• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Aaron Alexis: Washington navy yard gunman obsessed with violent video games.

Very few, and very ineffective ones. Every other item that causes a high number of fatalities is far more restricted then guns.

I'm sorry, but your claim is not true. There have been certain gun type banned from sale over the last 30 years.

Forgive me, but when you begin to make over the top statements like "every other item", it's probably time to disengage.

I think it's time.
 
The "violent video game" connection is documented, no matter how much you want to defend it.

Since the connection exists, perhaps there should be psychological testing of anyone wanting to purchase these violent games. At minimum it might be wise to have people register their games, and even institute a waiting period before allowing the buyers to take possession.

The mental illness issue is a concern.
Ever since the ACLU successfully changed the way mentally ill people are treated, the growing threat from these unfortunate people has become real. This is an issue that needs discussion.




I agree.

And as part of the discussion an action plan should be formulated.

Then the plan needs to be implemented.
 
How about they are mentally ill and should probably be in a hospital rather than out on the street? There's a lot of direct problems...mentally ill individuals not taken care of and mentally ill individuals having easy access to guns.

Blame it on the ACLU, they were the ones who said that nuts should have the choice if they want treatment and be confined or live on the streets with no means of support.

So when all of the nuts poured out of the mental institutions you had all of these empty nut houses empty of nuts. So Governor Reagan had this stupid belief that state employees shouldn't be paid for doing nothing so he closed down all of the state mental institutions.

This was the beginning of the homeless problem in America, You had tens of thousands of all kinds of nuts competing for the limited resources that use to go to the winos living on the street. As the problem grew, the liberals realised they got it wrong again with their social engineering so they blamed Reagan for closing down the empty mental hospitals.
 
I'm sorry, but your claim is not true. There have been certain gun type banned from sale over the last 30 years.

Forgive me, but when you begin to make over the top statements like "every other item", it's probably time to disengage.

I think it's time.

Give me an example of one that does not....
 
My guess is that it isn't really the game that creates the mental instability but rather than the mental instability is somehow or other leads to an obsession with games. The core of psychotic behavior seems to be obsession of some sort. Perhaps the person is obsessed with pornography or putting their belongings in order or video games or whatever else but the telltale sign seems to be obsessive behavior.

I don't think that the game creates the mental instability, but rather becomes an alternate reality of sorts, and desensitizes the individual to the real effects of violence.
 
Blame it on the ACLU, they were the ones who said that nuts should have the choice if they want treatment and be confined or live on the streets with no means of support.

So when all of the nuts poured out of the mental institutions you had all of these empty nut houses empty of nuts. So Governor Reagan had this stupid belief that state employees shouldn't be paid for doing nothing so he closed down all of the state mental institutions.

This was the beginning of the homeless problem in America, You had tens of thousands of all kinds of nuts competing for the limited resources that use to go to the winos living on the street. As the problem grew, the liberals realised they got it wrong again with their social engineering so they blamed Reagan for closing down the empty mental hospitals.

Well here's a real analysis of the situation.
Ronald Reagan and the Commitment of the Mentally Ill: <br>Capital, Interest Groups, and the Eclipse of Social Policy

By all means read it or not but the reality is a bit different than some watered down white washing of Reagan.
 
Well here's a real analysis of the situation.
Ronald Reagan and the Commitment of the Mentally Ill: <br>Capital, Interest Groups, and the Eclipse of Social Policy

By all means read it or not but the reality is a bit different than some watered down white washing of Reagan.

And my response is, same as below.

Revisionist History, Mental Health Patients and Ronald Reagan

>" With the recent Arizona shootings by a mentally deranged person, the revisionist history of Ronald Reagan and his so called "closing down the mental health system" during his reign as governor in California has popped up again. The real story is Reagan had not turned from the dark side when he was governor, and instituted the changes in the mental health system at the behest of progressive reformers of the time.

The blaming of Ronald Reagan for the destruction the mental heath system is typical progressive revisionists history. By the late 1960s, the idea that the mentally ill were not so different from the rest of us, or perhaps were even a little bit more sane, became trendy. Reformers dreamed of taking the mentally ill out of the large institutions and housing them in smaller, community-based residences where they could live more productive and fulfilling lives. Simultaneously, the ACLU was pushing a mental health patients right agenda that resulted in O’Connor v. Donaldson (see below) In 1967, Gov. Ronald Reagan signed the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS), which went into effect in 1969 and quickly became a national model. Among other things, it prohibited forced medication or extended hospital stays without a judicial hearing. The Governor signed a bill inspired by those who clamored for the "civil rights" of the mentally ill to be on the street and who claimed they'd be better off with community counseling.

So no, Reagan, didn't close mental hospitals or put anyone on the street. Progressive views on mental health, a misguided ACLU, and politicians who "know better" did it. Then finally (the last year Reagan was governor), O’Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563 (1975), the Supreme Court found a constitutional right to liberty for mental health patients: "There is...no constitutional basis for confining such persons involuntarily if they are dangerous to no one." With this constitutional recognition, the practice of mental health law became a process of limiting and defining the power of the state to detain and treat. The result was a codification of mental health rights that have done away with non-voluntary commitment except in extreme cases.

Oh, and what happened to the promised Mental Health clinics to aid mental health out patients? They built them and they did not come. Who would have thought that unsupervised mental health patients would make poor life decisions and not utilize the support system that was built for them? Or, a better question is, who in their right mind thought they would? "<

The OSB Politico: Revisionist History, Mental Health Patients and Ronald Reagan
 
Well here's a real analysis of the situation.
Ronald Reagan and the Commitment of the Mentally Ill: <br>Capital, Interest Groups, and the Eclipse of Social Policy

By all means read it or not but the reality is a bit different than some watered down white washing of Reagan.


No, the reality is here:

https://www.aclu.org/organization-news-and-highlights/aclu-history-mental-institutions

The ACLU's most important Supreme Court case involving the rights of people with mental illness was filed on behalf of Kenneth Donaldson, who had been involuntarily confined in a Florida State Hospital for 15 years. He was not dangerous and had received no medical treatment. In a landmark decision for mental health law in 1975, a unanimous Supreme Court ruled that states cannot confine a non-dangerous individual who can survive on his own, or with help from family and friends.

O'Connor v. Donaldson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

O'Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563 (1975), was a landmark decision in mental health law. The United States Supreme Court ruled that a state cannot constitutionally confine a non-dangerous individual who is capable of surviving safely in freedom by themselves or with the help of willing and responsible family members or friends. Since the trial court jury found, upon ample evidence, that petitioner did so confine respondent, the Supreme Court upheld the trial court's conclusion that petitioner had violated respondent's right to liberty
 
No, the reality is here:

https://www.aclu.org/organization-news-and-highlights/aclu-history-mental-institutions

The ACLU's most important Supreme Court case involving the rights of people with mental illness was filed on behalf of Kenneth Donaldson, who had been involuntarily confined in a Florida State Hospital for 15 years. He was not dangerous and had received no medical treatment. In a landmark decision for mental health law in 1975, a unanimous Supreme Court ruled that states cannot confine a non-dangerous individual who can survive on his own, or with help from family and friends.

O'Connor v. Donaldson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

O'Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563 (1975), was a landmark decision in mental health law. The United States Supreme Court ruled that a state cannot constitutionally confine a non-dangerous individual who is capable of surviving safely in freedom by themselves or with the help of willing and responsible family members or friends. Since the trial court jury found, upon ample evidence, that petitioner did so confine respondent, the Supreme Court upheld the trial court's conclusion that petitioner had violated respondent's right to liberty

So you hold the view that someone should be involuntarily commited even if they pose no risk to themselves or others?

There's a pretty wide gap between forcing individuals that have mental health problems into life long confinement and not providing health care to individuals with mental health. Welcome to the privatization of the mental health. I'm sure schizophrenics and others with sever need of help have no problem getting health insurance or holding down jobs. *major sarcasm!*
 
And my response is, same as below.

Revisionist History, Mental Health Patients and Ronald Reagan

>" With the recent Arizona shootings by a mentally deranged person, the revisionist history of Ronald Reagan and his so called "closing down the mental health system" during his reign as governor in California has popped up again. The real story is Reagan had not turned from the dark side when he was governor, and instituted the changes in the mental health system at the behest of progressive reformers of the time.

The blaming of Ronald Reagan for the destruction the mental heath system is typical progressive revisionists history. By the late 1960s, the idea that the mentally ill were not so different from the rest of us, or perhaps were even a little bit more sane, became trendy. Reformers dreamed of taking the mentally ill out of the large institutions and housing them in smaller, community-based residences where they could live more productive and fulfilling lives. Simultaneously, the ACLU was pushing a mental health patients right agenda that resulted in O’Connor v. Donaldson (see below) In 1967, Gov. Ronald Reagan signed the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS), which went into effect in 1969 and quickly became a national model. Among other things, it prohibited forced medication or extended hospital stays without a judicial hearing. The Governor signed a bill inspired by those who clamored for the "civil rights" of the mentally ill to be on the street and who claimed they'd be better off with community counseling.

So no, Reagan, didn't close mental hospitals or put anyone on the street. Progressive views on mental health, a misguided ACLU, and politicians who "know better" did it. Then finally (the last year Reagan was governor), O’Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563 (1975), the Supreme Court found a constitutional right to liberty for mental health patients: "There is...no constitutional basis for confining such persons involuntarily if they are dangerous to no one." With this constitutional recognition, the practice of mental health law became a process of limiting and defining the power of the state to detain and treat. The result was a codification of mental health rights that have done away with non-voluntary commitment except in extreme cases.

Oh, and what happened to the promised Mental Health clinics to aid mental health out patients? They built them and they did not come. Who would have thought that unsupervised mental health patients would make poor life decisions and not utilize the support system that was built for them? Or, a better question is, who in their right mind thought they would? "<

The OSB Politico: Revisionist History, Mental Health Patients and Ronald Reagan

Actually it wasn't politicians and the ACLU. It was also family members that weren't happy their loved ones were basically locked up in mental wards for long periods of time against their will. So I guess you're fine with people locked up for committing no crimes whatsoever! Conservatives truly do care about Liberty!

Reagan drastically cut funding for federal facilities that provided mental health care.

Some facts about individuals with sever mental health disabilities (without care).

They typically have problems holding down a job.
They typically have problems with substance abuse.
They typically have problems with acquiring a long term residence.

What Reagan did was basically privatize mental health care in the US.
 
So you hold the view that someone should be involuntarily commited even if they pose no risk to themselves or others?

There's a pretty wide gap between forcing individuals that have mental health problems into life long confinement and not providing health care to individuals with mental health. Welcome to the privatization of the mental health. I'm sure schizophrenics and others with sever need of help have no problem getting health insurance or holding down jobs. *major sarcasm!*


Got to love the assumptions.

Why yes, I think people should be grabbed off the street if they don't look right, and thrown into a padded cell for the rest of their lives.

The fact is, through the efforts of the ACLU, the insane are allowed to diagnose themselves.

That's a problem that deserves discussion, and not spun into another lame argument for Obamacare.
 
Got to love the assumptions.

Why yes, I think people should be grabbed off the street if they don't look right, and thrown into a padded cell for the rest of their lives.

The fact is, through the efforts of the ACLU, the insane are allowed to diagnose themselves.

That's a problem that deserves discussion, and not spun into another lame argument for Obamacare.

You are attacking court rulings that ended the practice of forcing someone in mental wards. The case itself...the platiff in the case had a pretty good case don't you think? There's no easy fix for how we treat mentally ill individuals. If someone is walking along the road and looks like they need help what do you do? One thing that is a problem is that the state/federal government itself is severely lacking in providing care for individuals that do need help.
 
You are attacking court rulings that ended the practice of forcing someone in mental wards. The case itself...the platiff in the case had a pretty good case don't you think? There's no easy fix for how we treat mentally ill individuals. If someone is walking along the road and looks like they need help what do you do? One thing that is a problem is that the state/federal government itself is severely lacking in providing care for individuals that do need help.

I think the plaintiff had a pretty good case. However, they threw the baby out with the bathwater.

Because of the laws, anyone thought to be mentally unstable can be detained for up to 72 hours without their consent. That's it. The problem is, they usually get the meds they need in that period, and their mental condition stabilizes. Once stable, they usually are allowed to leave, and the cycle starts again.

There is no cumulative effect to this cycling of mentally ill people through health care facilities. They aren't refused care, and they are not kicked out because they lack insurance coverage. The fact is, a person could be cycled through a dozen times and there are no ramifications. There is no "3 strikes and your out" actions.

Only when they do something dramatic, or even tragic, as we have seen recently, do they get institutionalized, assuming they survive their actions.
 
Some facts about individuals with sever mental health disabilities (without care).

They typically have problems holding down a job.
They typically have problems with substance abuse.
They typically have problems with acquiring a long term residence.

.

Sounds like the Democrat Party's base.
 
Back
Top Bottom