Mental health and gun control

[R. Richard]

Most of you have never lived in an area really controlled by gangs. I have.

Most of you have no real idea as why gangs and what it is that they wanted to do and what it is that they now want to do. I do.

I lived, in my younger years, in an abandoned building in South Central Los Angeles. Central Avenue was a key street. The unofficial policy of those who thought that they ran Los Angeles was to keep Negroes East of Central. The policy didn't work.

Negroes moved into central city areas West of Central. The Negroes were not welcome. Thus, the Negro teenagers formed gangs, to protect themselves. The Negro gangs were, essentially primitive political organizations. There were then clashes between Negro gangs. (When you have next to nothing, except pride, you protect your turf, your pride.) After a while, the Negro gangs began to form loose political alliances. The result of some of the earliest political forming was the Crips. From the viewpoint of most of the non-Crips, the Crips were mistreating the non-Crips. Thus, the Bloods (Piru) gang formed to oppose the Crips, again political. There were other, smaller gangs, particularly as you got further from the central city. If you were a male Negro teenager, you either had an acceptable skill (sports, music) or you either joined a gang or you were pretty much a slave of the gangs. There was very little communication among at least the early gangs and thus a lot of misconceptions. One communication channel was Whi' Boy. Thus, Whi' Boy learned a lot about the structure of the Negro gangs (self preservation thing.)

Then, there began to form other gangs. The other gangs included small Mexican gangs. After a bit, substantial numbers of Salvadorean immigraqnts began to move into Los Angeles. The Salvadoreans were initally abused , mainly by the Negro gangs. The Los Angeles Salvadoreans set up a gang, called Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) to combat the abuse. MS-13 has now spread from coast to coast. The gangs quickly found that an easy way to fund their activities was to sell drugs.

The Negro and Mexican gangs initially used the 'hand guns' that so many of you despise. MS-13 members came out of a war in their home country and they prefer Suzi or AK-47.

The gangs can obtain weapons, from hand guns, through AK-74s to RPGs. They mostly use 15 -year-olds to do their executions, because a 15-year-old who gets caught killing someone typically gets 30 to 90 days in juvie. The 15-year-olds then become trained, violent killer OGs. (This is not to denigrate hand guns, Whi' Boy's skill with a .357 magnum was the stuff of South Central legend.)

If you think that a 'buy back' program is going to have any real effect on the Crip, Bloods, NS-13 or similar, you need mental help, which still probably would do any good. (Old hand guns, suffering from lack of maintenance would be turned in to finance the purchase of newer. better hand guns, Suzi or even AK series assault rifles.)

 

[ishtat]

He does a credible long-term impersonation of one if he is not:

Harold , You know a lot about guns but maybe not so much about Australian politics or John Howard

John Howard was elected to Parliament in 1974, after three years he occupied senior positions in the party for the next 22 years. But in 22 years this alleged anti-gun politician spoke out in favour of gun control on not a single important occasion. Zero nil nix.

Then he obtained the leadership of the party in opposition and was about to lead them into the 1996 election. At that time Howard was perceived in the polls as the captive of right wing interests particularly of the National Country Party. Female suburban voters in particular despised Howard as lacking leadership abilities. Howard's party research however indicated that an overwhelming majority of voters and particularly women would support gun control. That was when Howard first spoke to Oakes.

Howard won the election by sweeping the outer suburban constituencies and retained that support for ten years. When that support started to slip badly in 2006-2007 Howard raised the old anti gun rhetoric again in a last bid to hang on to office. This time the electorate didn't buy it because he was at last recognised for what he was; a man who had never felt strongly about anything: except his own ambition.

It might seem strange to Americans Harold, but in Australia the Gun lobby hardly counts because they cannot command swing votes. They make a helluva lot of noise but in the end they are ignored.

Howard since his electorate enforced retirement has liked to present himself as a man of principle. Trusting John Howard on anything would be less sensible than trusting Dick Cheney: with or without a gun!

 

[amicus]

Ah, another member of the 'usual suspects' using the usual ploy of just how misunderstood you are, poor baby. Just the opposite, I understand you all too well and state what you actually said in plain language, not the PC psycho blather of the Left which says nothing substantial or provable, ever.

I suppose it isn't really your fault as you were nurtured and educated to think only inside the box, the mantra, the lexicon of the lame and retarded Left. You should not venture out of your safe zone of like believers; you are not prepared to defend yourself.


Amicus

 

[vrosej10]

Ah, another member of the 'usual suspects' using the usual ploy of just how misunderstood you are, poor baby. Just the opposite, I understand you all too well and state what you actually said in plain language, not the PC psycho blather of the Left which says nothing substantial or provable, ever.

I suppose it isn't really your fault as you were nurtured and educated to think only inside the box, the mantra, the lexicon of the lame and retarded Left. You should not venture out of your safe zone of like believers; you are not prepared to defend yourself.


Amicus

This is hands down the most hypocritical thing I have heard so far on Lit! You are chronically and obnoxiously incapable of thinking outside your own mental box and until you can, pull your fricken head in.

 

[ishtat]

The Extinction of Bears and other issues

Let us put these things in an historical perspective, an anti-gun historical perspective. During the entire XIX Century, Britain had a very relaxed attitude towards the private ownership of firearms. During that time the larger game animals in the isles were much reduced in numbers and by the turn of the XX Century there was very little left to hunt with anything but a shotgun. Keep this in mind.

During the first World War, millions of British commoners who had never handled a firearm before in their lives were trained to use rifles, very good Enfield rifles, long considered the finest combat bolt action ever built. When they were mustered out of service, the Bolshevik coup d'etat was a very recent memory and it only happened because the Russian Army rebelled on the side of the Communists. This terrified the British gentry, the ruling classes, and they saw their own veterans as a potential seditious army. So the first British gun laws were passed to make it very difficult for the common man to own a rifle or pistol. Shotguns were the arm of choice for the rural gentry so their ownership was simpler, much simpler.

So what is the origin of gun control? The fear of the ruling class for their ability to stay in control. Not a Communist conspiracy, not some Tri-lateral Commission or UN plot, just the irrational fear of the ruled by the rulers.

Nothing has changed. In the United States, gun control is a product of big cities and the Atlanto-centric Northeast. The former fear their own citizens and the latter still regret having seceded from the Crown. Why does PM Howard hate guns? He's slavishly imitating the British model because he thinks being Australian is inferior to being British! Don't believe it? Ask Dame Edna Everage! Barrie Humphries jaundiced view of his country's upper class is spot on.

Hmm Bear, I'll start with your last point first. I'm not sure that the opinions of a geriatric Drag Queen (Barry Humphries) who hasn't lived in the country of his birth for over 50 years carries a helluva lot of weight or why you have determined he is necessarily spot on.

Big Game was not reduced in the UK in the nineteenth century; it had long gone by then. The Bear went extinct sometime in the period before 1000 AD, the Beaver in the 12th century the Grey wolf in 1740 and the wild boar about the same time. Hunting was restricted to foxes " the unspeakable in full pursuit of the uneatable" and Hare coursing. Hunting deer in the Scottish Highlands was entirely local until the railways made the Highlands accessable, and all the deer in England were farmed in private parks. In addition after the enclosure movement of the eighteenth century, UK was intensively farmed and stocked in small fields divided by hedges, not good hunting country

The British Common man didn't have to wait for the first WW to learn about guns. Their soldiery had been doing so for hundreds of years, tigers and lions in India, Elephants and other big game in Africa and the occasional local rebel from time to time.

If UK ex-servicemen had wanted to go hunting in 1920 where would they go and what would they hunt?

Americans might find it hard to understand but most other countries including UK and Australia just don't have much of a gun culture. Possibly because Australia like UK has no native larger game suitable for hunting. Roos don't count, they just stand and look dopey if you point a gun at them

Insofar as new regulations were introduced in the 20th century they had no greater effect than the game laws which had been in place for a millenium. It might also be borne in mind that the British had regulated arms in peacetime before. As early as the 14th century there were tight regulations for the keeping, maintenance, inspection, practice and use of longbow. New technology, new regulation, but no new principle.

 

[amicus]

Ishstat...History lesson and perspective appreciated and enjoyed...

Theoretically, in an orderly society, perhaps for the purpose of discussion, limited to an urban environment, one might expect a minimum of violence, at a level that could be adequately dealt with my hired law enforcement officers.

Of course, that is a fabricated scenario, far from reality, as thieves and burglars exist everywhere and regardless of controls and restrictions and rules, gain possession of weapons to suit their needs...is it not so?

Did not Victor Hugo address this somewhat in Les Miserables, with Jean ValJean stealing bread to feed a hungry child in difficult times? There are always times of disorder and stress; following war or natural disasters, even political upheavals, when the security of individuals must, by definition fall upon individual responsibility?

I consider it a logical deduction to propose that each and every citizen should be well armed and trained in self defense and always alert and aware countenance, even walking down the street where you live. (song)

Criminals will always have the weapons of choice; why should the law abiding, orderly citizen be hindered or forbidden to so arm himself?

Just a few years ago in my quiet corner of the world, a woman screamed nearby at about 2am in the morning; cowering in my yard facing a man with an upraised weapon. The sight of my double barrel 12 gauge calmed the situation immediately, the girl was picked up by her Father, the Sheriff took the young man away and I returned to my scribbling.

Amicus

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Yesterday the cops stopped a woman for a taillight problem, and jailed her for something like 75 felony violations. She had about 1.5 grams of crack, 8 grams of pot, a pistol (22 caliber), and 70 bullets. Her bail is $615,000. She'll likely get more probation and no fine but the Tampa cops love to pile on and make every suspect Jesse James and Al Capone.

She's a felon with a gun and not much is gonna happen cuz the consequences are so excessive the judge will toss them out.

 

[Weird Harold]

Harold , You know a lot about guns but maybe not so much about Australian politics or John Howard

From this distance, I can only judge the man by his words.

 

[Weird Harold]

I respect your belief...however, gang against gang is not rebellion against govt, but localized gang against gang violence.

I'm not informed about gangs taking over and becoming de facto shadow govts. Have to look into that...any references?

Google "gangs are taking over" -- with the quote marks. It produces about 30,000 hits.

Whether gangs are actually taking over or not, there is a perception on the part of many citizens who see urban areas where the police only go in pairs or as SWAT teams and see those "bad areas" spreading that "gangs are taking over."

That perception is transferred to "government" by demands by voters to "Do Something" about gangs taking over. 'Government' generally responds by outlawing something -- guns, drugs, loitering, graffiti, etc -- and the gangs ignore the new laws and continue spreading.

 

[Weird Harold]

For those who think that better mental health services could prevent violence, here's an item from England. England has free medical services.

One failure doesn't mean that the mentally ill in England don't get more access to mental health services than in the US. The problem with promoting prevention as a solution is that if you're successful, there is nothing to show for your efforts. And people who oppose the expense of decent mental health services point to the 'nothing' you produce as evidence that you're not needed.

They also use big headlines to assert your uselessness when you inevitably fail to produce "nothing" in a particular case and "something" happens.

 

[oggbashan]

One failure doesn't mean that the mentally ill in England don't get more access to mental health services than in the US. ...

The UK's mental health service try to treat as many patients in the community as they can, to restore patients to functioning members of the community if they can, because that is usually the best way back to mental health and stability. That involves risks that some of the patients may not adapt to normal living, may fail to take their medication "because they feel better", and rarely but sometimes spectacularly might do something criminal.

The UK's public aren't generally aware of the risks that mental health practitioners are taking unless they themselves have personal experience in dealing with someone who is mentally ill. There is considerable ignorance and hostility about mental illness. There is a perception that mentally ill people are a serious risk to the public at large. The reality that most are a risk only to themselves isn't generally known.

Having said all that, some practitioners are capable of over-confidence, of self-delusion in the effectiveness of their treatments, and a reluctance to admit that some patients are devious, manipulative and will always remain a threat, capable of inflicting serious injury or death at random.

Og

 

[Weird Harold]

The UK's mental health service try to treat as many patients in the community as they can, to restore patients to functioning members of the community if they can, because that is usually the best way back to mental health and stability.

I think that is pretty much the same for head-shrinkers anywhere; it is waht is taught to those who have degrees in mental health care.

My point was, though, that the UK at least hasn't cut mental health care back to virtual non-existance -- as Arizona and many other states have done to balance their budgets -- and any mental health care is better than no mental health care.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I think that is pretty much the same for head-shrinkers anywhere; it is waht is taught to those who have degrees in mental health care.

My point was, though, that the UK at least hasn't cut mental health care back to virtual non-existance -- as Arizona and many other states have done to balance their budgets -- and any mental health care is better than no mental health care.

Absolutely! Arizona is just following California's miserable example and they are suffering the consequences just as we do.

 

[R. Richard]

The UK's mental health service try to treat as many patients in the community as they can, to restore patients to functioning members of the community if they can, because that is usually the best way back to mental health and stability. That involves risks that some of the patients may not adapt to normal living, may fail to take their medication "because they feel better", and rarely but sometimes spectacularly might do something criminal.

The UK's public aren't generally aware of the risks that mental health practitioners are taking unless they themselves have personal experience in dealing with someone who is mentally ill. There is considerable ignorance and hostility about mental illness. There is a perception that mentally ill people are a serious risk to the public at large. The reality that most are a risk only to themselves isn't generally known.

Having said all that, some practitioners are capable of over-confidence, of self-delusion in the effectiveness of their treatments, and a reluctance to admit that some patients are devious, manipulative and will always remain a threat, capable of inflicting serious injury or death at random.

Og

Let me start by adding a quote:
"My point was, though, that the UK at least hasn't cut mental health care back to virtual non-existance -- as Arizona and many other states have done to balance their budgets -- and any mental health care is better than no mental health care."

I consider myself to be the world's leading expert on the treatment of pedophilia. My method will cure 100% of pedophiles, by letting them do what they want. (Certainly no harm there.) In an environment as large as the UK or the USA, there is a three-year-old, being cared for in a publically financed facility. Said three year old can BENEFIT by being exposed to a pedophile, where said pedophile is allowed to do anything he/she/it wants to the three-year-old. (What we call a win/win situation.) The key here is that the three-year-olds all have the same name: Ursus Maritimus.

So called mental health experts (We're talking PhDs here) uniformly reject my eminently workable solution, out of concern for the pedophile and not the three-year-old. What??? My solution allows the pedophile to do what a pedophile wants. My solution greatly reduces the maintenance costs of the three-year-old. Also, my solution allows development of normal skills for the three-year-old.

Finally, after my treatment, there is no need to confine or further treat the pedophile and no risk to the community, particularly no risk to the children of the community.

No, I don't have a PhD, but I do have a concern for the children in the community. I have no concern at all for pedophiles.

My way works 100% of the time. The mental health professionals way doesn't.

 

[SlickTony]

...It would also help if voting occurred on the weekend, rather than trying to cram the act of voting into the 2 hour window between getting off of work and the closing of the polls on a Tuesday night.

This needs to be said more often and more loudly. You'd think they didn't want people to vote...

Um, R Richard, were you trying to be Swiftian or something?

 

[voluptuary_manque]

This needs to be said more often and more loudly. You'd think they didn't want people to vote...

Um, R Richard, were you trying to be Swiftian or something?

Ursus maritimus would be a three year old polar bear. I don't think he is.

 

[R. Richard]

Um, R Richard, were you trying to be Swiftian or something?

No. I was previously employed as a computer programmer. I was better at it than anyone I ever met. (After a few comparisons, many in the programming game agreed.) Let me tell you a story about an insane computer programmer. The insane programmer says, "No! I just can't wipe out and destroy this part of the code, even if it does cause problems. It just wouldn't be right." I was a sane computer programmer and I would just wipe out the bad code and replace it with good, working code. This last was admired by other computer programmers and also by the people who paid me. When I used the same thinking with people, no one seemed to like it. However that was their problem.

I grew up in the South Central. For Whi' Boy, it was kill or be killed. No one ever killed me, although any number of really violent people tried. (Of course, I never killed anyone, I just managed to cleverly outwit them.) My outlook on life comes from the steets and dark alleyways of the South Central.

 

[R. Richard]

Ursus maritimus would be a three year old polar bear. I don't think he is.

Right you are! The three year old polar bear would have the opportunity to hone real world polar bear skills. The pedophile would have a (fleeting) chance to be a legend in his/her/its own time. The zoo would save a lot on polar bear feed. Can you say, 'A win, win, win situation?' Everyone involved gets at least some of what they want.

Five will getcha $10 that it would cut way down on pedophiles harming young children. I care about the children. I don't care much for pedophiles.

 

[SlickTony]

Ursus maritimus would be a three year old polar bear. I don't think he is.

Ah, now I get it. I was slow on the uptake this evening; didn't catch the part about the polar bear. There've been worse ideas...