Public Responses to Arizona shooting: New Bills, Comments (Tom Tancredo, cost, economy)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Perhaps all those judged mentally ill should be placed in some type of secure institution so as not to threaten the public.....
That would not be a good idea. Mental illness is an illness of the brain which can be treated just like any other organ illness. While psychiatry has a ways to go, psychiatry has made great strides.
Part of the problem is the stigma around it. If people could just see it like diabetes or asthma, etc, people would be more inclined to seek help.
Keep in mind that in most cases it's hard to condemn a person to a mental institution until they are a PROVEN threat to themselves or somebody else.
Also this guy was a legally an adult, just because he lived wtih his parent's doesn't mean they were heavily involved in his life.
And even if they are committed by loved ones, usually it's for a very short time. A court order is really required to get some people the help they need. And I mean court-ordered and mandated treatment.
That's where a psych eval enters the picture. There were so many red flags and so many balls dropped - the parents, the educators, the friends, casual acquaintances. But it's easier to just look the other way.
So every person should be made to have a mental evaluation???
That would not be a good idea. Mental illness is an illness of the brain which can be treated just like any other organ illness. While psychiatry has a ways to go, psychiatry has made great strides.
Part of the problem is the stigma around it. If people could just see it like diabetes or asthma, etc, people would be more inclined to seek help.
So what would gave stopped this guy from running a car into the crowd?
So every person should be made to have a mental evaluation???
Of course not. But I'd suggest if you run across someone in your community who meets the criteria for severe mental illness you at least try to contact someone, or steer very clear.
And please note - there is a HUGE difference between the SMI and the soccer mom who shows up depressed at her PCP's office.
So every person should be made to have a mental evaluation???
ETA: I even think the military REALLY dropped the ball. When they evaluated him and rejected him, I think they had a responsibility to notify authorities.
Here are emails about Loughner from a classmate when he was in college. Appears that he was quite disturbed. Wonder why this was never followed up on. Seems as though Pima Community College ejected him with a requirement that he see a mental professional. Wonder if that was ever done?
Not surprising. Clinics are so busy with so many patients to see someone with needs but no crisis might wait months for the first appointment. With budget cuts, mental health services are quickly on the block as well. Remember the Virginia Tech shooter had had an actual complaint from a female student that he was stalking her, and it got lost too. He had left the school by the time it would have been acted on anyway.
Realistically if someone needs help now and really wants it the only way to get attention is to claim a desire for sucide and show up at the county hospital. Anything less and you get to wait for the next appointment at most setups. If someone doesn't know the problem exists they are not going to be found.
The school should have required he see someone with campus services as a priority in this case. If it was enough to kick him out of class it was enough to require some action. Though I doubt he would have shown.
It should be stressed that by far the great majority of people with mental health issues who are in crisis are a far greater danger to themselves than anyone else.
Well, this state has gone past the state of being sensible. There have to be more precautions in place. While I am all for second amendment rights, I do not think it's ok to carry a gun into a bar or restaurant, which is perfectly ok here. Sure, they say you have to "check" your gun at the bar, but c'mon. Alcohol and guns are a deadly combo.
you might want to actually read up on the state laws, it is in fact ILLEGAL to carry a firearm into ANY bar OR restaurant that serves alcohol UNLESS you have a concealed carry permit, and even then you are NOT allowed to consume alcohol.
Quote:
This state is too lax. And it was a huge affront when people were not arrested for strapping on AK47s right outside the place where the POTUS was speaking. Show some respect people. You may not like him, but he was elected fairly. Those people should have been thrown in the slammer.
first, it was NOT an AK47, it was an AR15. there is a big difference, the AK is a full auto weapon, where as the AR is a semi auto only weapon.
second, unless the person was threatening the president, or had made threats against the president in the past, there was NO reason to relieve him of his weapon. and i am quite sure that the secret service was well aware of the guy, and they kept an eye on him while he was there.
just because a law abiding citizen is carrying a firearm, and the president is in the area, there is absolutely NO reason to throw those people in jail. to do that would violate their civil rights in a big way, and would only serve to place a huge black eye on the president and the secret service, not to mention that the people would have a solid civil rights violation case against the federal government.
just because you are anti gun, doesnt mean that law abiding citizens should give up their rights because you said so.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.