Mental health and gun control

[colddiesel]

Aussie normally has excellent control of these things but this morning it was in the paper about this white power nutter butter was given permission to own one. This is not going to end well. http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...ven-okay-for-gun/story-e6freuzi-1225991344204

Talk about jumping the gun.

1 It was only determined that the fact that he was a racist was not an impediment to owning a gun.

2 He hasn't got one yet because he will (For an AB licence) need to either join an approved gun club, or prove he is an owner occupier of rural/land and has a legitimate use.

3 He will have to provide secure storage for the guns, either at the club and what club is going to offer a nutter membership, or he will have to pay for secure storage himself which is very expensive because it will be specified by the police.

He may have made his point but he doesn't have a gun yet and even if he does get one and pay for storage at home all that does is give the police a right to enter his premises and inspect said gun and storage 24/7/365.

Don't panic yet.

 

[vrosej10]

Talk about jumping the gun.

1 It was only determined that the fact that he was a racist was not an impediment to owning a gun.

2 He hasn't got one yet because he will (For an AB licence) need to either join an approved gun club, or prove he is an owner occupier of rural/land and has a legitimate use.

3 He will have to provide secure storage for the guns, either at the club and what club is going to offer a nutter membership, or he will have to pay for secure storage himself which is very expensive because it will be specified by the police.

He may have made his point but he doesn't have a gun yet and even if he does get one and pay for storage at home all that does is give the police a right to enter his premises and inspect said gun and storage 24/7/365.

Don't panic yet.

He has a personality disorder and a history of domestic abuse. Frankly I don't think it should have gotten this far.

 

[Weird Harold]

As a little factoid I give you the data that the largest defacto mental asylum in the States is the Los Angeles County jail system, where one third of the inmates are mentally ill.

That "little factoid" is probably the tip of the iceberg.

Sadly, you're correct about the likelyhood of decent government sponsored/funded health care -- and I'm not sure I want politicians defining who is an isn't crazy anyway; that open the possibility of all kinds of abuses.

Still, there has to be some way to increase public awareness of things like your factoid and at least begin to get pubic opinion behind some kind of reform in the health care industry that doesn't treat mental illness as a minor side-effect or "non-life-threatening condition" or some other code phrase for "Buck up dude, 'cause we're not payin' for THAT."

 

[vrosej10]

Many people go happily throughout their lives without ever having a gun. With the exception of the armed forces, police and farmers, no one actually NEEDS one. Ban em.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Many people go happily throughout their lives without ever having a gun. With the exception of the armed forces, police and farmers, no one actually NEEDS one. Ban em.

Guns are useful. Forty years ago I lived on a river in a rural area, and my shotgun took care of poisonous snakes and rabid animals. I assure you guns are better than swatting things with a stick.

 

[vrosej10]

Guns are useful. Forty years ago I lived on a river in a rural area, and my shotgun took care of poisonous snakes and rabid animals. I assure you guns are better than swatting things with a stick.

I said farmers NEED them. I should have been more specific in mention people in rural areas and then basically you need a shotty. No one needs a Glock pistol.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I said farmers NEED them. I should have been more specific in mention people in rural areas and then basically you need a shotty. No one needs a Glock pistol.

Twenty years ago a drifter from Mississippi came to town and butchered several people with his knife. He followed the girls home from school and came back at night. The police force in town is hyper alert for kids drinking beer and hate speech NOT psychotic killers, so he had his way until an old lady hit him with her car as he fled a robbery.

I reckon God got impatient with Barney & Gomer.

 

[Weird Harold]

I said farmers NEED them. I should have been more specific in mention people in rural areas and then basically you need a shotty. No one needs a Glock pistol.

That would depend on what hazards your particular rural area has to offer.

I would much prefer a glock with a ten-14 round magazine when confronting a pack of feral dogs, such as infest the close in rural areas and open spaces in this particular valley. (They aren't the problem they were 30 years ago when the area was more rural, but there's still a few packs out there.) Two or three shotgun rounds suitable for snakes just wouldn't be as useful.

If nothing else, a holstered glock would interfere much less with whatever purpose brought be into a rural setting where wild or feral animals might be a danger than any sort of long-gun.

From what I've read of Australia's restrictions, it certainly looks like the farmer's are getting shafted by "city kids" perceptions of what they might need firearms for instead of a realistic assessment of the need for weapons in a rural environment.

 

[vrosej10]

That would depend on what hazards your particular rural area has to offer.

I would much prefer a glock with a ten-14 round magazine when confronting a pack of feral dogs, such as infest the close in rural areas and open spaces in this particular valley. (They aren't the problem they were 30 years ago when the area was more rural, but there's still a few packs out there.) Two or three shotgun rounds suitable for snakes just wouldn't be as useful.

If nothing else, a holstered glock would interfere much less with whatever purpose brought be into a rural setting where wild or feral animals might be a danger than any sort of long-gun.

From what I've read of Australia's restrictions, it certainly looks like the farmer's are getting shafted by "city kids" perceptions of what they might need firearms for instead of a realistic assessment of the need for weapons in a rural environment.

Shotties have always been the weapon of choice here from way back, though I have seen one hilarious photo of my great grandfather dressed like Wyatt Earl with a side arm. i think that mighta been for show though.

 

[Weird Harold]

Shotties have always been the weapon of choice here from way back, though I have seen one hilarious photo of my great grandfather dressed like Wyatt Earl with a side arm. i think that mighta been for show though.

Shotguns are indeed very versatile and if you can only have -- or afford -- one firearm, that would be the logical choice.

That doesn't mean that a sidearm wouldn't be a better choice for some circumstances.

BTW, who is Wyatt Earl? Is he some Aussie folk hero like Ned Kelly?

Back on topic -- Farmers tend to be some of the sanest people I have ever known; a bit strange by "city kid" standards, sometimes, but I don't think many of them are a danger to themselves or others.

Your high-profile nutcase, however ...

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Do please remember, Rose, that "need" isn't a factor in this discussion. The 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution is a fundamental law. You may dislike it, think it shouldn't be in there, and/or honestly feel that it can't possibly apply to individuals but it is and it does. Now the question is, "How as a society do we manage it?" And given that it's really only an issue to the hystericrats in large urban areas and the declining Northeastern states don't look for much in the way of thoughtful discourse in the foreseeable generations.

 

[stephen55]

I. Exactly how do you go about convincing a fully functional psychotic that he/she/it needs mental help? TIA!

That's the wrong question...and in my opinion, it contains a false premise. I don't think that someone who is psychotic, is fully functional.

Psychosis is a very broad term in psychiatry. It generally means a loss of contact with reality. It is characterized by disordered thought, loss of insight and may involve hallucinations (visual, auditory, tactile or any sensory input that is not real). Like just about anything else in medicine, it varies from mild through moderate to severe.

Depending on the severity of the psychosis, the patient may be aware that their thought processes are disordered (they usually are), or the patient's thought processes may be so disordered that the patient is beyond understanding that something is wrong.

In most cases, the patient can be convinced to accept therapy. In Canada (and I'm sure in the US as well), if a patient is so thought disordered that they are a danger to themselves or others, the patient can be involuntarily committed to a psychiatric facility and treated against their will. (In practice, if a patient is that ill, they rarely object. It's when they are getting better that patients may object and things get difficult.)

What's necessary is the availability of psychiatric help and in particular, ongoing follow up care after the patient is discharged from hospital. What I find disturbing in Arizona, is the lack of availability of mental health care and the Governor's plans to make it even less available.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

In most cases, the patient can be convinced to accept therapy. In Canada (and I'm sure in the US as well), if a patient is so thought disordered that they are a danger to themselves or others, the patient can be involuntarily committed to a psychiatric facility and treated against their will. (In practice, if a patient is that ill, they rarely object. It's when they are getting better that patients may object and things get difficult.)

Technically that is correct. Unfortunately from a practical standpoint until a patient actually injures someone it is almost impossible to involuntarily commit them. Worse yet, unless they agree to the hospitalization, they can only be held for three days "for observation". The result is that we have a large percentage of our "homeless" who are schizophrenic but who refuse treatment and cannot be institutionalized because they are deemed harmless, as the great majority of them are.

What's necessary is the availability of psychiatric help and in particular, ongoing follow up care after the patient is discharged from hospital. What I find disturbing in Arizona, is the lack of availability of mental health care and the Governor's plans to make it even less available.

He's just following a trend that began in California in the 70's. The combination of a governor (Reagan) who wanted to cut state expenses at the expense of anyone who couldn't fight back and a real twit of a psychiatrist who was convinced that mental illness was merely an excuse used by Big Government to oppress its citizens resulted in the closure of almost all of the state mental hospitals. The following step, community re-entry housing, was never taken.

Yeah, I know it's hard to believe but I was there then.

 

[vrosej10]

Do please remember, Rose, that "need" isn't a factor in this discussion. The 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution is a fundamental law. You may dislike it, think it shouldn't be in there, and/or honestly feel that it can't possibly apply to individuals but it is and it does. Now the question is, "How as a society do we manage it?" And given that it's really only an issue to the hystericrats in large urban areas and the declining Northeastern states don't look for much in the way of thoughtful discourse in the foreseeable generations.

What is concerning is the way the US constitution, in this regard, has proved itself to be a dinosaur. The original clause was intended to protect your people against foriegn invaders by allowing you to former militia etc not allow gangbangers to pursue their love of drivebys. You lot seriously need to consider constitutional amendments. In other countries, the dogged, obsessiveness regarding this particular law in considered somewhat insane.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

We know. You can see how much we care.

 

[Huckleman2000]

[...]Back on topic -- Farmers tend to be some of the sanest people I have ever known; a bit strange by "city kid" standards, sometimes, but I don't think many of them are a danger to themselves or others.[...]

And given that it's really only an issue to the hystericrats in large urban areas and the declining Northeastern states don't look for much in the way of thoughtful discourse in the foreseeable generations.

You country mice are blithely writing off as irrelevant 80% of the U.S. population, who live in urban areas.

Rural over-representation in Congress gives rural people a really annoying sense of self-importance and know-it-all-ism.

 

[ishtat]

The second amendment is not going to change.

It is pointless comparing the USA with other countries because the situation is totally different. Some less than completely informed comment has been made of the 1996 changes in Australian Gunlaws.

Australia has a population of only just over 20 million. USA's is 300 million plus.

85% of Australia's population is concentrated in just five cities the rest is spread over an area identical in size to the contiguous USA. Australia has just 6 states and two federal territories, much easier to herd than 50 with the population spread much wider.

Australia's gun amnesty collected about 800,000 guns out of an estimated total of about 2.5 million. I don't know how many guns are in private hands in the USA but guess it would have to be at least 100 million. It is simply impossible to impact such a huge number.

It is inaccurate to describe Australia's 1996 changes as Gun Control. It is in small part but it is mainly for the control of the use of guns. Certain assault rifles etc were banned and hand guns made practically unobtainable but the main effect of the Act was to give the police very wide discretionary powers of licencing, security and inspection. In effect they have been used to make it completely impractical to use a gun in any of the metropolitan areas and to effect almost no change in rural areas. That reflects the extent of the problem which was urban in nature. The police have very wide licencing and entry/inspection powers the latter of which would be unconstitutional in the USA

Australia's gun laws were put in place because a conservative PM realised there were votes in it. The fearful outer urban fringe(swinging voters) were delighted because they felt more secure, the country people were initially angry but they voted conservative anyway.

I live mainly in the city but also have a remote country property. My country neighbors responded to the new laws by saying 'stuff 'em". The police have a lot of discretion and they have chosen,wisely, not to be tough on country owners. That country and hunting tradition is much much bigger in the USA and would I think react in exactly the same way.

Whether one agrees or not it has long been accepted in the USA that a gun is a legitimate tool of self defence. That is not generally accepted in many other countries.

Individual states in the USA and smaller jurisdictions/institutions have plenty of capacity to control the use of guns and ammunition but much less to control ownership. That is a reality that both prevents and presents opportunities.

Finally I don't rate either Harold's of JBJ's choice of weapon for dealing with snakes or other ferals. A shotgun is messy and cartridges expensive, a glock or other handgun is absurd; the objective is to kill the damn thing! What if you miss? Best tool to kill a snake is about 1.5 metres(5 feet) of plain fencing wire. One swing will cut a snake in half; I once saw an aboriginal kill a feral goat with a piece of wire, its head was almost severed. Not nice but simple and effective. If you haven't any wire get out the carbon dioxide fire extinguisher from your esky and give a snake a blast with that. But don't moan if there's no Co2 left to cool the beer.

Law, tradition, history, culture, existing gun ownership and society are so different in the USA that importing remedies from elsewhere will not work.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

God made many nations because birds of a feather flock together, and there are many species of birds.

 

[Darkniciad]

Uhm... No. Carrying around five feet of fencing wire or a fire extinguisher is so absurd that it makes me wonder if this part of the post is some sort of failed joke.

You'll have to pardon me if I want to keep feral, rabid, and poisonous animals farther than five feet away from me.

"What if you miss?!" Flailing around with a five foot piece of wire. I don't think this requires any more clarification.

Finally I don't rate either Harold's of JBJ's choice of weapon for dealing with snakes or other ferals. A shotgun is messy and cartridges expensive, a glock or other handgun is absurd; the objective is to kill the damn thing! What if you miss? Best tool to kill a snake is about 1.5 metres(5 feet) of plain fencing wire. One swing will cut a snake in half; I once saw an aboriginal kill a feral goat with a piece of wire, its head was almost severed. Not nice but simple and effective. If you haven't any wire get out the carbon dioxide fire extinguisher from your esky and give a snake a blast with that. But don't moan if there's no Co2 left to cool the beer.

 

[amicus]

What is concerning is the way the US constitution, in this regard, has proved itself to be a dinosaur. The original clause was intended to protect your people against foriegn invaders by allowing you to former militia etc not allow gangbangers to pursue their love of drivebys. You lot seriously need to consider constitutional amendments. In other countries, the dogged, obsessiveness regarding this particular law in considered somewhat insane.

~~~

vRose, you are historically incorrect. There was great discussion concerning the second amendment before it was adopted. A large part of that discussion was to clarify that 'the right to bear arms', was not tied to government service, as in a militia, but was in fact a basic right of self defense, an 'indidivudal right', not granted but acknowledged as inherent and unalienable.

I see it as a sadness that two former Colonies of Great Britain still do not understand the basic concepts of human individual liberty and that those 'rights' are accurately described in our Founding Documents as 'unalienable', they can neither be granted nor removed from the individual and government is authoroized only to protect and defend them.

It is you who are the dinosaurs; time to wake up and smell the freedom.



Amicus

 

[bronzeage]

Many people go happily throughout their lives without ever having a gun. With the exception of the armed forces, police and farmers, no one actually NEEDS one. Ban em.

I have many friends who carry a gun in their car or truck and have many more in their home. When I ask them why, they are quick to describe the many threats which a gun can answer.

Carjackers and home invaders are the most common response. Of course, none of my friends has ever seen a car jacker or home invader, but they are certain the danger is real. The gun allows them to feel safe. In reality, they are not, but there is no point in arguing with them.

The feeling of safety and security which comes from having a gun is so powerful, we will pay whatever price is asked. Guns in the hands of lunatics and children is not too high a price.

We can whine and moan every time a Congress person or school student is gunned down, but nothing will be done about. The only way to keep guns out of the hands of the irresponsible is to also keep them out of the hands of my friends.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I have many friends who carry a gun in their car or truck and have many more in their home. When I ask them why, they are quick to describe the many threats which a gun can answer.

Carjackers and home invaders are the most common response. Of course, none of my friends has ever seen a car jacker or home invader, but they are certain the danger is real. The gun allows them to feel safe. In reality, they are not, but there is no point in arguing with them.

The feeling of safety and security which comes from having a gun is so powerful, we will pay whatever price is asked. Guns in the hands of lunatics and children is not too high a price.

We can whine and moan every time a Congress person or school student is gunned down, but nothing will be done about. The only way to keep guns out of the hands of the irresponsible is to also keep them out of the hands of my friends.

Who of course are perfectly responsible. *nods*

This is a quietly brilliant post, Bronzeage.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

I've owned guns most of my adult life. I have never felt the urge to use it in anyway but that acceptable by law. I also have had in the past, concealed carry permits. Does this mean I always carried a weapon? No. Did I occasionally carry one? Yes. It depended on the circumstances of where I was going.

Do I still own firearms? Yes. Several...well six.

 

[Weird Harold]

It is inaccurate to describe Australia's 1996 changes as Gun Control. It is in small part but it is mainly for the control of the use of guns. Certain assault rifles etc were banned and hand guns made practically unobtainable but ...

I have gone to the trouble of researching Auistralia's actual laws. More than "certain assault rifles" were banned; military grade weapons are in a separate category from "semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns and rifles" but both are in 'banned' categories that require higher levels of justification to own or possess. My Remington .22 rifle would be in that "semi-automatic rifle" class.

...the main effect of the Act was to give the police very wide discretionary powers of licencing, security and inspection. In effect they have been used to make it completely impractical to use a gun in any of the metropolitan areas and to effect almost no change in rural areas.

Other parts of the US Constitution than the 2nd would be used to challenge the actual practice of selective enforcement. This does illustrate one of the principle objections to permits/licences in the US; Who gets to decide on the requirements and who gets to enforce them. Much of the existing "gun control" in the US is the result of BATFE abuse of bureaucratic power; forcing small businesses that deal with guns or ammunition into bankrupty even when they win the legal challenges to BATFE abuses.

Finally I don't rate either Harold's of JBJ's choice of weapon for dealing with snakes or other ferals. A shotgun is messy and cartridges expensive, a glock or other handgun is absurd; the objective is to kill the damn thing! What if you miss? Best tool to kill a snake is about 1.5 metres(5 feet) of plain fencing wire. ...

A glock or other handgun wouldn't be my preferred method of dealing with snakes -- my preferred method would be a scorched earth policy for any environment that harbors snakes. A handgun is just the most convenient thing to carry if I have anything at all to do besides killing snakes.

A handgun is my preferred method of dealing with feral mammals -- that is the primary reason I own one in the first place. I chose a medium-long-barreled revolver because it gives me the same sort of semi-accurate reach a small rifle does without interfering with other activities. .357 Magnum is sufficient to handle any mammal up to about 300 lbs; not the first choice for that size, but adequate in self-defense.

You country mice are blithely writing off as irrelevant 80% of the U.S. population, who live in urban areas.

You should watch those conclusions before you jump to them -- I'm NOT a country mouse, I'm a "city kid" who occasionally braves the outdoors without wetting my pants over the lack of expensive faux-coffee outlets.

The 20% that gets ignored just happens to feed that 80% majority huddled in their skyscrapers complaining that the pizza they ordered got cold because the delivery driver got mugged.

 

[vrosej10]

We know. You can see how much we care.

I actually respect. We're weird, we want guns, its our country, fuck you. It makes more sense than the slightly (or entirely) insane defences that follow it.