Should a mentally ill people have access to guns? (1 Viewer)

[Ditkaless Wonders]

So would a doctor have to diagnosis someone with a mental illness to not be eligible for gun ownership?

I don't even think they should have to be diagnosed with a mental illness. Maybe have certain mental or physical factors be red flags that completely disqualify someone.

So, phrenology then? You propose a cliff, not a slippery slope. Or perhaps I just do not accurately take your meaning.

 

[Peyton Marino]

But guns are how we find out who is seriously mentally ill.

Major catch 22

JFC, you're totally right.

 

[pantagrapher]

What can you do about those that own guns and later on in life develop a mental illness?

I suppose having people go through a yearly assessment to show mental and physical competency at using the weapon might help.

I've brought this up in other threads. Guns are there for their owners through thick and thin. A responsible society would have a rigorous screening, licensing and renewal process for gun owners. And the types up guns available for purchase should be very limited.

Will never happen tho.

How would you kill a large group of folks, presuming you were of such a mind, if you did not have access to firearms? Me, I would probably look to chaining exits to buildings and the use of fire accelerants to do the job. As for taking out individual targets I might go poison or cutting weapons. I do not believe that taking away my access to firearms would offer society any protections should I go homicidal maniac. Do you believe it would limit your effectiveness?

Ahhh, yes. There's always this guy.

So you do not care to share your thoughts on the matter? I have admitted that I think our current iteration of the 2nd amendment does not serve our purposes. I am open to a new way, but I am also a practical person and I think the gains may be somewhat less than we would hope. That said, that is no reason to not address the issue, just to do so soberly. I thought you might be willing to share your perspective. Apparently not. Perhaps next time.

You don't believe that taking away easy access to guns would lead to a decrease in murders by mentally ill people.

We're not going to find any common ground here, so I'm not going to waste my time or yours.

 

[Peyton Marino]

But guns are how we find out who is seriously mentally ill.

Major catch 22

really makes u think

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Honestly, this stuff is starting to scare me. My wife's father and his family are all nuts and gun nuts. He's bipolar and had been fired from numerous jobs due to personality issues. He's paranoid. And he has guns. His wife (her step mom) feeds into it. He had a daughter who is a heroin addict. A son who resembles the kid from the elementary school shooting (socially awkward, home schooled because would vomit from anxiety in school, weighs maybe 100 pounds and makes GM look tan, computer hacker type). All scary people.

My wife has had zero contact with them since before our wedding 4 years ago. They were disinvited.

My biggest fear is them finding out where we live or work and showing up with a gun or guns.

 

[pantagrapher]

So would a doctor have to diagnosis someone with a mental illness to not be eligible for gun ownership?

I don't even think they should have to be diagnosed with a mental illness. Maybe have certain mental or physical factors be red flags that completely disqualify someone.

So, phrenology then? You propose a cliff, not a slippery slope. Or perhaps I just do not accurately take your meaning.

By physical factors I was thinking of concussions, brain injuries, etc. Things that can influence mental stability and behavior.

 

[Chadstroma]

No.

But in a country of 319 Million- you will never have a perfect system that catches all the crazies or at least the crazies that are crazy enough to ought not be allowed to have a gun.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

What can you do about those that own guns and later on in life develop a mental illness?

I suppose having people go through a yearly assessment to show mental and physical competency at using the weapon might help.

I've brought this up in other threads. Guns are there for their owners through thick and thin. A responsible society would have a rigorous screening, licensing and renewal process for gun owners. And the types up guns available for purchase should be very limited.

Will never happen tho.

How would you kill a large group of folks, presuming you were of such a mind, if you did not have access to firearms? Me, I would probably look to chaining exits to buildings and the use of fire accelerants to do the job. As for taking out individual targets I might go poison or cutting weapons. I do not believe that taking away my access to firearms would offer society any protections should I go homicidal maniac. Do you believe it would limit your effectiveness?

Ahhh, yes. There's always this guy.

So you do not care to share your thoughts on the matter? I have admitted that I think our current iteration of the 2nd amendment does not serve our purposes. I am open to a new way, but I am also a practical person and I think the gains may be somewhat less than we would hope. That said, that is no reason to not address the issue, just to do so soberly. I thought you might be willing to share your perspective. Apparently not. Perhaps next time.

You don't believe that taking away easy access to guns would lead to a decrease in murders by mentally ill people.

We're not going to find any common ground here, so I'm not going to waste my time or yours.

I suspect that the reduction would be minimal. I do believe that with the inherent laziness of imagination of some that a percentage would not find an equally efficacious tool, but I suspect that many tortured minds, dwelling on destruction and revenge would find a tool to carry our their desires. So not precisely as you presume but I understand the presumption. Years of argument on this subject leads us to conclude where apparently opposing viewpoints will finally land and we move forward, through exhaustion, to the apparently inevitable conclusion without examining whether that was the final destination.

 

[pantagrapher]

Honestly, this stuff is starting to scare me. My wife's father and his family are all nuts and gun nuts. He's bipolar and had been fired from numerous jobs due to personality issues. He's paranoid. And he has guns. His wife feeds into it. He had a daughter who is a heroin addict. A son who resembles the kid from the elementary school shooting (socially awkward, home schooled because would vomit from anxiety in school, weighs maybe 100 pounds and makes GM look tan, computer hacker type). All scary people. My wife has had zero contact with them since before our wedding. They were disinvited.

My biggest fear is them finding out where we live or work and showing up with a gun or guns.

My BIL is a gun nut. Has an AR-15 and other guns he keeps locked in a safe. He also has two kids. He owns a struggling business and it's stressful. He's into government conspiracy stuff and anti-Obama and militia magazines. It's hard not to worry in a constant, abstract way.

 

[pantagrapher]

No.

But in a country of 319 Million- you will never have a perfect system that catches all the crazies or at least the crazies that are crazy enough to ought not be allowed to have a gun.

If we can't have a perfect system why even bother?

 

[johnnycakes]

No.

But in a country of 319 Million- you will never have a perfect system that catches all the crazies or at least the crazies that are crazy enough to ought not be allowed to have a gun.

If we can't have a perfect system why even bother?

Different people prefer different imperfections, if perfection is impossible.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

So would a doctor have to diagnosis someone with a mental illness to not be eligible for gun ownership?

I don't even think they should have to be diagnosed with a mental illness. Maybe have certain mental or physical factors be red flags that completely disqualify someone.

So, phrenology then? You propose a cliff, not a slippery slope. Or perhaps I just do not accurately take your meaning.

By physical factors I was thinking of concussions, brain injuries, etc. Things that can influence mental stability and behavior.

So would medical personnel who treat these injuries have a reporting requirement, or would there be self-reporting. Would the decision be reviewed by a court or a bureaucrat? Would enforcement fall to police to obtain warrants and search homes? if so might that lead to confrontations?

perhaps homes could be searched while a person was in court having their rights adjudicated, thereby lessening some potential confrontations, or the person could be detained very briefly after adjudication to allow a protective sweep to be done.

There is much to consider here.

 

[pantagrapher]

So would a doctor have to diagnosis someone with a mental illness to not be eligible for gun ownership?

I don't even think they should have to be diagnosed with a mental illness. Maybe have certain mental or physical factors be red flags that completely disqualify someone.

So, phrenology then? You propose a cliff, not a slippery slope. Or perhaps I just do not accurately take your meaning.

By physical factors I was thinking of concussions, brain injuries, etc. Things that can influence mental stability and behavior.

So would medical personnel who treat these injuries have a reporting requirement, or would there be self-reporting. Would the decision be reviewed by a court or a bureaucrat? Would enforcement fall to police to obtain warrants and search homes? if so might that lead to confrontations?

perhaps homes could be searched while a person was in court having their rights adjudicated, thereby lessening some potential confrontations, or the person could be detained very briefly after adjudication to allow a protective sweep to be done.

There is much to consider here.

I'm throwing ideas out there about my ideal system. I realize implementation would be massively complicated, so I'd leave that to the experts.

 

[Chadstroma]

No.

But in a country of 319 Million- you will never have a perfect system that catches all the crazies or at least the crazies that are crazy enough to ought not be allowed to have a gun.

If we can't have a perfect system why even bother?

We do not have a perfect system for driving and many more people die each year from auto accidents than do from firearms. So, if we can't have a perfect system, why bother? The last time we humans thought we came up with a perfect system- it sunk on it's maiden voyage. Nothing is perfect. We work to learn from mistakes and make things better but there will never be anything perfect in this world. It goes against the very laws of nature.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

So would a doctor have to diagnosis someone with a mental illness to not be eligible for gun ownership?

I don't even think they should have to be diagnosed with a mental illness. Maybe have certain mental or physical factors be red flags that completely disqualify someone.

So, phrenology then? You propose a cliff, not a slippery slope. Or perhaps I just do not accurately take your meaning.

By physical factors I was thinking of concussions, brain injuries, etc. Things that can influence mental stability and behavior.

So would medical personnel who treat these injuries have a reporting requirement, or would there be self-reporting. Would the decision be reviewed by a court or a bureaucrat? Would enforcement fall to police to obtain warrants and search homes? if so might that lead to confrontations?

perhaps homes could be searched while a person was in court having their rights adjudicated, thereby lessening some potential confrontations, or the person could be detained very briefly after adjudication to allow a protective sweep to be done.

There is much to consider here.

I'm throwing ideas out there about my ideal system. I realize implementation would be massively complicated, so I'd leave that to the experts.

Me, I have been involved in writing laws and regulations to implement new systems, such as the marijuana laws in Colorado. I tend to think about implementation.

 

[lod01]

Absolutely. We need to not only allow access but give them the best guns ( money can buy) for free. And lots of ammo. Then take away their meds.

Dumbest poll in the history of polls.

 

[Summer Wheat]

Should a guy who just drank 27 beers be allowed to drive home?

Should people be allowed to text while driving 75 mph on the freeway?

 

[cstu]

Only so I can blow my head off with it.

Seriously, why are you not in a hospital right now?

 

[ATC1]

I would like to commend those who choose to relocate their fire arms because of a family member. Since I had kids I have a big safe where only I know the combination and a finger lock safe at the side of my bed that has the only loaded gun in the house.

I would like to go have a drink with some of you guys, but of course as a responsible gun owner I will leave my gun at home. Cann't drink and carry. Now, where's my keys?

 

[CBusAlex]

How would you kill a large group of folks, presuming you were of such a mind, if you did not have access to firearms? Me, I would probably look to chaining exits to buildings and the use of fire accelerants to do the job. As for taking out individual targets I might go poison or cutting weapons. I do not believe that taking away my access to firearms would offer society any protections should I go homicidal maniac. Do you believe it would limit your effectiveness?

I would expect that if chaining doors and burning down the building were as effective as shooting up the place, you'd see the crazies choosing that method just as often. And yet, they don't. Why do you think that is?

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

How would you kill a large group of folks, presuming you were of such a mind, if you did not have access to firearms? Me, I would probably look to chaining exits to buildings and the use of fire accelerants to do the job. As for taking out individual targets I might go poison or cutting weapons. I do not believe that taking away my access to firearms would offer society any protections should I go homicidal maniac. Do you believe it would limit your effectiveness?

I would expect that if chaining doors and burning down the building were as effective as shooting up the place, you'd see the crazies choosing that method just as often. And yet, they don't. Why do you think that is?

I believe they have simply not given the matter much thought. They choose a conventional and readily available tool. If denied access to that conventional tool, being planners and tool users we humans are readily capable of looking for substitutes.

My belief, if a magic wand could be waived, and all guns in the world, or ever to be produced in the world were transported to the moon, we would see only a marginal decline in deaths and violence. We would see tool users seek out other efficacious tools. We would also see the Bloods, Crips, Mafia, Drug Cartels and Hells Angels each start a space program.

Unfortunately much of mankind's inventiveness has centered around our desire to kill for one reason or another. Depriving beings who are tool users at their core of a single type of tool will not prevent tool use in general.

 

[TPW]

How would you kill a large group of folks, presuming you were of such a mind, if you did not have access to firearms? Me, I would probably look to chaining exits to buildings and the use of fire accelerants to do the job. As for taking out individual targets I might go poison or cutting weapons. I do not believe that taking away my access to firearms would offer society any protections should I go homicidal maniac. Do you believe it would limit your effectiveness?

I would expect that if chaining doors and burning down the building were as effective as shooting up the place, you'd see the crazies choosing that method just as often. And yet, they don't. Why do you think that is?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

The Bath School Disaster was a series of violent attacks perpetrated by Andrew Kehoe on May 18, 1927, in Bath Township, Michigan, that killed 38 elementary school children and six adults and injured at least 58 other people. Kehoe first killed his wife, firebombed his farm, and detonated a major explosion in the Bath Consolidated School, before committing suicide by detonating a final explosion in his truck. It is currently the deadliest mass murder to take place at a school in United States history.

 

[B-Deep]

seriously

how do we find and track the mentally ill?

 

[B-Deep]

of course, that is after we define "mentally ill" which is probably a whole nother topic

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

seriously

how do we find and track the mentally ill?

Start in the Trump thread.

 

[B-Deep]

Should parents and/or cohabitants of a mentally ill person also not be allowed to own guns? Seems logical

I assume mentally ill would extend to those with intellectual disabilities too?

and their families?

OK, so if we are on board for all of that, how do we get that list and enforce it? We cannot even get criminal background checks universal on guns, what's the plan for now medical background checks?

I am all for keeping guns out of hands of people with a severe mental illness, but unless there is some idea on HOW it is a red herring

 

[ATC1]

of course, that is after we define "mentally ill" which is probably a whole nother topic

Yup, but when it pertains to gun control. i think people should have to apply for a gun license which includes back ground checks, drug screening, self defense and saftey courses, and clearence by a medical doctor through a physical/mental health screening. Needs to be reapplied for every 3-5 years. But once you have the card you may be able to purchase a gun. It can be revoked and harsh penalties will come for those that are in possession of a gun without a proper license. However, the license is also a permit to carry and should have no restrictions on where they can carry.

Sure there are issues that need to be addressed with the idea, but I think a responsible gun owner would not mind needing to go through the hoops for the right not to be told you cann't carry here. Also will not give criminals an easy target with gun free zones.

 

[B-Deep]

of course, that is after we define "mentally ill" which is probably a whole nother topic

Yup, but when it pertains to gun control. i think people should have to apply for a gun license which includes back ground checks, drug screening, self defense and saftey courses, and clearence by a medical doctor through a physical/mental health screening. Needs to be reapplied for every 3-5 years. But once you have the card you may be able to purchase a gun. It can be revoked and harsh penalties will come for those that are in possession of a gun without a proper license. However, the license is also a permit to carry and should have no restrictions on where they can carry.

Sure there are issues that need to be addressed with the idea, but I think a responsible gun owner would not mind needing to go through the hoops for the right not to be told you cann't carry here. Also will not give criminals an easy target with gun free zones.

there is 0 chance any of this happens

you could not accomplish any of that WITHOUT including checking for mental illness

we could not even get it so you have to be able to see to get a gun. That's already defined most places for drivers licenses. Now try to define and enforce a mental health check.

it's a pipe dream

 

[Hov34]

My questionnaire to determine if one is mentally ill:

1. Do you like the band, Rush?

2. Do you like the talk show host, Rush?

3. Are you a New England Patriots fan?

4. Do you eat regularly at The Olive Garden? (more than once ever without being invited by someone else)

5. Have you watched a single Twilight film from start to finish?

6. Was your favorite Stephen King novel written after 1990?

7. When somebody says, "background checks!" do you immediately think of Adolf Hitler?

8. Would you have sex with Yoko Ono?

9. Would you hire the FBGer known as "Eminence"?

10. Do you enjoy listening to Hillary Clinton laugh?

A single "yes" answer to any of these questions would require a full psychological examination and clearance before gun purchase. 2 yes votes would result in a mandatory 5 year suspension from purchasing weapons. 3 or more yes votes would entail a lifetime ban.

That is actually a little funny.

How little?

 

[ATC1]

of course, that is after we define "mentally ill" which is probably a whole nother topic

Yup, but when it pertains to gun control. i think people should have to apply for a gun license which includes back ground checks, drug screening, self defense and saftey courses, and clearence by a medical doctor through a physical/mental health screening. Needs to be reapplied for every 3-5 years. But once you have the card you may be able to purchase a gun. It can be revoked and harsh penalties will come for those that are in possession of a gun without a proper license. However, the license is also a permit to carry and should have no restrictions on where they can carry.

Sure there are issues that need to be addressed with the idea, but I think a responsible gun owner would not mind needing to go through the hoops for the right not to be told you cann't carry here. Also will not give criminals an easy target with gun free zones.

there is 0 chance any of this happens

you could not accomplish any of that WITHOUT including checking for mental illness

we could not even get it so you have to be able to see to get a gun. That's already defined most places for drivers licenses. Now try to define and enforce a mental health check.

it's a pipe dream

That's why I put " clearence by a medical doctor through a physical/mental health screening"

In a general physical doctors can ask specific questions to assess if a patient needs further mental evaluation.

 

[B-Deep]

of course, that is after we define "mentally ill" which is probably a whole nother topic

Yup, but when it pertains to gun control. i think people should have to apply for a gun license which includes back ground checks, drug screening, self defense and saftey courses, and clearence by a medical doctor through a physical/mental health screening. Needs to be reapplied for every 3-5 years. But once you have the card you may be able to purchase a gun. It can be revoked and harsh penalties will come for those that are in possession of a gun without a proper license. However, the license is also a permit to carry and should have no restrictions on where they can carry.

Sure there are issues that need to be addressed with the idea, but I think a responsible gun owner would not mind needing to go through the hoops for the right not to be told you cann't carry here. Also will not give criminals an easy target with gun free zones.

there is 0 chance any of this happens

you could not accomplish any of that WITHOUT including checking for mental illness

we could not even get it so you have to be able to see to get a gun. That's already defined most places for drivers licenses. Now try to define and enforce a mental health check.

it's a pipe dream

That's why I put " clearence by a medical doctor through a physical/mental health screening"

In a general physical doctors can ask specific questions to assess if a patient needs further mental evaluation.

great, but do you think the NRA is going to allow a law where everyone has to submit to a medical evaluation?

 

[George Jefferson Airplane]

seriously

how do we find and track the mentally ill?

Start in the Trump thread.

Wish I'd have thought of this comeback. <_<

 

[B-Deep]

i am not disagreeing with your thoughts

i am saying they are no where near viable in this country at this time.

 

[ATC1]

of course, that is after we define "mentally ill" which is probably a whole nother topic

Yup, but when it pertains to gun control. i think people should have to apply for a gun license which includes back ground checks, drug screening, self defense and saftey courses, and clearence by a medical doctor through a physical/mental health screening. Needs to be reapplied for every 3-5 years. But once you have the card you may be able to purchase a gun. It can be revoked and harsh penalties will come for those that are in possession of a gun without a proper license. However, the license is also a permit to carry and should have no restrictions on where they can carry.

Sure there are issues that need to be addressed with the idea, but I think a responsible gun owner would not mind needing to go through the hoops for the right not to be told you cann't carry here. Also will not give criminals an easy target with gun free zones.

there is 0 chance any of this happens

you could not accomplish any of that WITHOUT including checking for mental illness

we could not even get it so you have to be able to see to get a gun. That's already defined most places for drivers licenses. Now try to define and enforce a mental health check.

it's a pipe dream

That's why I put " clearence by a medical doctor through a physical/mental health screening"

In a general physical doctors can ask specific questions to assess if a patient needs further mental evaluation.

great, but do you think the NRA is going to allow a law where everyone has to submit to a medical evaluation?

No just like I don't think gun control people will lift gun free zones. I was trying to find a give and take solution for both sides.

 

[ATC1]

i am not disagreeing with your thoughts

i am saying they are no where near viable in this country at this time.

Unfortunately you are correct. Both sides are dug into their corner and i don't see them meeting anywhere in the middle.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

How else would they hunt for food or start a race war?

 

[Amused to Death]

of course, that is after we define "mentally ill" which is probably a whole nother topic

Yup, but when it pertains to gun control. i think people should have to apply for a gun license which includes back ground checks, drug screening, self defense and saftey courses, and clearence by a medical doctor through a physical/mental health screening. Needs to be reapplied for every 3-5 years. But once you have the card you may be able to purchase a gun. It can be revoked and harsh penalties will come for those that are in possession of a gun without a proper license. However, the license is also a permit to carry and should have no restrictions on where they can carry.

Sure there are issues that need to be addressed with the idea, but I think a responsible gun owner would not mind needing to go through the hoops for the right not to be told you cann't carry here. Also will not give criminals an easy target with gun free zones.

there is 0 chance any of this happens

you could not accomplish any of that WITHOUT including checking for mental illness

we could not even get it so you have to be able to see to get a gun. That's already defined most places for drivers licenses. Now try to define and enforce a mental health check.

it's a pipe dream

That's why I put " clearence by a medical doctor through a physical/mental health screening"

In a general physical doctors can ask specific questions to assess if a patient needs further mental evaluation.

great, but do you think the NRA is going to allow a law where everyone has to submit to a medical evaluation?

Well a good first step would be for a certain political party to stop being a puppet for the NRA.

 

[B-Deep]

I am waiting for someone to have the stones to suggest a national database of the mentally ill.

since a national gun registry would clearly be a front for the government to prepare to raide people's houses and take their guns, what would a mental illness regsitry be for? The logical conclussion (if one follows NRA logic) would be for the eventual government extermination of the mentally ill!

We need better care for the mentally ill

We need to keep guns out of their hands

but to accomplish the 2nd we need to do better at monitoring who gets guns, and that's just a non starter

which sucks

 

[B-Deep]

For the record i have a child with an intellectual disability and it would be ridiculously stupid, criminally stupid, for me to have a gun in the house

My son will never be capable of owning a gun either...but that does not mean he won't be allowed to buy one

 

[ATC1]

For the record i have a child with an intellectual disability and it would be ridiculously stupid, criminally stupid, for me to have a gun in the house

My son will never be capable of owning a gun either...but that does not mean he won't be allowed to buy one

There is early research and devolpment on guns that have fingerprint ID on the handles. Still way to long away for me to comment.

However, I feel confedent in having a biometric code safe for my loaded gun. Kids will never know the code. If it is not on my hip it is in the safe, no questions.

http://www.wayfair.com/Mini-Vault-Gun-Safe-GVT1036.html

 

[kface]

As I have mentioned before I used to own guns. When my wife started to develop the mental/emotional issues she has I got rid of them. A person who is either emotionally or mentally unstable should not have access to firearms.

I also own guns. When my wife got pregnant I sent them to my dad's house for the same reason.

Your wife was mentally incompetent while pregnant? hmmmmmmmmmmmm

Hormones can induce occasional emotion instability.

Not to mention the postpartum depression that strikes a high percentage of women

 

[ATC1]

As I have mentioned before I used to own guns. When my wife started to develop the mental/emotional issues she has I got rid of them. A person who is either emotionally or mentally unstable should not have access to firearms.

I also own guns. When my wife got pregnant I sent them to my dad's house for the same reason.

Your wife was mentally incompetent while pregnant? hmmmmmmmmmmmm

Hormones can induce occasional emotion instability.

Not to mention the postpartum depression that strikes a high percentage of women

This is very true and unfortunate. I personally know someone who's life will never be the same.

 

[B-Deep]

See, this is what i fear this morphing into

:

Donald Trump says the fatal shooting of two journalists on live televisionshould not be seen as another example of America’s problem with gun violence.

“This isn’t a gun problem — this is a mental problem,” Trump said on CNN’s “New Day” on Thursday, a day after WDBJ-TV reporter Alison Parker and her cameraman, Adam Ward, were killed in Virginia by a gunman who was fired from the station in 2013. “It’s not a question of the laws. It’s really the people.”

The 2016 Republican frontrunner called the shooter a “very sick man” and the shooting a “very sad commentary on one life.”

“In the old days, they had mental institutions for people like this because he was really, definitely borderline and definitely would have been and should have been institutionalized,” Trump said. “At some point, somebody should have seen that. I mean the people close to him should have seen it.”

He continued: “I guarantee you there are a couple of people that knew this man that did the killing yesterday that probably said, ‘Wow he’s really got problems. I mean he really should be institutionalized.’”

The gunman, Vester Flanagan, a 41-year-old former WDBJ-TV reporter who went by the name Bryce Williams on-air, had no known criminal history. And while authorities are still investigating the case, there is no indication Flanagan had a past history of mental illness.

I am not a big fan of the good old days when anyone with any sort of mental issue was institutionalized.

 

[TPW]

I am not a big fan of the good old days when anyone with any sort of mental issue was institutionalized.

Yeah. It's so much better in these enlightened days that we turn them out to fend for themselves and defecate on the street.

 

[B-Deep]

I am not a big fan of the good old days when anyone with any sort of mental issue was institutionalized.

Yeah. It's so much better in these enlightened days that we turn them out to fend for themselves and defecate on the street.

just because he's homeless does not mean he is mentally ill

I'm all for housing the homeless, probably not for institutionalizing them however

and in this case there's no evidence the shooter had any prior history of mental illness or violence, i wonder who will decide which people who have never committed a violent crime get locked up

prolly Trump

 

[TPW]

just because he's homeless does not mean he is mentally ill

I'm all for housing the homeless, probably not for institutionalizing them however

and in this case there's no evidence the shooter had any prior history of mental illness or violence, i wonder who will decide which people who have never committed a violent crime get locked up

Giving free stuff to people with mental illness who aren't able to function normally accomplishes nothing. Roughly 1/3 of the homeless population in this country have some sort of psychiatric condition with substance addicts making up a sizable portion of the remainder.

Vester Flanagan had well-documented incidences of serious, anti-social behavior with several employers. If one of them had required him to seek counseling as a condition for retaining his job we might not be talking about this today. Instead, everybody walks around on eggshells for fear of another bogus Equal Employment Opportunity report which he had a history of filing.

What we need is serious, straight talk about functional solutions. Attempting to prohibit the ownership and use of the +/- 300 million firearms in the United States isn't one of them.

 

[B-Deep]

just because he's homeless does not mean he is mentally ill

I'm all for housing the homeless, probably not for institutionalizing them however

and in this case there's no evidence the shooter had any prior history of mental illness or violence, i wonder who will decide which people who have never committed a violent crime get locked up

Giving free stuff to people with mental illness who aren't able to function normally accomplishes nothing. Roughly 1/3 of the homeless population in this country have some sort of psychiatric condition with substance addicts making up a sizable portion of the remainder.

Vester Flanagan had well-documented incidences of serious, anti-social behavior with several employers. If one of them had required him to seek counseling as a condition for retaining his job we might not be talking about this today. Instead, everybody walks around on eggshells for fear of another bogus Equal Employment Opportunity report which he had a history of filing.

What we need is serious, straight talk about functional solutions. Attempting to prohibit the ownership and use of the +/- 300 million firearms in the United States isn't one of them.

Vester Flanagan, as far as we know, was never treated for or diagnosed with any mental illness (i am not for institutionalizing people whose employers say they are anti social either, for the record)

nor was he homeless

in fact, when was the last time a homeless person (since you got us started down this strawman path on the homeless) was responsible for one of these shootings?

a functional solution is not institutionalizing the millions of Americans (some suggest yp to 25%) with a diagnosable mental illness. And again, unless facts change here, the person in this shooting is not know to have been treated for or diagnosed with any mental illness

it's just something nice to throw out there

"only a crazy person would kill someone, lock up the crazies" but it's not a solution

if we want better ways to treat people with mental illness, that could help. But good luck getting the same people who are pointing to this as opposed to guns as the problem to pay for that.

there's not one viable solution i have seen to lower the rate of these incidents by focusing on mental health. I'd love to see one, I am a strong advocate for better care for people with mental health issues. The problem is there won't be one and this is soon going to lead to less of a crusade against violence and more of a crusade against those with mental health issues (only a small percentage of which are violent)

Trump's starting off in that direction

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Hey...someone gave that nut Kim jong -Un an entire army...chew on THAT

 

[pantagrapher]

Hey...someone gave that nut Kim jong -Un an entire army...chew on THAT

Yeah but it was his dad.

 

[Sinn Fein]

You can pass a law that say no one with a mental illness can own a gun - how are you going to enforce it?

I am all for background checks - but I just don't know how you could determine who has a mental defect, what "defects" would disqualify you from gun ownership, and how you take a gun from someone who later gets a disqualifying mental defect.