Depressed? No guns for you, and no travel either

[cb1000rider]

comment was directed more generally than to this particular case. I still think if the lady had documentation she was only passing through and her departure was imminent, what would it hurt to let her pass on through? At some point, common sense has to play a part.

Common sense and government are mutually exclusive.. Besides, I'm sure someone wanted to break up their day and deny entry..

[chasfm11]

comment was directed more generally than to this particular case. I still think if the lady had documentation she was only passing through and her departure was imminent, what would it hurt to let her pass on through? At some point, common sense has to play a part.

Common sense and government are mutually exclusive.. Besides, I'm sure someone wanted to break up their day and deny entry..

The most ludicrous part of this is that the same government responsible for the decision against this women is out begging others to come and stay here illegally, even offering them financial benefits to do it. I know for a fact that many of are bringing in worse problems than depression.

[cb1000rider]

part of this is that the same government responsible for the decision against this women is out begging others to come and stay here illegally, even offering them financial benefits to do it. I know for a fact that many of are bringing in worse problems than depression.

Begging? Nah.. Just sponsored by special interests who make sure politicians are aware that removing illegal workers would impact their businesses. It's not in the best interests of farmers, home builders, and many other industries to get rid of that labor pool.. As such, our politicians do what they do best: get nothing done.

[JSThane]

The way we have it today, the mentally ill can buy guns, but in order to do so they need to lie to an FFL or buy through an individual. Although I support the concept of keeping firearms from the mentally ill - and perhaps taking them away in extreme cases, I can't fathom a way that our government could possibly do that correctly without a bunch of other implications that are restrictive and non-intended.

Once labelled mentally ill, even for something temporary like depression, what doctor is going to sign on the dotted line that you're cured? The liability is massive for that type of statement in the USA.

In terms of keeping people from "getting help" - I believe it happens with pilots. Each visit to the doctor has to be reported. Each pill reported. It's a real pain. One way to deal with it is to simply not go.

Couple "corrections." The "mentally ill" can buy guns all day long, legally, through an FFL. It's those who have been adjudicated mentally incompetent or mentally defective that can't. When one thinks of "mentally ill" these days, they conjure up a media-created picture of someone with no grasp of reality, who hears homicidal voices and feels compelled to obey them. This... is not the truth, but a red herring, one designed to induce us to pigeon-hole mental illness as a certain, tiny, subset of the whole, dismiss it, and feel justified in doing so.

Now, we all know this is so much hogwash. Mental illness is not a causation, or even a correlation to violence. I can guarantee you, there are people around you who deal with bipolar disorder, but are never violent. We may shy away from them if they forget their meds, or have a flare up, but they don't blow up the building.
The guy in the cubicle or office down the hall that always yells at his computer, or gets easily frustrated? We all know at least one guy like that, or we ARE the guy like that. Anger management disorder. But instead of killing people, Mr. Anger finds something else to vent at, annoying his coworkers instead of murdering them.
The dude with schizophrenia? He may hear the voices, but by and large, neither he nor they are violent. Self-destructive, maybe, but violent? Not usually.

All these are what's typically thought of, when one brings up "mental illness." But not only are these portrayals inaccurate of what bipolars, schizophrenics, and people with anger management disorder are really like, and not only are these portrayals inaccurate as to what these conditions are, but they pretend as though "mental illness" is limited to these inaccurate depictions.

In addition to schizophrenia, multiple personality disorder, and violent delusions, other things are classified as "mental illness" that, if applied/diagnosed "by the book," would render -everyone- ineligible. Bipolar, ADD, ADHD, anorexia, bulemia, "oppositional defiance disorder," they'd all fall into it. And the psychological "industry" keeps expanding the definitions, and coming up with new diagnoses and new disorders, all of which, being "mental illnesses" are never cured, but only "in remission." And as you pointed out, no doctor worth his insurance payment will ever sign off on a patient being "cured" of a "mental illness."

Remember your teenage years? Remember the rocky hormone-driven roller coaster? Yeah, you were bipolar, and you could regress at any time. So you're ineligible. Were you ever addicted to caffeine? Addicted to nicoteine? Addictions are classified as half mental, half physical illnesses. Ineligible. Ever lost your temper? Anger management problems, ineligible. And it goes on. And on. And on.

There are even those who propose diagnosing the very state of -liking firearms- and other weapons as a mental illness, and therefore rendering all of us "sick," and ineligible. If you're older and don't think quite as quickly, as on-your-feet as you used to, then you've got "decreased mental capacity" and are ineligible; never mind the fact that age, wisdom, and experience have combined to allow you to make far -better- decisions than you used to, you're "impaired" because you make slow good decisions, not fast bad ones. My wife points out over my shoulder that DSM 5 classifies pregnancy as a mental disorder for some reason. She's also discovered that DSM 5 classifies a lack of other mental illnesses itself as an illness. IE, "normality" is an "illness."

Restrict the right from one, and you have started the restriction on us all.

The answer is not to restrict it from anyone for any "condition," "illness," or what have you. The answer is to lock up those who commit unjustified, unprovoked violent acts, whether in jail or a psychiatric ward, and leave everyone else the heck alone. If you're too dangerous to own a gun, you're too dangerous to be walking around freely.

[mgood]

The way we have it today, the mentally ill can buy guns, but in order to do so they need to lie to an FFL or buy through an individual. Although I support the concept of keeping firearms from the mentally ill - and perhaps taking them away in extreme cases, I can't fathom a way that our government could possibly do that correctly without a bunch of other implications that are restrictive and non-intended.

Once labelled mentally ill, even for something temporary like depression, what doctor is going to sign on the dotted line that you're cured? The liability is massive for that type of statement in the USA.

In terms of keeping people from "getting help" - I believe it happens with pilots. Each visit to the doctor has to be reported. Each pill reported. It's a real pain. One way to deal with it is to simply not go.

Couple "corrections." The "mentally ill" can buy guns all day long, legally, through an FFL. It's those who have been adjudicated mentally incompetent or mentally defective that can't. When one thinks of "mentally ill" these days, they conjure up a media-created picture of someone with no grasp of reality, who hears homicidal voices and feels compelled to obey them. This... is not the truth, but a red herring, one designed to induce us to pigeon-hole mental illness as a certain, tiny, subset of the whole, dismiss it, and feel justified in doing so.

Now, we all know this is so much hogwash. Mental illness is not a causation, or even a correlation to violence. I can guarantee you, there are people around you who deal with bipolar disorder, but are never violent. We may shy away from them if they forget their meds, or have a flare up, but they don't blow up the building.
The guy in the cubicle or office down the hall that always yells at his computer, or gets easily frustrated? We all know at least one guy like that, or we ARE the guy like that. Anger management disorder. But instead of killing people, Mr. Anger finds something else to vent at, annoying his coworkers instead of murdering them.
The dude with schizophrenia? He may hear the voices, but by and large, neither he nor they are violent. Self-destructive, maybe, but violent? Not usually.

All these are what's typically thought of, when one brings up "mental illness." But not only are these portrayals inaccurate of what bipolars, schizophrenics, and people with anger management disorder are really like, and not only are these portrayals inaccurate as to what these conditions are, but they pretend as though "mental illness" is limited to these inaccurate depictions.

In addition to schizophrenia, multiple personality disorder, and violent delusions, other things are classified as "mental illness" that, if applied/diagnosed "by the book," would render -everyone- ineligible. Bipolar, ADD, ADHD, anorexia, bulemia, "oppositional defiance disorder," they'd all fall into it. And the psychological "industry" keeps expanding the definitions, and coming up with new diagnoses and new disorders, all of which, being "mental illnesses" are never cured, but only "in remission." And as you pointed out, no doctor worth his insurance payment will ever sign off on a patient being "cured" of a "mental illness."

Remember your teenage years? Remember the rocky hormone-driven roller coaster? Yeah, you were bipolar, and you could regress at any time. So you're ineligible. Were you ever addicted to caffeine? Addicted to nicoteine? Addictions are classified as half mental, half physical illnesses. Ineligible. Ever lost your temper? Anger management problems, ineligible. And it goes on. And on. And on.

There are even those who propose diagnosing the very state of -liking firearms- and other weapons as a mental illness, and therefore rendering all of us "sick," and ineligible. If you're older and don't think quite as quickly, as on-your-feet as you used to, then you've got "decreased mental capacity" and are ineligible; never mind the fact that age, wisdom, and experience have combined to allow you to make far -better- decisions than you used to, you're "impaired" because you make slow good decisions, not fast bad ones. My wife points out over my shoulder that DSM 5 classifies pregnancy as a mental disorder for some reason. She's also discovered that DSM 5 classifies a lack of other mental illnesses itself as an illness. IE, "normality" is an "illness."

Restrict the right from one, and you have started the restriction on us all.

The answer is not to restrict it from anyone for any "condition," "illness," or what have you. The answer is to lock up those who commit unjustified, unprovoked violent acts, whether in jail or a psychiatric ward, and leave everyone else the heck alone. If you're too dangerous to own a gun, you're too dangerous to be walking around freely.

[VMI77]

The way we have it today, the mentally ill can buy guns, but in order to do so they need to lie to an FFL or buy through an individual. Although I support the concept of keeping firearms from the mentally ill - and perhaps taking them away in extreme cases, I can't fathom a way that our government could possibly do that correctly without a bunch of other implications that are restrictive and non-intended.

Once labelled mentally ill, even for something temporary like depression, what doctor is going to sign on the dotted line that you're cured? The liability is massive for that type of statement in the USA.

In terms of keeping people from "getting help" - I believe it happens with pilots. Each visit to the doctor has to be reported. Each pill reported. It's a real pain. One way to deal with it is to simply not go.

Couple "corrections." The "mentally ill" can buy guns all day long, legally, through an FFL. It's those who have been adjudicated mentally incompetent or mentally defective that can't. When one thinks of "mentally ill" these days, they conjure up a media-created picture of someone with no grasp of reality, who hears homicidal voices and feels compelled to obey them. This... is not the truth, but a red herring, one designed to induce us to pigeon-hole mental illness as a certain, tiny, subset of the whole, dismiss it, and feel justified in doing so.

Now, we all know this is so much hogwash. Mental illness is not a causation, or even a correlation to violence. I can guarantee you, there are people around you who deal with bipolar disorder, but are never violent. We may shy away from them if they forget their meds, or have a flare up, but they don't blow up the building.
The guy in the cubicle or office down the hall that always yells at his computer, or gets easily frustrated? We all know at least one guy like that, or we ARE the guy like that. Anger management disorder. But instead of killing people, Mr. Anger finds something else to vent at, annoying his coworkers instead of murdering them.
The dude with schizophrenia? He may hear the voices, but by and large, neither he nor they are violent. Self-destructive, maybe, but violent? Not usually.

All these are what's typically thought of, when one brings up "mental illness." But not only are these portrayals inaccurate of what bipolars, schizophrenics, and people with anger management disorder are really like, and not only are these portrayals inaccurate as to what these conditions are, but they pretend as though "mental illness" is limited to these inaccurate depictions.

In addition to schizophrenia, multiple personality disorder, and violent delusions, other things are classified as "mental illness" that, if applied/diagnosed "by the book," would render -everyone- ineligible. Bipolar, ADD, ADHD, anorexia, bulemia, "oppositional defiance disorder," they'd all fall into it. And the psychological "industry" keeps expanding the definitions, and coming up with new diagnoses and new disorders, all of which, being "mental illnesses" are never cured, but only "in remission." And as you pointed out, no doctor worth his insurance payment will ever sign off on a patient being "cured" of a "mental illness."

Remember your teenage years? Remember the rocky hormone-driven roller coaster? Yeah, you were bipolar, and you could regress at any time. So you're ineligible. Were you ever addicted to caffeine? Addicted to nicoteine? Addictions are classified as half mental, half physical illnesses. Ineligible. Ever lost your temper? Anger management problems, ineligible. And it goes on. And on. And on.

There are even those who propose diagnosing the very state of -liking firearms- and other weapons as a mental illness, and therefore rendering all of us "sick," and ineligible. If you're older and don't think quite as quickly, as on-your-feet as you used to, then you've got "decreased mental capacity" and are ineligible; never mind the fact that age, wisdom, and experience have combined to allow you to make far -better- decisions than you used to, you're "impaired" because you make slow good decisions, not fast bad ones. My wife points out over my shoulder that DSM 5 classifies pregnancy as a mental disorder for some reason. She's also discovered that DSM 5 classifies a lack of other mental illnesses itself as an illness. IE, "normality" is an "illness."

Restrict the right from one, and you have started the restriction on us all.


The answer is not to restrict it from anyone for any "condition," "illness," or what have you. The answer is to lock up those who commit unjustified, unprovoked violent acts, whether in jail or a psychiatric ward, and leave everyone else the heck alone. If you're too dangerous to own a gun, you're too dangerous to be walking around freely.

Good write up. There seems to be a convergence of "interests" who find "mental illness" to be a very good tool for profit or advancing their agendas; and it's a disturbing trend.

[cb1000rider]

Couple "corrections." The "mentally ill" can buy guns all day long, legally, through an FFL. It's those who have been adjudicated mentally incompetent or mentally defective that can't. When one thinks of "mentally ill" these days, they conjure up a media-created picture of someone with no grasp of reality, who hears homicidal voices and feels compelled to obey them. This... is not the truth, but a red herring, one designed to induce us to pigeon-hole mental illness as a certain, tiny, subset of the whole, dismiss it, and feel justified in doing so.

Clarify for me, I purchased through an FFL recently and believe there was a question about mental illness.. I assume that answering "yes" to that question would mean that the FFL shuts down the sale? I honestly don't remember the verbiage of the question, but I thought it included depression, etc... It's the same sort of "self-reporting" that the FAA expects from pilots, but it's used in conjunction with not-optional doctor visits to clear pilots every so often (depending on age).

Sure you can lie... Or I suppose you can be so mentally deficient that you're not aware.. I agree that it's really not much of a mental health check.

Now, we all know this is so much hogwash. Mental illness is not a causation, or even a correlation to violence. I can guarantee you, there are people around you who deal with bipolar disorder, but are never violent. We may shy away from them if they forget their meds, or have a flare up, but they don't blow up the building.

You're asserting that there is no statistical relationship between mental illness and various violent acts? That is, the depressed are just as likely as as the non-depressed to be involved in suicide? That that just doesn't sound right to me, but I haven't looked at the data. Certainly the vast majority of the mentally ill - those who are bi-polar, those with schizophrenia don't necessarily commit violent actions. But are they more likely than the general public to do so? If the answer is yes, then perhaps there is value in restricting privileges that can cause harm to others.. like piloting an aircraft... and perhaps there is value in restricting rights too - such as the right to carry a firearm.

If you're correct, statistically, and there is no statistical relationship between specific mental illnesses and a greater propensity for violence, then I 100% completely agree that no restriction is necessary or warranted...

In addition to schizophrenia, multiple personality disorder, and violent delusions, other things are classified as "mental illness" that, if applied/diagnosed "by the book," would render -everyone- ineligible. Bipolar, ADD, ADHD, anorexia, bulemia, "oppositional defiance disorder," they'd all fall into it. And the psychological "industry" keeps expanding the definitions, and coming up with new diagnoses and new disorders, all of which, being "mental illnesses" are never cured, but only "in remission." And as you pointed out, no doctor worth his insurance payment will ever sign off on a patient being "cured" of a "mental illness."
Remember your teenage years? Remember the rocky hormone-driven roller coaster? Yeah, you were bipolar, and you could regress at any time. So you're ineligible. Were you ever addicted to caffeine? Addicted to nicoteine? Addictions are classified as half mental, half physical illnesses. Ineligible. Ever lost your temper? Anger management problems, ineligible. And it goes on. And on. And on.

Trust me, as a pilot, I get it. If I had medical records that ever indicated treatment for being bi-polar or having ADHD, I'm done. If I had records that indicate any prior treatment for depression, the burden of proof is on me to provide - through medical documentation - that I'm fit to fly and in remission. Getting the type of qualified MD / Psychiatrist that the FAA will accept to write that note typically costs thousands of dollars after extensive evaluation.

So ask a pilot if he'd report a bout of depression to his primary healthcare professional. Tying gun ownership to a similar process would have similar results.

It's a bit like the TSA - they're there to make us feel safe. What added value there is per what they cost, is ludicrous.

The answer is not to restrict it from anyone for any "condition," "illness," or what have you. The answer is to lock up those who commit unjustified, unprovoked violent acts, whether in jail or a psychiatric ward, and leave everyone else the heck alone. If you're too dangerous to own a gun, you're too dangerous to be walking around freely.

That sounds good to me. But as you're aware, you can't test for this propensity with 100% accuracy in advance.. And locking them up afterwards is too late.

[JSThane]

Clarify for me, I purchased through an FFL recently and believe there was a question about mental illness.. I assume that answering "yes" to that question would mean that the FFL shuts down the sale? I honestly don't remember the verbiage of the question, but I thought it included depression, etc... It's the same sort of "self-reporting" that the FAA expects from pilots, but it's used in conjunction with not-optional doctor visits to clear pilots every so often (depending on age).

Sure you can lie... Or I suppose you can be so mentally deficient that you're not aware.. I agree that it's really not much of a mental health check.

No, it's fairly specific: it has to be an adjudication of incompetence and/or of danger to self or others, or involuntary commitment.

As per ATF's online version of the form -

"Question 11.f. Adjudicated Mentally Defective:
A determination by a court,
board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked
subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease:
(1) is a danger to himself or to others; or (2) lacks the mental capacity to contract
or manage his own affairs. This term shall include: (1) a finding of insanity by a
court in a criminal case; and (2) Those persons found incompetent to stand trial or
found not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility.
Committed to a Mental Institution:
A formal commitment of a person to a
mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority. The
term includes a commitment to a mental institution involuntarily. The term
includes commitment for mental defectiveness or mental illness. It also includes
commitments for other reasons, such as for drug use. The term does not include a
person in a mental institution for observation or a voluntary admission to a mental
institution. Please also refer to Question 11.c. for the definition of a prohibited
person.
EXCEPTION to 11. f. NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007
:
A person
who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental
institution is not prohibited if: (1) the person was adjudicated or committed
by a
department or agency of the Federal Government
, such as the United States
Department of Veteran’s Affairs (“VA”) (as opposed to a State court, State board,
or other lawful State authority);
and (2) either: (a) the person’s adjudication or
commitment for mental incompetency was set-aside or expunged by the
adjudicating/committing agency; (b) the person has been fully released or
discharged from all mandatory treatment, supervision, or monitoring by the
agency; or (c) the person was found by the agency to no longer suffer from the
mental health condition that served as the basis of the initial adjudication.
Persons who fit this exception should answer “no” to Item 11.f.
This
exception does not apply to any person who was adjudicated to be not guilty by
reason of insanity, or based on lack of mental responsibility, or found incompe-
tent to stand trial, in any criminal case or under the Uniform Code of Military
Justice."
http://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download ... 4473-1.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You're asserting that there is no statistical relationship between mental illness and various violent acts? That is, the depressed are just as likely as as the non-depressed to be involved in suicide? That that just doesn't sound right to me, but I haven't looked at the data. Certainly the vast majority of the mentally ill - those who are bi-polar, those with schizophrenia don't necessarily commit violent actions. But are they more likely than the general public to do so? If the answer is yes, then perhaps there is value in restricting privileges that can cause harm to others.. like piloting an aircraft... and perhaps there is value in restricting rights too - such as the right to carry a firearm.

If you're correct, statistically, and there is no statistical relationship between specific mental illnesses and a greater propensity for violence, then I 100% completely agree that no restriction is necessary or warranted...

I'm certain that some diagnosis of mental disorder or disability can be made for any and all of us, to include murderers and those who attempt or succeed at suicide. That aside, I refer back to the principle that one cannot violate an innocent person's rights just because some other person who may share characteristics with the innocent committed a violent crime or did violence to themselves. If the statistical argument trumped this principle, then we would be justified in telling blacks they can't have guns, or poor people, or people who live in crime-ridden areas (except we've done all these at different points in time, and it's always failed, proving the point fairly bloodily. Prima facie example? Chicago/D.C./etc.).

Trust me, as a pilot, I get it. If I had medical records that ever indicated treatment for being bi-polar or having ADHD, I'm done. If I had records that indicate any prior treatment for depression, the burden of proof is on me to provide - through medical documentation - that I'm fit to fly and in remission. Getting the type of qualified MD / Psychiatrist that the FAA will accept to write that note typically costs thousands of dollars after extensive evaluation.

So ask a pilot if he'd report a bout of depression to his primary healthcare professional. Tying gun ownership to a similar process would have similar results.

It's a bit like the TSA - they're there to make us feel safe. What added value there is per what they cost, is ludicrous.

Again, this illustrates the absurdity of the "if it saves one life" argument: namely, that it doesn't. I've a bit of a feeling you're playing "devil's advocate" with me, but I'm game. Point being, I'm sure there's pilots out there with said "mental disorders" who fly just fine every day, just as there are soldiers, cops, firefighters, and doctors with them too, who also perform their jobs well. Outliers do not, and should not be allowed to, demonstrate the majority, and the majority should not be forced to surrender rights because of those outliers. (Actually, neither should the minority be forced to surrender rights because of a majority with problems, either; but my libertarian is showing)

That sounds good to me. But as you're aware, you can't test for this propensity with 100% accuracy in advance.. And locking them up afterwards is too late.

No, you can't test for it with any accuracy in advance at all. Nor should we look at doing so; such is the same reasoning eugenics promoters gave for encouraging sterilization and worse among "undesirables," as the children of said undesirables were more "likely" to commit crimes, be poor, etc. They even had statistics to back themselves up. That doesn't make them right, however.

Any test that is intended to predict future action is flawed at its heart. We cannot even predict the weather; a human being, an individual, is at LEAST as complex as a weather system. Any test so devised would have to consider millions, if not billions, of variables, the slightest change in any of which can throw off the whole equation. This does not take into account other non-quantifiable factors, either, such as personal morality, faith, and sheer pig-headed human willfulness. If you can't quantify it, you can't predict it. All you can do is analyze past trends, and attempt to project them into the future. We see how well this works with weather.

It's not too late for the next attack, however. Look at the successful attacks by spree killers and mass-shooters; the high body-count incidents (which is what they're going for) always occur in areas where the attacker isn't "allowed" to have a gun. The Aurora shooter bypassed closer theaters to shoot up the one with "No Gun" signs; the closer ones allowed CCW. The Sandy Hook shooter attacked an elementary school. Both could be said to have had severe mental problems (and probably did), but they were rational enough to figure out what areas would make them able to act as a virtual "god of death," and what areas could possibly have resistance, then make the optimal choice for their twisted goals. Mentally ill they may have been, insane possibly, but not stupid by any means. Each and every time they demonstrated thought and foresight, and the ability to cogently plan.

Look at the shooting that wounded Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords for contrast. The shooter, probably deranged, targeted a single person first, body count to come later - and failed. Giffords is still alive, and armed citizens took down the gunman. If we allowed mental illness to become the "new black" or whatever current trendy perjorative we have today, who's to say that there would have been ANYONE to stop him? After all, according to DSM 5, everyone is mentally ill, and the lack of any diagnosis is itself a diagnosis of illness.

Instead of trying to prevent mass-shooting attacks and spree killers through removal of quantifiable rights, we need to address the issue through human behavior, which is both cause and solution to the problem. Eliminate victim disarmament zones. Heap scorn on the killers for their actions, instead of heaping sympathy on them for their presumed illnesses. Promote morals, values, and rights, all individual characteristics, instead of allowing people to shift blame onto some claimed or verified illness. The illness didn't make them do it; they chose to. Accept people are capable of doing evil for completely rational, sane thoughts; accept that evil people do evil because they wanted to, instead of blaming something else. Call evil "evil."

[/soapbox]

[VMI77]

The Sandy Hook shooter attacked an elementary school.

I've read recently that he actually planned to attack a high school but passed it up because he saw a police car there.

BTW, from the sound of your posts I'm assuming you've read "The Myth of Mental Illness," by Thomas Szasz?

[cb1000rider]

JSThane,

Thank you.. you have well versed and polite discussions. It's a pleasure.

[JSThane]

The Sandy Hook shooter attacked an elementary school.

I've read recently that he actually planned to attack a high school but passed it up because he saw a police car there.

BTW, from the sound of your posts I'm assuming you've read "The Myth of Mental Illness," by Thomas Szasz?

Actually, no, I've never heard of the book or the author. Just looked it and him up; I'm not sure I'll agree with everything he has to say, but it looks intriguing.


cb1000rider -
Thank you, sir. Been a pleasure in return.

[chasfm11]

..snip...
Instead of trying to prevent mass-shooting attacks and spree killers through removal of quantifiable rights, we need to address the issue through human behavior, which is both cause and solution to the problem. Eliminate victim disarmament zones. Heap scorn on the killers for their actions, instead of heaping sympathy on them for their presumed illnesses. Promote morals, values, and rights, all individual characteristics, instead of allowing people to shift blame onto some claimed or verified illness. The illness didn't make them do it; they chose to. Accept people are capable of doing evil for completely rational, sane thoughts; accept that evil people do evil because they wanted to, instead of blaming something else. Call evil "evil."

[/soapbox]

THIS! From the Luby's shooting forward, the vast majority of mass shootings have been in gun free zones.

I still cannot get over the disparity between fire protect that we accept in society versus the almost total lack of acceptance of the possibility of mass killers. OK, I do realize that fires happen a lot more often than mass shootings but part of any risk analysis has to be the consequences if the risk is realized.

In many situations, the person who commits some vile act had been receiving treatment, had prescribed medication to take and personally elected to stop that medication. From there on, what happens is their fault. Period. While the exact action and the timing of it cannot be predicted, the fact that they may do something can be. Don't take that further than it needs to go. I don't advocate State forced medication. It still remains an individual responsibility.

As as society, the best thing that we can do is to remove the stigma attached to mental problems. If someone admits publicly to having cancer, the reaction is far different than if they said they were bi-polar.

[JSThane]

I still cannot get over the disparity between fire protect that we accept in society versus the almost total lack of acceptance of the possibility of mass killers. OK, I do realize that fires happen a lot more often than mass shootings but part of any risk analysis has to be the consequences if the risk is realized.

I don't have a source to quote backing me up, so treat this as anecdotal or hear-say until or unless I or someone else can come out with some real numbers, but I seem to recall a statistic that showed you're several times more likely to die by lightning strike than by mass shooting.

As as society, the best thing that we can do is to remove the stigma attached to mental problems. If someone admits publicly to having cancer, the reaction is far different than if they said they were bi-polar.

There is also a sort of backwards pride associated with it in certain corners, as well. It's not the pride of accomplishment, or really even of a group, but a reflexively wounded pride that takes glory in being discriminated against, the sort of thing that actually -draws- malingerers and only makes the public scorn and stigma worse.

[chasfm11]

There is also a sort of backwards pride associated with it in certain corners, as well. It's not the pride of accomplishment, or really even of a group, but a reflexively wounded pride that takes glory in being discriminated against, the sort of thing that actually -draws- malingerers and only makes the public scorn and stigma worse.

I'm not sure about that. Having watched it as an observer, much of the mental health process that we have, at least in the Dallas area, is woefully inadequate. And there are many in it who genuinely need help but are not getting it. The drugs involved (example SSRIs) are more of a trial and error process as the doctors attempt to find one or a combination that works for an individual That trial and error can take years. I never personally observed the malingering types. Usually it was deniers - those who would only tacitly accept the fact that they had a problem worthy of treatment.

I submit that the treatment of mental patients in our society occurs in much the same way as we treat those with autism or Downs syndrome. There seems to be an inferiority stigma attached to them. Many who are autistic or who suffer from clinical depression can be extraordinarily bright but because they cannot always channel their mental gifts in conformance, they get no credit for them.

[tbrown]

1. I have yet to see how guns play into this case.

IBTL viewtopic.php?f=83&t=69501" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;