The conversation we ought to have, instead of guns is

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

The conversation we ought to have, instead of guns is

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> The conversation we ought to have, instead of guns is

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

The conversation we ought to have, instead of guns is - 12/14/2012 9:36:50 PM

TheHeretic

Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline

Mental health, as a public health issue.

Instead of focusing all our attention on what tool fell into the wrong hands, wouldn't we do better to talk about the owners of those hands? The most common cause of killing sprees is some guy who decided to go on a killing spree.

Very often, these tragedies come from people we already know to be mentally ill. More money for treatment isn't going to be the only approach we need to take, if we want to address it in a way that will make a difference.

Can we, as a free society, and respectful of individual liberties, force the mentally ill into treatment? Can we mandate the use of medication? Or is the slope simply too slippery to risk?

_____________________________

If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.

Post #: 1

RE: The conversation we ought to have, instead of guns is - 12/14/2012 10:11:59 PM

Kirata

Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Mental health, as a public health issue.

Instead of focusing all our attention on what tool fell into the wrong hands, wouldn't we do better to talk about the owners of those hands? The most common cause of killing sprees is some guy who decided to go on a killing spree.

Very often, these tragedies come from people we already know to be mentally ill. More money for treatment isn't going to be the only approach we need to take, if we want to address it in a way that will make a difference.

Can we, as a free society, and respectful of individual liberties, force the mentally ill into treatment? Can we mandate the use of medication? Or is the slope simply too slippery to risk?

The determinants of the vast majority of violent crimes are cultural and economic. Cases like these are anomalies. And psychological hindsight is cheap. We always find people saying the perpetrator was "weird," or that he was a loner, or that there had been behavior problems at school before -- or that he was always quiet and never got into trouble! -- but you can't predict anything from that.

Nobody sees these things coming. And there's rarely much to go on even in hindsight. I suppose we could enact a law making it mandatory for a citizen to submit to some sort of psychiatric proctology if anybody says he's weird, or if he pulls a prank at school, and perhaps especially if nobody thinks he's weird and he never gets into trouble (those are the ones you have to watch, you know).

But I wouldn't call that a slippery slope. I'd call it the bottom.

K.

< Message edited by Kirata -- 12/14/2012 10:13:07 PM >

(in reply to TheHeretic)

Post #: 2

RE: The conversation we ought to have, instead of guns is - 12/14/2012 10:42:34 PM

jlf1961

Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Mental health, as a public health issue.

Instead of focusing all our attention on what tool fell into the wrong hands, wouldn't we do better to talk about the owners of those hands? The most common cause of killing sprees is some guy who decided to go on a killing spree.

Very often, these tragedies come from people we already know to be mentally ill. More money for treatment isn't going to be the only approach we need to take, if we want to address it in a way that will make a difference.

Can we, as a free society, and respectful of individual liberties, force the mentally ill into treatment? Can we mandate the use of medication? Or is the slope simply too slippery to risk?

The determinants of the vast majority of violent crimes are cultural and economic. Cases like these are anomalies. And psychological hindsight is cheap. We always find people saying the perpetrator was "weird," or that he was a loner, or that there had been behavior problems at school before -- or that he was always quiet and never got into trouble! -- but you can't predict anything from that.

Nobody sees these things coming. And there's rarely much to go on even in hindsight. I suppose we could enact a law making it mandatory for a citizen to submit to some sort of psychiatric proctology if anybody says he's weird, or if he pulls a prank at school, and perhaps especially if nobody thinks he's weird and he never gets into trouble (those are the ones you have to watch, you know).

But I wouldn't call that a slippery slope. I'd call it the bottom.

K.

I remember in Psych 101 in college my professor saying that every person alive has some form of mental disorder, it is the severity that is the problem.

The one incident that comes to mind for your statement about the quiet ones are the ones to watch is, of course, Charles Whitman. From his writings in the period leading up to his rampage, he stated that he thought something was wrong with him. He actually requested an autopsy be performed on him after the police killed him in the last thing he wrote.

He was found to have a brain tumor.

Now the rub, he did not seek help when he started on his downward spiral.

Point?

Simple, for someone to be treated they have to seek help, or someone close to them has to take the steps to get them evaluated. The justice system can only have someone held for 36 hours under current laws for a psych eval, UNLESS the person is acting in such a way that is a danger to himself or someone else.

Finally, it is estimated that the majority of drug addicts are taking drugs to self medicate and cannot get adequate help. Whether that is true or not, I have no clue.

_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to Kirata)

Post #: 3

RE: The conversation we ought to have, instead of guns is - 12/14/2012 11:02:31 PM

VideoAdminTheta

Posts: 3967
Joined: 10/24/2009
Status: offline

Emotions are running high and it is understandable, but I must ask that you all temper your comments and make sure you aren't breaking TOS or guidelines.

Thank you

(in reply to jlf1961)

Post #: 4

RE: The conversation we ought to have, instead of guns is - 12/14/2012 11:08:49 PM

tazzygirl

Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline

quote:

The justice system can only have someone held for 36 hours under current laws for a psych eval, UNLESS the person is acting in such a way that is a danger to himself or someone else.

A typical psych eval is a 72 hour hold. Thats for an involuntary hold. Missouri and Texas can go to 96 hours. Those are business days, btw. All depends on the state.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to jlf1961)

Post #: 5

RE: The conversation we ought to have, instead of guns is - 12/14/2012 11:21:04 PM

jlf1961

Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline

Thanks for the info tazzy.

I had a post removed for a sarcastic plan I suggested in respect to the current government handling of the funding for treatment of mental illness.

I will not detail the plan again, however, I will say that Jonathon Swift responded to the lack of government action the deal with the problems resulting from a famine in Ireland in an essay.

So, I will say this, the lack of action by the federal government in its dealing with the problem of people suffering mental disorders in the country is appalling.

Jonathon Swift responded with an extreme and completely insane proposition to solve the problem. At the time of the famine in Ireland, Great Britain was one of the richest countries/empires in the world, with a lot of excess food being wasted by people with money and power.

His point then as my point is now, that the Government, rather a monarchy or democracy exists to serve the needs of the people.

The treatment of mental illness is not a partisan problem, neither democrat or republican, it is a GOVERNMENT problem, that BOTH parties need to address.

We have the money to spend billions of dollars on the military, actually when you look at the military spending of the top ten nations, the United States accounts for 58% of that total.

And of that amount of money spent on defense, we are not even treating our vets mental illness problems., let alone anyone else.

The Federal and State governments response to the need for treating this problem, ignore it, just as the British Government ignored the problem of starving Irish 283 years ago.

< Message edited by jlf1961 -- 12/15/2012 12:00:01 AM >

_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to tazzygirl)

Post #: 6

RE: The conversation we ought to have, instead of guns is - 12/15/2012 1:19:32 AM

Aswad

Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline

~fr~

I'm not in favor of compulsory treatment, but I do support making universal mental health care available.

This is an area where we're not doing much better in Norway, incidentally.

IWYW,
— Aswad.

_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.

(in reply to TheHeretic)

Post #: 7

RE: The conversation we ought to have, instead of guns is - 12/15/2012 2:06:55 AM

jlf1961

Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

~fr~

I'm not in favor of compulsory treatment, but I do support making universal mental health care available.

This is an area where we're not doing much better in Norway, incidentally.

IWYW,
— Aswad.

I have to agree with you. As I pointed out in the Charles Whitman case, he did not seek help when he started having thoughts that eventually led to the UT tower shootings.

_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to Aswad)

Post #: 8

RE: The conversation we ought to have, instead of guns is - 12/15/2012 2:30:37 AM

meatcleaver

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Mental health, as a public health issue.

Instead of focusing all our attention on what tool fell into the wrong hands, wouldn't we do better to talk about the owners of those hands? The most common cause of killing sprees is some guy who decided to go on a killing spree.

Very often, these tragedies come from people we already know to be mentally ill. More money for treatment isn't going to be the only approach we need to take, if we want to address it in a way that will make a difference.

Can we, as a free society, and respectful of individual liberties, force the mentally ill into treatment? Can we mandate the use of medication? Or is the slope simply too slippery to risk?

We like to make the assumption that rational sane people don't commit what we like to see as senseless masacres but they do. There really isn't that much evidence to suggest perpetrators are anything but sane.

Guns make efficient killing possible so the solution is obvious since no one with vested interests is going to turn an highly individualised and atomised society into a stable collective society.

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to TheHeretic)

Post #: 9

RE: The conversation we ought to have, instead of guns is - 12/15/2012 2:47:19 AM

jlf1961

Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

We like to make the assumption that rational sane people don't commit what we like to see as senseless masacres but they do. There really isn't that much evidence to suggest perpetrators are anything but sane.

Guns make efficient killing possible so the solution is obvious since no one with vested interests is going to turn an highly individualised and atomised society into a stable collective society.

Fact:
At least one of the shooters at Columbine was being treated for mental illness and had a therapeutic amount of zoloft in his system at the time of his death, which meant he had the recommended dosage in his system when he was doing the shooting.

Fact:
Seung-Hui Cho, the shooter at Virginia Tech had a history of mental illness.

Charles Whitman was found to have a brain tumor that affected his sanity and rational behavior.

I could go on, but those are the two that are on the top of my head.

A sane, rational person does not go out and massacre people on a whim.

Hell the first time I was in combat part of my mind was saying that you do not kill other people, and I was under fire.

A sane rational person, given the right circumstances, can and has gone out and killed a single individual. But that is different, maybe. I consider myself sane and rational and today the only way I am going to take another life is in defense of my family.

Now if you can find proof that sane and rational people commit mass murder, the exception being the Nazi SS and the concentration camps, and even then I have doubts about the rational part, please, by all means post them.

_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to meatcleaver)

Post #: 10

RE: The conversation we ought to have, instead of guns is - 12/15/2012 3:44:00 AM

meatcleaver

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

We like to make the assumption that rational sane people don't commit what we like to see as senseless masacres but they do. There really isn't that much evidence to suggest perpetrators are anything but sane.

Guns make efficient killing possible so the solution is obvious since no one with vested interests is going to turn an highly individualised and atomised society into a stable collective society.

Fact:
At least one of the shooters at Columbine was being treated for mental illness and had a therapeutic amount of zoloft in his system at the time of his death, which meant he had the recommended dosage in his system when he was doing the shooting.

Fact:
Seung-Hui Cho, the shooter at Virginia Tech had a history of mental illness.

Charles Whitman was found to have a brain tumor that affected his sanity and rational behavior.

I could go on, but those are the two that are on the top of my head.

A sane, rational person does not go out and massacre people on a whim.

Hell the first time I was in combat part of my mind was saying that you do not kill other people, and I was under fire.

A sane rational person, given the right circumstances, can and has gone out and killed a single individual. But that is different, maybe. I consider myself sane and rational and today the only way I am going to take another life is in defense of my family.

Now if you can find proof that sane and rational people commit mass murder, the exception being the Nazi SS and the concentration camps, and even then I have doubts about the rational part, please, by all means post them.

FACT: Between 25-30% of the western population will experience mental illness in their lives. Being treated for mental illness could be purely incidental to such an incident and not the cause. If mental illness was solely the cause of mass murders, we should be seeing masacres every week.

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to jlf1961)

Post #: 11

RE: The conversation we ought to have, instead of guns is - 12/15/2012 3:46:06 AM

Owner59

Posts: 17033
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Dirty Jersey
Status: offline

[link=http://rosiesaysblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/guns_vs_mental_health_political_cartoon.jpg][/link]
Cartoon by Nick Anderson (The Houston Chronicle)

< Message edited by Owner59 -- 12/15/2012 3:51:47 AM >

_____________________________

"As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals"

President Obama

(in reply to meatcleaver)

Post #: 12

RE: The conversation we ought to have, instead of guns is - 12/15/2012 3:47:54 AM

meatcleaver

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

Outside of any context that statement is a meaningless platitude.

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to Owner59)

Post #: 13

RE: The conversation we ought to have, instead of guns is - 12/15/2012 3:53:09 AM

Owner59

Posts: 17033
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Dirty Jersey
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

Outside of any context that statement is a meaningless platitude.

Having issues posting the cartoon.

http://rosiesaysblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/guns_vs_mental_health_political_cartoon.jpg?w=500&h=368

_____________________________

"As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals"

President Obama

(in reply to meatcleaver)

Post #: 14

RE: The conversation we ought to have, instead of guns is - 12/15/2012 3:59:41 AM

Politesub53

Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Mental health, as a public health issue.

Instead of focusing all our attention on what tool fell into the wrong hands, wouldn't we do better to talk about the owners of those hands? The most common cause of killing sprees is some guy who decided to go on a killing spree.

Very often, these tragedies come from people we already know to be mentally ill. More money for treatment isn't going to be the only approach we need to take, if we want to address it in a way that will make a difference.

Can we, as a free society, and respectful of individual liberties, force the mentally ill into treatment? Can we mandate the use of medication? Or is the slope simply too slippery to risk?

Good post and probably on the right track. Guns Per Se didnt cause yesterdays horrific events but the easy availability certainly contributed. So maybe the answer is for tighter laws, at least for obtaining guns initially.

Here in the UK they closed down the old fashionedand somewhat barbaric mental homes some 30 years ago, and rightly so. The bad point was they came up with the glib plan of "care in the community". This resulted in many of those with problems just being dumped on the streets. The currecnt financial crisis has caused a cutback in services, which has only exacerbated problems. (Which would be just one of the reasons I see getting the finances right as being in the public good)

You touched on liberty, as you often do. Fair enough but in some cases such as mental health and fredom of speech, should the liberties of one person impinge on others. I personally dont see it as draconian to limit certain liberties which danger more than the individual.

(in reply to TheHeretic)

Post #: 15

RE: The conversation we ought to have, instead of guns is - 12/15/2012 4:00:35 AM

meatcleaver

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

Outside of any context that statement is a meaningless platitude.

Having issues posting the cartoon.

http://rosiesaysblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/guns_vs_mental_health_political_cartoon.jpg?w=500&h=368

Now it makes sense.

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to Owner59)

Post #: 16

RE: The conversation we ought to have, instead of guns is - 12/15/2012 4:08:57 AM

Aswad

Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

We like to make the assumption that rational sane people don't commit what we like to see as senseless masacres but they do. There really isn't that much evidence to suggest perpetrators are anything but sane.

On the contrary, in the USA, insanity isn't an uncommon factor.

Mental health correlates with wealth, incidentally, in the absence of universal medical health care.

quote:

Guns make efficient killing possible so the solution is obvious since no one with vested interests is going to turn an highly individualised and atomised society into a stable collective society.

There's no such thing as too high losses in protecting individualisation or preventing the formation of a stable collective society.

As for guns, target shooting and hunting are both interesting and healthy activities.

IWYW,
— Aswad.

_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.

(in reply to meatcleaver)

Post #: 17

RE: The conversation we ought to have, instead of guns is - 12/15/2012 4:19:40 AM

meatcleaver

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

There's no such thing as too high losses in protecting individualisation or preventing the formation of a stable collective society.

As for guns, target shooting and hunting are both interesting and healthy activities.

IWYW,
— Aswad.

You like guns, that is your prerogative but I suspect if your child was killed I suspect you would not come out with such a silly line as there's no such thing as too high loses in protecting individulistaion (whatever that means).

Why not get rid of all state security then, if that is the case?

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to Aswad)

Post #: 18

RE: The conversation we ought to have, instead of guns is - 12/15/2012 4:25:17 AM

Aswad

Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

So maybe the answer is for tighter laws, at least for obtaining guns initially.

Storage. The only incidents of non-premeditated gun violence I can think of, came down to improper storage of a gun. The question of availability isn't about having guns, it's about the wrong people having easy access at the wrong time, which is storage, pretty much by definition. That's like proper use of the footbrake / handbrake on a car when you park it.

In the school shooting that sparked this thread, the weapons belonged to the shooter's mother, as far as I know, and I'm thinking that if there was any reason to suspect her son might be unstable, she should've taken steps to make sure he didn't have access to her guns. I suppose she paid a rather steep price for that mistake, what with getting killed and all.

If storage is taken care of, then gun violence related to crimes of passion, accidents and mental illness is curbed.

quote:

You touched on liberty, as you often do. Fair enough but in some cases such as mental health and fredom of speech, should the liberties of one person impinge on others. I personally dont see it as draconian to limit certain liberties which danger more than the individual.

It's when the crime comes to pass that the liberties of others are impinged on.

It's when the restriction gets imposed that the liberties of the one is impinged on.

Don't throw the first stone; it puts us in the wrong, where we should seek not to be.

IWYW,
— Aswad.

_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.

(in reply to Politesub53)

Post #: 19

RE: The conversation we ought to have, instead of guns is - 12/15/2012 4:34:03 AM

Aswad

Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

You like guns, that is your prerogative but I suspect if your child was killed I suspect you would not come out with such a silly line as there's no such thing as too high loses in protecting individulistaion (whatever that means).

I've lost a friend to a shooting, meatcleaver, and I've been shot myself.

I can assure you I'm not eager to experience either again.

Doesn't change my priorities in life, though.

quote:

Why not get rid of all state security then, if that is the case?

Because a bunch of asshats regularly confer on themselves the "right" to feel "safe", at the expense of my liberties.

IWYW,
— Aswad.

_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.

(in reply to meatcleaver)

Post #: 20

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> The conversation we ought to have, instead of guns is

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.109