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, 01:56 PM
 
Location: Buckeye, AZ
27,653 posts, read 16,005,961 times
Reputation: 9967

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave New World View Post
That argument is a bit old and tired, the problem being the USA has the problem with mass shootings and not countries that have restricted access to certain guns and brought in sensible checks.

Secondly the Dayton shooter killed 9 people in 32 seconds, and certain guns are prolific killing machines.

Dayton Shooting: 9 Dead in 32 Seconds | Time

Finally knives, axess, hammer etc are illegal in public places without good reason in most countries and yoiu can be arrested for carrying an offensive weapon.

Offensive weapon - Wikipedia
We all know it is simply a diversionary tactic to make sure that banana clips and bump stocks are still legal. You know that and I know that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Yesterday, 02:01 PM
 
Location: San Diego
5,411 posts, read 1,484,796 times
Reputation: 3858
Quote:
Originally Posted by rkcarguy View Post
The Reagan administration "changed" the ways mental institutions were funded,

The failure was in a republican administration of the past
(sigh) Another liberal, another lie.

It used to be that a citizen could petition a court to have someone committed to a mental institution, and the court could grant such committment if enough valid evidence was presented.

This changed in the 1960s and 70s.

In 1967 two Democrats and a Republican in California's state legislature came up with the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, designed to end INVOLUNTARY commitments of mentally ill, alcoholic, etc. people into large mental institutions. The LPS Act was hailed by liberals all over the country as putting an end to eeevil government practices of dictating to helpless victims where they would go and what treatments they would get whether they liked it or not. It was overwhelmingly passed by California's Assembly and Senate, and finally signed by Governor Ronald Reagan in 1967. Similar laws were quickly passed all over the country, advocated mostly by liberal groups and do-gooders.

The liberal ACLU kept pushing this agenda to get these patients out of mental institutions, and finally resulted in 1975 (coincidentally Reagan's last year as Governor) in the U.S. Supreme Court handing down a decision in O'Connor vs. Donaldson (422 US 563). This Court decision announced a new Constitutional right: The mentally ill could not be forced to stay in such institutions if they were not an actual threat to others. This opened the floodgates and let huge numbers of patients, in various degrees of helplessness, out of the institutions.

When it was discovered that these laws and court decisions had the effect of putting many people who could not, in fact, take care of themselves out on the street, the liberals did a fast 180, hastily forgot about their long, enthusiastic nationwide advocacy and support of the agenda, and invented a completely new accusation: That it was Ronald Reagan alone who had "kicked all those poor people out of their nice, safe hospitals and made them homeless".

From Wikipedia:

The Lanterman–Petris–Short (LPS) Act (Cal. Welf & Inst. Code, sec. 5000 et seq.) concerns the involuntary civil commitment to a mental health institution in the State of California. The act set the precedent for modern mental health commitment procedures in the United States. It was co-authored by California State Assemblyman Frank Lanterman (R) and California State Senators Nicholas C. Petris (D) and Alan Short (D), and signed into law in 1967 by Governor Ronald Reagan. The Act went into full effect on July 1, 1972. It cited seven articles of intent:

•To end the inappropriate, indefinite, and involuntary commitment of mentally disordered persons, people with developmental disabilities, and persons impaired by chronic alcoholism, and to eliminate legal disabilities;

•To provide prompt evaluation and treatment of persons with serious mental disorders or impaired by chronic alcoholism;

•To guarantee and protect public safety;

•To safeguard individual rights through judicial review;

•To provide individualized treatment, supervision, and placement services by a conservatorship program for gravely disabled persons;

•To encourage the full use of all existing agencies, professional personnel and public funds to accomplish these objectives and to prevent duplication of services and unnecessary expenditures;

•To protect mentally disordered persons and developmentally disabled persons from criminal acts.

The Act in effect ended all hospital commitments by the judiciary system, except in the case of criminal sentencing, e.g., convicted sexual offenders, and those who were "gravely disabled", defined as unable to obtain food, clothing, or housing [Conservatorship of Susan T., 8 Cal. 4th 1005 (1994)]. It did not, however, impede the right of voluntary commitments. It expanded the evaluative power of psychiatrists and created provisions and criteria for holds.[/quote]
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 02:10 PM
 
Location: Forest bathing
1,676 posts, read 1,012,297 times
Reputation: 3938
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.
Agreed 100%. A local ER doctor I know said that the hospital receives quite a large number of substance abuse cases. And, a local LEO told me that our cityís officers have their hands tied. I think that Donny Aldersonís death could have been prevented if that crazed knife wielding Texas transient would have received treatment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 08:57 PM
 
Location: Jewel Lake (Sagle) Idaho
27,935 posts, read 17,871,432 times
Reputation: 15916
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir View Post
You're putting the cart before the horse.

Will perpetrators of incidents like you list be determined to be mentally ill?

Maybe, certainly it's common to believe that. However James Holmes (Aurora) was found competent to stand trial. If he's competent to stand trial he's not mentally ill enough to have his rights restricted prior to committing criminal acts.

Nearly every mass shooting perp has by media been determined to be mentally ill, but that doesn't make it true.

Issue is most people cannot reconcile that most people when pressed into certain circumstances will respond with homicidal acts, it's just a matter of circumstances, and what those triggers are. Some folks will flip out from Twitter and Facebook, some only when their lives or the lives of their loved ones are threatened.
No, "most" people will not respond with homicidal acts, unless there is an immediate threat to their lives or the lives of their families. We are a nation of some 330 million people-the vast majority of the human race would be extinct if "most" people responded with as mass murderers for the trivial "stuff" that has supposedly triggered those that commit these acts. No-MOST would not do so-only a tiny percentage of the population would-and we do need to learn just how to identify those that would do these things.

In the case of the Aurora shooter, and I suspect all of these mass shootings, we have people that are in all likelihood competent to stand trial. They are competent to plan these attacks, to acquire weapons, to implement the attack. They know right from wrong-they are individuals that just, simply, don't care and are driven to take the lives of others.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 09:20 PM
 
Location: San Diego
35,889 posts, read 32,578,726 times
Reputation: 20242
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk View Post
We all know it is simply a diversionary tactic to make sure that banana clips and bump stocks are still legal. You know that and I know that.
Banana clips? Is that like a bike seat from the 60s?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 09:34 PM
 
20,753 posts, read 8,946,576 times
Reputation: 7175
Quote:
Originally Posted by middle-aged mom View Post
Bipolar, like all mental illnesses, is a spectrum, mild to severe. Most are not diagnosed. There is no magic bullet medication that effectively reduces symptoms in all who are diagnosed. No one can be forced to take their medications, as directed.

Most sensational mass shooters had not sought professional help and were not medicated

As you know, those with a Bipolar diagnosis are far more likely to harm themselves, than others.
No, people with bipolar do not harm themselves. They donít harm anyone. So just stop with that assumption.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 09:42 PM
 
Location: San Diego
35,889 posts, read 32,578,726 times
Reputation: 20242
Quote:
Originally Posted by natalie469 View Post
No, people with bipolar do not harm themselves. They donít harm anyone. So just stop with that assumption.
Themselves or others?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 09:47 PM
 
20,753 posts, read 8,946,576 times
Reputation: 7175
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer View Post
Themselves or others?
No, they do not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 09:50 PM
 
Location: San Diego
35,889 posts, read 32,578,726 times
Reputation: 20242
Quote:
Originally Posted by natalie469 View Post
No, they do not.
MAM presented some pretty solid facts backed with links. Which one are you referring too that you are disputing?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 09:55 PM
 
20,753 posts, read 8,946,576 times
Reputation: 7175
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer View Post
MAM presented some pretty solid facts backed with links. Which one are you referring too that you are disputing?
I have no idea who MAM is.
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