U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old Yesterday, 05:42 PM
Status: ""making all of his nowhere plans for nobody..."" (set 16 hours ago)
 
Location: Columbia, SC
7,540 posts, read 4,530,638 times
Reputation: 9018

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez View Post
Anyone so mentally ill that they murder others should be stigmatized.
It should go without saying that I am not concerned with how murderers are "stigmatized."
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez View Post
According to the left, that's the vast majority of people with any mental disorder.
I'm also not taking score on who says what or rather what party they may belong to. For example, I did not like it when the current president laid mass shootings at the feet of the mentally ill. Nor did I like it when the previous one did the same thing. The idea that the mentally ill are to cause for mass shootings ignores a lot of other factors. First, tke the El Paso shooter. He told us why he did what he did. He was targeting Hispanics. Racism is not a mental illness. Others on this board says these shooters are seeking to see thier name in lights, fame, in other words. I don't know if this is true in the majority of shootings, but I also do not know what mental illness this may be either.

I have said before that there is not just one reason these people go on shootings sprees. When the majority of America realizes this, maybe we can start working toward endings them or at least reducing them. But you folks looking for easy answers are doing it wrong. Sorry.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Yesterday, 05:56 PM
 
Location: Long Island
33,526 posts, read 14,133,361 times
Reputation: 7178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo48 View Post
My daughter tried to slit her wrists when she was 21. She had lot of problems throughout HS and saw a lot of counselors. Back in those days not much was known about BiPiolar.

Before she did, she had a moment of clarity. What am I doing? She checked herself into a hospital where they diagnosed BioPolar. She was put on medication and saw a professional.

Since my kids were children, I demanded my husband lock up his guns. My daughter has told me that if she had access to his guns she might have shot herself. Pulling the trigger of gun to your head is faster than taking a knife and slitting your wrists.

Now here is the problem with guns and mental illness. There is no universal standard. One state rules one way and another state another way. My daughter cannot own a gun in NYS because she was diagnosed with a mental illness. HOWEVER, in Florida she can because she was never was adjudicated against her will with a mental illness. She voluntarily submitted to treatment.

Can you see the problem with mental illness and guns? There is no national standard.
Sorry about your daughter and you are right, the way mental illness is reported varies greatly from state to state. That should be at least one area we could agree on and have a standard approach.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 08:18 PM
 
19,163 posts, read 9,751,125 times
Reputation: 5362
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
Both mental health aspects and gun restrictions need to be part of the solution, anything else and you are not being honest.


Mental health is a large issue, reporting of at risk people for incorporation into the NICS was anemic before the Va Tech shooting but it has improved. Still many states have submitted less than 100 records and some states none at all.
Mentally ill people haven’t been able to obtain firearms since 1968.

Where have you been?

Of course, you know that. You just want to redefine what “mentally ill” means. Maybe to you anybody who dares to disagree with you is mentally ill. Now that would be an honest discussion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 08:22 PM
 
Location: alexandria, VA
9,812 posts, read 4,442,961 times
Reputation: 5471
Quote:
Originally Posted by CC Permit View Post
Where would the line be drawn for mental health issue to keep you from owning a firearm? Suicide, bi polar, medicines you take, speaking to a shrink ect………..?
Voting for Donald Trump?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 09:37 PM
 
Location: Jewel Lake (Sagle) Idaho
27,854 posts, read 17,814,068 times
Reputation: 15877
Quote:
Originally Posted by CC Permit View Post
Where would the line be drawn for mental health issue to keep you from owning a firearm? Suicide, bi polar, medicines you take, speaking to a shrink ect………..?
If you are too dangerous to own a firearm-you are too dangerous to be unsupervised. Firearms are only one of an infinite number of ways to kill innocent people. Keeping just firearms from those people is moronic-if they are that much of a threat to others, they need to be institutionalized, not just have their 2nd amendment rights stripped away.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 09:40 PM
 
Location: Jewel Lake (Sagle) Idaho
27,854 posts, read 17,814,068 times
Reputation: 15877
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeexplorer View Post
Mentally ill people haven’t been able to obtain firearms since 1968.

Where have you been?

Of course, you know that. You just want to redefine what “mentally ill” means. Maybe to you anybody who dares to disagree with you is mentally ill. Now that would be an honest discussion.
Bingo-the term is "adjudicated mentally incompetent" IIRC. In other words there is a legal standard-and a court system to determine that someone is truly incompetent, and that gives them the opportunity to counter that before they lose their civil rights. The decision is based on laws and standards-not the whim of someone with a grudge calling in a "red flag". The process exists-it's just that our legal system is too lazy to use it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 10:00 PM
 
Location: Jewel Lake (Sagle) Idaho
27,854 posts, read 17,814,068 times
Reputation: 15877
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe the Photog View Post
It should go without saying that I am not concerned with how murderers are "stigmatized."

I'm also not taking score on who says what or rather what party they may belong to. For example, I did not like it when the current president laid mass shootings at the feet of the mentally ill. Nor did I like it when the previous one did the same thing. The idea that the mentally ill are to cause for mass shootings ignores a lot of other factors. First, tke the El Paso shooter. He told us why he did what he did. He was targeting Hispanics. Racism is not a mental illness. Others on this board says these shooters are seeking to see thier name in lights, fame, in other words. I don't know if this is true in the majority of shootings, but I also do not know what mental illness this may be either.

I have said before that there is not just one reason these people go on shootings sprees. When the majority of America realizes this, maybe we can start working toward endings them or at least reducing them. But you folks looking for easy answers are doing it wrong. Sorry.
I'll agree that racism is not a mental illness. But being willing to murder innocent people, over "racism" or some other bias or desire, certainly is. There are far too many racist people of every race around-but only a small portion that are ill enough to act in such a way.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 01:00 AM
 
5,011 posts, read 987,382 times
Reputation: 2011
I wish we had more stories of mass shooters who fake being mentally ill (clinical) and are actually just "Evil". In other words, the mental illness card won't fly but capital punishment would.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 06:11 AM
 
Location: Long Island
33,526 posts, read 14,133,361 times
Reputation: 7178
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeexplorer View Post
Mentally ill people haven’t been able to obtain firearms since 1968.

Where have you been?

Of course, you know that. You just want to redefine what “mentally ill” means. Maybe to you anybody who dares to disagree with you is mentally ill. Now that would be an honest discussion.
Well evidently there are almost no mentally ill in some states as some have reported fewer than 100 records.

https://everytown.org/press/new-fbi-...ly-10-percent/

https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-l...tate-by-state/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 06:16 AM
 
Location: Great Britain
12,060 posts, read 4,114,574 times
Reputation: 7445
Quote:
Originally Posted by rkcarguy View Post
Lets put the party squabbling aside for the moment...to some degree...and look at the real problem. The Reagan administration "changed" the ways mental institutions were funded, passing the responsibility onto the states along with (here's the catch) a largely reduced budget to work with. Coupled with the belief that the mentally ill and drug addicts have rights and shouldn't be institutionalized despite being a danger to society and/or themselves (looking at you democrats), this has resulted in the closing and defunding of facilities all the while our population has grown and grown. The failure was in a republican administration of the past and the continued enabling has continued through administration after administration of both parties. I said weapons and not guns because weapons are all around us. One can easily use vehicles, chemicals, and combinations of endless off-the-shelf consumer goods to make all kinds of destructive and deadly devices. If we want positive change, taking all the potential "weapons" away isn't going to do a lick of good. We need to institutionalize the addicts and the mentally ill. I've seen our local hospitals ER and even our police reports overflowing with "mental issues". If you've ever watched "I almost got away with it", there was a documentary on a teen drug addict that strangled his own grandmother for $80. Sadly, I have a relative who is an addict and she burglarized her own parents place, assaulted her mother, and has had multiple kids with different men which have all been taken away by the state. Veterans come back from war after watching their army buddy explode into hamburger and fall into substance abuse and deal with PTSD, and aren't cared for or treated. If we want real change, these people need a place to go not waiting lists 3 years long. For many of them, it's hope for them as well, a chance to get clean and/or get mental help, get them off the streets, and would surely make our nation a safer one.
Actually most people in the old Asylums were no danger to anyone and most institutions were not really that secure apart from a wall and a gate.

These institutions were just a warehouse for those with all kinds of conditions ranging from demetia through to learning disabilities and physical disabilities, as well as those with severe depression and a host of other mental conditions such as manic depression (bi-polar) and schizophrenia. The Institutions wrre designed to banish societies embrassments behind the wall of vast institutions.

In terms of treatments they vare much better than they used to be and many individuals that would have been institutionalised now live in society in most countries with proper support from mental health teams and in sheltered accomadation. Whilst those with dementia and learning disabilities are usually housed in community home settings.

Only a tiny minority of people with psychological problems are dangerous, indeed most schizophrenics are no danger to anyone, as for the few that do need more secure setting, they are usually placed in medium secure units or if they have become involved in the criminal justice system then they are often referred to either High Security Hospitals or Medium Secure Foresnsic units.

Mental Health Units | UK

Saying thart people who have a disturbed thogh process or are prone to certain behaviour should not have access to firearms, however that doesn't mean they should be locked up.

Better than prison: life inside the UK's secure hospitals | Society | The Guardian

In terms of the UK particular emphasis is placed in terms of firearms licences on those who have a history of serious violence, those who suffer from drug or alcohol dependency or those who have had to be deatained under the Mental Heath At for their own safety or that of others or those on certain types of medication such as anti-psychotic medication.

It is however noted That simply because a person has received treatment in the past for certain illnesses such as depression, it does not automatically follow that they are unfit to possess a firearm now or in the future.

Fitness to be Entrusted with Firearms - Durham Constabulary (UK)

Last edited by Brave New World; Today at 06:40 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top