Gun Control Works Again

[Midnightrider]

Regardless how you or I feel about the NRA, do you think think these gun control bills that passed in liberal states would have been more, or less, restricting if it weren't for the NRA?

they would be more restrictive, and thats the point. The NRA has worked to soften gun laws with respect to mental health issues. We cant hold up incidents like this as examples of gun control failure (like the OP is tryign to do) and ignore the fact that gun rights advocates stand in the way of common sense laws.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

they would be more restrictive, and thats the point. The NRA has worked to soften gun laws with respect to mental health issues. We cant hold up incidents like this as examples of gun control failure (like the OP is tryign to do) and ignore the fact that gun rights advocates stand in the way of common sense laws.

Well, forgive us if our version of "common sense laws" differ from yours, and our politicians.

I have no doubt that without the NRA, we'd have much stronger gun control. That's coming from someone who is not, and has never been, a NRA member. nor will I ever become one.

 

[Gilligan]

they would be more restrictive, and thats the point. The NRA has worked to soften gun laws with respect to mental health issues. We cant hold up incidents like this as examples of gun control failure (like the OP is tryign to do) and ignore the fact that gun rights advocates stand in the way of common sense laws.

So, using this incident as an example, what specific missing "mental health" provisions in the laws would have changed the outcome and prevented the carnage?

 

[officeguy]

Mental health provisions only make sense if there is a mental health system.

 

[Gilligan]

Mental health provisions only make sense if there is a mental health system.

What don't we have now? I can find plenty of mental health care providers in the local yellow pages. There is at least part of an entire floor at St. Mary's Hospital that is devoted to treating mental health problems...

 

[PsyOps]

Well, forgive us if our version of "common sense laws" differ from yours, and our politicians.

I have no doubt that without the NRA, we'd have much stronger gun control. That's coming from someone who is not, and has never been, a NRA member. nor will I ever become one.

It doesn't much matter. People like Midnight will get their way and more laws will be passed that might address the mental health issue and their access to guns, and people with mental health problems will still get guns (whatever other weapon they can get their hands on) and kill people; and people like Midnight will demand even more gun control laws that won't work. Rather than deal with mental health and getting them real help - the real problem - they remain fixated on the gun.

 

[PsyOps]

What don't we have now? I can find plenty of mental health care providers in the local yellow pages. There is at least part of an entire floor at St. Mary's Hospital that is devoted to treating mental health problems...

What we don't have is a stronger attention how we deal with people with severe mental health problems. When I say 'institutionalize, Midnight gets all with "you don't want your rights violated but you'll violate the rights of the mentally by locking them up"; which is NOT what I am proposing at all. Lindsay Lohan was order into rehab. She went to a plush facility to get treatment. People with addiction problems don't get locked up in dank, dingy facilities like 'One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest'. They go to places that are designed with environments conducive for healing. This is how we should handle the mentally ill. They are sick. I am even for having my tax dollars help pay for it because I believe it's something that is being for the greater good of society. But we have to do something with people that are identified with severe mental illness. We can't just keep diagnosing them, fill them up with pills they probably won't even take, and throw them back into society. You can try to restrict access to guns all you want; this has proven not to solve the problem.

 

[Gilligan]

What we don't have is a stronger attention how we deal with people with severe mental health problems. When I say 'institutionalize, Midnight get all with "you don't want your rights violated but you'll violate the rights of the mentally by locking them up"; which is NOT what I am proposing at all. Lindsay Lohan was order into rehab. She went to a plush facility to get treatment. People with addiction problems don't get locked up in dank, dingy facilities like 'One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest'. They go to places that are designed with environments conducive for healing. This is how we should handle the mentally ill. They are sick. I am even for having my tax dollars help pay for it because I believe it's something that is being for the greater good of society. But we have to do something with people that are identified with severe mental illness. We can't just keep diagnosing them, fill them up with pills they probably won't even take, and throw them back into society. You can try to restrict access to guns all you want; this has proven not to solve the problem.

I didn't see much in way of specifics in there. What "mystery mechanism" is to be invented that searches out, designates and processes the elusive "mentally ill". Seriously. Who runs it?..who would be in charge? Who defines the "lock em up" thresholds?

 

[protectmd]

Mental health provisions only make sense if theres a checks and balances system to ensure they are working. Consider this.

Unless individuals who are unfit to possess/carry firearms are actually identified, the reality is... theres nothing going to stop them from doing that. While laws don't prevent crime or even prevent evildoers from enacting their plans of violence, the very least the mental health system can do is identify those who are unfit to drive a vehicle, possess a firearm, etc, even if they aren't willing to commit that individual to a long term care facility. Do you want someone who's having violent thoughts driving a hazardous materials tanker daily? Do you want that person to be able to walk into a store and go purchase tons of ammunition and firearms? While I agree theres a fine balance between determining who should possess a firearm and not violating the rights of society at large, everyone can agree that these individuals did not develop their deep seated mental health issues overnight. One could also agree, that if the military is willing to pull an individual who is mentally unfit for duty from the ranks and to prevent them from possessing a weapon until they receive treatment, then surely law enforcement, lawmakers, and mental health workers can work on creating a system that identifies, treats, and makes sure that those who are unfit to possess weapons are not able to do so, to assist in preventing further acts of violence.

Maybe gun store owners should be required to go to training to identify individuals who are possible need of mental assistance to prevent future acts. For example, a firearms store owner probably shouldn't sell a gun to somoene who has cuts up and down their arms in various stages of healing, and appears/talks like they are depressed. While most gun store owners have "common sense" there are others out there who worship the almighty dollar, and will sell to just about anyone with a clean background check, despite whats presented in front of them.

A plan must be created and enacted to at least prevent those with serious mental illness from possessing a firearm. Thats simply a reality. One that balances the rights of the citizens and gun owners, to those who shouldn't have firearms. If society continues to do nothing, it feeds into the argument that these people "LEGITIMATELY" possessed and carried the gun when they committed acts of violence. This is how the far left lumps gun owners in with the crazies, because they say "See, you push to ensure everyone has access to a firearm, and now look with the mentally ill guy or violent criminal went and did!" The whole "I told you so" mentality catches momentum and its downhill from there.

Lastly, a concealed carry system needs to be worked into play in these states where these events are occurring to give citizens the means and right to defend themselves. These dirtbags pick gun free zones to carry out their evil plans because they know that theres little to no chance of them being stopped. Military bases, hospitals, nursing homes, daycares, shopping malls with "No guns allowed" signs all have become safe havens for criminals and crazies who intend to do bad things in a victim rich environment. If no one is allowed to carry a firearm, and the facility cannot be staffed with the proper amount of security personnel, who will put a stop to these events when they take place? The reality is no one. There isn't a big lawsuit against Malls of America for banning guns from their mall and failing to provide proper security staff who are armed to deal with the threats that they face. Nobody sues police departments for maintaining poor staffing levels that contributes to high death/casualty rates in violent incidents like these. Police aren't required to take action when your life is on the line, per Warren Vs. DC. Its up to the citizen to provide their own means of self defense. Thats what this boils down to.

 

[Gilligan]

A plan must be created and enacted to at least prevent those with serious mental illness from possessing a firearm. Thats simply a reality. .

I keep asking the question but nobody has even tried to answer it: What does "the plan" look like?..what could/would/should it include? Who implements the plan? Who enforces it?

The incident we are focusing on right illustrates how difficult this issue really is...police visited the young man to interview him and walked away satisfied that he did not meet the criteria for an involuntary hold. What part of a "plan" would have changed that?

I don't think any rational thinking person wants people with debilitating mental issues to own handguns. I sure don't. But the "we need to do something" crowd always rushes in to this argument with absolutely nothing of substance that I can see. Too many "magic" things would have to happen for the problem to be solved even partially.

 

[Larry Gude]

I keep asking the question but nobody has even tried to answer it: What does "the plan" look like?..what could/would/should it include? Who implements the plan? Who enforces it?

The incident we are focusing on right illustrates how difficult this issue really is...police visited the young man to interview him and walked away satisfied that he did not meet the criteria for an involuntary hold. What part of a "plan" would have changed that?

I don't think any rational thinking person wants people with debilitating mental issues to own handguns. I sure don't. But the "we need to do something" crowd always rushes in to this argument with absolutely nothing of substance that I can see. Too many "magic" things would have to happen for the problem to be solved even partially.

The issue, supposedly, is privacy, ones personal health records. That's a straw man. This kids parents, not his doctors, would have, it seems, done whatever was necessary to report him to whomever in order to get him some more help, including having his guns taken and forced into treatment.

It is absurd to say we can't violate people's health privacy, at all, nor deal with involuntary commitment to a treatment facility and then turn around and violate EVERYONE'S second amendment rights as well as their 5th.

This incident sets the issue in stone; the knives make it clear. This is about behavior, period. Not tools. Time after time, it is people with mental health issues and it is only sane and reasonable to start implementing procedures where doctors, family members, friends and neighbors can start making complaints and lodging concerns that, taken together, allow cops to actually protect the public from people with serious issues.

It is time to do away with this right to privacy when it comes to mental health. The counter is 'people will be reluctant to seek treatment' to which I counter that co workers, bosses, doctors, family members, neighbors, will fill that gap. None of the famous killers were known ONLY to their doctors.

From there, if someone seeks treatment and is fine, say a stressful period, divorce, job loss or whatever, they're either eligible to regain second amendment rights assuming a high enough threshold, say, a credible threat to kill themselves or the old lady or what have you, not just a fight or a bad night or whatever, and start working it from there.

We're sure at a stand still that proves the pointlessness of gun control. Mental health privacy needs to start having levels of issues, some sort of grading and score keeping that has thresholds where you're nuttiness becomes the publics business.

 

[Larry Gude]

Mental health provisions only make sense if theres a checks and balances system to ensure they are working. Consider this.

Unless individuals who are unfit to possess/carry firearms are actually identified, the reality is... theres nothing going to stop them from doing that. While laws don't prevent crime or even prevent evildoers from enacting their plans of violence, the very least the mental health system can do is identify those who are unfit to drive a vehicle, possess a firearm, etc, even if they aren't willing to commit that individual to a long term care facility. Do you want someone who's having violent thoughts driving a hazardous materials tanker daily? Do you want that person to be able to walk into a store and go purchase tons of ammunition and firearms? While I agree theres a fine balance between determining who should possess a firearm and not violating the rights of society at large, everyone can agree that these individuals did not develop their deep seated mental health issues overnight. One could also agree, that if the military is willing to pull an individual who is mentally unfit for duty from the ranks and to prevent them from possessing a weapon until they receive treatment, then surely law enforcement, lawmakers, and mental health workers can work on creating a system that identifies, treats, and makes sure that those who are unfit to possess weapons are not able to do so, to assist in preventing further acts of violence.

Maybe gun store owners should be required to go to training to identify individuals who are possible need of mental assistance to prevent future acts. For example, a firearms store owner probably shouldn't sell a gun to somoene who has cuts up and down their arms in various stages of healing, and appears/talks like they are depressed. While most gun store owners have "common sense" there are others out there who worship the almighty dollar, and will sell to just about anyone with a clean background check, despite whats presented in front of them.

A plan must be created and enacted to at least prevent those with serious mental illness from possessing a firearm. Thats simply a reality. One that balances the rights of the citizens and gun owners, to those who shouldn't have firearms. If society continues to do nothing, it feeds into the argument that these people "LEGITIMATELY" possessed and carried the gun when they committed acts of violence. This is how the far left lumps gun owners in with the crazies, because they say "See, you push to ensure everyone has access to a firearm, and now look with the mentally ill guy or violent criminal went and did!" The whole "I told you so" mentality catches momentum and its downhill from there.

Lastly, a concealed carry system needs to be worked into play in these states where these events are occurring to give citizens the means and right to defend themselves. These dirtbags pick gun free zones to carry out their evil plans because they know that theres little to no chance of them being stopped. Military bases, hospitals, nursing homes, daycares, shopping malls with "No guns allowed" signs all have become safe havens for criminals and crazies who intend to do bad things in a victim rich environment. If no one is allowed to carry a firearm, and the facility cannot be staffed with the proper amount of security personnel, who will put a stop to these events when they take place? The reality is no one. There isn't a big lawsuit against Malls of America for banning guns from their mall and failing to provide proper security staff who are armed to deal with the threats that they face. Nobody sues police departments for maintaining poor staffing levels that contributes to high death/casualty rates in violent incidents like these. Police aren't required to take action when your life is on the line, per Warren Vs. DC. Its up to the citizen to provide their own means of self defense. Thats what this boils down to.

That. Good post.

 

[Gilligan]

It is absurd to say we can't violate people's health privacy, at all, nor deal with involuntary commitment to a treatment facility and then turn around and violate EVERYONE'S second amendment rights as well as their 5th.

I guess what I'm really talking about are all the people running around out there, chasing the imaginary butterflies and arguing with the voices in their head, that have little to no mental health "record". Everyone keeps talking about making plans when the most fundamental missing piece of it all is the nonexistence of some magical "population filter" that everyone would have to pass through, like an airport metal detector.

Them: "Come on through, sir..that's right, just walk through normally"...... BRRRRRRTTT! "Step over here, sir!...Restraint Officer!..I need a Restraint Officer over here!"
Me: "crap"

 

[Larry Gude]

I guess what I'm really talking about are all the people running around out there, chasing the imaginary butterflies and arguing with the voices in their head, that have little to no mental health "record". Everyone keeps talking about making plans when the most fundamental missing piece of it all is the nonexistence of some magical "population filter" that everyone would have to pass through, like an airport metal detector.

Them: "Come on through, sir..that's right, just walk through normally"...... BRRRRRRTTT! "Step over here, sir!...Restraint Officer!..I need a Restraint Officer over here!"
Me: "crap"

I get that and that is certainly a concern and I have ZERO confidence we, via government, will do this properly but, like most things policy wise, there is a right way to do this and it really isn't that hard. All of our 'celebrity' mass murders were WELL past chasing butterflies before they killed. Shui, Loughner, this kid, Lanza. I mean, we're stuck in a catch 22; a culture that argues in favor of protecting individual rights by violating everyone's. We've truly become socialists if not communists. We think in terms of a murder being a tragedy and a million murders being a statistic.

Violating some mentally ####ed up persons health privacy is an outrage. Violating everyone's rights is sound policy.

We're so effed up.

 

[Gilligan]

We've truly become socialists if not communists. .

What mean "we", white man?

 

[PsyOps]

I didn't see much in way of specifics in there. What "mystery mechanism" is to be invented that searches out, designates and processes the elusive "mentally ill". Seriously. Who runs it?..who would be in charge? Who defines the "lock em up" thresholds?

Nothing like this just happens. There is no way for any system to know who is what out there unless it is reported in some way. In Rodger’s situation, I’m getting there was plenty knowledge of who he was long before this happened. We have to rely on reporting. Were the parents really to know Elliot would do something like this? THAT’S what makes it pretty impossible. No parent wants to have their kid committed for anything. If Elliot had been addicted to cocaine do you think the parents would have gone through the effort of an intervention and had him in rehab? Why don’t we treat mental heath the same way? The problem is, you’ll have angry wives or husbands reporting their spouse is crazy, even when they’re not, and the cops show up, take their guns, and haul them in for a psyche eval. So is there really a perfect answer? I don’t think so.

Sometimes you have to say “this is the cost of living in a free society”. We either eliminate all forms of potential weapons that can be used in mass murder, live in a police state where everyone is watched and forced to have evaluations; or we keep our free society and take the risk of things going wrong. I choose the latter.

 

[Larry Gude]

What mean "we", white man?

Generic. And see, that raises another point whether you meant to or not. People like Obama, Feinstein, Hillary, Dubbya, Hispanics, a LOT of immigrants, the entire leadership of the Too Big To Fail culture, Geithner, Paulson, Bernanke, they do NOT hold the same views of socialism and communism as our culture, traditionally, did.

 

[Gilligan]

We have to rely on reporting.

There is a lot of precedent for that. In North Korea, for example, everyone reports on practically everyone else. Kid's on their parents, parents on their kids, neighbors on each other....and so on. It's supposed to be quite effective.

 

[Larry Gude]

There is a lot of precedent for that. In North Korea, for example, everyone reports on practically everyone else. Kid's on their parents, parents on their kids, neighbors on each other....and so on. It's supposed to be quite effective.

Well, when you put it that way....

 

[Midnightrider]

Nothing like this just happens. There is no way for any system to know who is what out there unless it is reported in some way. In Rodger’s situation, I’m getting there was plenty knowledge of who he was long before this happened. We have to rely on reporting. Were the parents really to know Elliot would do something like this? THAT’S what makes it pretty impossible. No parent wants to have their kid committed for anything. If Elliot had been addicted to cocaine do you think the parents would have gone through the effort of an intervention and had him in rehab? Why don’t we treat mental heath the same way? The problem is, you’ll have angry wives or husbands reporting their spouse is crazy, even when they’re not, and the cops show up, take their guns, and haul them in for a psyche eval. So is there really a perfect answer? I don’t think so.

Sometimes you have to say “this is the cost of living in a free society”. We either eliminate all forms of potential weapons that can be used in mass murder, live in a police state where everyone is watched and forced to have evaluations; or we keep our free society and take the risk of things going wrong. I choose the latter.

There is no cure for schizophrenia. There is no cure for Aspergers. The only way your system would work is locking them up forever. That isn't a free society and would certainly be abused.