themselves at the end of the spree.


None of that is true, at least not here in California or other states with laws similar to our California Welfare and Institutions Code Section 5150 (http://law.onecle.com/california/welfare/5150.html) and Welfare and Institutions Code sections 8100-8108 (http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/dwcl/8100.php). Read them, but here are summary rebuttals to each of your erroneous statements:

1) "Clear statements of intent" are not required for a person to be placed on an involuntary 72-hour hold under section 5150. A belief that someone is "a danger to others, or to himself or herself, or gravely disabled" is all that is required, and such a belief can be based on a wide variety of evidence or observations that need not be verbal or written statements from the patient/subject.

2) Being placed on a 5150 hold automatically places a person on a "NO-BUY list" for 5 years, and that is also a NO-POSSESSION list.

3) See point #1 above, 5150 holds need not happen "*after the fact*".

You mentioned you are a physician, but I'd guess with 99% certainty that you are not a Psychiatrist. Am I correct?

vantec08
12-16-2012, 7:49 PM
None of that is true, at least not here in California or other states with laws similar to our California Welfare and Institutions Code Section 5150 (http://law.onecle.com/california/welfare/5150.html) and Welfare and Institutions Code sections 8100-8108 (http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/dwcl/8100.php). Read them, but here are summary rebuttals to each of your erroneous statements:

1) "Clear statements of intent" are not required for a person to be placed on an involuntary 72-hour hold under section 5150. A belief that someone is "a danger to others, or to himself or herself, or gravely disabled" is all that is required, and such a belief can be based on a wide variety of evidence or observations that need not be verbal or written statements from the patient/subject.

2) Being placed on a 5150 hold automatically places a person on a "NO-BUY list" for 5 years, and that is also a NO-POSSESSION list.

3) See point #1 above, 5150 holds need not happen "*after the fact*".

You mentioned you are a physician, but I'd guess with 99% certainty that you are not a Psychiatrist. Am I correct?


Then MANY ill are slipping thru the cracks, or shining the system on so they can get out and back on the steets. It is my understanding they cannot be forced to accept/take ANY medicine.

kcbrown
12-16-2012, 7:56 PM
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=9935195&postcount=26

The Dems want an assault weapons ban and Obama wants an assault weapons ban (see my other posts), the Repubs are in a deal making mood (see the MSM).


So what exactly are you saying, then? That because of the threat of the passage of another AWB, that we should throw the other side a bone (more stringent mental health regulations surrounding firearms)?

Since such checks would not have prevented at least one of the incidents that happened this year, what bone are you going to throw them the next time? And the next time? And the time after that?

Because this is going to keep happening until we implement effective real-world solutions to the problem.



And we all appear to agree that the mentally impaired should not have access to firearms.

We do indeed. But what must we normal people sacrifice in order to appease the other side? Any system you implement is going to get false positives. While I realize that no system is perfect, the question is whether the system will get more people killed than it saves. Do you have any data on that? Does anyone?

Why are you thinking about implementing a measure that will improperly curtail some people's rights without knowing the effectiveness?


As long as we keep fighting a war of attrition, we will lose in the end. In the face of that, what do you propose we do about it? What you're proposing sounds an awful lot like a slow surrender to me. We've already been down this road. It's why we have the GFSZ to begin with.

GrizzlyGuy
12-16-2012, 8:01 PM
Then MANY ill are slipping thru the cracks, or shining the system on so they can get out and back on the steets. It is my understanding they cannot be forced to accept/take ANY medicine.

What you say is true, but the cracks they are slipping through aren't cracks in our laws, and we don't need any additional laws in this area.

The real solution is for people to educate themselves regarding symptoms of mental illness and keep an eye on themselves, their family members and their friends. In other words... watch out for each other and help each other get treatment when someone needs it. California's (and federal) mental health laws are at least rational in that there is no impact on a person's RKBA if they seek treatment voluntarily.

As with virtually all problems plaguing our society, the best solutions come from individuals using their liberty to act voluntarily in positive ways and not from government laws, force or coercion.

anthonyca
12-16-2012, 8:06 PM
I've already, twice, posted one method to provide for selective mental competency testing. Another hoop in 4473 so to speak.

The last report I saw stated that the school shooter did not buy any guns. He stole them from his mother, who he murdered. I agree that crazy people should not be able to buy a gun, but more laws don't always help.

Isn't it already illegal for people with mental illness to buy a gun? How do we add more people to the rolls? I am serious here, not trolling.

While laws don't help with standard criminals because the black market is where they do business. Standard criminals will always be able to get guns, drugs etc. Someone who has mental illness and has violent tendencies may be prohibited from buying due to being on a no buy list and they will often not be part of the black market and underworld, so they will have a harder time getting a gun. Note I said harder, they can still find one.

The anti's in government will use this as a spring board for our rights, not for a real fix, even if one did exist.

There should be more access to mental health. I would be willing to pay more for medical if people who needed help got it. The drugs that are prescribed seem to be a problem also. I have met people who have tried to get off of prescription mental health drugs who had severe negative thoughts afterwards. Since they were on drugs in the first place, they must have already been in a bad place mentally. Thank goodness I have never been on any drugs or needed them so I have no experience here.

dave_cg
12-16-2012, 8:09 PM
That said, wasn't there some speculation that some of the psychotropic drugs actually cause the issue in question?


I dont know of a medicine that caused such behavior, but I am certainly no MD or expert. I do know that the successful treatment of a patient takes weeks and even months to find the right meds. and right doseages. It is not a magic pill cure.

I've had the experience of watching what happens when a happy, healthy, productive person gets a new doctor, the doctor decides to tune the meds, and gets it wrong. It caused this individual to have a break that required two weeks of hospitalization and months of recovery. This was a productive person with mild issues that were well-managed (invisible) when the meds were right.

So anyway, yeah, I could see where inappropriate meds could be part of the problem. Doctors don't hit the X-ring with every shot either.

GunOwner
12-16-2012, 8:16 PM
There seems to be a problem with firearm access and people with mental "issues".

Government will address this soon.


I do not look forward to how the government will address this. I am fine with using past history of mental illness in some way but I am concerned they will use something more invidious that will act like the "good causes" requirement for CCW permit (meaning you get it is you are part of the in crowd).

Further, I have heard talk of a "psychological screening" before one can purchase a gun. Obviously that does not address ANY of the real issues and as I recall the Russian's used such tests to conveniently find that dissidents needed to be sent to Siberia to address their psychological issues.

tcrpe
12-16-2012, 8:23 PM
Isn't it already illegal for people with mental illness to buy a gun? How do we add more people to the rolls? I am serious here, not trolling.


Really? What law prohibits the mentally ill from purchasing firearm?

tcrpe
12-16-2012, 8:25 PM
I do not look forward to how the government will address this. I am fine with using past history of mental illness in some way but I am concerned they will use something more invidious that will act like the "good causes" requirement for CCW permit (meaning you get it is you are part of the in crowd).

Further, I have heard talk of a "psychological screening" before one can purchase a gun. Obviously that does not address ANY of the real issues and as I recall the Russian's used such tests to conveniently find that dissidents needed to be sent to Siberia to address their psychological issues.

Can't say I disagree with your take here. The Soviets used "psychological screening" to great advantage.

vantec08
12-16-2012, 8:27 PM
I've had the experience of watching what happens when a happy, healthy, productive person gets a new doctor, the doctor decides to tune the meds, and gets it wrong. It caused this individual to have a break that required two weeks of hospitalization and months of recovery. This was a productive person with mild issues that were well-managed (invisible) when the meds were right.

So anyway, yeah, I could see where inappropriate meds could be part of the problem. Doctors don't hit the X-ring with every shot either.


I have seen far more helped than hurt, and will say it again - the treatment of the mentally ill is a national disgrace.

GrizzlyGuy
12-16-2012, 8:32 PM
Isn't it already illegal for people with mental illness to buy a gun? How do we add more people to the rolls? I am serious here, not trolling.

You could add more people with mental illness to the rolls, but are you really prepared to allow the government to put up to 26% of Calguns members on that list each year (http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/the-numbers-count-mental-disorders-in-america/index.shtml)?

Mental disorders are common in the United States and internationally. An estimated 26.2 percent of Americans ages 18 and older — about one in four adults — suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder in a given year.1 When applied to the 2004 U.S. Census residential population estimate for ages 18 and older, this figure translates to 57.7 million people.

When governments get to create and maintain lists of 'undesirables', it usually doesn't end well for free societies.

kcbrown
12-16-2012, 8:34 PM
How about this, Francis? The government could easily add another 4473 requirement that if the applicant had ever received SSI benefits for mental "issues", directly or indirectly, they would have one more hoop to jump through, having a mental health professional take the responsibility of signing the application off.


Suppose that such a system were implemented.

What mental health professional in his right mind would ever sign off on the application? What's his incentive for doing so, knowing the consequences if he gets it wrong?

No, if that system is implemented, it will be no different than outright denial of the right to anyone who has ever fit the criteria you describe above.

GunOwner
12-16-2012, 8:37 PM
Someone who has mental illness and has violent tendencies may be prohibited from buying due to being on a no buy list and they will often not be part of the black market and underworld, so they will have a harder time getting a gun. Note I said harder, they can still find one.



Note that the nature of mental illness is such that this serves as no deterrent. Theses crimes by crazy people are rarely impulsive. They find a way and plan methodically. In addition to the most recent example, Breivik began the planning his mass murder in 2002 that occurred in Norway in 2010.

It may be worse to push the crazies to other means like explosives. Like many of us recognize the real solution, born out by actual real life experience not just theory, is to have trained, armed law abiding citizens in place so these shooters can be taken out.

While we should try to prevent crazy people from getting guns by using past history of mental illness I think we need to avoid some new artificial "Screening" that is being talked about that can be used to screen all of us from having guns in the same way the "good cause" requirement in the CCW permit process is used to keep us from getting CCW permits.

I can hear it now (as I have heard then say on TV already, "what makes you think you NEED to have a gun?" I say, "To defend myself and my family." then they conclude I am paranoid so I can't have a gun.

tcrpe
12-16-2012, 8:51 PM
Suppose that such a system were implemented.

What mental health professional in his right mind would ever sign off on the application? What's his incentive for doing so, knowing the consequences if he gets it wrong?

No, if you implement that system, it will be no different than outright denial of the right to anyone who has ever fit the criteria you describe above.

Um, I'm not "implementing" anything. So, like I said, don't bother arguing it with me.

WRT to psychologists turning psychopaths loose on society, they do it all the time already

kcbrown
12-16-2012, 9:08 PM
Um, I'm not "implementing" anything. So, like I said, don't bother arguing it with me.


Fair enough. I guess you're just pointing out some of the proposals that others have raised. If you mentioned that you were doing that previously, then you have my heartfelt apologies for not having noticed it.

EDIT: I've corrected the aforementioned message appropriately.



WRT to psychologists turning psychopaths loose on society, they do it all the time already

That may be, but that's not specifically in conjunction with the transfer of a firearm. This is. It changes the circumstances rather significantly.

In any case, that does nothing to address the concern here. If the mental health professional in question has no incentive to sign off on the application and every incentive to not to, it's rather predictable what he'll do. And the end result will be denial of the right to everyone (or nearly everyone) in the class of people the proposal in question refers to.

GrizzlyGuy
12-16-2012, 9:24 PM
Um, I'm not "implementing" anything. So, like I said, don't bother arguing it with me.

WRT to psychologists turning psychopaths loose on society, they do it all the time already

Nice dodge. KC just pointed out one of the fatal flaws in your proposed "method to provide for selective mental competency testing (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=9935144&postcount=20)" that you've posted multiple times in multiple threads and that's your response? Maybe you should stick to predicting who will win presidential elections over in some other subforum where you can repeatedly be wrong and and no one holds you accountable...

tcrpe
12-16-2012, 9:37 PM
Nice dodge. KC just pointed out one of the fatal flaws in your proposed "method to provide for selective mental competency testing (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=9935144&postcount=20)" that you've posted multiple times in multiple threads and that's your response? Maybe you should stick to predicting who will win presidential elections over in some other subforum where you can repeatedly be wrong and and no one holds you accountable...



Fatal flaw? You assume that a given government policy is intended to work as advertised? Seriously? On what planet?

I don't know what the angst is about anyway, as the Obamites assured us throughout the summer and fall, right up to he election, that a new AWB was just not going to ever happen. So why would there be any further restrictions at all?

Obama's pragmatism and until-then inaction on an AWB, the NRA, a Republican Senate, a conservative Supreme Court, the Heller decision, etc. I remember all the prose spun over those assurances.

Is it possible that there was some deception going on?

Theseus
12-16-2012, 9:40 PM
Why so we have to assume that any solution has to be permanent?

Seriously, if a person has a condition that makes them a risk, I see no reason in being able to implement a temp ban. When the person can display an ability to manage their condition, we can removw the ban.

Sent via Note 2 Lte

GrizzlyGuy
12-16-2012, 9:50 PM
Fatal flaw? You assume that a given government policy is intended to work as advertised? Seriously? On what planet?

I don't know what the angst is about anyway, as the Obamites assured us throughout the summer and fall, right up to he election, that a new AWB was just not going to ever happen. So why would there be any further restrictions at all?

Obama's pragmatism and until-then inaction on an AWB, the NRA, a Republican Senate, a conservative Supreme Court, the Heller decision, etc. I remember all the prose spun over those assurances.

Is it possible that there was some deception going on?

You lost me. YOU posted a proposal to address mental illness, then claim that KC ignored it:

I posted a proposal to address mental illness (see thread title) you ignored it.

He didn't ignore it, he shot a big gaping hole right through it that you weren't even willing to acknowledge or counter. Now you're off on the AWB, what Obama promised, deception, etc. ?!?

tcrpe
12-16-2012, 9:50 PM
You lost me. YOU posted a proposal to address mental illness, then claim that KC ignored it:



He didn't ignore it, he shot a big gaping hole right through it that you weren't even willing to acknowledge or counter. Now you're off on the AWB, what Obama promised, deception, etc. ?!?

Carry on . . . . . . . .

anthonyca
12-16-2012, 10:06 PM
Really? What law prohibits the mentally ill from purchasing firearm?

Well, they have to be held or declaired 5150. I am too lazy to look it up, but they can be banned for 5 years or for life depending on what happened. If someone makes criminal threats, at least in California, they are banned and if the threats are felonious, it's a federal lifetime ban.

Someone who is mentally ill but has not commited a crime or given reason to believe they are a danger to themselves or others can still own a firearm I would think according the the 4473. Ofcouse people slip through and some innocents are caught up in there. Hopefully the innocents are released when a Dr, realizes they are not crazy.

You could add more people with mental illness to the rolls, but are you really prepared to allow the government to put up to 26% of Calguns members on that list each year (http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/the-numbers-count-mental-disorders-in-america/index.shtml)?

B][/B]

When governments get to create and maintain lists of 'undesirables', it usually doesn't end well for free societies.

No I am not. I trust any government with unchecked power less than I trust some mentally ill people roaming the streets.[

There is no way to say this with out someone taking it out of context and using it against me but I am going to do it anyway. As horrible and disgusting as these active shooter situations are, we hear about every one of them, as we should, but they are very rare when compared to the population. Of course even one in the history of humanity is too many.

Unchecked governments have caused much more bloodshed in history than all of the active shooters combined. Our own government has done some pretty horrid things or at least been complicit. We need to do as good of a job as we can in preventing these few nutters from doing what they are going to do but giving the government unchecked power is much worse than a few nutters from what I have found in my research of human history.

tcrpe
12-16-2012, 10:18 PM
"Someone who is mentally ill but has not commited a crime or given reason to believe they are a danger to themselves or others can still own a firearm"

Well, watch that definition for "reason to believe" be rightly expanded.

And a big push for an AWB

kcbrown
12-16-2012, 10:22 PM
Fatal flaw? You assume that a given government policy is intended to work as advertised? Seriously? On what planet?


So what is your specific purpose for posting the suggestions in question, then? Are you advocating for them? Are you suggesting they should be opposed? I see scant evidence of the latter. If you take the time to post a proposal and don't say anything about opposing it, the natural conclusion is that you support it.

So what's your purpose behind all this?




Is it possible that there was some deception going on?

The "Fast and Furious" debacle is sufficient proof that yes, indeed, there's deception going on, and it's coming right from the Obama administration.

kcbrown
12-16-2012, 10:23 PM
"Someone who is mentally ill but has not commited a crime or given reason to believe they are a danger to themselves or others can still own a firearm"

Well, watch that definition for "reason to believe" be rightly expanded.


No, watch for it to be wrongly expanded, to include a bunch of people who are no real danger to the rest of us.



And a big push for an AWB

No doubt. :mad:

CABilly
12-17-2012, 12:12 AM
I think better monitoring and care for people with psychiatric illness is needed. If someone with a personality disorder should remain deinstitutionalized, they should be required to receive regular therapy and have regular lab screening to ensure medication regimen adherance - as well as a permanent NO BUY/NO POSSESSION status.

I'm going to guess that Lanza had some sort of personality disorder - something beyond the mentions of Asperger's being thrown about.

EDIT: Also, removing the stigma of seeking mental health care should be a priority. If you break your ankle, you go to the ED and seek treatment with no shame, or even a second thought. It should be the same if you're feeling on the verge of a crisis, or overwhelmed with life, or any other symptom of mental illness. We need to be better at taking care of ourselves and each other. I think one major problem was this mother's devotion to her son. The story that's emerging, with her home schooling him and planning on going to college with him make me think she was trying her best to shield him from "the system" (which is indeed broken). But love can't cure crazy. The kid needed much more help than what he was getting.

kcbrown
12-17-2012, 1:06 AM
The real problem is this:

If you arrange things so that someone who is diagnosed with a mental disorder automatically gets their RKBA revoked, then people who care about their RKBA will never seek the treatment they need, because they will know that they will lose their RKBA in the process.

Is that really what you want?

Sakiri
12-17-2012, 1:10 AM
Also, I would like to see how head meds were involved. Once someone begins a regimen, they often have to continue for life. If they stop, they often experience horrible withdrawals and extreme psychiatric symptoms. The pharmaceutical industry is a multi-billion dollar industry which has been flooding the mental health care industry with often poorly understood "medicines" and the mainstream media with billions in advertising dollars over the years. The prescribing of head meds especially exploded in the '90's and continues to grow today. I want to know if there are links and what they are.

Oh and btw, if the media completely ignores this and at the same time continues to glorify these psychos with plastering their pictures, manifestos, tweets, life-history, etc to encourage the next psycho to commit the next massacre, then the media is complicit in the crime.

Here's the thing. The pharm industry *is* a multi-billion dollar industry, and this is why most medical breakthroughs AREN'T happening in the USA lately. They make more money out of chronic illness, such as HIV/AIDS and cancer, than they would by curing the disease itself.

That noted, there are a LOT of people that are medicated that really do not need to be. Children, for example. A lot of schools(my best friend's children's school, for example) refuse to deal with behavioral issues in favor of sending them to a doctor and drugging them up, citing things such as ADHD. Many of these kids are just bored or have issues at home, causing them to act up. We put her oldest into an after school program and the trouble she was causing in school and at home practically vanished.

A lot of the kids that have issues in school also have issues at home, such as parental neglect. This can also occur when the parents aren't home enough due to work schedules and whatnot, that stresses the parent out and it snowballs.

My friend's child, they threw her out of school and refused to readmit her until she saw a doctor, who wanted to put her on Adderall, which just made the problem *worse*.

A lot of the mental health issues can be solved with aggressive psychotherapy. Psychiatric treatment has become a rather overprescribed thing. Our doctors shove us full of drugs of all kinds to begin with. The drug companies pay doctors to prescribe them.

If they start drug therapy, and it's working, and actually needed, yes, you may have to continue for life. Often in cases such as bipolar disorder, the cause is an imbalance in chemicals in the brain. The drugs regulate this. Removal of the medication can cause relapse. They do not cause withdrawal. There's a difference.

I am being treated for a condition with medication. I will have to continue this regimen for life. I regularly consult with my doctor. I have not needed to see a therapist in a decade. I have followed my doctor's orders for 20 years without fail. I have never had legal trouble, I have a clean criminal history, I have no drug convictions. I have no traffic violations(I do not even drive). I am a spotless model citizen as far as legal paperwork is concerned. I am the model mental health patient.

Unfortunately, many of the people that need help don't get it, many people that don't need it are misdiagnosed, mistreated, and thus still issues, and even more disturbing is that we are not allowed to forcibly deal with those that may be a danger to themselves or others without them actually *doing* something in the first place in many cases, all in the name of human rights.

Where are *my* rights? I have the right to not be violated in any way by some psychotic stain that people have had an inkling was disturbed, and may even have gone to the authorities about, but nothing was done. No one wants to get involved for fear of getting sued. ACLU is a big factor in this. They're so worried about everyone else's rights and random people violating it, that they fail to respect the rights of the people being violated by those same individuals they're trying to protect.

There is a certain point in which your rights are null and void. The mentally ill should be controlled until they're deemed fit for society. It sounds mean, but heck, as a mental health patient, I can say for a fact that if I was causing issues for others, I'd hope that they'd have me shut up for an evaluation. I'm not better than anyone else when it comes to that. I have no right to trounce others' rights.

CABilly
12-17-2012, 1:16 AM
The real problem is this:

If you arrange things so that someone who is diagnosed with a mental disorder automatically gets their RKBA revoked, then people who care about their RKBA will never seek the treatment they need, because they will know that they will lose their RKBA in the process.

Is that really what you want?

I specifically mentioned personality disorders. As in, DSM axis II disorders.

Sakiri
12-17-2012, 1:17 AM
If you argue that the instant federal bg check at the time of attempted purchase we have is sufficient, then it would have to be integrated with that.

Many guns used in these sprees are not purchased legally. They're "borrowed" or outright stolen.

In the case in CT, they were his mother's. Since he was not of age to posses them himself. and he did not have permission to have them, they were stolen.

Sakiri
12-17-2012, 1:28 AM
The last report I saw stated that the school shooter did not buy any guns. He stole them from his mother, who he murdered. I agree that crazy people should not be able to buy a gun, but more laws don't always help.

Isn't it already illegal for people with mental illness to buy a gun? How do we add more people to the rolls? I am serious here, not trolling.

While laws don't help with standard criminals because the black market is where they do business. Standard criminals will always be able to get guns, drugs etc. Someone who has mental illness and has violent tendencies may be prohibited from buying due to being on a no buy list and they will often not be part of the black market and underworld, so they will have a harder time getting a gun. Note I said harder, they can still find one.

The anti's in government will use this as a spring board for our rights, not for a real fix, even if one did exist.

There should be more access to mental health. I would be willing to pay more for medical if people who needed help got it. The drugs that are prescribed seem to be a problem also. I have met people who have tried to get off of prescription mental health drugs who had severe negative thoughts afterwards. Since they were on drugs in the first place, they must have already been in a bad place mentally. Thank goodness I have never been on any drugs or needed them so I have no experience here.

The only restriction is that you have not been involuntarily committed.

I have 0 issues with someone with long term treatment, SUCCESSFUL treatment, spotless records, etc, owning firearms. At all.

Even those wired incorrectly can be "fixed" if enough effort is put into it. This may require lifelong treatment, but if they've done absolutely nothing wrong other than being born wired weird, then you can't fault them.

Mulay El Raisuli
12-17-2012, 7:29 AM
Tell me: what kind of law forbidding access to those with mental illness would have prevented this tragedy?

The answer is: only the kind that would somehow have forced this guy into a mental institution and kept him there.


You can't fix this problem by passing laws that control access to firearms. There were already several in place that this guy violated.

Any law which depends on the target obeying it for its efficacy is entirely impotent in the face of a determined evildoer.


So either you force periodic mental health checks on the entire population (because just targeting gun owners does you no good -- that wouldn't have helped here either because the firearms didn't belong to the evildoer) and throw anyone who doesn't pass into a mental institution for life, or you make it possible for the good people who are actually there to respond effectively. And note that, thanks to the fact that psychiatry is a rather "soft" science, the former option will miss some people, so it won't actually eliminate the problem anyway.


You can't eliminate risk from the real world. That's the nature of the real world. What you can do is ensure that those who live in it have the option of responding to it in the most effective manner possible.

Funny how liberty is the most effective real world answer to this problem.


There's just no way we can keep guns (or other dangerous implements) from the mentally unwell if they really want one. That's just reality.

Since that IS reality, the part in bold (being completely true) is the only rational approach.


The Raisuli

SPUTTER
12-17-2012, 8:06 AM
Mentally ill individuals don't threaten the state. In fact, they can be useful. Now, civilian gun ownership is seen as the threat by the state that doesn't like having a check on its power. Hence the focus on the civilian gun ownership.

+1

Get a clue people. Fienstein and her cohorts aren't idiots. They know exactly what they are doing. This is calculated.

Colt
12-17-2012, 8:54 AM
Mental health needs to be discussed in a big way.

As for so much of what the politicos and the media are saying, I'm not sure if the facts matter, but in case they do, here's some info from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention...

GUN DEATHS AND INJURIES IN U.S.

from CDC.gov 2011 Preliminary Data

U.S. 2011 Total deaths (rounded to nearest 100k): 2,500,000

Firearm Deaths
Homicide: 11,101
Suicide: 19,756 (about half of all suicides)
Unknown: 222

TOTAL. 31,079 deaths. (1.2% of all deaths)

Other Causes of Death:

Heart Disease: 596,339
Cancer: 575,313
Diabetes: 73,282
Drug Induced: 40,239
Alcohol Induced: 26,256

Deaths from Accidents: 122,777
Motor Vehicle: 34,677
Other transport: 2,599
Falls: 26,631
Drowning/Submersion: 3,555
Smoke/Fire/Flames: 2,621
Poisoning: 33,554
Firearms: 851


INJURIES (non-fatal) FROM FIREARMS 2011: 32,163

tcrpe
12-17-2012, 9:01 AM
Time to box up the crazies and remove them from society. That's just good herd management. I don't want them around me.

GrizzlyGuy
12-17-2012, 9:02 AM
I think better monitoring and care for people with psychiatric illness is needed. If someone with a personality disorder should remain deinstitutionalized, they should be required to receive regular therapy and have regular lab screening to ensure medication regimen adherance - as well as a permanent NO BUY/NO POSSESSION status.

You'll be putting an awful lot of people (http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/the-numbers-count-mental-disorders-in-america/index.shtml) on your permanent NO BUY/NO POSSESSION lists, including 10,071 Calguns members (.078 * 129,118), the vast majority of whom have never been a danger to anyone nor will they be in the future:


Approximately 1.0 percent of people aged 18 or over have antisocial personality disorder.
An estimated 5.2 percent of people age 18 or older have an avoidant personality disorder.
Approximately 1.6 percent of Americans age 18 or older have BPD (Borderline Personality Disorder)

Is that really what you want to do?

EDIT: Also, removing the stigma of seeking mental health care should be a priority. If you break your ankle, you go to the ED and seek treatment with no shame, or even a second thought. It should be the same if you're feeling on the verge of a crisis, or overwhelmed with life, or any other symptom of mental illness. We need to be better at taking care of ourselves and each other. I think one major problem was this mother's devotion to her son. The story that's emerging, with her home schooling him and planning on going to college with him make me think she was trying her best to shield him from "the system" (which is indeed broken). But love can't cure crazy. The kid needed much more help than what he was getting.

Now you're on to something and I completely agree with what I bolded above. When people take the time to drill down and look at how large the mentally ill population actually is, and become cognizant of the intended and unintended consequences of their rather draconian and anti-liberty 'put 'em all on a no-buy list' types of proposals, I think they'll see that the solution is in more private action and not more government action.

tcrpe
12-17-2012, 9:03 AM
100 poisoning deaths per day? I find that remarkable.

Colt
12-17-2012, 9:18 AM
yup

hvengel
12-17-2012, 1:43 PM
There's just no way we can keep guns (or other dangerous implements) from the mentally unwell if they really want one. That's just reality.

Since that IS reality, the part in bold (being completely true) is the only rational approach.


The Raisuli

We need to also be mindful of the fact that many of the people involved in these mass killings are well above average intellect. Because of this they can typically figure out a way to get various weapons. You are not going to stop a mentally ill person bent on violence with an IQ of 150 from getting a gun - ever it just will not happen - too much brain power too much determination. One of the posts above sited one case where the perp spend over 6 years planning his crime. I suspect for someone that smart figuring where/how to get a gun was a minor part of the planning.

GunOwner
12-17-2012, 5:26 PM
Another fact to highlight the irrationality of the gun control advocates:

The July 1998 issue of The American Journal of Medicine explains it as follows:

"Conservative calculations estimate that approximately 107,000 patients are hospitalized annually for nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-related gastrointestinal (GI) complications and at least 16,500 NSAID-related deaths occur each year among arthritis patients alone." (Singh Gurkirpal, MD, “Recent Considerations in Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug Gastropathy”, The American Journal of Medicine, July 27, 1998, p. 31S)

To cut through the jargon, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) are common painkillers like aspirin! Yet you don't see the mainstream media running around screaming about the extreme dangers of aspirin, do you?


While I am not a big conspiracy theorist - it is hard to square so many facts with the positions being taken which often means there is another, unspoken motivation.

El Toro
12-19-2012, 5:08 PM
It's not that we need more mental health facilities or professionals.

We need to untie their hands.

The only time a person can be reported to law enforcement is if they make clear statements of intent.

Current laws prevent simple measures like adding people with high-risk disorders to NO-BUY lists.

The only time something can be done is *after the fact* but as we've seen recently, most of the time, the person kills themselves at the end of the spree.

Seems like there is a loophole in the "No-Buy" lists since (I assume) there isnt a mechanism or trigger for follow-up. Lanza tried twice to purchase a firearm in the weeks leading up to this. The Denial should have triggered an investigative follow-up.

Libs will make the excuse that Police and Social Services are "stretched too thin" but this arguement is only to continue funding a huge unionized voting block. If there had been follow-up, Lanza would probably be in a hospital now and 28 people wold be alive.

donw
12-19-2012, 6:12 PM
i'd say some of the members of this administration should fall under catagorey of benefiting from mental health care...:eek::eek::hammer: