General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMENTALLY ILL MENTALLY ILL MENTALLY ILL
I'll say one thing for conservatives, once they get their marching orders they know how to fall in line and beat a meme to death.
Anyone who has read any gun threads lately knows the RW talking point is "oh sure, we're all for gun control... for the mentally ill."
The RW think tanks come up with a canned response, conservative blogs post it and robot minions parrot it all over the web no matter what is said to them.
It's actually quite efficient.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)this nation couldn't use a serious look at its mental health system and the funding and availability of treatment for those who need it. We can address both. I will not discount a discussion of the MH system as simply a stalking horse for the gun industry and neither should you. In this state, we have worked long and hard for mental health parity so that mental health care can be on equal footing when it comes to considering the health of the entire individual. We need to get to a point where those who require this type of health care are not neglected to the point that prisons serve as de facto lock wards or the streets serve as homes for those who cannot receive care. Period. Do not contribute to under serving a group because you have a political bone to pick with someone else.
H2O Man
(79,056 posts)also take a serious look at rebuilding bridges. However, if the NRA suggested this as the solution to gun violence, the nation would surely recognize it as a distraction.
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)issues now that later down the line it will become more difficult to do. History teaches us that the political pendulum swings back. Power won't always be in the hands of those who have it today, motley crew that they are. Jesu, it's tough to be human.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)...that there are also times where the pendulum doesn't swing back. We are very close to living in a Democracy in Name Only.
Now is the time if ever there was one.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)get a majority of (so called) Democrats to agree to focus on the gun issue.
Gun legislation will go nowhere.
UnrepentantLiberal
(11,700 posts)I'll never forget a one legged, profoundly mentally ill homeless man, covered in filth, drinking a cup of coffee I gave him when I worked at a hotel on Hollywood Blvd. He stood there drinking it without saying a word. It almost brings tears to my eyes thinking about it right now. You wouldn't treat a dog that way.
tavalon
(27,985 posts)
PADemD
(4,482 posts)Three hundred and fifty thousand: That's a conservative estimate for the number of offenders with mental illness confined in America's prisons and jails.
http://www.npr.org/2011/09/04/140167676/nations-jails-struggle-with-mentally-ill-prisoners
hack89
(39,181 posts)and suicides are over half of all gun deaths, then mental health has to be a big part of the discussion.
mgardener
(2,360 posts)that this was going to be a post about Alex Jones.
Disappointing.
bowens43
(16,064 posts)and therefor the person wanting to purchase one these should not be allowed to purchase one.
DaveJ
(5,023 posts)One of the problems with the whole premise is that many people who should be diagnosed for the mental problems never go to see a psychiatrist because they fear the stigma involved. Or they think that real men don't see shrinks.
Since they do not get treated, they go on living as their their mental illness becomes even worse.
But they can buy guns!
Denninmi
(6,581 posts)You could go see a physician, get appropriate meds, see a therapist, quietly go on with your life.
Except for that one little bit about your name now being entered in the criminal database along with rapists and murderers.
What's not to like about that?
silentwarrior
(250 posts)post natal depression, panic attacks.
Her physician labels her as a neurotic mother and tells her to get on with it.
Then years later, because her oldest child, who now is 19 years of age becomes
agrophobic, the mom gets hauled before social services and is accused of being
a neglectful parent all because she herself has suffered from depression, she is
now seen as a danger to her two other younger children 
CanSocDem
(3,286 posts)In what kind of world is Lethal Response a 'rational' choice?
.
ecstatic
(35,075 posts)While that may be the case for right wing and rural gun owners, the owners I know purchased for self defense in response to real threats. One's neighborhood should be taken into account as well. People in really safe areas who purchase based on fear may have mental issues, etc.
On a side note, I'm not ruling out the possibility that "normal" people might develop mental problems as a result of buying a gun and realizing they don't feel any safer. I think that's why most owners have more than one gun.
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)tavalon
(27,985 posts)Anyone who has semi automatics or automatics is mentally ill. I think we can work with this.
elias7
(4,229 posts)
marble falls
(71,936 posts)or is it just screw the RW or is it screw the mentally ill. Insert a virtual sarcasm emoticon here. I give. What is your point about the mentally ill and gun control? They should or shouldn't be treated and or should or shouldn't have the same access anybody else with no criminal record or mental or emotional conditions has to fire arms - assault or hunting? Or are you suggesting that mistreatment and lack of treatment for the mentally ill by society isn't real, caused co-incidentally by the same no tax bushwa that a lot of assault weapon owners believe in?
Maybe you will get an assault weapon ban or not, either way society does need to focus on the abysmal way we treat the mentally ill - we jail them after they commit crime or we just leave them on the streets to die and be victimized.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Amirite?
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)psych exams. I'm pretty sure a number would not pass.
Actually I wouldn't mind a psych screening for propensity toward violence before gun purchases, as long as everyone submitted. But to determine a priori that people who have the courage to seek treatment for depression and other mental illness should be treated as second class citizens, with no evidence that they are remotely violent, is ridiculous and violates the 14th Amendment. (Yes folks, the Constitution actually extends to more than the Second Amendment). Seeking psychiatric help for an illness does not make a person violent. That has to do with other characteristics--whether mental illness or something else--that propels people to harm others. And many of those people are the ones least likely to seek medical help. Some seem completely unhinged. When someone start threatening to kill government agents or gets angry over imaginary "gun grabbers"--one has to wonder whether they are fit to own deadly weapons.
Comrade_McKenzie
(2,526 posts)HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)Can't really comment on something with so little meat on the bones.
hack89
(39,181 posts)sounds good.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)The notion that it is all about the mentally ill, that they are the biggest part of the gun violence problem is flawed. It's a meme that works for those who believe that bullets and guns don't kill but lunatics and monsters among us do.
It blends almost seamlessly into belief that a person MUST be mentally ill at SOME level to shoot another person.
This blame blitz on the mentally is a consequence of the Gun Lobby cherry-picking an old OTA report on the NICS system, the database used in the instant check for gun purchases.
That report appears as an appendix in a report from 2007 on the effectiveness of the NICS that seems to be turning into the standard reference piece for the current discussions.
That OTA report makes the point that 4 million people are adjudicated prohibited from legal gun purchases, as of 31 DEC 2012 the NICS included only 1.8 million of these people. That number is pushed as evidence that the gun violence thing is about the missing records of the mentally ill!
Well that seems like a problem...but maybe we shouldn't jump on this just yet.
There are lots of records missing from NICS, and there are a lot more records missing for categories who try to get guns at a higher rate than the mentally ill.
The same OTA report that everyone is cherry picking about the missing records for mentally says the combined databases used in the instant check system (NICS and III) are missing 23 million felons, and 14 million user/addicts of unlawful substances.
Felons are 58% of the people denied by the instant check system, known user/addicts are nearly 9% of the people caught trying to buy weapons. The mentally ill represent only 1.03% of those who are denied by the instant check system.
The system needs much more discipline in reporting, including on mentally ill determined to be prohibited from purchases by a judge or panel. I'd think we'd go after the holes in the system most associated with the categories known to be attempting to purchase guns.
But, you say there are scores of millions of undetected mentally ill out there just waiting to shoot the children. All these mass murders are done by undetected mentally ill persons!!!
No. Undetected mental illness is estimated to be associated with about 40 percent of these events. Mother Jones published details about the 61 mass shootings in the US since 1982. Twenty-four of the 61 shootings involved a shooter who when investigations were done -after- the event may have show signs of a mental illness.
Only 33 of the 61 mass shootings were associated with a mental health diagnosis (9) or retrospective evidence of undetected mental illness (24) .
That isn't to say mental illness isn't part of the problem. Mental illness is part of the problem
Indeed it's part is PERFECT for LaPierre's diversion of attention, it hyperbolizes a truth which is thrown against the nation's ignorance and fear of mental illness in order to shift focus away from gun control and onto 'people' control, which is the message in the now decades old saw "guns don't kill people do"
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)then their access to guns would be easy, quick and unimpeded. So, why should a solution target the non-threatening but ignore the factor that actually leads to rampage killings?
Heck, this debate has gotten so disingenuous that those seeking an assault rile ban are seeking to ban a weapon that was not used in Aurora, Sandy Hook, Fort Hood, Arizona and was already illegal during Columbine. However, prior to these rampages people, including people in positions of authority were sounding warning alarms. It seems that few if any of these acts are spontaneous.
Banning guns is not legal and yet those who want to ban guns give the same sad excuses as those who want to perpetuate the War on Drugs, which were the same excuses that brought us Prohibition. The mere deabte of a gun ban has sent sales skyrocketing, proving the demonstrable absurdity of the idea.
And think about that. They're buying because of the idea of a ban. That means they will not be surrendering their weapons and if you try to force them you will validate their every talking point about "gun grabbers" trying to impose tyranny.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Just like drug users.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)You continue to validate pro-RKBA complaints about gun grabbers. You're proving that when they talk about gun grabbers imposing Stalin-esque tyranny it isn't paranoia but there is, in fact, a contingent that would do just that. You're proving that people really do have a reason to be concerned.
Day-by-day the gun grab looks less and less like an effort to address actual tragedies. Instead it looks more and more like an effort to attack people over politics.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)What happened at gun stores after Sandy Hook was classic drug seeking behavior by addicts, terrified that their drug of choice would be unavailable to them they cleaned out the stores with many of them going into debt to purchase as much ammunition and weaponry as possible.
Face it, the people who cleaned out the gun stores after Sandy Hook need an intervention, they are sick in the head. A classroom of six year old kids slaughtered and the first thing they think of is rushing out to frantically buy guns just like the ones that were used to slaughter the children and they think that people who were actually horrified by the event are evil.
We should take pity on these poor souls and help them with their illness, it would only be a blessing.
No?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)What you're suggesting is absolutely in line with the Stalinist re-education camps I find it too incredible to give it a serious response.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)That doesn't mean it's an invalid or wrong perspective, just different.
Absolutely classic addictive drug seeking behavior after Sandy Hook, no one had said so much as "boo" before the panic buying of guns and ammunition began because the paranoids just *knew* that they would be cut off from their fix that gives them the endorphin rush they have come to need more than anything.
Sweaty hands waving fistfuls of hundred dollar bills, desperate to get the good stuff, oh the euphoria when the drug is finally acquired, pupils dilate, knees get wonky, a warm glow suffuses the body. Way better than sex.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)And if you are serious, no serious person would base a law on some ridiculous song.
If you're worried about addictions you might want to ask why you feel the compulsion to oppress 80 million people.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)You know, that whole sensitive artist shtick.
And that was long before the drug seeking behavior had gotten nearly as deluded and obsessed as it is today.
When I hold you in my arms
And I feel my finger on your trigger
I know nobody can do me no harm
Bang bang shoot shoot
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)It's not serious. it doesn't even rise to the level of absurd comedy.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Apparently she's having the same anxiety issues. However, to her credit, she's unarmed and required to wait for the police to muster a response -- however, long that might take.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)He was heavily armed and was just waiting for someone to pull a Batman and got his head blown off anyway.
Tells me it's pretty damn dangerous out there for a person who doesn't even own a gun if even someone as familiar with guns and as well trained as Mr Praying for Batman can't protect himself with all the guns and mad skillz he had.
No?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)You're convinced people like this are an absolute threat. No amount of reason or appeals to good conduct will deter him. And yet, somehow, this same person will magically fall in line with a gun ban.
Is this what you're saying?
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)I just pointed out that even a hyper-vigilant, aggressive and well trained armed person can become a victim of gun violence.
If anyone should have been protected by having a gun it would have been this guy.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)What? Where does that comparison come from? What information do you have about Stalinist re-education camps?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)should be forced by the governemnt to be "rehabilitated."
All right-thinking people accept this. Only someone who was mentally ill would resist. Therefore, the benevolent state has no choice but to make certain these people receive the treatment they need.
What do you think a reeducation camp is supposed to be?
gollygee
(22,336 posts)Mentally ill people are a menace and need therapy and rehabilitation . . . to people who have a hobby of amassing killing machines need therapy and rehabilitation. I don't see where he was talking about Stalinist re-education camps. That's a stretch. He's making a point about people going after people with mental illness.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)are free to roam unchecked and chocolate rations have been increased from 5 to four ounces.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)"Chocolate rations?" Come on.
The issue is that mentally ill people, for the most part, SHOULD be free to roam unchecked. And no one is talking about treating people who aren't mentally ill as mentally ill.
There are violent people who are mentally ill, and there are violent people who aren't mentally ill. Mental illness is a red herring.
Denninmi
(6,581 posts)"While the mentally ill are free to roam unchecked ...."
That is just an incredibly offensive thing to say.
Get a clue, it's called the Constitution, and it applies to everyone equally.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)you should be institutionalized.
Denninmi
(6,581 posts)Your compassion and sensitivity overwhelm me.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)What's wrong with treating innocent people as if they're innocent while treating dangerous people as if they're dangerous? *IF* someone were actually dangerous the compassionate and sensitive thing to do would be keeping them from hurting other people regardless of how many appeals to self-pity ensued.
Cetacea
(7,400 posts)you'd learn that the mentally ill are far more likely to be victims of crime. I would think he knows a thing or two about discrimination.
Get educated
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Innocent, law-abiding people by their very nature will be victims of crime rather than those who commit crime. They deserve sentivity and compassion. They certainly deserve more sensitivity and compassion than those who are actually dangerous criminals. My only address has been concerning those who are dangerous and/or criminals. The balance of those with MI conditions have not been a subject of discussion except by those exploiting them to detract from the discussion.
backscatter712
(26,357 posts)dkf
(37,305 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)
You're normally smarter than this.
Bear in mind I'm one of the relatively few here that doesn't want to burn you at the stake.
And keep in mind also that I often push my argument as far as it will go just to see how far I can go with it. Like you I don't always believe the twaddle I peddle.
Clarke's third law: The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
dkf
(37,305 posts)That's normal. Heck I don't like guns but I am wondering if I ought to get one before it becomes difficult to impossible.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Any normal person was appalled by what happened, not thinking about stocking up on guns and ammo.
The problem with your theory is that the panic buying began almost immediately upon the news of the killing before anyone had a chance to say so much as "boo", the buyers knew that normal people were disgusted with what happened they could figure that out, but they didn't share that disgust.
The sad thing is that even chimpanzees and dogs show empathy, humans evidently not always so much.
dkf
(37,305 posts)Self preservation and the safety of those you care about come before everything. Otherwise you would be a pretty useless parent.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)As was evidenced by the fact that Adam Lanza first killed his mother before going to the school.
So people are seeing the mass slaughter of children and then making efforts to increase the chances their own children will be shot.
I believe we have spoken of irrational behavior before.
Coyote_Tan
(194 posts)... And make smart shopping decisions at the same time. Not that hard...
Denninmi
(6,581 posts)Of course, the gun lobby will push the panic button to make some quick profits.
dkf
(37,305 posts)If I did get a gun, it would need to be something uncomplicated.
Honestly I really dislike the idea of needing one, but if I ever feel in danger it may be too late to get the most appropriate one.
I don't really believe the idea of "rights" will keep things available. Always, someone wants to push it farther whether its limiting the right to privacy, free speech, abortion or guns.
Denninmi
(6,581 posts)I know the basic terms, stock, barrel, trigger. That's the extent of my knowledge on guns.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)How effective do you think that would be?
How many of the less than 10 mass murders per year would you expect to slip through that system?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)10 mentally ill people is far easier -- and less invasive as far as civil liberties are concerned -- than trying to police 80 million-plus law-abiding people as criminals.
I don't understand the so-called progressive need to treat people like criminals but treat criminals like people where guns are concerned. It's not constitutional, it's not politically viable and it isn't even practical. If even 10% of the gun owners are willing to go rogue then that means you have 8 million new criminals for a criminal "justice" system that is near broken already.
We can't even stem the tide of drugs like meth and crack why would we think that people who plan their rampages to include pipe bombs, booby traps and body armor wouldn't go to illicit sources? Chicago has a near total ban and yet it is the gun murder capital of America. More people are murdered annually within the relatively constricted confines of that city than US service members were lost in years of fighting in Iraq. The criminals got guns, the illicit gun dealers got rich and good people like Otis McDonald got prosecuted because he was rich, white and well-connected like David Gregory.
Treating the mentally ill makes more sense logistically and in terms of civil liberties.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Doing so forcibly costs a great deal more.
Do you foresee the current political impasse leading to this kind of money being spent on treating mental illness?
Bonn1997
(1,675 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Perceptions are everything in politics because politics is about how people think and people don't think on facts they think on their perception of facts.
Put the same amount of money as all those hidden costs in the budget with a label for mental health care and even if you saved much more net money people for the most part wouldn't see it that way, it would be seen as a huge expensive nothing coddling malingerers and crazy people.
People are amazingly predisposed to see what they want to see or what they expect to see.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0307459667/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=cognitivereso-20&linkCode=as2&camp=217145&creative=399349&creativeASIN=0307459667
Most think that such a gorilla would be easily noticed; however, various experiments have shown this is not the case. This lack of ability to see objects that are not expected may explain why cars pull out in front of motorcycles, as it is theorized that people driving cars do not expect to see motorcycles and thus they do not. Cell phone users also miss obvious objects while they are driving. It seems cell phone users that are driving suffer from a reduction in awareness, but they are not aware of it. Thus the illusion that they are as fully aware while talking on the phone as they are when the phone is not in use. The Invisible Gorilla points out how this attention illusion can have real and sometimes harsh results in the real world.
Then the book goes on to describe five other illusions: the illusion of memory, the illusion of knowledge and confidence, the illusion that in a series of events, event one causes event two, and the illusion that certain mythical processes - such as hypnotism - can help one reach their full potential. Another illusion is we can do many things well all at once (multi-tasking); however, experiments have shown this is a false assumption.
The book's key message is that we think our mental abilities and capacities are greater than they really are. Perhaps the largest impact is in court, where witnesses think they can accurately remember an event that occurred some time ago.
Bonn1997
(1,675 posts)I think a majority of the public (albeit probably not the Congress) is ready to spend money on mental health.
That book looks interesting! Although it's in my field and I probably know most of the work already, I ordered the audio CD. It'll give me something to listen to in the car. Thanks.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)That's a significant part of the problem with this line of reasoning. Undetected mental illness is a problem but it's less than half the problem based on a review of 61 mass murders since 1982.
And even if you can prevent sales to the undetected mentally ill, you will miss mass shooters who guns they didn't purchase legally or who although diagnosed weren't entered into the reporting system as required by relavant state law.
Last year there were 6 mass shootings. 2 of them could have been stopped if people just followed the law and common sense.
John Holmes was in treatment, he was identified as dangerous by his psychiatrist, he didn't get reported as required by colorado law
Lanza used his mother's weapons. She failed to secure them.
At least a third of last years mass shootings were due to failures of person's who were in position to act according to law and common sense but didn't. That means that last year undetected mental illness was about as responsible for the mass shootings as carelessness.
Why blame JUST the mentally ill?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)And you trust these same incompetents to properly enforce a gun ban?
How is it practical to criminalize millions, if not tens of millions of decent people, depriving them of their USSC-affirmed rights with a presumption of guilt but then claim intercepting the people who actually commit the crimes is too much of a burden?
So yes, I do blame those that are actually responsible.
Why are we talking about an AWB when assault were not the weapon of choice? We talk about "high-capacity" magazines; but "high" implies "greater than the norm" but a standard issue magazine has 30-rounds? Holmes had a 100-round magazine but that jammed. Heck, if that were the case then we should demand the use of 100-round magazines because they aren't reliable. Meanwhile, semi-automatic handguns are the weapon of choice by rampage killers but they are also the most practical weapon for self-defense, if police preferences are taken into account.
When police response times are measured by minutes in the double-digits even a single-shot weapon can kill dozens, i.e. the Texas clock tower.
There is a total ban on making bombs but even that has proven a failure for those determined to kill, i.e. Harris and Klebold, Holmes, the Una-Bomber, etc.
Life is never going to be safe. It's a sad admission but at least it is a mature admission. Treating tens of millions of good people like criminals is not mature.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)Both groups contain more than 70 million Americans.
The risk of 6 mass shootings among each of these groups is less than 0.0001% per individual
Literally scores of millions of people in both groups are fully law abiding decent people who are of no risk to society.
Since that argument works for both groups but is only seen as legitimate for gun owners, it appears something else is at work. Fear of the mentally ill? Need for a diversion?
Every mass shooting was done by a person with a gun. Something around 80% are done by the person who legally purchased the weapon.
About 54% of the mass shootings since 1982 are associated with a diagnosed or suspected mentally ill person.
The problem is that the above mentioned conditioned risks drawn from data associated with mass shootings are GREAT for profiling who did these terrible things and yet these conditioned risks are nearly worthless in terms of identifying who among scores of millions of people might do these things. There are HUGE numbers of false positives that will require sorting through.
If bringing gun deaths to zero is society's determined goal, LOTS of people are going to be treated with the suspicion that they are potential killers, not just the mentally ill.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)That's self-defining. However, no one is claiming millions of people with mental health issues need to be criminalized. I've only ever heard the conversation refer to those people who were public threats. Holmes, Lanza, cho, Loughner and Hasan gave off plenty of warning signs and yet the authorities either could not or would not intervene until it was too late.
Meanwhile, your cohort upthread wants to incarcerate and forcible "reeducate" millions of people for no crime at all, even though they have no mental health issues. No due process. No presumption of innocence. No opposing council. No hearing of evidence. No probable cause. No democratic process. They have been adjudicated as being guilty being a single, self-appointed authority.
But don't dare suggest a few dozen maniacs be treated as the threats they are. That would be unfair.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)This has gone full circle for me.
The difficulty is identifying those 'maniacs' and you have nothing to offer.
All the issues of due process and equal protection you can claim for the non-mentally ill, hold for the mentally ill.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Some were/are mentally ill. Some were not. Some were in treatment. Some were not. There's no rational way to find the "few dozen maniacs" before they go on their rampage - we already know that from direct experience.
So the only other rational course of action is to deal with the easy accessibility to guns and ammunition. That's not unreasonable and to assume it is, is well, THAT would be the crazy part.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)I agree that restricting magazine capacity is very common sense.
I think the minimal reporting requirements for NICS needs to be made more uniform between states and all states must be required to report on all the reportable categories. With respect to reporting on mental illness I'd be good with the rules used in California, which exceed the rules used in most states.
I think that a public education program via the media needs to be conducted on the importance of safe gun storage.
I also think that the public needs to an education program to heighten awareness of how personal observations of mood change in friends, family, and co-workers can be used to fight both gun suicides and rampage killings.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)I think we should counter by pointing out their dementia.
You know, that tax cuts don't increase revenues and how carbon dioxide warms the planet. The simple things that prove they can't grasp reality.
How can that not fit the definition of a mental illness?
patrice
(47,992 posts)I had one in my FB friends who thought absolutely nothing of saying the most outrageously violent stuff to anyone he disagreed with, people he absolutely didn't even know personally. My pagan friends were a particular interest of this conservative "Christian". Even after a couple of incidents and I stepped in and tried to put him in perspective about what he was doing, he'd do it again and each time the language and imagery were more shocking than the last time. Such behavior really is a type of "rape", similar in its assertion of force and violence.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,958 posts)So that more people in this country might, you know, get mental health care? 
patrice
(47,992 posts)deadly fascist games?
patrice
(47,992 posts)How many people are going to allow that categorization to happen to them and, then, to follow them all of their lives?
Even people who just need help will avoid getting it for fear of being turned-in for being "mentally ill".
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)Me: "So you believe the right to keep and bear arms is absolute. Correct?"
Absolutist: "Indeed I do!"
Me: "So why aren't you out there demanding your right to carry on airplanes?"
Absolutist: "Well, that's different. That's a matter of national security!"
Me: "Aha! So we've established that there are reasonable limits to the right to keep and bear arms, just as there are with other rights such as free speech. Now we're just figuring out what those limits are. Correct?"
Absolutist: "Derp."
kydo
(2,679 posts)Seems to me thats what much of the hoopla is about. Stricter gun control and better mental health stuff ie making sure crazy people don't get guns. IMHO the type of crazy people that we don't want having guns are pretty much the republican right wing.
Just saying ...
hack89
(39,181 posts)it is not only the RW that sees people with mental illness as a threat.
Under the plan, if a mental health professional believes someone--gun owner or not--poses a threat, they will be able to report that to their county mental health office, which would then convey the warning to law enforcement.
The information would then be included in a database that is used for background checks for gun purchasers. Should that person already be found to have a licensed weapon, police could suspend or revoke the license and confiscate the firearm.
http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2013/01/gun-control-deal-close-could-come-as-soon-as-today-source
Follow The Money
(141 posts)Some of these drugs are causing weird reactions.
A recent story discussed a kid who jumped into a Tiger's cage at the zoo because he had started taking Adderall.
Someone on DU described their experience on a first dose of Ambien, totally incoherent and out of character, went to the store and shoptlifted...
Remember the US imported thousands of Nazi Scientists, Big Pharma was still experimenting on East Germans in the 80's...What kind of designer drugs would psychopaths create I wonder....
Bonn1997
(1,675 posts)That's what all these right-wing and even mainstream media responses rely on. Consider the comment, "The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to have a good guy with a gun"
They assume that the world is neatly organized into good and bad people rather than realizing that any human under the right circumstances can commit very good or very bad acts and realizing that policy-makers ought to try to decrease the circumstances (e.g., poverty, inequality, hopelessness) that promote bad acts.
ecstatic
(35,075 posts)fall under that category. Please proceed, repugs...
Bonn1997
(1,675 posts)by conservatives here. It's basically, "Anyone who would commit such an act must be mentally ill. Therefore, all the mass shooters were mentally ill and mental illness is the culprit."
libodem
(19,288 posts)Have a special sickness, that should preclude them from gun ownership.
gateley
(62,683 posts)"job killing Obama care".
Every single Republican managed to get that phrase out regardless of the topic at hand.
I wish we would do the same. I've often yearned for a Democratic Frank Luntz.
backscatter712
(26,357 posts)Ever have a bout with depression? Ever take an antidepressant? Have ADHD and take Ritalin? Take a mood stabilizer for bipolar disorder?
ON THE SEX OFFENDER LIST YOU GO!
That's the GOP's way of pretending to solve the gun violence problem, without doing anything about all the guns, or harming their gun-industry sugar-daddies.
And another vulnerable minority gets stigmatized and stripped of their civil rights.
Before long, they'll be made to wear flair on their clothing...
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)A near total gun ban is the only solution. I know it will not happen at least in my life time. I can't see the tipping point for people who insist guns aren't a bad thing. Gun enthusiasts are going so far as to harass a man who gave comfort to 6 children that survived the massacre. So, they may not have a tipping point.
My tipping point in thinking that guns should be a lot more regulated was when Lennon was shot, that event scarred me and it is still a very sad place in my pscyci. However, I wouldn't have said
gun ban.
To make this clear I have to say, it isn't the anti-gun people that have persuaded me. It is the pro-gun people and I am not talking gun nuts. I am talking about the very rational and knowledgeable gun people. I am talking about people that know the difference between an automatic gun and a semi-automatic and all their configurations. I am talking about people that could talk all day about clips, magazines, and drums and know exactly what they are talking about.
What the people that are knowledgeable about guns and who are not gun nuts have done is show that almost any gun type can be used for a mass killing. That even if you ban clips that can be used in a mass killing many people who know guns can fix them to override clip capacity laws. They admit that many people can get guns illegally. So, that is to say almost any gun regulations we pass will be all but useless. I think that gun regulation might save a few lives, but it is actually nearly useless as people who know guns have pointed out in at least a round about way.
It is also shown that owning a gun is far more dangerous for gun owners than criminals. The criminal always has the element of knowing what they intend to do. The victim is nearly always caught by surprise. Also having a gun and being responsible with it means it won't always if ever be in your hands when you need it. Unless you turn your bedroom into a fortress and have plenty of time to get your gun in the case of a midnight break in you are pretty much sol even if you have a gun.
I am not against hunting or range shooting, I think we can have a situation where these things are allowed and it will keep other people a lot safer. I haven't known too many hunters that have used their guns on humans, I know it happens and I read about hunting accidents frequently. But a a ban on hunting guns would put thousands of people at risk for starvation even if those numbers are dwindling, I would not want to put any one at risk of starvation if they can hunt for food. Sure I think it would be better if they learned to not eat meat, but that is a whole nuther story.
In short I think the only people that should have guns are LEO, people who have decided to become a part of a well regulated militia, people that can show they have a legitimate need for a gun for protection ie someone who is being stalked, and hunters. And of course this will never happen, but it is what needs to happen.
dkf
(37,305 posts)haele
(15,403 posts)to get what they want. That it's okay to have disposable people that there shouldn't be any problems just shooting when one feels like they've been "disrespected" or stood up to?
ON EDIT - I know many responsible gun owners (as well as a few nuts who I'd be worried about shooting up their own neighborhood after a mix of a bout of depression, cheap beer, tequila and whiskey shooters), and I'm responding to this NRA talking point about putting up a mental illness database will "stop the bad guys from getting guns".
By taking the idea that only criminals and other people who are borderline and have not actually been arrested but "noted" on a database somewhere - like from a therapist in a school or at a family court hearing - be banned from getting guns? What about the "jokers" with the "Liberal Hunting Licenses" on their bumpers, or call hate radio shows? Isn't constantly "joking" about - and turning a blind eye to abuse, discrimination, or denigration of a particular group of people just because "you don't like them" a sign of mental illness? Isn't refusal to take responsibility for one's own actions a sign of mental weakness, if not an outright criminal act in some places?
Or is being a bully "the Amurican way of life" until someone else bullies you and takes away your rights?
If a gun fanatic truly believes that the NRA is right only thing that should be done about gun violence is that there should be a mental illness "database" as well as a criminal database to keep dangerous people from having guns, what makes them think they wouldn't end up on that very same database.
What makes many of them different than killers of OBGYNs or people who shoot up humanist churches when they have the same opinions - that liberals, humanists, or "people who are different than them" are less than human, have no rights and should be driven out of their particular little community, if not outright executed for being wrong or uppity?
When they are so paranoid about "everyone" around them wanting to take their guns away from them and leave them unprotected from all the evil doers out there just waiting to steal their possessions and rape and kill them and their families?
Is it not mentally ill when you believe that "I'm right and you're wrong" only really gets decided at the end of a 9mm or 22mm barrel? That you only win when you're standing over the body of "your enemy" and glory in the anguish of his or her friends and families?
Haele
Hugabear
(10,340 posts)Rethugs say they're all for stricter gun control to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.
However, they oppose any measures which would allow doctors and mental health providers from sharing information that could prevent these individuals from purchasing a gun.
They slash and cut spending for mental health programs.
They say one thing, but then do another. This is typical rethuglicanism.