• 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!

The good guys need some counseling (1 Viewer)

Remember when 26 people (including 29 young students) were killed by shooter Adam Lanza at Sandy Hook? That was less than two years ago and it was the last time I've seen NRA Executive Vice President and Primary Gun Pimp Wayne Lapierre on national television. When I last saw him, he was, as usual, trying to change the subject. Since America leads the civilized world in gun deaths, it wasn't the guns that caused these deaths, it was that we need better mental health service because we have so many crazy people. I agree that we have a lot of crazy people but I would opine that many of the crazy people think they need guns to protect themselves from the ever present governtal, left wing, bogeyman in their neighborhood. These people do need professional help but they're too busy being American Patriots and trying on NRA baseball caps. The truth is, Lapierre may have, in the short term, won the argument. In most places, we Americans seem to be just fine with all the accidental shootings because we are so misguided that we believe that Obama wants to take our guns away and having as many guns as possible insulates us from some non exitant threat.

This past week, an item was released in the media that dealt with the fact that Adam Lanza had all sorts mental issues. He first spent time with a psychologist in 2005 or 6. A year later, he was seen at the Yale Child Study Center. It was acknowledged that he needed intensive counseling but that's where it ended. His family didn't agree and so little or nothing was done until that tragic December day in 2012 when Adam ended up dead along with the 26 innocent people that he killed. So much for getting some help with his problem. That's what's wrong with Lapierre's "pass the buck" philospophy when it comes to gun violence. In America, you can't force anyone who hasn't committed a crime to get counseling unless you go through a very lengthy process. In Adam Lanza's case the procedure would have had to have been initiated by his parents. But you can limit access to the gun(s) they might use to harm innocent people relatively simply.

Within the last week, Myron May went on a shooting spree in the library at Florida State University. Early in October, his girlfriend had contacted the Las Cruses, New Mexica police to tell them he was exhibiting signs of "a severe mental disorder." The police did nothing. So much for mental health counseling or treatment.

Wayne Lapierre and his ilk like to say that the best way to combat a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. So, just who are these "good guys?" In Myron May's cases, they were cops who weren't interested. All too often, Lapierre's good guys are lazy, unmotivated people with limited intellectual skills just trying to collect a paycheck. We could, of course, do what they do in other civilized countries that don't have our gun problem. We could just take the guns away!
 
As you said, it's very hard to lock up someone for mental health reasons unless they're caught being a danger to themselves or others. IMO that's as it should be, because there has been some ugly history regarding the abuse of authority by sending "inconvenient" people to mental hospitals.

However, it's totally reasonable to prohibit people who have certain mental health issues from buying a firearm.
 
DifferentDrummr;bt2940 said:
As you said, it's very hard to lock up someone for mental health reasons unless they're caught being a danger to themselves or others. IMO that's as it should be, because there has been some ugly history regarding the abuse of authority by sending "inconvenient" people to mental hospitals.

However, it's totally reasonable to prohibit people who have certain mental health issues from buying a firearm.
I think we're pretty close on this. I just wonder who is qualified to see into the future and determine who could be a threat unless they have already either broken the law or exibited irrational behavior. Please also remember that the person making that determination should be intelligent, professional, and unlike many in law enforcement, awake!
 
Just take guns away? Right, don't worry about that pesky Bill of Rights or the fact that my guns are my personal property that I dare you to try to take.
 
CRUE CAB;bt2943 said:
And how is the NRA part of this?
Did I say take your beloved guns away? Actually, as long as I don't have to deal with you, I want you to have as many guns as possible. Every time you bring a gun into your house, the chance of someone who lives in your house being injured or killed by a gun shot increases. Did you just see how a gun nut in Washington state's three year old son was shot in the face with one of Daddy's guns? If you elect to put your family at risk, that's up to you. My issue was/is that talking about mental health is just gun pimps changing the subject again. Truth is, anyone who needs a gun to justify their being needs to be evaluated. My condolences to you and yours
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom