100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Mass shooting in Jacksonville | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
I want to steer clear of painting every 'mental illness' with the same brush, not all mental illness translates into being a danger to society. That is why it may be an idea for health professionals to flag those patients who they feel could harm others. OR there could simply be a mandatory psych review when purchasing a gun. That way people have no reason to avoid treatment. and it will be more difficult for those who may be a harm to LEGALLY get their hands on their own gun(this does nothing if they live with or are close to someone else with a gun though ... which is another issue) With respect, your response side steps the issue. People with mental illness need treatment, true. Focusing on mentally ill people buying weapons and killing people is not painting every mentally ill person as a killer. It would focus on enforcing gun laws as they should be. The facts are plain that from Columbine Nigh School until Jacksonville all of them had a documented track record of psychiatric issues. The antigun lobbyists and media purposefully sidestep this issue. They use the excuse they don't want to give the image that all mentally challenged people are killers. However, they have no problem connecting the average law abiding gun owner with supporting serial killers. take note of their shots at the NRA. This is the main issue. Mentally ill people obtaining weapons when common sense and the law forbids them. I understand condemning the 1961 pop hit "They're coming to take me away". That was rude and demeaning. Ignoring this fact is hiding the problem. These people need help but should,also, be denied access to weapons. And society needs to know that the average gun owner (and guns themself) are not the problem and the evening TV news refuse to address this issue. with respect, no sidestepping a woman suffering from PTSD, or a kid who may have depression are both 'mental illness' but of very different natures and not suggesting any danger to others. people use the blanket term 'mentally ill' which may suggest policy to prevent anyone who has ever had treatment for ANYthing be denied their 'right' as a citizen to bear arms. there has to be more specific criteria than just the label of 'mental illness' to set policy is all I was saying there has to be an actual threat to others, which not all mental illness is. I think it is a legit concern that labeling anyone who has had help for emotional or mental issues as a public threat would greatly harm the chances for people to seek help. To avoid it, I would think some testing of ones threat WHEN they want a license to carry is at least something to consider. I think some other countries with less gun crime actually have such tests that inquire as to the persons beliefs and intentions with the gun. IF there is deception on whether they wish to harm others,,, its a no go. Big difference between having a slight case of depression and being, involuntarily, placed in a hospital for psychiatric problems as with this guy. Stating on facebook that they plan to shoot up their school as in the case with Columbine. Or being released from the air force for making threats to officers and then killing members of a Church. Society is being kept in the dark and made to think that the average "joe" is doing these shooting sprees, when they aren't! Everyone of them had a known psychiatric history that should have disqualified them from owning a weapon. What I read was his parents put him there as a teen, which would be involuntary on his part because it was his parents choice. But nothing on what the actual diagnosis was. I think the Columbine shooters had guns before they made threats. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I want to steer clear of painting every 'mental illness' with the same brush, not all mental illness translates into being a danger to society. That is why it may be an idea for health professionals to flag those patients who they feel could harm others. OR there could simply be a mandatory psych review when purchasing a gun. That way people have no reason to avoid treatment. and it will be more difficult for those who may be a harm to LEGALLY get their hands on their own gun(this does nothing if they live with or are close to someone else with a gun though ... which is another issue) With respect, your response side steps the issue. People with mental illness need treatment, true. Focusing on mentally ill people buying weapons and killing people is not painting every mentally ill person as a killer. It would focus on enforcing gun laws as they should be. The facts are plain that from Columbine Nigh School until Jacksonville all of them had a documented track record of psychiatric issues. The antigun lobbyists and media purposefully sidestep this issue. They use the excuse they don't want to give the image that all mentally challenged people are killers. However, they have no problem connecting the average law abiding gun owner with supporting serial killers. take note of their shots at the NRA. This is the main issue. Mentally ill people obtaining weapons when common sense and the law forbids them. I understand condemning the 1961 pop hit "They're coming to take me away". That was rude and demeaning. Ignoring this fact is hiding the problem. These people need help but should,also, be denied access to weapons. And society needs to know that the average gun owner (and guns themself) are not the problem and the evening TV news refuse to address this issue. with respect, no sidestepping a woman suffering from PTSD, or a kid who may have depression are both 'mental illness' but of very different natures and not suggesting any danger to others. people use the blanket term 'mentally ill' which may suggest policy to prevent anyone who has ever had treatment for ANYthing be denied their 'right' as a citizen to bear arms. there has to be more specific criteria than just the label of 'mental illness' to set policy is all I was saying there has to be an actual threat to others, which not all mental illness is. I think it is a legit concern that labeling anyone who has had help for emotional or mental issues as a public threat would greatly harm the chances for people to seek help. To avoid it, I would think some testing of ones threat WHEN they want a license to carry is at least something to consider. I think some other countries with less gun crime actually have such tests that inquire as to the persons beliefs and intentions with the gun. IF there is deception on whether they wish to harm others,,, its a no go. Big difference between having a slight case of depression and being, involuntarily, placed in a hospital for psychiatric problems as with this guy. Stating on facebook that they plan to shoot up their school as in the case with Columbine. Or being released from the air force for making threats to officers and then killing members of a Church. Society is being kept in the dark and made to think that the average "joe" is doing these shooting sprees, when they aren't! Everyone of them had a known psychiatric history that should have disqualified them from owning a weapon. What I read was his parents put him there as a teen, which would be involuntary on his part because it was his parents choice. But nothing on what the actual diagnosis was. I think the Columbine shooters had guns before they made threats. Of course his parents put him in the hospital, as a teenager they were responsible for him. He could not voluntarily enter himself into any hospital. And if you knew about that process you would know that if the hospital did in fact take him in there was a valid reason they did. There is a mental health " physical" that is done pre admission a very thorough one. Neither the hospital or the insurance companies will agree to admit a person unless there is a very real reason too |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I want to steer clear of painting every 'mental illness' with the same brush, not all mental illness translates into being a danger to society. That is why it may be an idea for health professionals to flag those patients who they feel could harm others. OR there could simply be a mandatory psych review when purchasing a gun. That way people have no reason to avoid treatment. and it will be more difficult for those who may be a harm to LEGALLY get their hands on their own gun(this does nothing if they live with or are close to someone else with a gun though ... which is another issue) With respect, your response side steps the issue. People with mental illness need treatment, true. Focusing on mentally ill people buying weapons and killing people is not painting every mentally ill person as a killer. It would focus on enforcing gun laws as they should be. The facts are plain that from Columbine Nigh School until Jacksonville all of them had a documented track record of psychiatric issues. The antigun lobbyists and media purposefully sidestep this issue. They use the excuse they don't want to give the image that all mentally challenged people are killers. However, they have no problem connecting the average law abiding gun owner with supporting serial killers. take note of their shots at the NRA. This is the main issue. Mentally ill people obtaining weapons when common sense and the law forbids them. I understand condemning the 1961 pop hit "They're coming to take me away". That was rude and demeaning. Ignoring this fact is hiding the problem. These people need help but should,also, be denied access to weapons. And society needs to know that the average gun owner (and guns themself) are not the problem and the evening TV news refuse to address this issue. with respect, no sidestepping a woman suffering from PTSD, or a kid who may have depression are both 'mental illness' but of very different natures and not suggesting any danger to others. people use the blanket term 'mentally ill' which may suggest policy to prevent anyone who has ever had treatment for ANYthing be denied their 'right' as a citizen to bear arms. there has to be more specific criteria than just the label of 'mental illness' to set policy is all I was saying there has to be an actual threat to others, which not all mental illness is. I think it is a legit concern that labeling anyone who has had help for emotional or mental issues as a public threat would greatly harm the chances for people to seek help. To avoid it, I would think some testing of ones threat WHEN they want a license to carry is at least something to consider. I think some other countries with less gun crime actually have such tests that inquire as to the persons beliefs and intentions with the gun. IF there is deception on whether they wish to harm others,,, its a no go. Big difference between having a slight case of depression and being, involuntarily, placed in a hospital for psychiatric problems as with this guy. Stating on facebook that they plan to shoot up their school as in the case with Columbine. Or being released from the air force for making threats to officers and then killing members of a Church. Society is being kept in the dark and made to think that the average "joe" is doing these shooting sprees, when they aren't! Everyone of them had a known psychiatric history that should have disqualified them from owning a weapon. What I read was his parents put him there as a teen, which would be involuntary on his part because it was his parents choice. But nothing on what the actual diagnosis was. I think the Columbine shooters had guns before they made threats. Of course his parents put him in the hospital, as a teenager they were responsible for him. He could not voluntarily enter himself into any hospital. And if you knew about that process you would know that if the hospital did in fact take him in there was a valid reason they did. There is a mental health " physical" that is done pre admission a very thorough one. Neither the hospital or the insurance companies will agree to admit a person unless there is a very real reason too This is not absolute. It depends on alot actually. There are laws like 5150 that will keep a person three days for evaluation to DETERMINE If they need help, which do not have prove of that need before hand. There is also the parents right in many places to ask for emergency care if they feel their kid may hurt THEMSELF or others, which many depressed teens may cause fear in their parents that they may do. Being this boys father worked for NASA, Im doubting insurance was an issue or that his concern would be questioned. but my point was, without the details behind the incident, there is no way to determine if it was a red flag or not. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Do you live in the USA?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I watch CNN, SKY, BBC and RT most of the time.
When there is a shooting in the US or UK, the media seem to me have nothing else to report on. Wow, must be nice to live in any of these countries. When people are shot here where I live, you might hear ambulances and cop cars - but will never read about what happened because it is normal. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Do you live in the USA? Yes. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I watch CNN, SKY, BBC and RT most of the time. When there is a shooting in the US or UK, the media seem to me have nothing else to report on. Wow, must be nice to live in any of these countries. When people are shot here where I live, you might hear ambulances and cop cars - but will never read about what happened because it is normal. it is definitely worse in other parts of the world. I hope we dont catch up with them any time soon. So it may be good that it is still 'news', before it becomes more the norm. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gun Deaths Are Mostly Suicides
By Margot Sanger-Katz Oct. 8, 2015 https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/09/upshot/gun-deaths-are-mostly-suicides.html When Americans think about deaths from guns, we tend to focus on homicides. But the problem of gun suicide is inescapable: More than 60 percent of people in this country who die from guns die by suicide. Suicide gets a lot less attention than murders for a few reasons. One big one is that news organizations generally don’t cover suicides the way they do murders. There’s evidence that news attention around suicide can lead to more suicides. Suicide is more stigmatized and less discussed than homicide. ----------------- I posted this, not because the remaining 40% are unimportant, but the whole story is not being stated. From news articles there is a vast difference between the 30,000 statistic that the national news quote and insinuate are murders and the 12,000 actual homicides. They're playing a game to push their agenda. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if numbers equal concern, I do wonder why there is more of a push against drugs than a push for responsible gun ownership
since, as stated above, gun homicide stands at 11 odd thousand, but drug homicide at only over 100 (if we are to believe the numbers anyway) http://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-4.xls The most homicides do occur by guns. And if that number is not large enough to be truly concerned, should we be concerned about any other type of homicides? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
indianadave4
on
Wed 09/26/18 05:39 PM
|
|
if numbers equal concern, I do wonder why there is more of a push against drugs than a push for responsible gun ownership since, as stated above, gun homicide stands at 11 odd thousand, but drug homicide at only over 100 (if we are to believe the numbers anyway) http://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-4.xls The most homicides do occur by guns. And if that number is not large enough to be truly concerned, should we be concerned about any other type of homicides? Of the people I know who own weapons all of them are responsible in how they store and use them. At least what I hear on local and national news the majority of homicides are a result of gang and drug dealing. Maybe we should be investing more money and effort into why people want to escape reality (drugs) and find and fill the need to join gangs? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree that preventive measures need to be considered as often and as seriously as reactive measures.
|
|
|
|
|
