Do we have a "gun problem" or a "mental health problem"?

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Trooper

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Greg Garrison's program this morning had a discussion of whether the real problem was gun related or mental health related. The left uses demonizing guns (much like the Victorian women demonized "rum") as a simplistic answer to a far more complex problem. In many cases the left, especially attorneys, have pushed laws limiting the confinement of those with serious mental issues. Partially because the abuses in the past where putting someone in guardianship was used to control family fortunes or to take out those who were political dissentients.

    We had a problem in the 1970s were liberal families were upset that their grown children were joining cults (Moonies for example). So they hired deprogrammers like Ted Patrick (Deprogramming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) who kidnapped their adult children, had the parents do the legal work to put the children into guardianship then brainwashed them. He got into trouble when he kidnapped a Jewish girl from a Catholic convent and later kidnapped a lesbian (her parents were upset) then proceeded to deprogram her by raping her.

    Plus we do not have a working definition of what mental illness is where they reach the level of needing supervision if not confinement.


    The real problem is that democrats would face even more of their voters being put behind bars.
     

    Twangbanger

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    21   0   0
    Oct 9, 2010
    7,062
    113
    I think if we're talking about Mass Shootings, anybody who looks at the pictures of the shooters could deduce there's a mental health problem right there.

    I don't think all shootings can be solved, but this sub-type seems to be very specific in nature, with a very particular sort of offender. If Mom and Dad haved an emotionally disturbed kid, the school will call and make an issue of it. The family sniffle doctor can prescribe happy pills which will level the kid out just enough to make the upset phone calls from the school abate somewhat. Those pills are not a long-term solution to a serious emotional disturbance. But - this way Mom + Kid are prevented from having to deal with the "stigma" of a mental health diagnosis, and life is able to go on, at some level of function.

    Mom repeatedly makes the trip to CVS, and the pills work...up until the point where they don't. (That's when the news helicopters show up).

    Mom, the sniffle doctor, and CVS cannot handle this. The shootings started in the 1990s. If we cannot figure out a way to involve an actual psychiatrist in the care chain, someone licensed in the specialty of mental health disorders and how to spot and treat them, this will happen forever. It's that simple.

    Change the law so that psychiatric drugs can only be prescribed to children by psychiatrists. We have a better chance of identifying the Adam Lanzas, if it's done by people who know how to look for Adam Lanzas. This, in my mind, is not about deciding who can get guns. It is primarily about figuring out WHO, at a young age, needs more care than what Mommy and CVS can give them.
     
    Last edited:

    Trooper

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    I think if we're talking about Mass Shootings, anybody who looks at the pictures of the shooters could deduce there's a mental health problem right there.

    I don't think all shootings can be solved, but this sub-type seems to be very specific in nature, with a very particular sort of offender. If Mom and Dad haved an emotionally disturbed kid, the school will call and make an issue of it. The family sniffle doctor can prescribe happy pills which will level the kid out just enough to make the upset phone calls from the school abate somewhat. And that way, Mom + Kid are prevented from having to deal with the "stigma" of a mental health diagnosis. Problem is, those pills are not a long-term solution to a serious emotional disturbance.

    Mom repeatedly makes the trip to CVS, and the pills work...up until the point where they don't. That's when the news helicopters show up.

    Mom, the sniffle doctor, and CVS cannot handle this. The shootings started in the 1990s. If we cannot figure out a way to involve a psychiatrist in the care chain, this will happen forever. It's that simple.

    More than having psychiatrist, it will take the courts to oversee the care. Otherwise you cannot limit their rights (gun ownership, voting, being in a position of responsibility). No doctor should have the power of the courts. We may not need to confine them, but they do need the courts to rule that they are a danger to society.
     

    88GT

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 29, 2010
    16,643
    83
    Familyfriendlyville
    More than having psychiatrist, it will take the courts to oversee the care. Otherwise you cannot limit their rights (gun ownership, voting, being in a position of responsibility). No doctor should have the power of the courts. We may not need to confine them, but they do need the courts to rule that they are a danger to society.
    Pre-emptive incarceration. Is that what you're suggesting?
     

    Trooper

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Ever notice that most of these shooters not only have mental issues but also have ties to leftwing causes?

    The shooter in the Virginia Tech shooting had been in front of the courts due to his mental issues. The VA law states a gun purchase cannot be forbidden unless the purchaser has been involuntarily committed to a mental hospital. And that if there is an outpatient facility in the community that they cannot be committed. Nothing in between.
     

    the1kidd03

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Jul 19, 2011
    6,717
    48
    somewhere
    I agree that mental health care and research needs to be seriously addressed in our society.

    When it comes to terms of using that care to determine their ability to take part in their rights, that is a VERY slippery slope to address. Psychiatrists, much like doctors or any other human, are prone to mistakes and swayed by their biases. If we were to even consider this, then it MUST be a requirement to utilize the professional opinions of no less than 3 psychiatrists after a considerable amount of evaluating. Anything less is too subjective and risky when it comes to limiting rights.
     

    Trooper

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Pre-emptive incarceration. Is that what you're suggesting?

    No, full court hearing to determine if the individual is a threat to society. Depending on the level of threat, they could be confined or they could be under court supervision. It is no different than a felony trial. The difference is that a felon committed a crime and a mentally ill person is potentially able to do harm. But it is constitutional.
     

    88GT

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 29, 2010
    16,643
    83
    Familyfriendlyville
    No, full court hearing to determine if the individual is a threat to society. Depending on the level of threat, they could be confined or they could be under court supervision. It is no different than a felony trial. The difference is that a felon committed a crime and a mentally ill person is potentially able to do harm. But it is constitutional.

    How is that not pre-emptive incarceration?
     

    Trooper

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    I agree that mental health care and research needs to be seriously addressed in our society.

    When it comes to terms of using that care to determine their ability to take part in their rights, that is a VERY slippery slope to address. Psychiatrists, much like doctors or any other human, are prone to mistakes and swayed by their biases. If we were to even consider this, then it MUST be a requirement to utilize the professional opinions of no less than 3 psychiatrists after a considerable amount of evaluating. Anything less is too subjective and risky when it comes to limiting rights.

    That is why it must be a court hearing with the person in question having legal counsel.
     

    in625shooter

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 21, 2008
    2,136
    48
    It's not a true gun problem or a true mental problem. What we have is a mentality problem because people don't beat their kids behinds when they should or tell them NO when they should be told No period!
     

    Trooper

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    How is that not pre-emptive incarceration?

    We need to get Guy or Kirk in on this. The best I understand it is that the courts have long had the power to supervise those who are mentally ill. It may be pre-emptive, in your view, but there should be clear evidence of potential threat to society.

    The abuse part of this would happen if it is too easy. After all 60% of felons are emotionally ill. And another 20% are mentally ill. Over 70% have been in foster care (early childhood abuse).

    The question is whether punish all of society via a gun ban or to limit the rights of the few (mentally ill)?
     

    the1kidd03

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Jul 19, 2011
    6,717
    48
    somewhere
    That is why it must be a court hearing with the person in question having legal counsel.
    Agreed, but even the court hearing should be required to confide in the professional opinions of at least 3 psychiatrists.

    Rights should not be removed from someone due to only one man with a potentially biased opinion merely because he holds a specific title/profession.
     

    the1kidd03

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Jul 19, 2011
    6,717
    48
    somewhere
    That is emotional illness. Mental illness is a chemical imbalance in the brain, a disease.
    Mental illness can encompass a great deal more than purely chemical reactions. Psychological issues have a very wide spectrum of causes and effects, not all are purely physical (in the sense of chemical reactions.)
     

    -Jake-

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 6, 2013
    353
    18
    NWI
    Your question assumes there is a problem to begin with. Violent crime has been down for like the last 20 years. I would argue our problem is with 24 hour news networks playing the **** out of every gun murder (as long as it happens to white people).
     

    Tombs

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    12,021
    113
    Martinsville
    It's a medical problem.

    You have family doctors handing our medicine only a qualified psychiatrist should even know the name of. And they're giving it out to anyone and everyone.

    Being sad because you just had a breakup is not a valid reason to go on a mind altering medication.

    How did this stuff ever get allowed to be commercialized and marketed like a toy at christmas? It's a disgrace.
     

    Trooper

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    It's a medical problem.

    You have family doctors handing our medicine only a qualified psychiatrist should even know the name of. And they're giving it out to anyone and everyone.

    Being sad because you just had a breakup is not a valid reason to go on a mind altering medication.

    How did this stuff ever get allowed to be commercialized and marketed like a toy at christmas? It's a disgrace.

    Same with pain meds. Class III meds should only be prescribed by a qualified pain specialist.
     
    Top Bottom