|
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 13,234
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 13,234 |
And I will tell you right now that the medical profession is going to have to play a pivotal role in determining what can and can't be accomplished. Mental health care professionals don't have many good ideas about how to deal with non-compliance. More money from the government? Yes, they're all for that and they'll tell you all the wonderful things they can do with increased funding, i.e., increased "access" to mental health care. Which means more psychologists, more therapists, free or low-cost medications, and more research into new medications. The non-compliant mentally ill, though? All too often there's silence or a chance of subject. Very, very few mental health care professionals are willing to speak candidly about what needs to be done with the mentally ill who refuse treatment and medications, and resist even the least instrusive of wellness checks, except to say, in the vaguest possible terms, that "more has to be done" to help them. But these are the ticking time bombs we most have to worry about.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 7,514 Likes: 1
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 7,514 Likes: 1 |
i trust every poster on this thread has already emailed/called his congressional representatives, voicing their opposition to any future gun legislation.
letting your elected officials know they will or will not be getting your vote is important now.
ymmv.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 10,651 Likes: 4
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 10,651 Likes: 4 |
The non-compliant mentally ill, though? All too often there's silence or a chance of subject. Very, very few mental health care professionals are willing to speak candidly about what needs to be done with the mentally ill who refuse treatment and medications, and resist even the least instrusive of wellness checks, except to say, in the vaguest possible terms, that "more has to be done" to help them.
But these are the ticking time bombs we most have to worry about. In terms of danger, there's a hidden iceberg. One of the ironies of mental illness and treatment, that is well recognized among professionals, is that many of those who need treatment the most are the very ones who won't go near it mainly because that would mean they are "crazy", while the vast majority of those who actually get treatment are in better shape and less dangerous than those who never show up on the radar. That is, until they get into trouble and come to the attention of law enforcement or emergency care. It's like whack-a-mole trying to deal with it. Want an prime example of fear of the stigma of being labeled mentally ill? Look at the huge problem within the military and among veterans. It's also an issue within law enforcement that is seldom recognized. Paul
Stupidity has its way, while its cousin, evil, runs rampant.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 13,234
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 13,234 |
I don't have time to Google this, but IIRC, most of the shooters in the high-profile killings we've had in the past couple of years have had histories of mental health care treatment.
Who was that guy who sent his shrink something ominous in the mail days before he started killing, and she didn't open it until the day after? Didn't she even previously warn her colleagues that she thought the guy was dangerous?
Was that the theater killer?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 6,168
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 6,168 |
The non-compliant mentally ill, though? All too often there's silence or a chance of subject. Very, very few mental health care professionals are willing to speak candidly about what needs to be done with the mentally ill who refuse treatment and medications, and resist even the least instrusive of wellness checks, except to say, in the vaguest possible terms, that "more has to be done" to help them.
But these are the ticking time bombs we most have to worry about. In terms of danger, there's a hidden iceberg. One of the ironies of mental illness and treatment, that is well recognized among professionals, is that many of those who need treatment the most are the very ones who won't go near it mainly because that would mean they are "crazy", while the vast majority of those who actually get treatment are in better shape and less dangerous than those who never show up on the radar. That is, until they get into trouble and come to the attention of law enforcement or emergency care. It's like whack-a-mole trying to deal with it. Want an prime example of fear of the stigma of being labeled mentally ill? Look at the huge problem within the military and among veterans. It's also an issue within law enforcement that is seldom recognized. Paul Now add in the possibility that there might be changes in the law that dramatically lower the standard for looseing ones ability to own firearms and your going to scare off even more folks who could use a little support.
The collection of taxes which are not absolutely required, which do not beyond reasonable doubt contribute to public welfare, is only a species of legalized larceny. Under this Republic the rewards of industry belong to those who earn them. Coolidge
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 5,687
Campfire Tracker
|
|
OP
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 5,687 |
I know that things transpiring in his treatment caused his psychiatrist to call the police and have him checked out. They were apparently prepared to get hold of this guy and hold him until he dropped out of school. Didn't feel they had jurisdiction to do anything about his obvious psychosis.
The guy who shot all those people at NIU a few years back was also under treatment but decided to stop taking his meds. I never could get a handle on what exactly his condition was but apparently he was under treatment and snapped when he stopped it.
Now you have this latest slaughter where the guy was in such a state that his mother was working on getting him committed. Obviously that kid was 100% on radar and considered a danger.
That lunatic who shot up VT. Wasn't he the one who was judged to be mentally ill in a court of law a couple years prior to his rampage? Maybe it was the bible college shooter. Not sure.
I know it is hard and I know it will take a big effort to get results. I won't deny it. And I am not talking about sweeping every person who is even a little different up in a net. But I am saying that in spite of the problems the system has now we already have many of these guys identified. And if you look at the proportion of prison inmates who are judged to be mentally ill and/or psychotic? It seems to me that you have a lot of guys who are MI and eventually commit crimes of such magnitude that they end up in prison.
Change not be perfect... but doesn't the system as it stands now end up producing a hell of a lot of mayhem and death?
Will
Smellin' a lot of 'if' coming off this plan.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 10,651 Likes: 4
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 10,651 Likes: 4 |
I don't have time to Google this, but IIRC, most of the shooters in the high-profile killings we've had in the past couple of years have had histories of mental health care treatment.
Who was that guy who sent his shrink something ominous in the mail days before he started killing, and she didn't open it until the day after? Didn't she even previously warn her colleagues that she thought the guy was dangerous?
Was that the theater killer?
The problem is that in reality we are talking about a highly visible but very small number of cases in a brief period of time. It's about numbers. A nation of 300 million with x number of mentally ill, some few of whom are a danger. To follow the iceberg analogy, it's the tip of the iceberg that sinks ships, and not all iceberg tips result in collision. The icebergs, or their tips, that lurk beneath the surface are particularly dangerous because they are invisible. Given the nature of icebergs, much of their mass is far enough under water that it poses no danger, but that too is dynamic and can change. You can't track all the icebergs, let alone control them. No easy answers. Paul
Stupidity has its way, while its cousin, evil, runs rampant.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 10,364
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 10,364 |
The slope gets very, very slippery when dealing with mental illness. Who defines it? How serious does it have to be before you relieve a citizen of his freedom? How vehemently can a citizen rail against the Government before he is packed off to be "re-educated" or have his anger "managed" or be forced to under go "sensitivity" training, or be involuntarily drugged to zombie state?
In the final analysis thought and speech control is a much greater danger than gun control.
www.paracay.comIt's better to live rich than die rich. Live simply so that I may simply live large.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 22,884
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 22,884 |
In the final analysis thought and speech control is a much greater danger than gun control. Exactly. There aren't any more "crazies" around than there ever have been since the beginning of time. AND, they are not doing anything more than they've always done in a free society.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 5,687
Campfire Tracker
|
|
OP
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 5,687 |
It is going to have to be evidence based criteria Spanky. At least that is what it seems to me would be the best option. Unfortunately we have literally barge loads of evidence based on the psychotic inmates in prison for violent crime and the numerous rampage shootings we have by the mentally ill over the last decade or two.
I for one am willing to see this issue brought up, debated, looked at by experts, and then acted on.
I feel we have to separate the mentally ill from lethal weapons. If we don't do a better job of that then this scenario will happen again. And again. And again. And each time it does the pressure is going to build. And public perception will slide further and further away from us.
I feel it is high time for us to look at our hole cards. We are running interference for a lot of people who neither understand nor care about the 2nd amendment. Not wise to do so anymore in my opinion.
Will
Smellin' a lot of 'if' coming off this plan.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 13,860
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 13,860 |
It seems to me that you have a lot of guys who are MI and eventually commit crimes of such magnitude that they end up in prison.
Change not be perfect... but doesn't the system as it stands now end up producing a hell of a lot of mayhem and death?
Will Yes, lots of mayhem and death, but mostly in "gun free" zones. This means that, even though they are "crazy", they are still rational. Some people make a "mental" decision to be a crazy mofo, IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 22,884
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 22,884 |
I feel we have to separate the mentally ill from lethal weapons. Well, you won't have any weapons then. You cannot ignore history--totalitarian regimes have always used "mental illness" (or some similar code name) to disarm, imprison, and often kill whomever has opposed their tyrannical aspirations. I work a bit in/around psychology/ists, and there is not a person I've ever known that I could not diagnose with some form of mental disturbance from the DSM IV. Hence, everyone will be disarmed if the main line of argument is mental illness. A free society is inherently dangerous.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 6,168
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 6,168 |
I feel we have to separate the mentally ill from lethal weapons.
Will
It would be great if we could do so, I suspect that it will be far more diffacult to seperate the mentally ill from weapons than it is to separate criminals from weapons. After all, what we are talking about is predicting future actions and removing consitutionally protected rights based upon those predictions. How many folks(who have committed no crime)is it ok strip of their rights to prevent a killing? 100 to 1, 10,000 to 1? Its about as absurd as screening 20 year olds for cholesterol and then banning those with LDL#s above a certain point from fast food resturants to save lives from heart disease, except the science behind heart disease is probably much more solid than that for MI and fast food isn't a right.
The collection of taxes which are not absolutely required, which do not beyond reasonable doubt contribute to public welfare, is only a species of legalized larceny. Under this Republic the rewards of industry belong to those who earn them. Coolidge
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 24,674 Likes: 1
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 24,674 Likes: 1 |
I rarely start a new post (aside from the pick'em threads) and rarely partake in the political arguments. Given up on economics threads as ideology seems to trump numeric evidence. But I thought I'd do so at this time only because I haven't seen the points I want to make on any of the numerous threads.
The point it this: The 2nd Amendment won't save gun rights. Not this time.
Stubbornly hiding behind it and making the same arguments in the same way isn't going to work. Too many of these mass shooting of our most vulnerable have taken place. Most people don't give two [bleep] what the constitution says when they see pint sized body bags coming out of a kindergarten school. That is just the way it is. A man's primary function, the reason God and evolution has shaped us as we are and allowed the species to continue, is to provide, care for, and protect those around us. It is just that simple.
And in this society at this day and time we are being shown we cannot do so.
We have become a society that can grow emasculated males, unrepentant sociopaths, base men who live only to feed their lusts, and even monsters who strike out at those around them. We can grow those in droves. But men who believe mankind has a higher purpose? Men who have been instilled with what we used to term the cardinal virtues? Men who are fit to mentor and raise the next generation so that they are fit to receive the world? Seems to be a lost art.
My point is this: Of course mental illness is at the root of this shooting. We all know that. But where is the accommodation from us regarding mental illness?
Think about it. How many times have we tossed around our disdain for any government paid health care? How many employee based health plans substantially or even completely ignore mental illness? Who exactly is going to pay for getting these young men identified and out of circulation? Who among us will stand up and say that this is a prudent spending of resources? Who is going to go along with even the notion of placing young adults into custody when there is only a small but real risk that they will eventually go apeshit and murder those around them?
We had this discussion in the 80s and we decided that not only did we not wish to pay for the care and custody of mentally ill people any more than absolutely necessary but ALSO that we didn't even feel comfortable doing so. Are we ready to revisit that issue?
I bring this up not to inflame but just to offer a few questions. We talk about violent video games and a septic culture while dismissing the availability of some types of weapons that can turn a 3 person shooting into one of dozens. The other side dismisses the risk of having a septic culture and hours on end blasting away realistic men on the computer while talking about the availability of weapons that can turn a 3 person shooting into something much worse.
There is going to have to be something more than "the second amendment says so and so" this time. Might be a good time to take a look at ourselves and see what this should be.
IMvHO,
Will Will, As always, very insightful. Will the 2nd Amendment save us? Well certainly it will, and the Heller decision gives us protections we�ve never had. Will it save �assault weapons�? Maybe and maybe not. From a purely objective review of the Heller decision, one could make an equally good case for or against �assault weapons�; so it will be battled out in court. Hi capacity magazines? Again in court could be some arguments on both sides. If I were to guess, SCOTUS would allow the ban on hi-cap magazines, but that�s pure speculation on my part. Will Republican lawmakers allow the passage of an assault weapons ban? Yeah, I fully expect they will roll over like they did in �86, and �92. They�re politicians and their survival surpasses ANY issue. Regarding mental health: Very good points. This is a public issues and will require public funding for the issue; so basically it won�t ever get done. Regarding school safety. After the gun control issue which won�t make ONE school any safer, and the mental health debate which even if we did something along those lines, would take many years before it began to have any effect; we�re still faced with a school security problem. There are no across the board, one size fits all solutions. But every school in American CAN and SHOULD make themselves a harder target. 3 rings 3 D�s and an R. 3 Rings of security. Outside security, inside the school security, and inside the classroom security. 3 D�s and an R: Deter, Detect, Delay, Respond I could literally write a book on how each of these would be applied, but the �Cliffs Notes� is that the 3D�s and an R need to be applied to all 3 rings of security. If a knowledgeable security professional does that, our schools will be much safer. Completely safe? No way; but much safer.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 10,364
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 10,364 |
I sure don't want the Government deciding who is sane enough to own a firearm.
Speak too harshly against a Government ukase and you are maybe asked to come in for an "evaluation" and if you don't regurgitate the official Government line you are asked to stay for a few months.
Maybe you speak or write against Gay Marriage or Affirmative Action, or low flush toilets, or global warming. Certainly if you are not in line with the official position you must be mentally ill. Not to worry a short stay in Anger Management and maybe sensitivity training and you will be allowed to rejoin your family and friends.
Dang, its been awhile since I heard from old Spano, wonder what happened to him? He just disappeared poof. . .
www.paracay.comIt's better to live rich than die rich. Live simply so that I may simply live large.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 10,651 Likes: 4
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 10,651 Likes: 4 |
I work a bit in/around psychology/ists, and there is not a person I've ever known that I could not diagnose with some form of mental disturbance from the DSM IV. Hence, everyone will be disarmed if the main line of argument is mental illness.
A free society is inherently dangerous. A bit over the top, but not totally off base. If you consider the odds of developing some form of mental illness over a lifetime (I don't have the data offhand), the chance a person would have a "history of mental illness" becomes significant. Going back to the crux of the matter, it would depend on exactly how any law regarding mental illness and firearms were written. I recall once taking a quick look at Texas' CCW law, and the mental health provisions didn't look too bad. It certainly wasn't a blanket. I am personally aware of an individual who was perfectly responsible, law abiding and not a danger to anybody, but was unable to obtain a CCW because of treatment for mild depression, who was under threat by a really angry crazy individual with no history or contact with any mental health system, The nut job could have legally obtained a gun, and killed the other person. From my awareness of the situation, it was a real possibility. Yet, there are some who believe that a mentally ill person should have no rights, especially self defense. Like I've said repeatedly, it isn't simple. Paul
Stupidity has its way, while its cousin, evil, runs rampant.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,465
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,465 |
I feel we have to separate the mentally ill from lethal weapons. If we don't do a better job of that then this scenario will happen again. And again. And again. And each time it does the pressure is going to build. And public perception will slide further and further away from us.
I feel it is high time for us to look at our hole cards. We are running interference for a lot of people who neither understand nor care about the 2nd amendment. Not wise to do so anymore in my opinion.
Will
what are you talking about? you guys have spent the last 10 pages talking about what to do with mental illness? what does that have to do with my 2nd amendment rights? because a crazy guy (who had been diagnosed and was being committed by his mother) committed an atrocity i should not be able to buy a 30 round magazine? wake up man. this is exactly the kind of thing the 2nd amendment is supposed to protect us from. knee jerk non-logical legislation or public hue and cry in the face of some emotional event.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 5,687
Campfire Tracker
|
|
OP
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 5,687 |
I would bet the farm that you didn't understand my post.
We're running interference for a lot of mentally ill people who neither know or care about the 2nd Amendment. That was the group I was talking about.
Whether you or anyone else can or can not buy a 30 round clip will have absolutely no impact on how many guys the next crazed gunman shoots nor your ability to exercise you 2nd Amendment rights. It is a red herring. Useless political rhetoric that will accomplish nothing whatsoever in the end.
But whether we find a way to get the next borderline psych job locked up before he murders a bunch of innocents? Don't you thing that would actually do something to help?
Adam Lanza, Seung-Hui Cho, James Eagan Holmes, and Steven Kazmierczak (and heaven knows who else) were ALL on the radar of psychiatrists BEFORE they went on their rampages. We're acting like it is some kind of a unicorn hunt to find out who these guys are.
Will
Smellin' a lot of 'if' coming off this plan.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 56,365 Likes: 9
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 56,365 Likes: 9 |
I was gone yesterday and came back to 10 new pages. I feel frustrated and tired after reading up. I have a headache and am discouraged. That's what the rabid dogs on the left do to sensible people, and that's why they're going to win. See, I'm already defeated. Please come take my guns. I just don't care. Put me out of my misery, I can't read 1 more of Wills posts. I'm beat.
Last edited by Fireball2; 12/20/12.
_______________________________________________________
An 8 dollar driveway boy living in a T-111 shack
LOL
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 6,168
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 6,168 |
Adam Lanza, Seung-Hui Cho, James Eagan Holmes, and Steven Kazmierczak (and heaven knows who else) were ALL on the radar of psychiatrists BEFORE they went on their rampages. We're acting like it is some kind of a unicorn hunt to find out who these guys are.
Will
yes but how many total folks are on some radar that will never commit a crime..do they loose their rights as well?
The collection of taxes which are not absolutely required, which do not beyond reasonable doubt contribute to public welfare, is only a species of legalized larceny. Under this Republic the rewards of industry belong to those who earn them. Coolidge
|
|
|
|
|
456 members (12344mag, 10gaugeman, 10gaugemag, 12savage, 1beaver_shooter, 17CalFan, 54 invisible),
2,014
guests, and
1,218
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,194,088
Posts18,521,967
Members74,024
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
