Are mass shootings and higher gun deaths an acceptable part of a free society?

[Aberration]

No...almost always granted means that judges almost always cede to the facility except when the individual has an attorney and the attorney can provide compelling legal rationale that the stay would be overturned.

Yes I know. And I dont find it acceptable that the judge cedes his decision making. It makes his role irrelevant.

Much like the FISA court never rejecting anything. Or family court always siding with the mother. Or any other example of improper judicial oversight.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mak2]

So yea, we don't have a chronic healthcare system in the US (that isn't overwhelmed because there is no money in it) and anyone that kills a bunch of people is mentally ill. But I do thank you it got me to read more articles and I plan to read a few of the references I did not have time to right now. Mental health might not be the only problem, but it is one.

In this thread, start with Mak2...the one that brought it up in the first place. Its the same song and dance though every time I see it brought up.

Ive talked about this issue numerous times. (as an example) http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...nce-flares-post1065616916.html#post1065616916
I work in this environment every day of my life. So when I people say "well obviously the problem is mental health" I want to know what THEY mean.

ONE of the very real problems we have with the mental health system is that the programs in my state at least are in place...they are just overwhelmed and not by people that actually need to be there. Every county in the state is covered by a contract provider that provides free care where needed and services to medicare/medicaid recipients. if you want to see the problem go hang out at their facilities on the weekend. You see a lot of people that work the system and fill the dorms but that are not mentally ill. Lazy, incorrigible, malingerers...yes. All? No...but far too many. The resources allocated are spent on people that dont need them. But there ARE community services. MOST of the hospitals have inpatient behavioral health care. There are contract provider assisted living facilities with on site case managers. And there is a state hospital that you really have to earn entry to. Resources are there...but there is no bottomless pit of resources. At some point those capable need to be able to stand up. Where capable, families need to be engaged.

 

[Phys251]

In this thread, start with Mak2...the one that brought it up in the first place. Its the same song and dance though every time I see it brought up.

Ive talked about this issue numerous times. (as an example) http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...nce-flares-post1065616916.html#post1065616916
I work in this environment every day of my life. So when I people say "well obviously the problem is mental health" I want to know what THEY mean.

Ahh. Yes, it is a good question.

ONE of the very real problems we have with the mental health system is that the programs in my state at least are in place...they are just overwhelmed and not by people that actually need to be there. Every county in the state is covered by a contract provider that provides free care where needed and services to medicare/medicaid recipients. if you want to see the problem go hang out at their facilities on the weekend. You see a lot of people that work the system and fill the dorms but that are not mentally ill. Lazy, incorrigible, malingerers...yes. All? No...but far too many. The resources allocated are spent on people that dont need them. But there ARE community services. MOST of the hospitals have inpatient behavioral health care. There are contract provider assisted living facilities with on site case managers. And there is a state hospital that you really have to earn entry to. Resources are there...but there is no bottomless pit of resources. At some point those capable need to be able to stand up. Where capable, families need to be engaged.

Yeah. I know people who deal with mental illness, and every day can be a real struggle for them. You're right, access to resources is so important, as is encouragement by others to seek help.

Another problem is gender-related: There is a higher stigma of boys and men seeking out treatment for mental health. They're told, overtly and covertly, to "suck it up," "be a man," and other toxic messages. I mean, if your leg's broken, should you just suck it up and hop around on one foot? Of course not. You go get treatment. So should it be with injuries to the mind.

 

[Cephus]

But you must admit you have to be crazy to kill a bunch of people. The articles I read didn't actually say they were always nonviolent, just sa their disease wore on year after year and got worse, they became less functional and therefore less violence capable. If we had a better way to diagnose them on initial contact perhaps over the years some lives would be saved, if of course, they were reported.

So you're calling people in the military crazy?

 

[Aberration]

Don't try to overly simplify the very complex situation that is our nation's cluster**** of gun laws. You are aware that Chicagoans can travel just a few miles east to Indiana, where gun regulations are much looser, and buy guns there. Because of the persistence of gun smuggling, gun laws are only as strong as their weakest link.

Also, nowhere--nowhere--did Oliver or I suggest that "mass shootings have nothing to do with mental health issues." You should not accuse us of being dishonest and then turn around and distort the facts. The problem is that "mental illness" tends to be a scapegoat, when it is its own problem in its own right.

No they cant. Not legally. If you purchase a firearm outside the State it must first be transferred to an FFL in their State, and then the background check and 4473 is done at the FFL in your State.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mak2]

:roll:

So you're calling people in the military crazy?

 

[Cephus]

:roll:

I'm just responding to what you said. The military kills a lot of people, it's kind of their job. Are they crazy or do you want to rephrase your statement?

 

[mak2]

No. I don't.

I'm just responding to what you said. The military kills a lot of people, it's kind of their job. Are they crazy or do you want to rephrase your statement?

 

[VanceMack]

Yes I know. And I dont find it acceptable that the judge cedes his decision making. It makes his role irrelevant.

Much like the FISA court never rejecting anything. Or family court always siding with the mother. Or any other example of improper judicial oversight.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Courts tend to trust board certified psychiatrists to make decisions regarding mentally ill individuals.

 

[VanceMack]

If the topic is too deep for you maybe you should just read and avoid attempting to discussing it yourself. YOUR SKILL SET.

I work with the teams at Ft Sam Houston on a regular basis. I attended a week long training in San Antonio in May with several meetings with NAMI Texas. I spent two weeks working with the PTSD center near Ft Hood and with the victim advocacy services at Ft Bliss. I dont pretend to be an expert on the state of mental health services in all of Texas, but want to bet that without you consulting Google I know more about the available services and processes in Texas than you?

 

[Casper]

I work with the teams at Ft Sam Houston on a regular basis. I attended a week long training in San Antonio in May with several meetings with NAMI Texas. I spent two weeks working with the PTSD center near Ft Hood and with the victim advocacy services at Ft Bliss. I dont pretend to be an expert on the state of mental health services in all of Texas, but want to bet that without you consulting Google I know more about the available services and processes in Texas than you?

Yet, you continue to claim that mental health issues are not related to or to blame for many of not most mass shootings and want to continue to repeat the nonsense that further gun control will reduce the instances. Me thinks you are either not willing to address the issue honestly or you have an agenda that does not allow for opinions that show your agenda to be flawed. I expected nothing different.

 

[VanceMack]

Yet, you continue to claim that mental health issues are not related to or to blame for many of not most mass shootings and want to continue to repeat the nonsense that further gun control will reduce the instances. Me thinks you are either not willing to address the issue honestly or you have an agenda that does not allow for opinions that show your agenda to be flawed. I expected nothing different.

Where have I EVER made such claims? Why would you make such a lie? In point of fact, what I HAVE done is asked those claiming "mental health is the problem" to clarify beyond a simple minded talking point.

 

[AGENT J]

There are ways to make them occur less often, but I don't think we will ever stomp them out completely. A good mental health system would be a start.

Anyone who thinks gun control laws will stop mass killings is delusional.

:yt

This and this . . .

Ill say the same thing I always say. AMerica is america, it has to be accessed based on its gun culture and amount of guns we have here. What other places do doesnt apply in anyway really.


That being said the rest goes like this. I fully support gun laws that punish CRIMINALS and ILLEGAL ACTIVITY involving guns
Make it harder for CRIMINALS to get guns and the punishment for ILLEGAL ACTIVITY involving gins worse

any laws that endanger me and my family while EMPOWERING criminals will never get my support.

 

[Aberration]

Courts tend to trust board certified psychiatrists to make decisions regarding mentally ill individuals.

Thats just restating the same thing. There is no point in having a judge then.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Casper]

Where have I EVER made such claims? Why would you make such a lie? In point of fact, what I HAVE done is asked those claiming "mental health is the problem" to clarify beyond a simple minded talking point.

Clarify? Like pointing out the history behind those who have committed mass shootings? Does that mean you have done no research on the topic yourself before discussing a topic? Again, no surprises there.

 

[VanceMack]

Thats just restating the same thing. There is no point in having a judge then.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Its simply the way it is. The med provider cedes to the opinion of the clinical provider. Thats why they call them. The judge cedes to the psychiatrist. Thats why they have them there. Medical doctors are great at fixing the body but typically when it comes to behavioral health they punch silk. Judges are great at the law but when it comes to dangerous mental illness they cede to the psychiatric expert. Ever and always the way. Do you really want a judge...someone with no experience...overruling a psychiatrist?

 

[VanceMack]

Clarify? Like pointing out the history behind those who have committed mass shootings? Does that mean you have done no research on the topic yourself before discussing a topic? Again, no surprises there.

That isnt even REMOTELY related to the comments made about the "real problems in this country are with the mental health system". Are you sure you are even responding to the right topic?
"A good mental health system would be a start."

 

[SMTA]

There is a lot of interesting studies on mental health and guns, the problem is they are usually for gun control, soooo... Even the suggestion Pediatricians asking kids about guns in the home sets the RWers hair on fire.

I spoke with a good friend several months ago, who is a Dr.

He was telling me that in the 60's the great push for personal freedom pretty much destroyed the mental health facilities that were in place then, resulting in the release of most of the patients.

Currently, prisons, especially jails, are the holding tanks for the mentally ill.

He advised me that about 60 to 70% of folks in jail have some type of mental illness, and not all are being treated.

Then factor in the push to release prisoners due to over-crowding and cost savings, and you have our current mental health disaster.

 

[mak2]

and many are homeless.

I spoke with a good friend several months ago, who is a Dr.

He was telling me that in the 60's the great push for personal freedom pretty much destroyed the mental health facilities that were in place then, resulting in the release of most of the patients.

Currently, prisons, especially jails, are the holding tanks for the mentally ill.

He advised me that about 60 to 70% of folks in jail have some type of mental illness, and not all are being treated.

Then factor in the push to release prisoners due to over-crowding and cost savings, and you have our current mental health disaster.

 

[SMTA]

and many are homeless.

Sadly that includes veterans and untreated PTSD.

 

[Casper]

That isnt even REMOTELY related to the comments made about the "real problems in this country are with the mental health system". Are you sure you are even responding to the right topic?
"A good mental health system would be a start."

It is part of the discussion when it comes to dealing with the topic and I have said over and over that this is more a mental health issue when it comes to mass shootings than a gun issue. This is going no where, I am not sure why I keep responding to you since it is obvious you are confused, no problem, I will correct that now...................

 

[VanceMack]

It is part of the discussion when it comes to dealing with the topic and I have said over and over that this is more a mental health issue when it comes to mass shootings than a gun issue. This is going no where, I am not sure why I keep responding to you since it is obvious you are confused, no problem, I will correct that now...................

:lamo

You arent even commenting on the RIGHT issue and someone ELSE is confused? Alright...you run along now.

 

[Casper]

:lamo

You arent even commenting on the RIGHT issue and someone ELSE is confused? Alright...you run along now.

Sorry, your allocated time with Casper has reached its limit on this site.
Have a good day :2wave:

 

[ThoughtEx.]

This is just my opinion, solicited by a poll, and I think Mass Shootings are more a result of a profit driven media giving every nut with a gun 15 minutes on the national stage. It started with a few truly insane individuals, and just like serial killers you get the copycats. And the disenfranchised that see the attention these crazies are getting and work themselves up. The problem with blaming guns is this problem existed before guns did. As a species we are violent, its part of us. And if Guns were not available, well there is this book called the Anarchist Cookbook. There are several volumes...

I think Mass killings are inevitable in any society, I think they can happen less often in ours if we stopped being a stage for every nut to say his peace as long as he kills a few innocent people. And I lend myself to the argument that the presence of more guns in even minded hands would cut back on innocent lives lost. Not to say anyone should carry anywhere, but if you have basic fire arms training and crowd awareness training go ahead carry a piece. Don't flash it around for awe, or to prove a point. Or take a rifle into some mall for your daily shopping. If you can't stop a single gunman with 6 bullets, you should wait for someone who can, shooting anymore and you risk hitting by standards (who will be panicked and confused, could be carrying, and mistake you for the gunman).

And I feel that if this country continues becoming more divided, and because NRA hardliners refusal to have a real discussion, guns will be targeted in earnest. And then with no guns, the crazies will turn to bombs, which are harder to defend against. Or some other new way to kill us, like home made nerve gas. Say what you will, people today can pretty much build anything they have the mind to...

Plus, and this is just a pipe dream, I would really like to bring back legal dueling. Voluntary, of course. But if two people are at odds, and agree to terms they should be allowed to settle it any way they want.

 

[Aberration]

Its simply the way it is. The med provider cedes to the opinion of the clinical provider. Thats why they call them. The judge cedes to the psychiatrist. Thats why they have them there. Medical doctors are great at fixing the body but typically when it comes to behavioral health they punch silk. Judges are great at the law but when it comes to dangerous mental illness they cede to the psychiatric expert. Ever and always the way. Do you really want a judge...someone with no experience...overruling a psychiatrist?

Absolutely I want a judge overruling a psychiatrist. They aren't always right. That's the whole point of the judge being involved. Judges also don't know much about enforcing the law. Imagine if they just ceded their decision power to the LEO.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk