Here we go again, insanity and guns.

[hashtag46]

This thread is for US citizens to participate in. Non-citizens don't know the history of this problem so they come up with simplistic, and often stupid, solutions to a problem they don't understand.

Ishmael

I don't have to be a US citizen or to have a background in health to realise that you and Que dropped such jaw-dropping Bombs when it comes to the mentally ill

 

[BotanyBoy]

The US' murder rate is nearly five times that of the UK. I'd say that was pretty meaningful.

In what way exactly???

Not that your cowardly ass would ever DARE to respond to me because I'd crush your sorry limey ass like the intellectually inferior twat that you are.

 

[Conager]

You do realize that that graph is as useful as a graph showing that countries that have an abundance of tractors do more of their farming with tractors then countries were tractors are scarce.

 

[Sean]

This thread is for US citizens to participate in. l

Ahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Good luck with that.

 

[Ishmael]

I don't have to be a US citizen or to have a background in health to realise that you and Que dropped such jaw-dropping Bombs when it comes to the mentally ill

Maybe you would care to explain the PRECISE nature of the 'bomb' I have dropped. Restrict your reply to only what I have said and feel free to quote me.

Ishmael

 

[Conager]

I don't have to be a US citizen or to have a background in health to realise that you and Que dropped such jaw-dropping Bombs when it comes to the mentally ill

Given that the last time you actually saw a mental health professional they mosti lkely strongly advised you to seek inpatient treatment I can see where you would find such place as fearsome.

Yes, they would probably not let you keep your Sharpies butt I am sure they have finger painting class

 

[BotanyBoy]

You do realize that that graph is as useful as a graph showing that countries that have an abundance of tractors do more of their farming with tractors then countries were tractors are scarce.

Sean can't grasp that concept, he doesn't have the intellectual capacity.

You may as well be arguing with a brick that has "ban guns" engraved in it.

 

[hashtag46]

Maybe you would care to explain the PRECISE nature of the 'bomb' I have dropped. Restrict your reply to only what I have said and feel free to quote me.

Ishmael

Well pardon me if I ask the same of you. You started by quoting a post addressed to me, then mentioning the word stupid.

You go first.

 

[Ishmael]

Well pardon me if I ask the same of you. You started by quoting a post addressed to me, then mentioning the word stupid.

You go first.

I used two words, you picked the one you wanted to hear. Not my problem, and I have no intention of discussing the issue with non-citizens. You, and the other non-citizens, can ramble on as you will. But not with my participation.

Ishmael

 

[hashtag46]

1.Given that the last time you actually saw a mental health professional they mosti lkely strongly advised you to seek inpatient treatment I can see where you would find such place as fearsome.

Yes, they would probably not let you keep your Sharpies butt I am sure they have finger painting class

You come up with such stupid comebacks
Who on Earth would make such bombshell revelations about themselves on Lit.?

Beats even the jaw- dropping comments you made in this thread, about the mentally ill (they cost us too much! They come to clinics in fucking cabs! And all of them sell their Xanax and psychiatric medications for profit! and so on LOL ) or your humilliation fetishes psychoanalytical interpretations of your fellow posters.

 

[irksomesauce]

This thread is for US citizens to participate in. Non-citizens don't know the history of this problem so they come up with simplistic, and often stupid, solutions to a problem they don't understand.

Ishmael

...I have no intention of discussing the issue with non-citizens. You, and the other non-citizens, can ramble on as you will. But not with my participation.

Ishmael

I second this motion.

 

[hashtag46]

"According to law enforcement officials, Santiago was found with an active military ID and is an American citizen, born in New Jersey. Previous known addresses include Penuelas, Puerto Rico and Anchorage, Alaska.

They add that in November 2016, just two months ago, he walked into an FBI office in Anchorage claiming that the government had "forced him to watch ISIS videos" and to fight for ISIS. According to a slightly different narrative presented by CNN, source said that Santiago was hearing voice telling him to join the Islamic State. Ultimately he was sent to a psychiatric hospital."
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-...spital-over-isis-ties-was-investigated-child-



Ok. So two months before the attack he made some clearly dangerous statements. Most likely due to mental illness but there's no official comment on that yet.

Regardless of the "diagnosis" or the outcome of that psychiatric admission, I'm sure that the mental health professionals would have asked for -a temporary at least- revoking of his firearm license.

Yet he managed to check in a firearm at the airport.
How was that possible? Don't they check people before allowing them to travel with guns? And how and where did he procure the firearm from?

 

[about_average]

Yet he managed to check in a firearm at the airport.
How was that possible? Don't they check people before allowing them to travel with guns? And how and where did he procure the firearm from?

You're required to declare them, but if the luggage isn't x-rayed how would they know you have one if you didn't declare it?

 

[Ishmael]

A little background on mental health issues.

Starting in the 1970's the ACLU brought a series of suits before the SCOTUS representing individuals locked up in mental health institutions. The suits were brought under the Habaes Corpus clause of the constitution. These decisions virtually emptied ALL of the mental health institutions nation wide. (I noticed someone blamed it on Reagan cutting funding. Reagan didn't have a damn thing to do with it. It was congress and their realization that the continued funding of empty 'prisons' was sorta dumb.)

Prior to those decisions the institutionalization of an individual was capricious at best. The classic case was the use of attorneys and a sympathetic court to get control of grannies fortune. Or to be rid of the financial burden of having to care for a mentally disabled child. (Let the tax payer carry the load.) The thresholds for incarcerating an individual varied wildly from state to state and even within local jurisdictions.

It must be remembered that most of these individuals represented no threat to the public or themselves and had committed no crime. Given those facts how was it possible to strip the individual of their civil rights and incarcerate them for what was essentially a life sentence? The SCOTUS, rightly so, decided that you just can't do that to an individual. So they set some standards that must be met before you can institutionalize an individual or strip them of their civil rights, and they set the bar fairly high.

We see what happened yesterday, and at Sandy Hook, and Columbine, and others, and after the fact declare, or ask, "Why in the hell weren't those people locked away in institutions?" Given all the information that comes out after the murders take place asking that question is a 'no-brainer.' But the fact still remains that none of those individuals had committed, or been convicted, of a felony. And while their behavior was, to say the least, bizarre, there was no finding by any court under the thresholds laid down by the SCOTUS that would have stripped them of their rights and subsequently locked their ass up.

So we are faced with am impasse. We ALL agree, even the NRA, that they shouldn't have been on the street let alone in possession of a firearm. But there is also the fact that laws that would have made it possible to lock their asses up have been historically rife with abuse. And there is also the problem of locking people up, and/or stripping them of their civil rights based on what they "might" do. Given that everyone is potentially capable of doing anything at anytime that is a dangerous path to trod.

And therein lies the dilemma. How do we identify these mentally deranged individuals and take action to protect society from them? And that remedy should include the means to identify the Jeffery Dahmer's, Ted Bundy's, and all those others that committed serial murders and didn't bother to use a firearm? And to do so without engaging in a priori judgements?

Ishmael

 

[RobDownSouth]

A little background on mental health issues.

Starting in the 1970's the ACLU brought a series of suits before the SCOTUS representing individuals locked up in mental health institutions. The suits were brought under the Habaes Corpus clause of the constitution. These decisions virtually emptied ALL of the mental health institutions nation wide. (I noticed someone blamed it on Reagan cutting funding. Reagan didn't have a damn thing to do with it. It was congress and their realization that the continued funding of empty 'prisons' was sorta dumb.)

Revisionist Horseshit

And therein lies the dilemma. How do we identify these mentally deranged individuals and take action to protect society from them?

We can start with your immediate family tree and trace backwards.

 

[Bookishleigh]

Yes, it's the liberals responsible for ALL the deinstitutionalization:

"Over 30 years ago, when Reagan was elected President in 1980, he discarded a law proposed by his predecessor that would have continued funding federal community mental health centers. This basically eliminated services for people struggling with mental illness.

He made similar decisions while he was the governor of California, releasing more than half of the state’s mental hospital patients and passing a law that abolished involuntary hospitalization of people struggling with mental illness. This started a national trend of de-institutionalization."

http://www.povertyinsights.org/2013...al-health-policies-cause-todays-homelessness/

You don't get to bitch about crazy people having guns AND keep your guns if you don't want to pay for mental health. The OP can't even blame this incident on some radical Muslim extremist as the shooter in the incident instead served in the U.S. Military and was likely the product of a failed mental health system through the VA.

But we can keep pointing fingers and say it's this party or that party's fault and nothing will ever get done instead of just acknowledging there is a problem somewhere along the line (be it a problem with our mental health system in the United States, our gun laws, our inability for our political parties to work together and accomplish anything, or a combination of all of the above).

 

[RobDownSouth]

Indeed. That means it is 5 times more reasonable that one might want to carry a firearm in order to protect oneself.

And if everyone was armed, we wouldn't have to worry about random gun violence.

That's why war zones are noted for their safety 'n protection, amiright?

 

[Bookishleigh]

And if everyone was armed, we wouldn't have to worry about random gun violence.

That's why war zones are noted for their safety 'n protection, amiright?

I've heard Syria is quite lovely this time of year.

 

[Ishmael]

Yes, it's the liberals responsible for ALL the deinstitutionalization:

"Over 30 years ago, when Reagan was elected President in 1980, he discarded a law proposed by his predecessor that would have continued funding federal community mental health centers. This basically eliminated services for people struggling with mental illness.

He made similar decisions while he was the governor of California, releasing more than half of the state’s mental hospital patients and passing a law that abolished involuntary hospitalization of people struggling with mental illness. This started a national trend of de-institutionalization."

http://www.povertyinsights.org/2013...al-health-policies-cause-todays-homelessness/

You don't get to bitch about crazy people having guns AND keep your guns if you don't want to pay for mental health. The OP can't even blame this incident on some radical Muslim extremist as the shooter in the incident instead served in the U.S. Military and was likely the product of a failed mental health system through the VA.

But we can keep pointing fingers and say it's this party or that party's fault and nothing will ever get done instead of just acknowledging there is a problem somewhere along the line (be it a problem with our mental health system in the United States, our gun laws, our inability for our political parties to work together and accomplish anything, or a combination of all of the above).

First of all we're talking about the law here, not the results of the law.

First of all, if you read carefully, I have no problem with the suits brought by the ACLU on behalf of those incarcerated at mental institutions. So your invective that I "blame it on liberals' just doesn't apply, does it?

And you are off on some tangent that has nothing to do with the discussion. I'd like to find a solution, a solution that is not subject to abuse and conforms to the laws of that land as laid down by the SCOTUS. Decisions that I actually support.

The first of a series of landmark decisions by the court was rendered in 1975 (see the OP re. mid 1970's) in O'Connor v Donaldson. Based on that decision 4 or 5 more (I'd have to dig into the tree) followed, all of which further refined what the states and the federal government could, and could not, do to either incarcerate or strip individuals of their civil rights based on an accusation of mental illness.

So sweet cheeks, read the law and get back to me with a proposed solution.

Ishmael

 

[Bookishleigh]

First of all we're talking about the law here, not the results of the law.

First of all, if you read carefully, I have no problem with the suits brought by the ACLU on behalf of those incarcerated at mental institutions. So your invective that I "blame it on liberals' just doesn't apply, does it?

And you are off on some tangent that has nothing to do with the discussion. I'd like to find a solution, a solution that is not subject to abuse and conforms to the laws of that land as laid down by the SCOTUS. Decisions that I actually support.

The first of a series of landmark decisions by the court was rendered in 1975 (see the OP re. mid 1970's) in O'Connor v Donaldson. Based on that decision 4 or 5 more (I'd have to dig into the tree) followed, all of which further refined what the states and the federal government could, and could not, do to either incarcerate or strip individuals of their civil rights based on an accusation of mental illness.

So sweet cheeks, read the law and get back to me with a proposed solution.

Ishmael

1. You have two "first of alls" which implies you're not "Johnny on the spot" this evening.

2. Only condescending assholes use the term "sweet cheeks".

3. Your misogyny or butthurt at past events is showing as I don't see you calling anyone else sweet cheeks who "strayed" from what YOU feel is the topic of your post.

 

[Ms_Ann]

1. You have two "first of alls" which implies you're not "Johnny on the spot" this evening.

2. Only condescending assholes use the term "sweet cheeks".

He's earned the right to use the term sweet cheeks, sweet cheeks.

 

[Bookishleigh]

Only liberals, media, and the NWO establishment use memes, dude.

But I think you know that. Perhaps the only thing you know, but you do know that.

Given your long documented board history of alts, sock puppets and lying, you are probably the last person to lecture ANYONE on personal integrity. You should never be taken at your word on any subject.


The above sounds like you are either hyperventilating or having a stroke. Or both. It's all good.


Shorter Queerbait: "My mouth got caught writing a check my ass can't cash. Waaaaah!"

Queers and trannies...queers and trannies...queers and trannies...queers and trannies...every one of your posts mentions queers and trannies. You have a problem.

Read it again, more carefully. He meant something entirely different from what you are referring to. His post is confusing, probably because
- the second paragraph (which referes to short term admissions until the person no longer poses a risk)
- has nothing to do with his first one (which refers to life long institutionalisation).

What he implied in his first paragraph, was that all people with moderate to severe mental illnesses -even those who never hurt a fly- should be thrown into the good ole institutions and not allowed to experience life.
Just because case managers and so on are too costly.

There are other arguments for long-term institutionalisation, but cost isn't one of them. Which makes his argument look like something taken out of Hitler's playbook. Hitler started by institutionalising then he moved on to euthanising germans with special needs, then he moved on to euthanising jews, didn't he?

What a bomb did Que drop, lol…








But I agree with what you said. If the libs. are trying to sabotage the decision of health professionals (to "institutionalise" aka admit certain people in order to protect them or the public) just because of some insane liberal mantra, that makes them stupid and dangerous.

Are we the only country that ignores this problem? How do others deal with it?

It was always about the money.

Thanks, ron!

You're a shit stirrer, aren't you?

I think the USA is the only place that lets crazy people buy and carry handguns around the country on airplanes.

"First of all," look at all these SWEET CHEEKS making posts about....not the law.

 

[hashtag46]

So they set some standards that must be met before you can institutionalize an individual or strip them of their civil rights, and they set the bar fairly high.

We see what happened yesterday, and at Sandy Hook, and Columbine, and others, and after the fact declare, or ask, "Why in the hell weren't those people locked away in institutions?"

And there is also the problem of locking people up, and/or stripping them of their civil rights based on what they "might" do. Given that everyone is potentially capable of doing anything at anytime that is a dangerous path to trod.

And therein lies the dilemma. How do we identify these mentally deranged individuals and take action to protect society from them? And that remedy should include the means to identify the Jeffery Dahmer's, Ted Bundy's, and all those others that committed serial murders and didn't bother to use a firearm? And to do so without engaging in a priori judgements?

Ishmael

Your post would give a headache to anyone who has a basic understanding of psychiatry or how the mental health system works, US included.

That piece of legislation was introduced to put an end to the abuses existent prior to 1970's, which saw people admitted for vague reasons.

But what do you think all those people who work in mental health are, chopped liver?
Of course they would have admitted to a hospital anyone who poses at risk to themselves or others, and kept them in hospital until their interventions (be they medications or so on) rendered the person as no longer posing an imminent risk to himself or others.
And even after they discharge them, they monitor those who display so many risk factors closely.

The fact that that guy, who showed many risk factors especially more recent ones 2 months ago was out and about untreated and without oversight by a mental health team, and he did what he did speaks more about a one off mistake or incompetence. I bet the psychiatrist who saw him 2 months ago will have hell to pay.

 

[Ishmael]

"First of all," look at all these SWEET CHEEKS making posts about....not the law.

And you saw how readily I responded, right?

Ishmael

 

[Bookishleigh]

Your post would give a headache to anyone who has a basic understanding of psychiatry or how the mental health system works, US included.

That piece of legislation was introduced to put an end to the abuses existent prior to 1970's, which saw people admitted for vague reasons.

But what do you think all those people who work in mental health are, chopped liver?
Of course they would have admitted to a hospital anyone who poses at risk to themselves or others, and kept them in hospital until their interventions (be they medications or so on) rendered the person as no longer posing a risk to himself or others.
And even after they discharge them, they monitor them closely.

The fact that that guy, who showed many risk factors especially more recent ones 2 months ago was out and about untreated and did what he did speaks more about a one off mistake or incompetence. I bet the psychiatrist who saw him 2 months ago will have hell to pay.

Probably not - unless it can be proven the doctor knew of the patient's intent to commit a crime, most everything is covered under doctor-patient confidentiality.

*This post is not about the law or a proposed solution - just a response to another post not about the law or a proposed solution*