Just watch the repercussions of the Tucson shooting

[bjoehandley]

There aren't solutions to every problem. There are millions of people in the US with some form of mental illness. Fewer than 1% will turn violent. No one is smart enough to identify each of those people until after they've acted.

We can't afford to lock up everybody we think exhibits problems. And it wouldn't be fair to the non-violent. Besides,we'd lose more than a few Jeepers that way.

That's why some kind of review panel made of of experts would be needed to determine how bad an individual is and how important it would be for families not to turn a blind eye towards some of these behaviors and let appropriate authorities know how this person behaves.

If we had no access to guns, that would help the crazies situation. But it will never happen, so is not a potential solution. Anyone who thinks otherwise is detached from reality. Lock him up...might be dangerous.

Even then, a gun ban would only go so far, nothing would stop him from walking into the crowd with a knife,sword, metal bodied flashlight, or baseball bat and then have at it or stealing a vehicle and driving into that crowd or making a car bomb out of it. At least in all but the last situation, somebody competent with a gun should be able to stop the attack.

 

[bigalpha]

What he said: The "right wing" would like their to be smaller government which would mean that there would be lesser "mental health programs."

As if that would have stopped Laughner, get real :sure:

What he implied: The "right wing" having power would result in more crazies like Laughner doing crazy things like shooting people.

So yea, you're totally right he didn't say anything like that at all

You are assuming that less funding causes more crazy people to kill. Correlation does not imply causation.

 

[WAM174]

That's why some kind of review panel made of of experts would be needed to determine how bad an individual is

The "experts" let crazies out all the time who go on to commit violent acts. I doubt it's because they're incompetetent...it's just an impossible job to predict human behavior.

Even then, a gun ban would only go so far, nothing would stop him from walking into the crowd with a knife,sword, metal bodied flashlight, or baseball bat and then have at it or stealing a vehicle and driving into that crowd or making a car bomb out of it.

Remember, I'm not arguing for gun control as a solution. But those people will argue that had he attacked with a knife/bat etc, there would have been far fewer victims. That's a valid arguement. What's not valid is thinking we could ever get all the guns out of the hands of the public -- for a variety of reasons. Never happen.

 

[Milford Cubicle II]

You are assuming that less funding causes more crazy people to kill. Correlation does not imply causation.

*I* am assuming?

I could have sworn that urban yan made that assumption :dunno:

Should I quote it again?

All I assumed was that the more crazies like Laughner are out there the more likely it is that insane acts of violence like these will occur. Seems like a logical assumption to me.

But if you actually read the thread you would see that I don't even believe that ANY amount of "mental health care" would stop things like this from happening.

If you're going to take the time to write a post, then take the time to read the thread as well :wave1:

 

[bigalpha]

Urban Yan said:

right wing's in favor of small government.. and small government results in cuts to mental health programs.

Please show me the part where he said that

smaller government = more crazy people wandering around shooting people.

How about re-reading this thread and telling me who said that.

 

[Milford Cubicle II]

Hmmmm... given the subject of the thread I thought it was safe to think that maybe he was trying to suggest that since the "right wing" is pro-smaller government they would impede funding for "mental health care" which would help prevent things like these from happening.

Call me crazy.

Or just face reality and admit that it was a stupid argument to try to make.

 

[Jeepman401]

If we had no access to guns, that would help the crazies situation. But it will never happen, so is not a potential solution. Anyone who thinks otherwise is detached from reality. Lock him up...might be dangerous.

never say never, politicians are already scrambling to use this tragedy for gun control. But being from california you would already know all about that

Remember, I'm not arguing for gun control as a solution. But those people will argue that had he attacked with a knife/bat etc, there would have been far fewer victims. That's a valid arguement. What's not valid is thinking we could ever get all the guns out of the hands of the public -- for a variety of reasons. Never happen.

And how would the outcome have changed if one of the bystanders had a gun?

I know you aren't preaching for gun control, but it sure sounds like it

 

[Rod Knee]

Presenting an image of a Democrat as a brown shirted Nazi callously disrespects all the Democratic veterans who served during WW2. That includes my father, a lifelong democrat who served on a USN tanker carrying aviation fuel knowing he could be immolated in a fireball at any time. As he put it: “the Uboats wanted us pretty bad”.

Hang your head in shame, casm.

Hang your head in shame.

 

[casm]

Presenting an image of a Democrat as a brown shirted Nazi callously disrespects all the Democratic veterans who served during WW2. That includes my father, a lifelong democrat who served on a USN tanker carrying aviation fuel knowing he could be immolated in a fireball at any time. As he put it: “the Uboats wanted us pretty bad”.

Hang your head in shame, casm.

Hang your head in shame.

I'm sorry, but I must respectfully disagree with you. Particularly in light of the following:

By your argument, that image disrespects my grandfather (15th Army Air Corps). and other relatives who were directly part of war efforts in the Second World War because it shows an image of a Repbulican in the same pose and with the same caption as the one depicting a Democrat.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from speech. This is why, again, I must respectfully disagree with you.

 

[Rod Knee]

Yes, by my own words, that image is disrespectful, but I didn't post it did I? Unlike you I wouldn't have considered posting either one of them. Freedom of speech demands some modicum of discretion which apparently elludes you.

 

[casm]

Yes, by my own words, that image is disrespectful, but I didn't post it did I?

What you may consider disrespectful I may consider satirical. Further to that:

Unlike you I wouldn't have considered posting either one of them. Freedom of speech demands some modicum of discretion which apparently elludes you.

It's not that discretion eludes me, but rather that our respective boundaries in that regard are evidently different.

 

[Fred]

Residential mental hospitals were closed in the 60's both to save money and because liberals thought that the wackos deserved freedom. Seriously, the thought was that the therapies of the time were good enough that outpatient treatment was sufficient. That was the start of the current homeless issue, and one of the many reasons why our prison population has increased, aside from stupid drug laws.

 

[Fred]

And then there is this that the lamestream media seems to ignore:

http://www.verumserum.com/?p=20479

 

[RichP]

Through the 60's we had a state run mental hospital called "Greystone" in Morristownship NJ. This housed a 150 or more patients, it was also a 100+ acre farm that grew veggies and had a 100+ cow milk farm, they basically provided their own milk, eggs, veggies and also provided to the county hospital across the street and the county jail, it supported itself. The patients were kept busy and productive, they had a pretty good healing rate. Liberal progressive NJ democrats get into office and all the acreage gets sold off for new homes, farm gets closed down, no more food to the county agencies and the now 'inmates' are kept fenced up and weave baskets all day, real progress. When it was up and running there were not even any fences, after it closed the plectron and police radio, I was an emt for our volunteer rescue squad, was always going off warning about an escaped inmate. They ran because they were bored.

 

[Jeepman401]

There was a similar facility in Preston CT, at one time the largest in the country. It diddnt close until 96, but the farms and other work therapy programs went away in the 60's because they were thought to be cruel. By the time it closed it was downsized to a small fraction it once was.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwich_State_Hospital,_Connecticut

 

[tbburg]

Had a state mental institution in Athens, OH, too. Had the farm, botanical gardens, all that good stuff. Also mostly closed down in the late 60s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athens_Lunatic_Asylum
A few pictures here:
http://www.forgottenoh.com/Ridges/ridges.html

Would you like a little horror story?
I went mountain biking up in the woods behind the hospital grounds one day, and found a cemetery. It was pretty creepy: over a thousand graves. That's not an estimate. I know the number because almost all the grave-stones had no names on them, only numbers. Up in the far corner, the earliest graves had names. Apparently at some early point, they figured they'd save some money and just number the stones. Anyone who wanted to know where a specific patient was buried could just look up the number in a ledger or something.
The first 50 or so graves had names. Four male names. The rest were women. This dates to back when you didn't need a court order to have somebody locked up. As it was explained to me later, apparently, a lot of men got tired of their wives and had them shipped off to mental institutions for no other reason then: "The b**ch just won't STFU.. 'Pretty popular practice.

While it might be hard to get someone involuntarily locked up now, (having to get the evaluations, court orders, etc. what a pain!) I think it's good that there's more then one step to take before you get locked up for treatment(or for good).

And yeah, I realize most of the people who really need treatment won't voluntarily submit to it. If there was a simple answer, there wouldn't be an argument.

 

[XJEEPER]

That's not what he said at all.

How about you let Urban respond instead of trying to interpet what he was implying?

If I'm off the mark on how I interpeted his comment, then he should be willing to clarify and explain.

If Urban wasn't implying that smaller goverment would result in reduced mental healthcare, with a collateral effect of more mentally unstable people wandering around doing bad stuff, then what specifically, was the point of making this statement?

 

[urban yan]

Well we wouldn't want others to misinterpret my comments; it would put you out of a job.

 

[Milford Cubicle II]

Good clarification...

:huh:

 

[XJEEPER]

Well we wouldn't want others to misinterpret my comments; it would put you out of a job.

That's what I thought.......