Mental Illness, Politics, and Guns

[little2add]

The national debate has once again returned to gun control in the aftermath of the Parkland School Shooting where a violent maniac killed 17 innocent people. Of course, we can continue our bickering behind microphones and on TV cameras, but ultimately, the only decisions will be made in the courts. 

Looking to the law, we turn to one of our heroes on the conservative side and that would be the late Antonin Scalia. Justice Scalia was certifiably a great conservative Supreme Court justice. Never apologetic about his principles, we must ask what did Scalia have to say about the Second Amendment?

A 2008 ruling District of Columbia v. Heller set the parameters for today’s gun control reform to me. In an interview about the decision, Scalia was asked the following:

How far does that constitutional right go? Can a legislature ban semi-automatic weapons or can it ban magazines that carry a hundred rounds without violating an individual’s constitutional right to bear arms?

Scalia responded:

No matter what we think, this will all be decided by the courts, and certainly not by talk-show hosts. The Supreme Court justices are going to determine how far, if any, changes will be made with regard to limitations or restrictions on the Second Amendment. You must understand that it will always come down to the law. 

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

I don't want the rite to kill anyone but in countries where firearms are legal the use of them will increase when the society has become very sinful and turning to idols instead of the one true god. One needs a level of maturity to use his fists to abate and not kill, and this maturity comes from fleeing from sin and seeking virtue, you may find anywhere guns or no guns where sin and idol worship is epedemic then so will death in all its terrible forms. The wages of sin are death. Unsure changing or adding laws will change the consequences of sin, the law already States though shalt not kill, murder or manslaughter yet people still do.

Edited February 24, 2018 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

When we sin unrepentadly without a thought for its consequences and the merits of heroic virtue which stands in opposition to sin things start going wrong personally and communally and this increases the confusion of anger which is the beginnings of violence, murder and scape goating to divert from personal responsibility in the present momment, owning our own stuff, instead we start playing the blame game to ease our conscience and feel better about yourself. The pharisee and tax collector in the temple. So why rely to much on the government and not rise up as a population in a joyous chorus of loving our neighbour especially the weak and easing the pressure on the government who already is overloaded with responsibilities. Though of course political activism in a democracy  is nescisary to help governments make decisions based on what the population wants, but is not enough.

Where the church is living and reaching out in the fullness of truth, prayer, works and a loving relationship with god and man the population of that nation is illuminated by the truth and chooses to do good and not evil. We help them especially the weak.

And the Lord loves a joyful giver. Don't give to much or to little, no need to be afraid as the lord knows how much each can give.

Edited February 24, 2018 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye

[Norseman82]

On ‎2‎/‎20‎/‎2018 at 6:45 AM, little2add said:

 like

also: drivers licence to operate  -  operators license to use

One thing not in the above comparison is minimum age requirements.  I read in the news that three states - Maine, Vermont, and Minnesota - allow minors (some as young as 14) to purchase rifles.  One of the things being suggested in response to this shooting is to raise (on a federal law level) the minimum age for purchasing a rifle to 21 as it is currently for handguns. 

Additionally, when Chicago had to rewrite its handgun ordinance after the McDonald decision, most of those provisions in the table above regarding training and testing (as well as registration) were in the revised ordinance. 

Edited February 24, 2018 by Norseman82

[polskieserce]

On 2/23/2018 at 12:40 PM, little2add said:

this Florida boy was clearly disturbed and mentally unsound.  the fact that he was issued a gun permit is disturbing and may be the true crux of the matter 

 there is little doubt that better, more rigorous  gun permits are needed and better scrutiny is needed to weed out mentally ill, and /or intoxicated type persons.   Think about it you can't drive the car or operate heavy machinery under the influence.   The use of  Marijuana,  alcohol and  antidepressant drug should be scrutinized before a gun permit is issued to a individual.  

 This could be easily done without infringing on the second amendment.  I'm not suggesting that better scrutiny would prevent all mass killings but it would certainly curtail the majority of them.  

He was still semi-functional because he was able to do basic functions for himself.  He didn't need anyone to wipe his backside when he used the bathroom, spoon feed him, bathe him, etc.

An extremely dysfunctional person would be someone like my brother.  My brother had to be monitored around the clocked, given baths by hand, etc.

My point still stands.  The system is insufficient to take care of all the people who need help.  There are VERY long wait lists for mental health services due to lack of funding.  There simply isn't enough funding to cover everyone who needs it.  The discussion about mental health will never go beyond a discussion if we don't address the issue of funding.

[GreenScapularedHuman]

31 minutes ago, polskieserce said:

He was still semi-functional because he was able to do basic functions for himself.  He didn't need anyone to wipe his backside when he used the bathroom, spoon feed him, bathe him, etc.

An extremely dysfunctional person would be someone like my brother.  My brother had to be monitored around the clocked, given baths by hand, etc.

My point still stands.  The system is insufficient to take care of all the people who need help.  There are VERY long wait lists for mental health services due to lack of funding.  There simply isn't enough funding to cover everyone who needs it.  The discussion about mental health will never go beyond a discussion if we don't address the issue of funding.

I support an equal-use in-community support system, which will be primarily help support and try to transition people as much as possible in-community, with ample social-care and welfare-assistance.

But a major complication and challenge to delivering comprehensive health care and moreover mental health care is that many those with significant mental health matters do not have reasonable access to it. I think the simplest (though far less than what I propose) thing that could be done is to simply grant medicaid to those who need it... but that is 'obamacare expansion' is quite controversial moreover among Republican-leaning States.

[little2add]

2 hours ago, polskieserce said:

He didn't need anyone to wipe his backside when he used the bathroom, spoon feed him, bathe him, etc.

There is always family, if you're fortunate enough to have relatives who care.   But, often times the troubled Family (person)  member rejects the people who love the most (I see it all the time) because of some petty hard feelings from along time ago, over a nothing.  IE: tough love - sometimes in the case of a parent you do or say something for the childs own good, etc. 

Family is the only solution to this problem, for it is unconditional.  Mental health services can never replace Family.  Brother sister mom or dad, grandparents, etc.

 

Edited February 24, 2018 by little2add

[SaintOfVirtue]

On Friday, February 23, 2018 at 10:01 AM, GreenScapularedHuman said:

I think short of majorly limiting all firearm rights in the United States the nation of Switzerland is worth considering (and perhaps emulating to a great extent) because they have a high per capita (person) firearm ownership but dramatically less firearm related crime/violence/death/injury.  One major difference in the Swiss system verses the American system is the Swiss view it far less a right and much more a duty.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Swiss also all have formal gun training as part of their compulsory military service.  There is another factor that leads to Switzerland's low crime rate: they have little cultural diversity compared to the United States.

 

On Friday, February 23, 2018 at 9:40 AM, little2add said:

This could be easily done without infringing on the second amendment.  I'm not suggesting that better scrutiny would prevent all mass killings but it would certainly curtail the majority of them.  

I agree to the extent that it would curtail the use of guns as an instrument of violence, but I disagree that it would curtail the violence. Someone who is so bent on performing violence that they spend months planning it is not going to be deterred by the inaccessibility of guns.  As was observed in the 9/11 commission report in the absence of trained law enforcement the best in-flight defense on an airplane is the passengers themselves. We should view schools the same way and arm qualified teachers and security guards. 

 

7 hours ago, Norseman82 said:

One thing not in the above comparison is minimum age requirements.  I read in the news that three states - Maine, Vermont, and Minnesota - allow minors (some as young as 14 ) to purchase rifles. 

This is evidence of the very different cultures throughout the United States. In Vermont hunting is a popular pastime comparable to how fishing would be viewed elsewhere.  In much of the Midwest it is necessary for young but mature children to be proficient in the use of firearms to assist in ranch keeping (varmint control, hunting, etc.) Age is not the root cause either. Not long ago Las Vegas had a shooting by a deranged middle aged man.

People who are determined to perform violence will find a way to accomplish it guns or no guns. We have two choices to meet this threat: constant vigilance and preparedness to meet their force with force, or to disarm ourselves and hope those set on murder will do likewise. 

[GreenScapularedHuman]

3 hours ago, SaintOfVirtue said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Swiss also all have formal gun training as part of their compulsory military service.  There is another factor that leads to Switzerland's low crime rate: they have little cultural diversity compared to the United States.

Yes, a majority of Swiss citizens receive at very least basic training when in national service, but this isn't closely connected to the permitting system that they use. The argument that ethnic or cultural diversity leads to more crime/violence is dubious and certainly contradicted by the fact that plenty of ethnically and culturally homogeneous cultures suffer globally high rates of violence and crime.... I would point to Brazil and Mexico as two possible examples of that. Also the United States isn't that ethnically and/or culturally diverse, most persons in America are not only natively born but at least second generation Americans.

I have always suspected this is a thinly veiled racist argument... America has higher crime because America has some particular minorities that the speaker has issue with. Not saying that is what you meant but it has been a long standing suspicion on my part. The greater predictor of crime internationally is poverty, development, and stability.... which is difficult for some nations to cope with when they are poor, lack development, and lack stability... which feeds into a bit of a cycle. This cycle exists in the United States as well but as apart of a bit of a duality of experience and socieodemographic disparities.

3 hours ago, SaintOfVirtue said:

I agree to the extent that it would curtail the use of guns as an instrument of violence, but I disagree that it would curtail the violence. Someone who is so bent on performing violence that they spend months planning it is not going to be deterred by the inaccessibility of guns.  As was observed in the 9/11 commission report in the absence of trained law enforcement the best in-flight defense on an airplane is the passengers themselves. We should view schools the same way and arm qualified teachers and security guards.

Firearms are especially deadly when compared to other weapons in their effectiveness, ease, severity, and amount of harm that can be inflicted... to put it simply it is the reason why the US Military uses guns and not swords. The supermajority of firearms related to crime were legally obtained. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#/media/File:Firearmsources.svg The most recent school shooting had an armed officer on campus but yet it didn't stop or significantly impact the overall outcome... which is the case in many school shootings across America. More guns don't solve America's gun problem... it is a fantasy and borderline vigilantism.

3 hours ago, SaintOfVirtue said:

This is evidence of the very different cultures throughout the United States. In Vermont hunting is a popular pastime comparable to how fishing would be viewed elsewhere.  In much of the Midwest it is necessary for young but mature children to be proficient in the use of firearms to assist in ranch keeping (varmint control, hunting, etc.) Age is not the root cause either. Not long ago Las Vegas had a shooting by a deranged middle aged man.

People who are determined to perform violence will find a way to accomplish it guns or no guns. We have two choices to meet this threat: constant vigilance and preparedness to meet their force with force, or to disarm ourselves and hope those set on murder will do likewise. 

The majority of firearm related violence happens with the young. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#/media/File:Homoffendersbyage.svg The majority of firearm related violence also happens with handguns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svghttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg

[GreenScapularedHuman]

https://www.npr.org/2018/02/23/588374658/experts-say-theres-little-connection-between-mental-health-and-mass-shootings

[polskieserce]

19 hours ago, GreenScapularedHuman said:

I support an equal-use in-community support system, which will be primarily help support and try to transition people as much as possible in-community, with ample social-care and welfare-assistance.

But a major complication and challenge to delivering comprehensive health care and moreover mental health care is that many those with significant mental health matters do not have reasonable access to it. I think the simplest (though far less than what I propose) thing that could be done is to simply grant medicaid to those who need it... but that is 'obamacare expansion' is quite controversial moreover among Republican-leaning States.

I agree that there needs to be more welfare available to vulnerable people.  But convincing people to pay higher taxes is the issue here.  The US was built on radical individualism and unfettered capitalism.  The post WWII economic boom turned most Americans into some of the cockiest, materialistic and most ignorant people in the industrialized world.  Americans like to think that their post WW2 prosperity was a direct result of how amesome they are when in reality it was due to the fact that most of the industrialized world was bombed out during WW2.

This collective, nationalistic arrogance is slowly starting to melt as people realize that there are other nations on this planet that are better than the US.  Once we reach a certain threshold, we will be able to have a legit conversation about helping marginalized people and providing adequate mental health care.  Until then, it will be a grind.

 

17 hours ago, little2add said:

There is always family, if you're fortunate enough to have relatives who care.   But, often times the troubled Family (person)  member rejects the people who love the most (I see it all the time) because of some petty hard feelings from along time ago, over a nothing.  IE: tough love - sometimes in the case of a parent you do or say something for the childs own good, etc. 

Family is the only solution to this problem, for it is unconditional.  Mental health services can never replace Family.  Brother sister mom or dad, grandparents, etc.

 

Many families with severely disturbed children are pushed to the breaking points.  Think about this: if the average divorce rate for the general population is 50%, just imagine how high it is for families with severely disabled children.  Also, what happens to those children when the parents can't manage their behavior or when the parents die?

[little2add]

On 2/18/2018 at 2:56 PM, GreenScapularedHuman said:

So.. if mental illness is the primary cause WHY is the overwhelming supermajority of the mentally ill in America NOT committing such acts?

They are.  Every single mass killing was, in fact, committed by an insane/ mentally ill individual.  

  Of course, most insane/ mentally ill individuals are harmless (except to themselves)  law-abiding citizens nonetheless, virtually all of the individuals committing these heinous crimes have been insane/ mentally ill persons.

 

 

Edited February 25, 2018 by little2add

[GreenScapularedHuman]

2 hours ago, polskieserce said:

I agree that there needs to be more welfare available to vulnerable people.  But convincing people to pay higher taxes is the issue here.  The US was built on radical individualism and unfettered capitalism.

Hmm... I somewhat disagree, but I understand how individualism and market capitalism are valued in America, but I wouldn't call the general valuing radical or unfettered...

But yes I do support such things... I favor liberal democracy, modern liberalism, modern progressivism, social democracy, social market, humanitarianism, and progressive civil libertarianism. So I get that I am swinging a wee bit to the left here. I have a particular fondness for the Nordic model for social democracy and market... which I would like to hope it could be adapted to America someday.

34 minutes ago, little2add said:

They are.  Every single mass killing was, in fact, committed by an insane/ mentally ill individual.  

  Of course, most insane/ mentally ill individuals are harmless (except to themselves)  law-abiding citizens nonetheless, virtually all of the individuals committing these heinous crimes have been insane/ mentally ill persons.

No. https://www.npr.org/2018/02/23/588374658/experts-say-theres-little-connection-between-mental-health-and-mass-shootings

Edited February 25, 2018 by GreenScapularedHuman

[little2add]

4 hours ago, GreenScapularedHuman said:

No        <www.fakenews.com>j

 It’s not normal or rational to walk into a public place like a church or school and randomly kill innocent bystanders for no reason.

Edited February 26, 2018 by little2add

[GreenScapularedHuman]

5 minutes ago, little2add said:

 It’s not normal or rational to walk into a public place like a church or school and randomly kill innocent bystanders for no reason.

I will assume that calling NPR 'fake news' is a joke... but it is still a dismissal. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/npr/ NPR is a center-left leaning but nonetheless highly factual news source. I would also refer you to the first article from the NIH which discusses much of he same.

The NPR article correctly states that the consensus of mental health professionals agree that mental health is not and was not a significant cause (even in this last major school shooting) but rather being isolated, young, and male had much more significance.