Mass shootings

[barnbwt]

I don't think too many people with OCD got locked up even in the old days. Though untreated, a condition could conceivably degenerate to the point where committal was necessary. Look at Howard Hughes. Toward the end of his life, he probably should have been, but his money and the power that comes with it shielded him from that. But conditions like that are entirely treatable without committal.

He never went on a mass-shooting, though, did he? He also accomplished much of his most important feats after the point people realized he was in serious trouble. Drug abuse from self-medication was ultimately what got to him. I'm also not sure 'treatment' was much of an option back then; shock, lobotomy, and sedatives were pretty much the rule of the day (which was the real reason Cuckoo's Nest was so alarming to people, when they realized just how ineffective treatment was, and how the facilities were really no more than prisons with severe latitude in modifying inmate behavior). Since we supposedly do have better legitimate treatment options, now (still somewhat debatable), mental health treatment is closer to actual treatment than ever. From that perspective, it does actually make more sense to process patients the way we do (in the past, the clinical aspect was closer to window-dressing)

It's a failing of the system.

What, specifically, is the failing? This is where knee-jerk responses fail; specifics. We're gonna write legislation to address this, so what specifically should be fixed? Dump more people into the system we have? Triage more borderline cases as requiring committal? Make enforcement more diligent in picking up people suspected of needing committal?

There are violent people as well, some of whom had a history of mental health issues, and many of whose relatives have tried to get them forced into treatment, but are powerless to do so under the current system.

I keep hearing this, but I don't understand how a violent history doesn't get you off the streets --in jail, if nowhere else. Sounds like a failing of the enforcement or penal structures. I keep saying, if we properly punished people who commit violence, we wouldn't have these same folks contributing to the numbers again and again. Every time someone reoffends, the multiply the 'latent' crime rate of humans by 2. Or, perhaps, the families seek psychiatric committal in the hope of a 'cure' for what is actually criminal or evil tendencies? In that case, it's a problem with using the wrong tool for the job and no reform will help.

The fact that many people who aren't violent, but are still so severely mentally ill they need to be treated, even against their will, is a bonus.

That's not why people are involuntarily committed, btw. That same justification can be used to starve the obese. Bonus, right?

Abuses are always possible, but that's true in any area where some people are given authority over others. That's no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water.

But logically, is that not a reason to limit the authority people have over others where possible?

TCB

 

[Billy Shears]

What, specifically, is the failing? This is where knee-jerk responses fail; specifics. We're gonna write legislation to address this, so what specifically should be fixed? Dump more people into the system we have? Triage more borderline cases as requiring committal? Make enforcement more diligent in picking up people suspected of needing committal?

What specifically is the failing? Are you kidding? When a person is wandering around, mostly unable to string coherent sentences together, neglecting her health to the point of having a serious, potentially life-threatening infection, that will almost certainly turn gangrenous, and you can't commit her... There is a problem with the criteria in this case.

I keep hearing this, but I don't understand how a violent history doesn't get you off the streets --in jail, if nowhere else. Sounds like a failing of the enforcement or penal structures. I keep saying, if we properly punished people who commit violence, we wouldn't have these same folks contributing to the numbers again and again. Every time someone reoffends, the multiply the 'latent' crime rate of humans by 2. Or, perhaps, the families seek psychiatric committal in the hope of a 'cure' for what is actually criminal or evil tendencies? In that case, it's a problem with using the wrong tool for the job and no reform will help.

Your statement presumes rational calculation on the part of the person being punished. The current system commits people involuntarily for mostly very short periods, even when they are violent. Then they're back out again. When I came out of the detective bureau in September, one of my first days back in patrol, we had to use a taser on a mental patient who came at me and my partner with a broken off chair leg. He's actually assaulted people before as well, not just attempted it. He's back out on the street right now. But he's usually okay while he's on his meds. Problem is he doesn't stay on them for long once he's out. Punishing him is no good -- it's not just that he's not rational, and its inhumane to punish people when they don't know right from wrong; from a legal standpoint, you can't prove criminal intent on the part of someone in his condition. He's an excellent candidate for long-term committal, but the current system pretty much precludes that.

That's not why people are involuntarily committed, btw. That same justification can be used to starve the obese. Bonus, right?

Yes, I know that Captain Obvious; I'm well aware of what the current criteria are. And they are too loose. The old standards may have been a little too broadly encompassing, but the current ones are way to loose. And obesity is not mental illness. Let's not make false analogies. It's a fallacy and it's not helpful.

But logically, is that not a reason to limit the authority people have over others where possible?

Yes, and we do. That's why there are laws and departmental procedures governing things like when a police officer can use force, even lethal force against you. But because police can abuse their authority, does that mean that they should have almost all of it taken away? Sure, you won't have nearly as many excessive force complaints, and lots fewer innocent people will get locked up. Is that a trade off you want to make?

Limits can be too restrictive as well as not restrictive enough. You have to make the best tradeoff you can. Right now, as it is, the criteria for involuntary committal are too restrictive, and it has led to people who should be committed roaming around loose. That doesn't mean we should return to the exact set of criteria we had before 1981, but it does mean we should make them more restrictive than they are now.

 

[JRH6856]

And obesity is not mental illness. Let's not make false analogies. It's a fallacy and it's not helpful.

While this argument is going on here regarding mental health, out in the real world, the discussion has moved on to behavioral health. This is the new preferred terminology as it is a more all-encompassing term. Where mental health covers many of the same issues as behavioral health, it only refers to the biological component of this aspect of wellness. The term, “behavioral health” encompasses all contributions to mental wellness including substances use, behavior, habits, and other external forces.

Yes, obesity is included in behavioral health. Can you think of any other behaviors and habits that might be included?

 

[RPRNY]

1) one cannot make the world "safe" by legislation

2) granting that government which lies, and covers up its lies, about its inability to provide decent medical care for our veterans and which uses IRS agents to enforce health policy, wider authority to incarcerate people based on the government's interpretation of mental or behavioral health standards is, in a word, insane

3) we have a justice system based on the belief that it is better that 10 guilty men go free rather than that one innocent man be unjustly jailed. Why should we risk the unjust Incarceration of one sane man so that liberals can feel more comfortable about packing their kids off to college?

4) mass shootings are awful. And yet, far far less deadly than salmonella poisoning. Fewer than 100 people a year are killed in mass shootings. If saving lives is so important, why is anyone who has ever used alcohol allowed to own or operate a vehicle? Prohibiting this would save many more than 100 lives per year and would almost eradicate the leading preventable cause of death among under 14 year olds. And driving is not a constitutionally protected right

 

[Sentryau2]

Look its simple really even if it might not be 100% effective we have to try something not just sit back and say oops its always going to happen we can't completely stop it so we shouldn't try. We can either try something to limit the damage that can be done or try to fight the antis off in a losing battle because the public opinion shifts because they see it as us not caring. Part of me wonders tho that if another bombing attack might just drive the point home that violence will always happen no matter what legislation is passed.

I'm up for solving actual problems (why would you leave a building full of kids unprotected) When I was in school it took the police 20mins to respond to a bomb threat. Posted armed guards would limit the damage that can be done. Removing gun free zones means that a shooter doesn't know if hell run into an armed person or not.

If we can't solve the problem lets limit the damage.

 

[Billy Shears]

1) one cannot make the world "safe" by legislation

Then explain to me why we have laws against murder, or laws governing the operation of motor vehicles, or laws about workplace safety. We can't make the world safe by legislation after all, so why bother?

You can't make the world safe, but you can make it safer. Doing nothing because anything you do can't be 100 percent effective is childish petulance masquerading as realism.

2) granting that government which lies, and covers up its lies, about its inability to provide decent medical care for our veterans and which uses IRS agents to enforce health policy, wider authority to incarcerate people based on the government's interpretation of mental or behavioral health standards is, in a word, insane

And yet you have no problem with letting that same government lock people up based on the government's interpretation of laws and lawbreaking. Laws that the government itself enacts and enforces yet.

What's actually insane is maintaining a system that has people like Joe and Amy Bruce struggling for years to get the system to force their son into treatment when he wouldn't cooperate, and living in constant fear of him, until finally, Mr. Bruce comes home one day to find his son has had yet another psychotic episode, this one worse than any before, and has hacked Amy Bruce to death with a hatchet.

But yeah, your right, it would just be insane to lock people like that up. Far better to continue going the way things are now.

3) we have a justice system based on the belief that it is better that 10 guilty men go free rather than that one innocent man be unjustly jailed. Why should we risk the unjust Incarceration of one sane man so that liberals can feel more comfortable about packing their kids off to college?

So when I say that someone like Aaron Alexis, who was hearing voices, should have been committed, it's because I want to make liberals feel better about sending their kids to college as opposed to, oh, I don't know, removing actually dangerous people from our midst?

4) mass shootings are awful. And yet, far far less deadly than salmonella poisoning. Fewer than 100 people a year are killed in mass shootings. If saving lives is so important, why is anyone who has ever used alcohol allowed to own or operate a vehicle? Prohibiting this would save many more than 100 lives per year and would almost eradicate the leading preventable cause of death among under 14 year olds. And driving is not a constitutionally protected right

Because like it or not, whether you think its rational or not, people are willing to make that trade off for the sake of enjoying the convenience and the freedom owning a car brings them, and being able to drive wherever they wish, whenever they wish. Hundreds of thousands of deaths per year on the roads doesn't change that. But let there be one spectacular airline crash, with a few hundred casualties, and don't be surprised if people start pushing for changes to regulations that govern airlines. And it matters not a damn that flying is statistically far and away the safest way to travel, and you are vastly more likely to be killed on the drive to and from the airport than you are in a plane crash. The airline crashes are big, spectacular, newsworthy events, so one plane crash with a comparatively tiny body count will stand out in the public awareness far more than thousands of individual (and unreported by the media) car crashes. Look at how much news coverage was devoted to the Malaysian airliner disappearance.

Mass shootings are a lot like airplane crashes. They're actually rare, and the number of deaths from them is small, and if you could somehow prevent every last one it would have absolutely no noticeable effect on the overall crime statistics. But a mass shooting is a spectacular, and newsworthy event, and the media will report it death, so these things have a presence in the public awareness far out of proportion to their actual impact. Don't imagine for a microsecond that the voters won't react to that, or can't be made to by anti-gun politicians exploiting these tragedies. Human beings aren't persuaded by reason and logic, they're swayed by emotion.

 

[Bobson]

Well, I'm pretty darn late to this party, but would like to add something anyway.

IMO, the best thing we can do, as a society, is recognize that no amount of legislation can ever keep us safe. Some of us recognize that on our own, others need help recognizing it. So speak up and shed light on that area to your friends. Washington state has an important vote coming up in November (I-594), and I've already won over two specific people I know who were sitting on the fence. All I did is briefly brought light to the fact that protection/safety is each individual's own responsibility, and it was like the lights just came on. These are people who really don't care for firearms and so far, don't own any. Now they're siding with me on the gun issue.

Once a person realizes his safety is his own responsibility, I think he's more likely to realize measures need to be taken in that direction. That means firearm ownership, training, etc. These are big steps for fence-sitters, and getting them on the pro-2A side is no insignificant benefit to the cause.

I believe the best thing we can do to combat mass shootings, aside from tactfully encouraging the media to stop publicizing violent crime, is to start demanding repeals of gun free zones. It can't be difficult to get people to realize that gun free zone and helpless victim zone are synonymous. What we need to make this happen is people to start seeing the truth about it.

The elimination of Gun Free Zones - in their entirety - ought to be our absolute primary effort as informed, logical people. We are gun enthusiasts, we are concerned with our ability to protect ourselves and our families - but before those things, we're just people trying to make this world a better place, as corny as that sounds. We need to be clear with people about what our goals are, and be clear and convincing in our arguments. Eventually, logic and reason can overcome emotional response to crime. We just need to go about it properly.

 

[RPRNY]

Billy, we already do quite a lot about it. There is a National Firearms Act, there is a Gun Control Act and there or thousands of other Federal, State and Local laws and regulations that govern firearms, firearm owners, and firearm ownership. It is not that it is unregulated.

Ultimately, it is not the government that interprets laws, but a jury of my peers, precisely because we do not trust the government to do so. Broadening the power of the government to commit those it deems mentally ill is absolutely wrong unless you provide avenues of swift and easy recourse and appeal. Even then, I am opposed because there will be abuse and people will be unjustly committed. "Hearing voices" is not a crime. Yet you would incarcerate someone for it. Why not for "voicing anti government views" as well? After all, if our government is of, by, and for the People, then "having anti government views" is sociopathic.

Just as you note that the convenience and benefit of car ownership and use outweighs the cost of the thousands of lives that would be saved by banning ownership and operation by anyone who has used alcohol, so too, I believe that protecting one's right to keep and bear arms outweighs the benefits of possibly saving less than 100 lives a year by further diminishing the right of the people to keep and bear arms or by expanding the right of government to commit those it deems of ill mental health. Further, you assume that anyone who does a mass shooting is mentally ill. Clinically, this is not so.

Your analogy to plane crashes is apt. And yet we neither ban air travel nor have we turned the manufacture of aircraft over to the government.

Firearms and firearm ownership are already very highly regulated. In every jurisdiction in the Union, murder is illegal. Yet, mass shootings continue. How are more of the same laws that fail today to succeed ? "Gun Control" seems and easy solution. "Tougher" mental health regulations seem a reasonable solution. There are no easy, reasonable solutions to the problem that some people are prepared to die themselves in order to randomly kill others.

More gun control and increasing the power of government to limit our freedoms and regulate our lives are not solutions.

 

[USAF_Vet]

I haven't yet read the entire thread, post for post, but the gist I'm getting is expanded mental health evaluations and nonvoluntary incarceration should be at least considered as an option.

Ethical and moral issues aside, let's focus on one issue at a time. How do we screen for mental health issues? Annual mental health examinations for every male and females in the country aged 12-22? Semi annual? Monthly? What frequency do we test? What age groups do we test? Under what criteria do we test? We're talking millions of kids being evaluated nation wide. To be even remotely effective, each kid will need a file in a database, accessible to non biased observers secondary to the evaluating mental health professional. We're going to need a couple hundred thousand new mental health professionals to evaluate the millions of kids. Because kids move, switch schools, etc. that database needs to have the ability for access anywhere.

So what if we dump the billions of dollars needed into this program and run it for a few years? Maybe we find out males are more prone to violent outbursts when suffering from mental health issues. So we can scale back on testing for females. Maybe the danger zone for males is from 14-19 years old, so we scale back on testing certain age ranges. Maybe we find out that males, aged 14-19 from low income families are more prone to violence stemming from mental illness, so we scale back on testing the higher income ranges. Maybe then we find out that males aged 14-19, from lower income homes that don't have a father figure in the household are more prone to violence related to mental illness. And we narrow it down further and further til we have an almost unerringly exact demographic on which we label 'High Risk'.


Call it a win, right?


Now that we've identified the high risk group, we can better monitor them for errant behavior indicative of mental illness. Once they've been identified, where do we put them? The majority of mental hospitals have been shut down. Those few that remain have the same problems the rest had back in the 80's, understaffed, underfunded, abuse, experimental drugs, etc. We're not physically lobotomizing folks, its all done chemically now.

Regardless, we've just identified, by name and serial number, possibly tens of thousands of potentially dangerous mentally ill teens and young adults, but we have no place to put them.
Do we then build new, state of the art hospitals, with better staff, better training, more humane facilities with better drugs and vastly more oversight? Sure, why not?

It begs the question, who pays for it? Billions of dollars and years, perhaps decades of time invested to identify an infinitismally small portion of the population, only to require several hundred million more dollars invested to build the facilities to incarcerate them, without due process, for being potentially dangerous.

Are we having fun yet?



But then we have another mass shooting, with a perp who doesn't fit into any of the high risk demographic. Ooops.

Then what? Do we start over, broaden the key points? Do we force adults into mandatory mental health screening? At what point do we simple say, freedom is dangerous, get a helmet?

Do we all succumb to slavery at the hands of an overbearing state for our own good? For the greater good? For the interest of public safety? No thanks.

 

[Billy Shears]

RPRNY

Billy, we already do quite a lot about it. There is a National Firearms Act, there is a Gun Control Act and there or thousands of other Federal, State and Local laws and regulations that govern firearms, firearm owners, and firearm ownership. It is not that it is unregulated.

Excuse me, where have I said word one about more regulations on firearms? Find the post. Quote me.

Ultimately, it is not the government that interprets laws, but a jury of my peers, precisely because we do not trust the government to do so.

How many trials have you sat through? I've sat through scores, possibly hundreds. Kurt Schlichter, a conservative lawyer, said it best: “Being found 'Guilty' does not mean you actually did the crime. Instead, it means that a prosecutor with endless resources and the full weight of the government convinced 12 people who couldn’t figure out how to avoid jury duty that you probably did something wrong.”

Broadening the power of the government to commit those it deems mentally ill is absolutely wrong unless you provide avenues of swift and easy recourse and appeal. Even then, I am opposed because there will be abuse and people will be unjustly committed.

People are unjustly convicted of crimes and incarcerated in prisons right now! Something tells me that doesn't lead you to campaign for the closure of prisons and the release of the inmates. If we commit more people, there will almost certainly be at least some unjustly committed, because we are fallible humans, and no system we come up with can ever be perfect. That's no reason not to have one for this, any more than it's a reason to do away with prisons because our justice system can't completely avoid ever locking up an innocent person.

"Hearing voices" is not a crime.

No, but hearing voices that tell you people are out to get you, and which urge you to get them first is highly dangerous.

Yet you would incarcerate someone for it. Why not for "voicing anti government views" as well? After all, if our government is of, by, and for the People, then "having anti government views" is sociopathic.

Total non sequitur. Also a slippery slope fallacy. Boy, you people must have thought we were living in Big Brother's Oceania before 1981. They'd bust your door down and drag you off to an asylum in a heartbeat.

They weren't even doing that during the McCarthy era, when government was paranoid about "Un-American activities" and standards for committal were broader back then. This is alarmist fear mongering on your part.

Just as you note that the convenience and benefit of car ownership and use outweighs the cost of the thousands of lives that would be saved by banning ownership and operation by anyone who has used alcohol, so too, I believe that protecting one's right to keep and bear arms outweighs the benefits of possibly saving less than 100 lives a year by further diminishing the right of the people to keep and bear arms or by expanding the right of government to commit those it deems of ill mental health. Further, you assume that anyone who does a mass shooting is mentally ill. Clinically, this is not so.

No, I don't. However the overwhelming majority of mass shooters have a history of mental illness -- 79%: https://publicintelligence.net/mass-shootings-mental-illness/

Your analogy to plane crashes is apt. And yet we neither ban air travel nor have we turned the manufacture of aircraft over to the government.

Firearms and firearm ownership are already very highly regulated. In every jurisdiction in the Union, murder is illegal. Yet, mass shootings continue. How are more of the same laws that fail today to succeed ? "Gun Control" seems and easy solution. "Tougher" mental health regulations seem a reasonable solution. There are no easy, reasonable solutions to the problem that some people are prepared to die themselves in order to randomly kill others.

More gun control and increasing the power of government to limit our freedoms and regulate our lives are not solutions.

First, I repeat: where have I said word one about gun control?

Second: what's your solution then to people like Willy Bruce? You've been on and on about what we can't do, mustn't do. So you tell me what we should do in cases like Willy Bruce's. This is a man, I remind you, who had a long history of paranoid behavior, schizophrenia, and psychotic episodes, and who finally hacked his mother to death with an ax. Both his parents tried for years to get the system to force him into treatment, to no avail. I'm saying, we need to commit people like this. You're saying we mustn't. So what do you want to do about such people? No evasions. Tell me what we should do.

USAF_Vet

I haven't yet read the entire thread, post for post, but the gist I'm getting is expanded mental health evaluations and nonvoluntary incarceration should be at least considered as an option.

Ethical and moral issues aside, let's focus on one issue at a time. How do we screen for mental health issues? Annual mental health examinations for every male and females in the country aged 12-22? Semi annual? Monthly? What frequency do we test? What age groups do we test? Under what criteria do we test? We're talking millions of kids being evaluated nation wide.

Stop it! Stop. It.

For the hundredth F@#$ing time already, NO ONE is proposing anything like this! Why in the name of Hades do people insist on interpreting a call for a change to mental health committal criteria closer to those that we had before 1981 as a call for mass mental health screenings, mass committals, and drastic, draconian curtailments of civil rights?! Can you people read? You did study English in school right? Not Chinese? Because I think my words are plain enough. I can't account for how any rational person is getting this from anything I have written.

 

[USAF_Vet]

Stop it! Stop. It.

For the hundredth F@#$ing time already, NO ONE is proposing anything like this! Why in the name of Hades do people insist on interpreting a call for a change to mental health committal criteria closer to those that we had before 1981 as a call for mass mental health screenings, mass committals, and drastic, draconian curtailments of civil rights?! Can you people read? You did study English in school right? Not Chinese? Because I think my words are plain enough. I can't account for how any rational person is getting this from anything I have written.

Settle down and breathe, bud.
First, its not all about you. If what I said had nothing to due with what you said, maybe my post wasn't directed at you. Ya think?

Also, are you sure you studied English? How did you fare in comprehension? You even quoted me when I said

I haven't yet read the entire thread, post for post, but the gist I'm getting is expanded mental health evaluations and nonvoluntary incarceration should be at least considered as an option.

.

Perhaps you didn't suggest anything of the sort, but others have, and quite possibly, if I were replying to anyone directly, it would have been them. But, as it happens, I was speaking more to the general THR audience, and haven't even read your posts and opinions. So relax a bit. Wouldn't want someone to think you have a mental illness and have you committed.


Also, had you gotten a better grade in English comprehension, you would have realized that my entire post was pointing out the failings of expanded mental health. But my, you'd rather get all bent out of shape. Because that's a sign of a mature, rational adult.

 

[george burns]

There was a special on Dateline last nigh about the Mentally ill in this country. There are 7 million Schizophrenics including a couple of the shooters.
They interviewed several doctors, bottom line is most aren't being treated, and it's a disease of the brain, they showed a healthy brain and one that was diseased. They asked a doctor "so you could see this person and 2 weeks later they could develop these violent tendencies" he said yes, absolutely. So what is your plan other than Guards.
If we have 7 million powder kegs waling around relying on them to take their meds , "which make them fuzzy and nauseous". What do you expect will happen every so often?

 

[spitballer]

I agree that this is a phenomenon that must be addressed somehow. It is obscene. Yet it's somewhat reflexive to immediately target the firearms. I don't know what the answer is going to be, but it's clear that we have an awful lot of people out there who don't seem to be able to handle freedom very well. Why are so many people bent on killing other people? Why can't they join the army and get it out of their system like everybody else? Seems to me this is an issue that has more to do with human psychology than it does with the firearms themselves.

 

[RPRNY]

So Billy, you want "something done" but you don't know what that is, or are unable to articulate it (beyond a vague reference to turning the clock back to 1981 and giving the government more power to incarcerate with unclear due process). That's extremely foolish. Because you and your ilk are just enablers for more restrictive laws that are utterly ineffective. And by the way, you're not nearly the smartest guy in the room so back down the thrusting chest and strutting ego please.

 

[alsaqr]

And by the way, you're not nearly the smartest guy in the room so back down the thrusting chest and strutting ego please.

IMO: Your comment is very low road. This is a personal attack on a forum member who has experience in the area being discussed.

i absolutely agree with Billy Shears.

i worked in the WV prison system when the state released hundreds of mental cases onto the streets, untreated with no access to meds. Most ended up in prisons where they were treated like trash by other inmates who physically, sexually and psychologiclly abused them.

Donald Bordenkircher ran the US POW program for the CIA in Vietnam. He later became the warden of the WV prison. Heard Bordenkircher sum up the situation very well: "They took mental cases, chunked them into prison, Thorazined their ...... and called them behavorial cases".

Most folks on this board have never been around an untreated mental case. My first cousin is bi-polar with other mental problems. For decades she has refused to take her meds. That woman is a pure unadulterated hellion. She physically and mentally abused her parents for many years.

i have a college classmate who is also bi-polar. Her disorder is well controlled. She is also a partner in a law firm.

i refuse to buy into the "slippery slope" argument being put forth by those who oppose laws preventing adjudicated mental cases from owning guns.

 

[RPRNY]

Alsaqr, and in my opinion your agreement with Billy blinds you to his arrogant, abrasive and entirely low road assault on my remarks. Please review and reassess.

 

[JRH6856]

The problem we face is that we live in an increasingly risk-averse society. The pendulum is swinging between a love of Liberty and and a desire for Safety. And it is currently swinging towards safety.

Arguing that "Risk is the price you pay for Freedom", is reversed and heard by many as "Less freedom is the price we must pay to be safe."

We know that risk can never be eliminated, but many of us have stated that it can be reduced so we should do so. What it comes down to is, we are haggling over the price of safety and Liberty is the currency.

 

[RPRNY]

The problem we face is that we live in an increasingly risk-averse society. The pendulum is swinging between a love of Liberty and and a desire for Safety. And it is currently swinging towards safety.

Arguing that "Risk is the price you pay for Freedom", is reversed and heard by many as "Less freedom is the price we must pay to be safe."

We know that risk can never be eliminated, but many of us have stated that it can be reduced so we should do so. What it comes down to is, we are haggling over the price of safety and Liberty is the currency.

Well stated.

 

[CovertOps]

We are going to have to do something, we cannot continue to ignore these incidents. 1 mass shooting at a college and 1 attempted shooting/bombing in Georgia. If this keeps up I expect the 2nd amendment to be done away with. I know all violent crime is down and that gun deaths are at an all time low but the mass public doesn't know that and the anti gunners are NOT going to correct them. HIPAA is a problem but at the same time I don't want some left wing doctor locking people up/preventing them from owning guns because they have minor depression. Maybe armed guards ARE the solution, or removing all "gun free zones"
I would support legislation that banned news sources from publishing the face/names of mass shooters/attempted mass shooters. Or that limited the duration of time that they could run the story. How can we change the tide of the media.

Why does something need to be done? These incidents have been with us for a very long time, we are simply enjoying the fruits of a progressive society. Its been my experience that most of those who insist that something needs doing, are those who have labored hardest to "fundamentally transform" the nation into what it is that requires doing to fix!

 

[george burns]

That's very true. And if it were not for the sensationalism of certain media outlets owned by anti gun politicians and their friends, you wouldn't see a vey big deal being made out of the occasional shooting or murder. We have always had them before and have less of them know than ever. So what's all the fuss about.
The amount of time money and man hours required to even make a dent in the stoppage of this kind of societal behavior is unobtainable. So why concern oneself with it other than trying to get more legislation passed to allow more people who are sane to carry guns in more places where this kind of thing occurs. One pops up and a few good men stop it from going any further, that's is the way it works unless you want armed guards walking the streets with weapons, that we ourselves can carry.

 

[Billy Shears]

So Billy, you want "something done" but you don't know what that is, or are unable to articulate it (beyond a vague reference to turning the clock back to 1981 and giving the government more power to incarcerate with unclear due process).

Not being a psychiatrist, I'll have to defer to the mental health professionals in the precise criteria. I do know, from personal experience, what untreated mental patients can be like, including the violent ones.

That's extremely foolish. Because you and your ilk are just enablers for more restrictive laws that are utterly ineffective.

What is your evidence they are uneffective? You have made an assertion. Support it.

And by the way, you're not nearly the smartest guy in the room so back down the thrusting chest and strutting ego please.

I never claimed to be the smartest guy in the room. I am however, by all appearances, the more intellectually honest one of us two.

You have repeatedly employed fallacies and non sequiturs in your arguments; you have dismissed comments of mine with derogatory language (e.g. "insane", "foolish"), while alternatively offering no suggestions of your own; you have attributed to me positions I have never advocated (e.g. desire for more gun control laws), and you have evaded direct questions. The last one I asked you was what would you propose to do about violent and potentially violent untreated mental patients. I even gave a specific example of how one of those patients killed his own mother in horrific fashion, and how his eventual explosion into homicidal violence was entirely predictable given his history. You evaded this question entirely, opting instead to engage in personal attacks against me.

This forum is called "The High Road" because it tries to maintain a board free of insults and crass comments. But that stance means more than just refraining from bad language. It also entails debating in an intellectually honest and charitable manner i.e. according your opponent the courtesy of believing he is sincere and arguing in good faith, and avoiding personal attacks, distortions of his argument, repeating errors, engaging in hyperbole, and other such things. You are not debating in this spirit. You have stated a position in categorical terms, offered no experience or evidence to support it, dismissed or ridiculed the comments of someone who has experience, and has cited evidence, and grown increasingly personal and evasive in your responses to logical objections to your comments. I'm not the one who needs to back off the chest thumping, you are.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Quote:
So Billy, you want "something done" but you don't know what that is, or are unable to articulate it (beyond a vague reference to turning the clock back to 1981 and giving the government more power to incarcerate with unclear due process).

Not being a psychiatrist, I'll have to defer to the mental health professionals in the precise criteria. I do know, from personal experience, what untreated mental patients can be like, including the violent ones.

So you don't know HOW such a system would work, but you're willing to sacrifice everyone else's civil rights anyway?

 

[Billy Shears]

So you don't know HOW such a system would work, but you're willing to sacrifice everyone else's civil rights anyway?

More alarmism.

I don't know all the little details no, but to say I don't know at all is not accurate. History is your guide. Once again, the criteria for involuntarily committal would not necessarily be as broad as they were prior to the repeal of the Mental Health Systems Act in 1981, and the United States was not, by any stretch of the imagination, some sort of police state where people were routinely locked up in asylums -- why you people keep insisting on employing the slippery slope fallacy of totally innocent people being dragged off by the men in white coats at every turn I can't fathom. That didn't even happen in the "bad old days." The only reason Reagan repealed the act was not because there was any doubt that the people who were committed under those criteria were indeed mentally ill and in need of treatment, it was because many of the hospitals were the patients were treated were badly run and subject to abuses. So fix the abuses, don't turn the mental patients out into the streets

 

[barnbwt]

What specifically is the failing? Are you kidding? When a person is wandering around, mostly unable to string coherent sentences together,

Looking for specifics...

neglecting her health to the point of having a serious, potentially life-threatening infection, that will almost certainly turn gangrenous,

Still looking...

and you can't commit her... There is a problem with the criteria in this case.

Ah, there it is. The criteria for committal. Your story, while tragic, is not particularly helpful in determining exactly what needs to change in order to help her. But your assertion that her involuntary committal is her salvation is helpful to that end, as well as your assertion that broadening the criteria for committal would allow said salvation to occur.

What is odd about you saying committal is what could save that poor woman, is when you follow it with this;

The current system commits people involuntarily for mostly very short periods, even when they are violent. Then they're back out again.

So, we broaden the criteria for committal...so we can put more people who need help through a wringer then back out on the street (now unemployable by virtue of said committal, btw) after short order? Of course that's not a solution, so we need longer (life?) committal in more cases, as well as more cases for committal. Both those things are very serious exertions of official authority; it's a hell of a thing to declare a man incompetent and ship him off to a ward for the rest of his life. So the circumstances that define when this would happen are infinitely important to the discussion of what to do. And your stories, while shocking, don't really give good guidance for what a law should actually say (and no, deferring legislative/judicial functions to a psychologist is not a workable solution in our system of checks and balances)

When I came out of the detective bureau in September, one of my first days back in patrol, we had to use a taser on a mental patient who came at me and my partner with a broken off chair leg. He's actually assaulted people before as well, not just attempted it. He's back out on the street right now. But he's usually okay while he's on his meds. Problem is he doesn't stay on them for long once he's out. Punishing him is no good -- it's not just that he's not rational, and its inhumane to punish people when they don't know right from wrong

Sounds like a candidate for life in prison, if committal is not an option. I thought assault with a deadly weapon (on an LEO, to boot) carried prison terms? I also personally think that there should be some criminal liability when a person who is adjudicated 'sane' while on meds, then chooses to go off them and commits a crime; more so if it is repeated. The individual, while sane, has had it clearly explained to them that failure to take the medication will have consequences because they will not be able to control themselves; it is akin to someone taking drugs and drink, committing a crime, then expecting leniency because they are an addict. It's a negligence issue (because 'intent to drive oneself insane' is probably a bit tough to prove)

I don't know all the little details no, but to say I don't know at all is not accurate. History is your guide.

Fair enough, as this is a complex issue (at least, if you approach it a certain way). But history shows that the little details are actually the most important part of any law, and the hardest to get right. History also shows that those who attempt to complicate an issue the most tend to be those actually working toward obfuscating the solution (see the myriad Great Society programs a needy person/family must contend with, as opposed to a single check of fun money they could apply for each month)

What is your evidence they are uneffective? You have made an assertion. Support it.

I'll support it;

What specifically is the failing? Are you kidding? When a person is wandering around, mostly unable to string coherent sentences together...

why you people keep insisting on employing the slippery slope fallacy of totally innocent people being dragged off by the men in white coats at every turn I can't fathom.

It doesn't have to be anywhere close to "at every turn" to be morally repugnant. An innocent man's freedom is vastly more valuable than a guilty man's acquittal, and this belief fundamentally stems from the notion of our freedom as humans being the greatest gift there is (therefore, denying it erroneously is the highest crime there is, while a failure to rescind it is mere inefficiency in our enforcement systems)

So fix the abuses, don't turn the mental patients out into the streets

So why didn't we [rhetorical]? Or was it rather that we didn't think the bad old system could be reformed?

One pops up and a few good men stop it from going any further

I agree enthusiastically. This is the definition of a self-regulating system that does not wantonly restrict the freedoms of its denizens. Would that we could run our entire societal and governmental structure run this way, we could transcend the collectivist tendency of all other dense populations throughout history.

TCB

 

[JRH6856]

Billy, I think some of us do understand what you are saying. I know I do, and I agree with your main point that the current mental health system is not working as intended and is really not working at all for those that need the most help.

I also understand the fear that under the current administration (and future administrations of similar idealogy) there is grave risk that any changes in the direction you suggest would be abused for ideological and political ends.

When I have suggested similar ideas elsewhere, most progressives seem more interested in how expanded mental health services can be used to address the "real problem" which to them is still the widespread availability of guns. And when I suggest safeguards to protect individual liberty, resistance to the idea is intense.

Once again, we will not be able to pursue a viable solution until we can get enough people to agree as to what is the real problem.