Make that national hot line one for each state and I like it. But a flat rule that anyone who’s been in a mental institution can’t have a firearm is a bad idea; it should have to go through a court.
@Roymond: I agree because not everyone that is mentally ill is dangerous or suicidal. Should have a process where a Psychologist or Psychiatrist submits the paperwork to a court or a judge and the final determination is made jointly. And there should also be a process in place to reverse this if the person is no longer considered a threat to themselves or others. I believe there is already something in place to prevent mentally ill persons from buying a gun but it appears that system is not working as well as it should right now. So, the current system seems to need some kind of overhaul. However, the risk is that any kind of overhaul could also be used to restrict freedom and make it so that almost any person that wants or needs a gun for self defense could easily be stopped from getting one. Always a balance between safety and freedom.
Psychologist or Psychiatrist And perhaps the local chick swingin voodoo priestess could consult.
Psychologist or Psychiatrist 10% as successful in curing an ailment as the average chiropractor (but as expensive).
Small wrinkle:
Psychiatrists have been, thus far, ineffective in preventing mass shootings where there is substantial warning or evidence to take action.
For example, the Aurora shooting and Sandy Hook and several others where the mentally ill person pretty much admitted or strongly hinted at their plans to harm people in the near future to their psychiatrist, friends, or family days or weeks before carrying out their agenda of murder / suicide.
I think the mental health system and the public need more education, awareness, and a solid plan of action for identifying and reacting to signs of violence.
Everyone, especially in this day and age needs to go pick up a copy of Gavin DeBecker’s The Gift of Fear to educate themselves in how to recognize precursory behavior that leads to violence.
I will definitely check this book out. Thanks for the suggestion.
This book came about because the author, who was raised in an abusive family but followed his dream to become educated and studied psychology, eventually realised that psychologists and psychiatrists are the very worst people to judge the safety to the public of violent offenders. This is because they have no conception of the causes and course of violence, and they have no familiarity with it. They used to think that violence happened due to low self esteem. In fact the reverse is the case, offenders have an exaggerated sense of their own worth. This book shows clearly the gradual or swift escalation from preparatory and predatory tactics to sudden assault, and the inevitable conclusion of domestic violence. It shows the signs to watch for and the personal traits shared by offenders. It shows the addictive nature of violence, and the difficulty in interrupting its progression. The author confirms that the old “beat” cops had the best ideas on how to deal with neighborhood bullies, and that the intervention of psychiatric professionals muddied the waters and only allowed the offender to furnish his crimes with the self justifications needed to further increase his already bloated self esteem.
Unfortunately the psychiatric profession is still poorly equipped to deal with violent crime, and I for one would feel unsafe living near a half way house for those determined to be fit for release into the community. This is partly because psychology is not a real science, and the theories under which it operates do not work. An experienced lawman knows far more about the depths of badness to which an offender on a spree will descend, and about the most appropriate cure for his condition. Which sadly, is usually a lead injection.
These ladies know that some people are just plain bad, and need to be removed from circulation for the good of everyone. They highlight the irresponsible dismantling of the mental health prisons in recent decades, and call for their return. They understand that ordinary civilians can distinguish dangerous and aberrant behavior, and it behooves those in authority to provide a reliable service in answering their calls. Everything they say is true.
Way to go ladies!
This is why and how gun grabbers are getting marginalized. Their position doesnt make sense and sense prevails over time.
These gals used the car as a weapon analogy, and the gun grabbers say “well, cars are used for good things, guns are only made to kill.” Well… youre right… and sadly there was nobody with a gun available to kill Chris Harper Mercer.
Trust me, the cars are much more dangerous than the guns.
“Guns are only meant to kill” actually works against them once you realize that the thing meant to kill kills fewer people than cars.
But it’s also a false claim. The most common outcome of a DGU is nobody gets hurt. The fact is that most guns are meant to aid in defense and that includes the intimidation factor realized by their mere presentation to an attacker.
This would make a good item for the first episode of a show called “America’s Got Common Sense”.
Seriously, this is one of those cultural sign-posts that the near 100% African-American devotion to Obama and the Left-Progressive Plantation is cracking…
watch the polls on Trump, for example, from black voters upset over immigration, registering as Republican.
I can see a lot of African Americans voting for Trump. Aftet all he is a big government Democrat.
I suspect you are correct, and I dont want Trump to be POTUS. The truth of the matter right now, and what no one in the ReliablePartyOrgans can name, as its polictical kryptonite, is simply the reality- long-historical enmity exists between poor black and latino communities, in competition for jobs, housing, government handouts, especially in urban cores. Look at gang culture, and in prison.
Trump is not afraid to say what is not politically correct, that “immigration” really means, mostly from “south of the border”. And in the real world that means more jobs taken from black teenagers, especially the spoiled young men who wont work as hard at McDonalds, or doing yard work, or other dirty jobs beneath them, because of the urban ‘playah’ culture that is part of the multiple generational dysfunctional welfare culture that Democrats have spawned, to get votes, by rewarding single female households with greatest handouts for multiple kids.
That means black women are stuck taking care of them, and they are sick of it- thus, the Sistah’s Stumpin’ for Trump, in the video.
Black support cracking…blacks voted for change…they got it…now it’s not working out and your withdrawing support. News flash to brothers & sisters, Dem’s are throwing you all under the bus, back filling with illegals, last remaining vestige of white guilt has evaporated and the trough train is leaving the station. Good luck facing the future.
Can i get an Amen! Sisters!
Mmmmmmhhmmmmm!
Im out.
Wow they are great, it is great to hear someone talk in a way that is unifying as a people rather than hear people that are try to split us apart.
Lets make them President and fire that lame wimp we got there now.
Awesome!
In the ’60’s the ACLU, with Kennedy influence, took the incarnation of the mentally ill to the courts. The result is that it is almost impossible to ‘put away’ anyone! The closure of the ’empty beds’ at state mental institutions is often blamed on Republicans by the Left…
The Sisters [in the vid] are da bomb!!!!!
“The result is that it is almost impossible to ‘put away’ anyone! ”
With good reason. The old system was rife with all sorts of abuse.
Folks have the right to be left alone, even if they are mentally ill.
We don’t lock people away for more than a short observational period because of crimes they “might” commit. At least not while talking about respecting freedom out the other side of our mouth.
A “short observational period” obviously isn’t adequate for a Jared Loughner, a James Holmes, an Amy Bishop, an Adam Lanza, a Chris Harper-Mercer, a Vester Flanagan/Bryce Williams, a Sueng-Hui-Cho, an Alton Nolen, a Nidal Hasan, etc., etc., ad nauseum. A homicidal lunatic’s “right” to be left alone doesn’t trump anyone else’s right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Either lock ’em up or put ’em down.
For every person like you listed, there are thousands more with the same characteristics who harm nobody. They aren’t homicidal maniacs until they actually commit homicide, and our society does not take away one’s rights based on guesses and what-if’s.
You’re going to institutionalize them all, just in case? I guess you could, but at that point we’d best just shut up about freedom and individual rights. There won’t be any.
We are not going back to the era where we routinely put eccentric relatives in the asylum. That’s not foreseeable.
We probably need to think about how to deal with the following broad, crude, categories of the mentally-ill:
– those few who are really dangerous to OTHERS because they won’t stay on their meds (or don’t respond);
– those many who are really dangerous to THEMSELVES because they won’t stay on their meds (or don’t respond);
– the majority who are really vulnerable to injury or attacks by OTHERS (for whatever reason);
– the very large number whose quality of life, or ability to perform to their potential, is imperiled because they remain undiagnosed.
The first category or two probably won’t cost much. Not much compared to the cost (to society in general) of dealing with the consequences of the damage these sufferers cause to people, property and the public space they defile.
The vulnerable majority simply ARE going to be taken care of by our society irrespective of whether some of us question the utility of spending money on these people. The choices are: bad; worse; or, worst. Why take “worst” by default?
The overwhelming majority of cost will be in screening the entire population to identify the substantial minority who need some care.
Buried among this haystack are the needles who are the spree killers. It may be more accurate to characterize this haystack as a stack of pins; i.e., we are looking for needles in a stack of pins. We ought to harbor NO optimism that mental health services will identify and successfully treat any needle before he strikes. Odds are much too long. However, ameliorating a lifetime of suffering and improving the productivity of those that are successfully treated are apt to recover the cost of screening and treatment.
While the voters are crying “We HAVE to do SOMETHING!” we PotG ought to think about where to direct this energy. The Antis want to direct this energy toward new gun-controls; do we like this effort of the Antis to direct this uncontrolled unremitting energy? Shall we, the PotG, let the Antis take the lead here?
Alternatively, is it in our interest, as PotG, to assert a leadership position in this discussion? I.e., to show our concern for mass shootings. To demonstrate an interest in getting to the root problem. Express compassion for our fellow human beings who are suffering. In our rhetoric, where do we want to strive to direct this discussion? Toward a constructive end? Or, by defaulting to the Antis, toward a self-defeating end?
I’m inclined to believe that the only really effective solution to mass killings is to ‘arrest’ the process after the first or second victim is shot. To minimize the casualties. This really IS cost-efficient and probabilistically effective. Nevertheless, the voters aren’t eager to jump so far, to the obvious conclusion we PotG reach. How do we deal with this reluctance? As much as WE want to tell them: ‘Man-up and face the obvious reality’; they aren’t likely to respond to us. They are as likely or more likely to respond to the Antis to: ‘Get rid of all these guns!’.
Who do we want to appear to be be the realistic, compassionate, problem solvers in this debate?
Before liberal federal courts discovered a right in the Constitution of the chronically bewildered to live out of shopping carts and spend their days panhandling and soiling themselves in public, there was an effective way to remove dangerous individuals who put themselves or others in jeopardy. It was called a “competency hearing,” in which concerned family or prosecutors could petition a court to involuntarily commit an at-risk individual for evaluation and/or treatment. That humane legal option is no longer available to society, which is much worse for it.
If you want a fool proof method to keep criminals from getting guns….put a mark on the shoulders of all gun criminals and felons who cannot legally own guns.
What does this do….it is an immediate way to tell if someone can buy a gun, either at a gun store or through a private seller…if they have the mark, you don’t sell them the gun or buy a gun from them.
Why it is a great idea…it is immediate, and it leaves no paper trail, and it also does nothing to law abiding gun owners.
There then is no reason or need to license gun owners, register guns, or require private sellers to drag people to a gun store or police station to do a background check…they simply ask to see the left shoulder of the buyer or seller…if they see the mark, they know the guy is a criminal selling the gun.
(Yes…I know…criminals will still simply get guns by stealing them or by having people with clean records buy their guns…I know this…you don’t have to explain it to me, I am not an anti gunner. What the mark on the shoulder does is keep law abiding citizens from having licenses, registering their guns or having to do background checks for private sales…..it protects law abiding gun owners because checking the shoulder of the buyer or seller is immediate, and requires no paper trail….)
I was thinking of a numbered tattoo on the fore arm for easier identification. I am sure lots of people who are prohibited from legally buying guns, frequent gun stores and gun shows. I am also sure that with the wisdom and legal process of our government, that all the felons are super duper dangerous and should be stripped of all rights forever.
Which the ACLU would have a field day with……….equating “poor misguided offenders” with nazi prisoners subject to permanent branding.
Since you do still need a license to drive or other government-issued I.D. card at least for basic identification purposes, then how about adding a firearms box with a check mark for allowed and just blank for prohibited? Or you could add a little gun icon, like they add a little heart icon for organ donors on licenses, for people pre-approved (that is, not pre-prohibited) to purchase/possess firearms?
That way, the government can populate their little NICS database and the I.D. issuing entities can run everyone against that blind, completely oblivious to anyone’s actual firearms purchases, so there’s no record of anyone’s purchases. It’d be just like indicating your date of birth on your driver’s license to show you’re 21 or over, but there being no record anywhere of your alcohol purchases or club entrances.
I like the license gun icon idea, but it does nothing to solve the problem at hand which is preventing the mentally ill from acquiring firearms. NICS needs an update and a system put in place which submits info to NICS when a person is deemed mentally ill and dangerous by a court of law.
The NICS-check icon on every driver’s license and State ID is interesting.
The pretext is that it’s for “Officer safety”. The cop knows promptly whether the driver being detained has cleared the NICS check; or not. In the latter case, he takes extra precautions.
Now, what do we get out of it?
– advertising the RKBA; every non-gun owner is regularly reminded of his unexercised right
– advertising to cops of the reliability of gun-owners – or at least eligible – citizens
– promoting transition to Constitutional Carry
– burden State governments re-issuing (retrieving old) licenses when people become prohibited
– reducing the distinction between gun-owners and gun-elibitle citizens
– stigma of not having the 2A endorsement will raise pressure to narrow the prohibited-person criteria
The “stigma” issue is the most useful. The Antis want any mental illness condition to trigger prohibited-person status. OK, not what about the backlash when millions of citizens with minor mental-illness diagnoses complain that their driver’s license reveal to every cop and merchant who takes a check that they are prohibited-persons? What’s the criteria? Is he a criminal, or mentally ill? Congress will be compelled to constrain the mental-illness criteria to those few diagnoses that correlate with a heightened propensity for violence.
Narrowing the mental-illness diagnoses, in turn, will NARROW the number of records submitted to NICS. There are about 160 diagnoses in DSM-V; so, doubtlessly, practitioners are reluctant to report ANYone if that implies they are obligated to report EVERYone. Reduce the list to, e.g., a dozen reportable diagnoses and practitioners will be more likely to report patients with only those specific diagnoses. Both the quantity of coverage (number of States) and the quality (fewer false positives) will be improved.
I do NOT believe that NICS has a worthwhile probability of reducing access to guns by people society (somehow) decides ought not to have them. Politicians and voters are NOT going to subscribe to this belief – probably not ever. Accordingly, we ought to concentrate on how to best live with the prohibited-person criteria. Finding ways to narrow the criteria is more useful and more realistic than eliminating the criteria.
In New Zealand we have a separate gun license, which requires stringent testing including an exam for knowledge of gun safety. And we are individually interviewed as are our family members and neighbors, to ensure we are not an angry person, a criminal, a mental patient or likely to harm ourselves or others. We must explain WHY we want a license, and we are forbidden to mention anything related to self defense, as that is the job of the Police (no sniggering in the back row…). Usually the purpose is target shooting at a range, or clay shooting, or hunting (there is a lot of hunting here).
This system hopefully keeps out the more obvious lunatics and fantasists, and we also need to demonstrate that we have a properly secured firearms safe in our house. This does not prevent the occasional theft, which is the main source for gang bangers. But overall we have a workable system which does not overload the Police with ridiculous tasks like registering every single weapon (which does not and never has worked). If you have a license, you are assumed to be a responsible person, and can walk out of the gun shop with the firearm of your choice within minutes. You also need to show your license when you buy ammunition. Pistols are quite rare, and are limited to pistol club members.
We very rarely have any mass shootings. The last big one resulted in a more stringent license for military style semi automatics. But many of them are available on a regular gun license (eg SKS). We feel pretty safe here. Firearms deaths are way down the list compared to other causes of death, and yet we have reasonably free access to firearms.
It’s interesting that you NZ’ers don’t recognize utility in registering guns. We need to remember that when the topic comes up here.
You NZ’ers have a different culture than we do; and, a different set of traditions. It is part of our political DNA to distrust our own government. So far, that distrust has been perfectly well founded; and no less in the present day than ever before. The only thing we have to fear is the knock at the door with a pleasant fellow explaining: “I’m from the government and I’m here to help!”
We recognize the natural right of self-defense; and, this was established as the core right of our 2A. As a common-law nation, comprised of 49 common law States (plus Louisiana), it would be really very hard to wring that right (self-defense) out of our legal system. The Federal government certainly has no power to do so.
So, not surprisingly due to our geographic positions on the globe, our way of looking at guns and self-defense is entirely up-side-down relative to yours.
What the mark on the shoulder does is keep law abiding citizens from having licenses, registering their guns or having to do background checks for private sales…
Why not just trash the whole dang crap government gun control system in the first place? The only people I personally have known that it flagged were people who could legally buy and own guns. The system was showing false positives.
Good sensible points by these two ladies. I think their opinions represent how millions in this country feel. When you get gun control puppets like Hilary Clinton, Obama, and many of the liberal left nut jobs talking about oppressing peoples Constitutional Rights because of the actions of criminals or the mentally disturbed I find that to be disturbing. Those that would immediately begin talking about gun control are not addressing the real problems but instead are taking advantage of a tragedy to advance their personal ideology. Those that do that are unfit to represent us or to hold office!
They need to go to a Moms Demanding Action rally and take on Shannon using a bull-horn
You’re there. Now press the R button in the voting booth.
Agreed, but some R’s have stabbed us in the back quite recently. Thanks to Reagan, we now have the Machine Gun Registry and GCA1986. So there’s that.
Two pieces of bullshit legislature drafted by a republican and passed into law.
The problem is you don’t SEE mental illness. But at least they have the right idea. Except for the national hotline could be “The Minority Report” Arrest them BEFORE they do the crime. Keeping the money is a GREAT idea why haven’t the politicians in DC figured it out? Mr. Mercer is a bad father and that is that. No double standards put the DC politicians on Obamacare and SS.Thanks for your vote.Pass the word. mrpresident2016.com
Make that national hot line one for each state and I like it. But a flat rule that anyone who’s been in a mental institution can’t have a firearm is a bad idea; it should have to go through a court.
@Roymond: I agree because not everyone that is mentally ill is dangerous or suicidal. Should have a process where a Psychologist or Psychiatrist submits the paperwork to a court or a judge and the final determination is made jointly. And there should also be a process in place to reverse this if the person is no longer considered a threat to themselves or others. I believe there is already something in place to prevent mentally ill persons from buying a gun but it appears that system is not working as well as it should right now. So, the current system seems to need some kind of overhaul. However, the risk is that any kind of overhaul could also be used to restrict freedom and make it so that almost any person that wants or needs a gun for self defense could easily be stopped from getting one. Always a balance between safety and freedom.
Psychologist or Psychiatrist And perhaps the local chick swingin voodoo priestess could consult.
Psychologist or Psychiatrist 10% as successful in curing an ailment as the average chiropractor (but as expensive).
Small wrinkle:
Psychiatrists have been, thus far, ineffective in preventing mass shootings where there is substantial warning or evidence to take action.
For example, the Aurora shooting and Sandy Hook and several others where the mentally ill person pretty much admitted or strongly hinted at their plans to harm people in the near future to their psychiatrist, friends, or family days or weeks before carrying out their agenda of murder / suicide.
I think the mental health system and the public need more education, awareness, and a solid plan of action for identifying and reacting to signs of violence.
Everyone, especially in this day and age needs to go pick up a copy of Gavin DeBecker’s The Gift of Fear to educate themselves in how to recognize precursory behavior that leads to violence.
I will definitely check this book out. Thanks for the suggestion.
This book came about because the author, who was raised in an abusive family but followed his dream to become educated and studied psychology, eventually realised that psychologists and psychiatrists are the very worst people to judge the safety to the public of violent offenders. This is because they have no conception of the causes and course of violence, and they have no familiarity with it. They used to think that violence happened due to low self esteem. In fact the reverse is the case, offenders have an exaggerated sense of their own worth. This book shows clearly the gradual or swift escalation from preparatory and predatory tactics to sudden assault, and the inevitable conclusion of domestic violence. It shows the signs to watch for and the personal traits shared by offenders. It shows the addictive nature of violence, and the difficulty in interrupting its progression. The author confirms that the old “beat” cops had the best ideas on how to deal with neighborhood bullies, and that the intervention of psychiatric professionals muddied the waters and only allowed the offender to furnish his crimes with the self justifications needed to further increase his already bloated self esteem.
Unfortunately the psychiatric profession is still poorly equipped to deal with violent crime, and I for one would feel unsafe living near a half way house for those determined to be fit for release into the community. This is partly because psychology is not a real science, and the theories under which it operates do not work. An experienced lawman knows far more about the depths of badness to which an offender on a spree will descend, and about the most appropriate cure for his condition. Which sadly, is usually a lead injection.
These ladies know that some people are just plain bad, and need to be removed from circulation for the good of everyone. They highlight the irresponsible dismantling of the mental health prisons in recent decades, and call for their return. They understand that ordinary civilians can distinguish dangerous and aberrant behavior, and it behooves those in authority to provide a reliable service in answering their calls. Everything they say is true.
Way to go ladies!
This is why and how gun grabbers are getting marginalized. Their position doesnt make sense and sense prevails over time.
These gals used the car as a weapon analogy, and the gun grabbers say “well, cars are used for good things, guns are only made to kill.” Well… youre right… and sadly there was nobody with a gun available to kill Chris Harper Mercer.
Trust me, the cars are much more dangerous than the guns.
“Guns are only meant to kill” actually works against them once you realize that the thing meant to kill kills fewer people than cars.
But it’s also a false claim. The most common outcome of a DGU is nobody gets hurt. The fact is that most guns are meant to aid in defense and that includes the intimidation factor realized by their mere presentation to an attacker.
This would make a good item for the first episode of a show called “America’s Got Common Sense”.
Alex Jones interviewed them:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=2&v=gTe0Jgq12lE
Ahh I love these ladies. I wish I had a friend that agreed with everything I said. Her sidekick is funny.
They’re sisters.
(The Sisters are sisters, I suppose…)
Agreed! These two need to have a talk show or full time You Tube Channel! Way to go!
More wisdom in these 2 minority ladies than in Congress or most State legislatures.
People who are against gun control are in the majority. Why does their race have anything to do with it?
Common-sense from folks with an attitude. http://www.diamondandsilkinc.com/
Seriously, this is one of those cultural sign-posts that the near 100% African-American devotion to Obama and the Left-Progressive Plantation is cracking…
watch the polls on Trump, for example, from black voters upset over immigration, registering as Republican.
I can see a lot of African Americans voting for Trump. Aftet all he is a big government Democrat.
I suspect you are correct, and I dont want Trump to be POTUS. The truth of the matter right now, and what no one in the ReliablePartyOrgans can name, as its polictical kryptonite, is simply the reality- long-historical enmity exists between poor black and latino communities, in competition for jobs, housing, government handouts, especially in urban cores. Look at gang culture, and in prison.
Trump is not afraid to say what is not politically correct, that “immigration” really means, mostly from “south of the border”. And in the real world that means more jobs taken from black teenagers, especially the spoiled young men who wont work as hard at McDonalds, or doing yard work, or other dirty jobs beneath them, because of the urban ‘playah’ culture that is part of the multiple generational dysfunctional welfare culture that Democrats have spawned, to get votes, by rewarding single female households with greatest handouts for multiple kids.
That means black women are stuck taking care of them, and they are sick of it- thus, the Sistah’s Stumpin’ for Trump, in the video.
Black support cracking…blacks voted for change…they got it…now it’s not working out and your withdrawing support. News flash to brothers & sisters, Dem’s are throwing you all under the bus, back filling with illegals, last remaining vestige of white guilt has evaporated and the trough train is leaving the station. Good luck facing the future.
Can i get an Amen! Sisters!
Mmmmmmhhmmmmm!
Im out.
Wow they are great, it is great to hear someone talk in a way that is unifying as a people rather than hear people that are try to split us apart.
Lets make them President and fire that lame wimp we got there now.
Awesome!
In the ’60’s the ACLU, with Kennedy influence, took the incarnation of the mentally ill to the courts. The result is that it is almost impossible to ‘put away’ anyone! The closure of the ’empty beds’ at state mental institutions is often blamed on Republicans by the Left…
The Sisters [in the vid] are da bomb!!!!!
“The result is that it is almost impossible to ‘put away’ anyone! ”
With good reason. The old system was rife with all sorts of abuse.
Folks have the right to be left alone, even if they are mentally ill.
We don’t lock people away for more than a short observational period because of crimes they “might” commit. At least not while talking about respecting freedom out the other side of our mouth.
A “short observational period” obviously isn’t adequate for a Jared Loughner, a James Holmes, an Amy Bishop, an Adam Lanza, a Chris Harper-Mercer, a Vester Flanagan/Bryce Williams, a Sueng-Hui-Cho, an Alton Nolen, a Nidal Hasan, etc., etc., ad nauseum. A homicidal lunatic’s “right” to be left alone doesn’t trump anyone else’s right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Either lock ’em up or put ’em down.
For every person like you listed, there are thousands more with the same characteristics who harm nobody. They aren’t homicidal maniacs until they actually commit homicide, and our society does not take away one’s rights based on guesses and what-if’s.
You’re going to institutionalize them all, just in case? I guess you could, but at that point we’d best just shut up about freedom and individual rights. There won’t be any.
We are not going back to the era where we routinely put eccentric relatives in the asylum. That’s not foreseeable.
We probably need to think about how to deal with the following broad, crude, categories of the mentally-ill:
– those few who are really dangerous to OTHERS because they won’t stay on their meds (or don’t respond);
– those many who are really dangerous to THEMSELVES because they won’t stay on their meds (or don’t respond);
– the majority who are really vulnerable to injury or attacks by OTHERS (for whatever reason);
– the very large number whose quality of life, or ability to perform to their potential, is imperiled because they remain undiagnosed.
The first category or two probably won’t cost much. Not much compared to the cost (to society in general) of dealing with the consequences of the damage these sufferers cause to people, property and the public space they defile.
The vulnerable majority simply ARE going to be taken care of by our society irrespective of whether some of us question the utility of spending money on these people. The choices are: bad; worse; or, worst. Why take “worst” by default?
The overwhelming majority of cost will be in screening the entire population to identify the substantial minority who need some care.
Buried among this haystack are the needles who are the spree killers. It may be more accurate to characterize this haystack as a stack of pins; i.e., we are looking for needles in a stack of pins. We ought to harbor NO optimism that mental health services will identify and successfully treat any needle before he strikes. Odds are much too long. However, ameliorating a lifetime of suffering and improving the productivity of those that are successfully treated are apt to recover the cost of screening and treatment.
While the voters are crying “We HAVE to do SOMETHING!” we PotG ought to think about where to direct this energy. The Antis want to direct this energy toward new gun-controls; do we like this effort of the Antis to direct this uncontrolled unremitting energy? Shall we, the PotG, let the Antis take the lead here?
Alternatively, is it in our interest, as PotG, to assert a leadership position in this discussion? I.e., to show our concern for mass shootings. To demonstrate an interest in getting to the root problem. Express compassion for our fellow human beings who are suffering. In our rhetoric, where do we want to strive to direct this discussion? Toward a constructive end? Or, by defaulting to the Antis, toward a self-defeating end?
I’m inclined to believe that the only really effective solution to mass killings is to ‘arrest’ the process after the first or second victim is shot. To minimize the casualties. This really IS cost-efficient and probabilistically effective. Nevertheless, the voters aren’t eager to jump so far, to the obvious conclusion we PotG reach. How do we deal with this reluctance? As much as WE want to tell them: ‘Man-up and face the obvious reality’; they aren’t likely to respond to us. They are as likely or more likely to respond to the Antis to: ‘Get rid of all these guns!’.
Who do we want to appear to be be the realistic, compassionate, problem solvers in this debate?
Before liberal federal courts discovered a right in the Constitution of the chronically bewildered to live out of shopping carts and spend their days panhandling and soiling themselves in public, there was an effective way to remove dangerous individuals who put themselves or others in jeopardy. It was called a “competency hearing,” in which concerned family or prosecutors could petition a court to involuntarily commit an at-risk individual for evaluation and/or treatment. That humane legal option is no longer available to society, which is much worse for it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-y8ViGvCrL8
Enter more P.A.U.S.E. acts stage left
14:50, 14:51, 14:52…………
Tick tock, ladies…………
If you want a fool proof method to keep criminals from getting guns….put a mark on the shoulders of all gun criminals and felons who cannot legally own guns.
What does this do….it is an immediate way to tell if someone can buy a gun, either at a gun store or through a private seller…if they have the mark, you don’t sell them the gun or buy a gun from them.
Why it is a great idea…it is immediate, and it leaves no paper trail, and it also does nothing to law abiding gun owners.
There then is no reason or need to license gun owners, register guns, or require private sellers to drag people to a gun store or police station to do a background check…they simply ask to see the left shoulder of the buyer or seller…if they see the mark, they know the guy is a criminal selling the gun.
(Yes…I know…criminals will still simply get guns by stealing them or by having people with clean records buy their guns…I know this…you don’t have to explain it to me, I am not an anti gunner. What the mark on the shoulder does is keep law abiding citizens from having licenses, registering their guns or having to do background checks for private sales…..it protects law abiding gun owners because checking the shoulder of the buyer or seller is immediate, and requires no paper trail….)
I was thinking of a numbered tattoo on the fore arm for easier identification. I am sure lots of people who are prohibited from legally buying guns, frequent gun stores and gun shows. I am also sure that with the wisdom and legal process of our government, that all the felons are super duper dangerous and should be stripped of all rights forever.
Which the ACLU would have a field day with……….equating “poor misguided offenders” with nazi prisoners subject to permanent branding.
Since you do still need a license to drive or other government-issued I.D. card at least for basic identification purposes, then how about adding a firearms box with a check mark for allowed and just blank for prohibited? Or you could add a little gun icon, like they add a little heart icon for organ donors on licenses, for people pre-approved (that is, not pre-prohibited) to purchase/possess firearms?
That way, the government can populate their little NICS database and the I.D. issuing entities can run everyone against that blind, completely oblivious to anyone’s actual firearms purchases, so there’s no record of anyone’s purchases. It’d be just like indicating your date of birth on your driver’s license to show you’re 21 or over, but there being no record anywhere of your alcohol purchases or club entrances.
I like the license gun icon idea, but it does nothing to solve the problem at hand which is preventing the mentally ill from acquiring firearms. NICS needs an update and a system put in place which submits info to NICS when a person is deemed mentally ill and dangerous by a court of law.
The NICS-check icon on every driver’s license and State ID is interesting.
The pretext is that it’s for “Officer safety”. The cop knows promptly whether the driver being detained has cleared the NICS check; or not. In the latter case, he takes extra precautions.
Now, what do we get out of it?
– advertising the RKBA; every non-gun owner is regularly reminded of his unexercised right
– advertising to cops of the reliability of gun-owners – or at least eligible – citizens
– promoting transition to Constitutional Carry
– burden State governments re-issuing (retrieving old) licenses when people become prohibited
– reducing the distinction between gun-owners and gun-elibitle citizens
– stigma of not having the 2A endorsement will raise pressure to narrow the prohibited-person criteria
The “stigma” issue is the most useful. The Antis want any mental illness condition to trigger prohibited-person status. OK, not what about the backlash when millions of citizens with minor mental-illness diagnoses complain that their driver’s license reveal to every cop and merchant who takes a check that they are prohibited-persons? What’s the criteria? Is he a criminal, or mentally ill? Congress will be compelled to constrain the mental-illness criteria to those few diagnoses that correlate with a heightened propensity for violence.
Narrowing the mental-illness diagnoses, in turn, will NARROW the number of records submitted to NICS. There are about 160 diagnoses in DSM-V; so, doubtlessly, practitioners are reluctant to report ANYone if that implies they are obligated to report EVERYone. Reduce the list to, e.g., a dozen reportable diagnoses and practitioners will be more likely to report patients with only those specific diagnoses. Both the quantity of coverage (number of States) and the quality (fewer false positives) will be improved.
I do NOT believe that NICS has a worthwhile probability of reducing access to guns by people society (somehow) decides ought not to have them. Politicians and voters are NOT going to subscribe to this belief – probably not ever. Accordingly, we ought to concentrate on how to best live with the prohibited-person criteria. Finding ways to narrow the criteria is more useful and more realistic than eliminating the criteria.
In New Zealand we have a separate gun license, which requires stringent testing including an exam for knowledge of gun safety. And we are individually interviewed as are our family members and neighbors, to ensure we are not an angry person, a criminal, a mental patient or likely to harm ourselves or others. We must explain WHY we want a license, and we are forbidden to mention anything related to self defense, as that is the job of the Police (no sniggering in the back row…). Usually the purpose is target shooting at a range, or clay shooting, or hunting (there is a lot of hunting here).
This system hopefully keeps out the more obvious lunatics and fantasists, and we also need to demonstrate that we have a properly secured firearms safe in our house. This does not prevent the occasional theft, which is the main source for gang bangers. But overall we have a workable system which does not overload the Police with ridiculous tasks like registering every single weapon (which does not and never has worked). If you have a license, you are assumed to be a responsible person, and can walk out of the gun shop with the firearm of your choice within minutes. You also need to show your license when you buy ammunition. Pistols are quite rare, and are limited to pistol club members.
We very rarely have any mass shootings. The last big one resulted in a more stringent license for military style semi automatics. But many of them are available on a regular gun license (eg SKS). We feel pretty safe here. Firearms deaths are way down the list compared to other causes of death, and yet we have reasonably free access to firearms.
It’s interesting that you NZ’ers don’t recognize utility in registering guns. We need to remember that when the topic comes up here.
You NZ’ers have a different culture than we do; and, a different set of traditions. It is part of our political DNA to distrust our own government. So far, that distrust has been perfectly well founded; and no less in the present day than ever before. The only thing we have to fear is the knock at the door with a pleasant fellow explaining: “I’m from the government and I’m here to help!”
We recognize the natural right of self-defense; and, this was established as the core right of our 2A. As a common-law nation, comprised of 49 common law States (plus Louisiana), it would be really very hard to wring that right (self-defense) out of our legal system. The Federal government certainly has no power to do so.
So, not surprisingly due to our geographic positions on the globe, our way of looking at guns and self-defense is entirely up-side-down relative to yours.
What the mark on the shoulder does is keep law abiding citizens from having licenses, registering their guns or having to do background checks for private sales…
Why not just trash the whole dang crap government gun control system in the first place? The only people I personally have known that it flagged were people who could legally buy and own guns. The system was showing false positives.
Good sensible points by these two ladies. I think their opinions represent how millions in this country feel. When you get gun control puppets like Hilary Clinton, Obama, and many of the liberal left nut jobs talking about oppressing peoples Constitutional Rights because of the actions of criminals or the mentally disturbed I find that to be disturbing. Those that would immediately begin talking about gun control are not addressing the real problems but instead are taking advantage of a tragedy to advance their personal ideology. Those that do that are unfit to represent us or to hold office!
They need to go to a Moms Demanding Action rally and take on Shannon using a bull-horn
You’re there. Now press the R button in the voting booth.
Agreed, but some R’s have stabbed us in the back quite recently. Thanks to Reagan, we now have the Machine Gun Registry and GCA1986. So there’s that.
Two pieces of bullshit legislature drafted by a republican and passed into law.
The problem is you don’t SEE mental illness. But at least they have the right idea. Except for the national hotline could be “The Minority Report” Arrest them BEFORE they do the crime. Keeping the money is a GREAT idea why haven’t the politicians in DC figured it out? Mr. Mercer is a bad father and that is that. No double standards put the DC politicians on Obamacare and SS.Thanks for your vote.Pass the word. mrpresident2016.com
Comments are closed.