CDZ Gun Control vs. Mental Health Care

[gallantwarrior]

Alrighty, then...
The suggestion has been made that the root causes driving any specific demographic to commit these atrocities be identified. If we were able to do that, we'd have a greater chance of averting them. I venture to suggest that these causes are complex and multiple. I think we can safely identify the primary demographic as young, white males, most who are currently or had previously been treated with psychotropic drugs.
Unfortunately, politicians have highjacked the issue in order to advance their ideological agendas. This turns the issue into a hot button item and both sides of the bab/ don't ban dichotomy fail to consider any other discussion.

They have indeed so hijacked. It's pandering to the simplistic, because it's easier to bicker over "ban guns!!" versus "No, Second Amendment!!" than it is to dare touch the foundation of what drives it.

You're close here, but they're not necessarily young -- the latest one was -- but Spengler in my example was 62; Jim David Adkisson (Powell church shooting) was 58; James von Brunn was a month shy of 89. Psychotropic drugs appear some of the time -- but none of these above examples IIRC. So trying to pin it on drugs is another deflection.

What all of these shooters and pretty much any you can find, have in common is a power problem. Whether drugs are involved or not -- Harris and Klebold, the Luby's guy, Jared Loughner, these three men above, countless workplace slayings --- and the latest racist fuckbag in Charleston --- all men who felt themselves deprived of some kind of power and pervertedly saw the gun as the instrument that would fix that.

THAT idea is the root of the problem.

That they take the firearm to be their vehicle to power is of course dead wrong. But we can hardly act surprised that they would come to that conclusion -- they've been told that since birth. We all have. Our daily/nightly television says so. Our childhood comic books say so. Our movies and video games say so. Our childhood toys told us that, as soon as we were big enough to hold one in our hand. And of course our history of conquest, first our own continent and with that secure, our own planet. Check out our icons: war heroes, Indian killers, the cavalry "clearing" the Indians. We grow up from earliest childhood playing "cops and robbers" and "cowboys and Indians". Always the dichotomy, always the endless battle. And anyone who's any age from newborn to their mid-60s lives in a country that has been, for his/her entire life, at war somewhere. Continuously.

If all that ain't drumming in the continuous relentless message that you deal with a problem by shooting at it, I don't know what is. What would be shocking would be if NO ONE took that message to heart.

In a nutshell you could say these killers are simply doing what they've been told to do all their lives.

My question is --- why are we telling ourselves that?

First, without access to firearms, people like these would find some other way to assert their "power" some other way.

Of course they would. That's what I said in my clown comparison.

So the problem does not lie with their chosen tool, but rather in the reason why they feel powerless and needful to assert themselves.

?? Huh?

Does not follow. If the way to deal with one's power issues were to dress up like a clown, those issues wouldn't be resulting in mass slayings. Or ANY slayings. So the chosen tool is exactly the point here.

You have a point about the saturation in media and entertainment that glorifies violence as a means to express oneself. But if you dare propose reining in the media/entertainment industries, the same dichotomy that hijacks the ban/don't ban argument inevitably drag out their First Amendment protections.

Again, it does not follow that "reining in the media/entertainment industries" is the only way to address it. That's just reverting back to the same old "let's pass a law and ban it" mentality as the "let's ban guns" mentality.

Nobody reaches for a gun because it's legal or illegal. They reach for a gun because they want what it delivers. That desire is what needs to change. And you don't legislate desire. Can't be done. Think more originally than that. Laws are not the answer to everything. They just ain't.

Seventy-five years ago smoking cigarettes was pervasive. It was everywhere. People did their TV shows smoking. They smoked around their kids. They smoked while eating. Doctors did it, and then recommended a brand. It was "cool" because some movie action figure did it.

That cultural "coolness" is gone now. No doctor will tell you what brand you should be smoking. You won't see the practice on T or in a move except in a rare exception of a very bad guy character. It is in short socially disapproved.

That happened outside the realm of the Law. And it's more powerful than the Law.

So we come back to the problem, how do we identify people with these violent, destructive tendencies before they act on them? And having identified them, how should we deal with them?

I see it as two separate questions. Do these people need to be identified? Of course they do, and they deserve addressing in whatever way is effective. But simultaneous with that we've got this value problem, which applies to everybody whether they're mentally ill or not.

We have violence because we have (certain) violent people. That is true everywhere around the world.
But we have GUN violence (specifically) because we have a collective gun fetish.

And that needs to go, yesterday.

We'll still have violence from violent people. There's no way around that basic human flaw. But we wouldn't have an epidemic of Rambos and copycats mowing down people out of a love of carnage.

I'm not advocating the "ban-it-all" mentality in either case, firearms or media. While I agree that people tend to be influenced by much of what they see/read/hear, disagree that we have a gun fetish. I believe we have eliminated the concept of personal responsibility for our actions. It's all OK. One only acts out because of one's victimhood. While some may argue that punishment is not the answer, obviously "rehabilitation" has failed society as a panacea for violence. Perhaps we should label the acts as the pure, unmitigated evil they represent and then contemplate why there is such an increase in evil in our society?

 

[gallantwarrior]

Alrighty, then...
The suggestion has been made that the root causes driving any specific demographic to commit these atrocities be identified. If we were able to do that, we'd have a greater chance of averting them. I venture to suggest that these causes are complex and multiple. I think we can safely identify the primary demographic as young, white males, most who are currently or had previously been treated with psychotropic drugs.
Unfortunately, politicians have highjacked the issue in order to advance their ideological agendas. This turns the issue into a hot button item and both sides of the bab/ don't ban dichotomy fail to consider any other discussion.

They have indeed so hijacked. It's pandering to the simplistic, because it's easier to bicker over "ban guns!!" versus "No, Second Amendment!!" than it is to dare touch the foundation of what drives it.

You're close here, but they're not necessarily young -- the latest one was -- but Spengler in my example was 62; Jim David Adkisson (Powell church shooting) was 58; James von Brunn was a month shy of 89. Psychotropic drugs appear some of the time -- but none of these above examples IIRC. So trying to pin it on drugs is another deflection.

What all of these shooters and pretty much any you can find, have in common is a power problem. Whether drugs are involved or not -- Harris and Klebold, the Luby's guy, Jared Loughner, these three men above, countless workplace slayings --- and the latest racist fuckbag in Charleston --- all men who felt themselves deprived of some kind of power and pervertedly saw the gun as the instrument that would fix that.

THAT idea is the root of the problem.

That they take the firearm to be their vehicle to power is of course dead wrong. But we can hardly act surprised that they would come to that conclusion -- they've been told that since birth. We all have. Our daily/nightly television says so. Our childhood comic books say so. Our movies and video games say so. Our childhood toys told us that, as soon as we were big enough to hold one in our hand. And of course our history of conquest, first our own continent and with that secure, our own planet. Check out our icons: war heroes, Indian killers, the cavalry "clearing" the Indians. We grow up from earliest childhood playing "cops and robbers" and "cowboys and Indians". Always the dichotomy, always the endless battle. And anyone who's any age from newborn to their mid-60s lives in a country that has been, for his/her entire life, at war somewhere. Continuously.

If all that ain't drumming in the continuous relentless message that you deal with a problem by shooting at it, I don't know what is. What would be shocking would be if NO ONE took that message to heart.

In a nutshell you could say these killers are simply doing what they've been told to do all their lives.

My question is --- why are we telling ourselves that?

First, without access to firearms, people like these would find some other way to assert their "power" some other way.

Of course they would. That's what I said in my clown comparison.

So the problem does not lie with their chosen tool, but rather in the reason why they feel powerless and needful to assert themselves.

?? Huh?

Does not follow. If the way to deal with one's power issues were to dress up like a clown, those issues wouldn't be resulting in mass slayings. Or ANY slayings. So the chosen tool is exactly the point here.

You have a point about the saturation in media and entertainment that glorifies violence as a means to express oneself. But if you dare propose reining in the media/entertainment industries, the same dichotomy that hijacks the ban/don't ban argument inevitably drag out their First Amendment protections.

Again, it does not follow that "reining in the media/entertainment industries" is the only way to address it. That's just reverting back to the same old "let's pass a law and ban it" mentality as the "let's ban guns" mentality.

Nobody reaches for a gun because it's legal or illegal. They reach for a gun because they want what it delivers. That desire is what needs to change. And you don't legislate desire. Can't be done. Think more originally than that. Laws are not the answer to everything. They just ain't.

Seventy-five years ago smoking cigarettes was pervasive. It was everywhere. People did their TV shows smoking. They smoked around their kids. They smoked while eating. Doctors did it, and then recommended a brand. It was "cool" because some movie action figure did it.

That cultural "coolness" is gone now. No doctor will tell you what brand you should be smoking. You won't see the practice on T or in a move except in a rare exception of a very bad guy character. It is in short socially disapproved.

That happened outside the realm of the Law. And it's more powerful than the Law.

So we come back to the problem, how do we identify people with these violent, destructive tendencies before they act on them? And having identified them, how should we deal with them?

I see it as two separate questions. Do these people need to be identified? Of course they do, and they deserve addressing in whatever way is effective. But simultaneous with that we've got this value problem, which applies to everybody whether they're mentally ill or not.

We have violence because we have (certain) violent people. That is true everywhere around the world.
But we have GUN violence (specifically) because we have a collective gun fetish.

And that needs to go, yesterday.

We'll still have violence from violent people. There's no way around that basic human flaw. But we wouldn't have an epidemic of Rambos and copycats mowing down people out of a love of carnage... if the culture didn't dictate and perpetuate that it's "cool" to do so.

How would you address this gun "fetish"?

 

[Idadunno]

We don't need gun control in the US.

We need better mental health care.

Agree or not?

That issue is bigger than a simple answer. Some people are not diagnosed until they commit a crime, many of the diagnosed ones refuse to take their meds, and then there's those whose parents refuse to admit their kid is screwed up (until he or she commits a crime), or who do nothing to get their kid help...or who think the kid just needs a good beating.
There are 57 million people in the US diagnosed with a mental disorder. Some are born with one (genetics or epigenetics), and some are self-inflicted (drugs). We want to legalize recreational drugs, which have been proven to cause rewriting of brain genetic codes (self-inflicted mental disorders which become permanent and hereditary), which will increase the number of people diagnosed with mental disorders and expand social programs. Better mental health care will not stop the madness, and locking them up like in the good ol' days is not going to happen because it is expensive and people do not want to pay the taxes to support it. Gun control is good--no one should have a bazooka (weapon control?). The US will never do away with the 2nd amendment because it would be susceptible to invasion. 9/11 was horrific, but that is the worst radicals can do to us because we are armed. The government knows that. If crazy people did not have guns, they would use a knife, a bomb, anything else. Granted, guns kill faster, but one should go back to the responsible party. The twit who shot up the church was obviously not stable and his father bought him a gun. Sandy Hook... the guy was mental and was able to access his mother's guns. These people are not the ones buying the weapons---people who can pass gun control regulations are buying them. Now, the bad guys can buy guns all day long legal or not and even banning guns will not stop them. The cartels love giving us what we need---drugs and guns--and chances are they bought them from a US manufacturer since weapons are one of our top exports. Gun control will not stop the crazies, banning guns will not stop the crazies, better mental health will not stop the crazies. The crazy people are a product of the people--we reap what we sow.... and it's one of many of natures way of population control and yes, I think a lot and sometimes it's annoying.

 

[Christophera]

This my friend would be a cognitive distortion of all or "nothing thinking" or "overgeneralization".

"and the latest racist fuckbag in Charleston --- all men who felt themselves deprived of some kind of power and pervertedly saw the gun as the instrument that would fix that.

THAT idea is the root of the problem."

The real issue is that there is no effective mental health care that can deal with people issues on an emergency basis.

I there was, and media publicized it while county mental health facilities administered it probably 90% of those who would act out extreme violence using a gun would not. Maybe more, because it is a FACT, human beings have an instinct to survive.

RELIEF is what they seek. The proposed treatment here WILL provide that and a profound beginning as well as transition into effective treatment. That is why the senior director of the S.B.co mental health department had the medical doctor of the mental health department write and sign this letter in the departments behalf.

It is a defacto approval of the proposed treatment because director of such public departments DO NOT carry requests forward to the state they do not approve of.

After they did not provide the response of the state in writing, I knew the supervisors stopped them because it was against the morals of the church controlling government, so filed this FOIA request with the supervisors clerk of the board.

There was no response, and within three years the request was gone from the clerk of the boards records.

It's been refiled, the same, copied, originally stamped request now has another stamp on it!

Sorry but that's still being distracted by a tangent.

There's no doubt mental illnesses and/or drugs play a part in many of these events, including this latest one. But the base motivation, and the societally-"approved" remedy for it, remain the same, drugs or no drugs.

The bottom line is this -- if we lived in a society where one's power problems were acted out by dressing like a clown and dancing on the street ........ these same antagonists would be doing that --- whether they were drug-addled or not.

But we have no such tradition. What we do have is a culture where one's power problems are acted out by firearm. Hence the results.

Not a distraction, absolutely focused on solution.

The only way to deem my post as a distortion is to be obsessed with discussion of the problem to a degree where there is and attempt to dismiss the solution, not too functional.

BTW, here is another distortion of "all or nothing thinking" you are trying to use. Try to avoid that, not functional for critical thinking.

"What we do have is a culture where one's power problems are acted out by firearm. Hence the results."

No.

Remember, accountability in this discussion is vital to saving lives. I've well proven that authority having the duty WILL not be accountable to even flooding laws controlling our legal access to information needed to compel the creation of effective mental health care. That letter I posted was 1999, the FOIA from April 2000.

Before that I subpoenaed arrest and booking records that would prove there was a mass insanity here where there were dozens of murders.

The sheriff department failed to appear on subpoena.

The subpoenaed records would have provided proof to psychology that direct treatment to the human mind was the only real way to create, OR prevent extreme behaviors.

You seem to keep wanting to nudge back to a factor that is common to SOME of the mass gun violence events, that being drug effects and/or mental health.

That's useful but only to the events that apply. I'm concerned with the factor that is common to ALL the gun violence events, whether mental health and/or drugs are involved or not. And that is the societal values of Gun Culture.

That's not "all or nothing" thinking; that's addressing an issue directly and universally rather than selectively.

That would be an "overgeneralization" that is not accurate. Firstly its not culture. Culture is about needs. I realize the word has been misused so long it feel normal to join in. No one needs guns that much that often.

It is a SOCIETY that has been covertly manipulated to think that violence is a solution to any difficult personal problem which one cannot deal with.

WRONG!

That is a dysfunctional, dangerous, illegal position.

The only reason such thinking can continue is that ALTERNATIVE ways of addressing the problem are NOT AVAILABLE.

I have offered basic proof that is because the authority of courts and society refuse to follow laws and be accountable to the public trust.

Look what happened when I tried to inform a reporter of a local paper about a 206 lawsuit I filed agains the county in an effort to get this experimental treatment available from the mental health department.

Within 6 weeks 17 reporters and editors were gagged, resigning and fired.

Take the trouble to copy and paste the external redirect url and see the initialed "received" letters to local papers. No story was ever published.

Santa Barbara Secrets of media-Newspress independent county public defender.

Check the links to the lawsuit. REALIZE, that the us district court of th e9th circuit secretly REMOVED a 125 year old court rule that was vital to pro se civil rights plaintiffs rights and access to courts.

I'm afraid you're rambling aimlessly. I'm sure there's a valid point about something somewhere buried in all that but it's got nothing to do with the issue here.

Are you related to Emily? Just wondrin'.

The infiltrated government depends on abuses of the unconscious mind in order to maintain secrecy and conduct other forms of manipulation.

Accordingly your pretending you do not understand serves the interests of the infiltrated government which wants to take the guns from Americans.

Pretending you are having a cognitive failure and referring to your sister indicates you are a covert agent working to manipulate the thinking of Americans posting and reading here.

Generally covert manipulators work in groups which create a false social structure intended to mislead viewers into rejecting information that might be damaging to the agenda of the infiltrated government. So you've exposed yourself by pretending you cannot understand what I've posted.

For the viewer, here is some references to covert, cognitive infiltrations that go back 7 years. Snowden brought out the latest exposure and there is a link to that info in here.

Obama confidant s spine-chilling proposal - Salon.com

How Covert Agents Infiltrate the Internet to Manipulate Deceive and Destroy Reputations - The Intercept

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/snowden_cyber_offensive2_nbc_document.pdf

British spy agency taps cables shares with NSA Guardian
For decades, the NSA and GCHQ have worked as close partners, sharing intelligence under an arrangement known as the UKUSA agreement. They also collaborate with eavesdropping agencies in Canada, Australia and New Zealand under an arrangement known as the "Five Eyes" alliance.

 

[Christophera]

We don't need gun control in the US.

We need better mental health care.

Agree or not?

That issue is bigger than a simple answer. Some people are not diagnosed until they commit a crime, many of the diagnosed ones refuse to take their meds,

Until we have effective mental health care, the situation cannot be rationally or comprehensively evaluated.

Sure, they stop taking their meds. The don't have a life after 90 days on them. The treatment proposed might be capable of getting to continue their meds past the point where they would normally want badly to get away from them, when they actually need meds.

That situation of whether meds are needed or not cannot be properly evaluated either without treatment direct to the unconscious to eliminate to quick and innocuous potentials. Testing indicates that some results of the treatment are seen pretty much right away, indicating whether or not it should continue as a sole treatment or be perhaps be used to enhance drug therapy.

The fact is that the violations of law seen trying to get a reasonable trial
Periods indicate that there is a specific and pointed evasion from the logical action of working directly with the unconscious mind.

 

[JoeB131]

We don't need gun control in the US.

We need better mental health care.

Agree or not?

We need both.

 

[Bonzi]

I'm quite sure gun control will solve nothing, however, I'd be interested to see if it would.

As long as people are still able to own guns and protect themselves, I don't care. You can make the rules more stringent and tight.

 

[Pogo]

The infiltrated government depends on abuses of the unconscious mind in order to maintain secrecy and conduct other forms of manipulation.

Accordingly your pretending you do not understand serves the interests of the infiltrated government which wants to take the guns from Americans.

Pretending you are having a cognitive failure and referring to your sister indicates you are a covert agent working to manipulate the thinking of Americans posting and reading here. <snip>

I have no clue what the hell you're talking about.

Pretending I've ever posted anything about "my sister", or that your rambling incoherency makes any point here, indicates you have a somewhat tenuous grip on reality...

 

[Christophera]

We don't need gun control in the US.

We need better mental health care.

Agree or not?

We need both.

I think we will find that when mental health care becomes competent, that the need for gun control will diminish significantly.

We have no idea of HOW good mental health care can be. Literally, those who think they have no mental problems, actually may have lots of them just by growing up in this society.

We are a society that is destroying its air and water every day by toxification. That is a form of mental problem and it is massive. Its so common people think its normal. Not good, not right, not healthy not sane.

We maintain enough nuclear weapons to destroy life on earth perhaps 30 times. Not sane. Is gun control an issue by comparison?

I use the following as a sig in other forums.

You always want what you need, but do not always need what you want.

People that do not want what they need, have a problem.

Can we stop doing all of the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

 

[Christophera]

The infiltrated government depends on abuses of the unconscious mind in order to maintain secrecy and conduct other forms of manipulation.

Accordingly your pretending you do not understand serves the interests of the infiltrated government which wants to take the guns from Americans.

Pretending you are having a cognitive failure and referring to your sister indicates you are a covert agent working to manipulate the thinking of Americans posting and reading here. <snip>

I have no clue what the hell you're talking about.

Pretending I've ever posted anything about "my sister", or that your rambling incoherency makes any point here, indicates you have a somewhat tenuous grip on reality...

Well, then, before we continue with this vital discussion, let me test you for sincere support of the 1787 constitution.

Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable unity adequate to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights?

 

[Pogo]

The infiltrated government depends on abuses of the unconscious mind in order to maintain secrecy and conduct other forms of manipulation.

Accordingly your pretending you do not understand serves the interests of the infiltrated government which wants to take the guns from Americans.

Pretending you are having a cognitive failure and referring to your sister indicates you are a covert agent working to manipulate the thinking of Americans posting and reading here. <snip>

I have no clue what the hell you're talking about.

Pretending I've ever posted anything about "my sister", or that your rambling incoherency makes any point here, indicates you have a somewhat tenuous grip on reality...

Well, then, before we continue with this vital discussion, let me test you for sincere support of the 1787 constitution.

Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable unity adequate to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights?

Owvzawt. Expasgm apver aerlkavn apn, asonpaooawn aoim zmoing.

Tgvkm oov alnvea. Wmoz?

Cibimyg! Cibimyg!

 

[Christophera]

The infiltrated government depends on abuses of the unconscious mind in order to maintain secrecy and conduct other forms of manipulation.

Accordingly your pretending you do not understand serves the interests of the infiltrated government which wants to take the guns from Americans.

Pretending you are having a cognitive failure and referring to your sister indicates you are a covert agent working to manipulate the thinking of Americans posting and reading here. <snip>

I have no clue what the hell you're talking about.

Pretending I've ever posted anything about "my sister", or that your rambling incoherency makes any point here, indicates you have a somewhat tenuous grip on reality...

Well, then, before we continue with this vital discussion, let me test you for sincere support of the 1787 constitution.

Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable unity adequate to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights?

Owvzawt. Expasgm apver aerlkavn apn, asonpaooawn aoim zmoing.

Tgvkm oov alnvea. Wmoz?

Cibimyg! Cibimyg!

You are exposed!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Alrighty, then...
The suggestion has been made that the root causes driving any specific demographic to commit these atrocities be identified. If we were able to do that, we'd have a greater chance of averting them. I venture to suggest that these causes are complex and multiple. I think we can safely identify the primary demographic as young, white males, most who are currently or had previously been treated with psychotropic drugs.
Unfortunately, politicians have highjacked the issue in order to advance their ideological agendas. This turns the issue into a hot button item and both sides of the bab/ don't ban dichotomy fail to consider any other discussion.

They have indeed so hijacked. It's pandering to the simplistic, because it's easier to bicker over "ban guns!!" versus "No, Second Amendment!!" than it is to dare touch the foundation of what drives it.

You're close here, but they're not necessarily young -- the latest one was -- but Spengler in my example was 62; Jim David Adkisson (Powell church shooting) was 58; James von Brunn was a month shy of 89. Psychotropic drugs appear some of the time -- but none of these above examples IIRC. So trying to pin it on drugs is another deflection.

What all of these shooters and pretty much any you can find, have in common is a power problem. Whether drugs are involved or not -- Harris and Klebold, the Luby's guy, Jared Loughner, these three men above, countless workplace slayings --- and the latest racist fuckbag in Charleston --- all men who felt themselves deprived of some kind of power and pervertedly saw the gun as the instrument that would fix that.

THAT idea is the root of the problem.

That they take the firearm to be their vehicle to power is of course dead wrong. But we can hardly act surprised that they would come to that conclusion -- they've been told that since birth. We all have. Our daily/nightly television says so. Our childhood comic books say so. Our movies and video games say so. Our childhood toys told us that, as soon as we were big enough to hold one in our hand. And of course our history of conquest, first our own continent and with that secure, our own planet. Check out our icons: war heroes, Indian killers, the cavalry "clearing" the Indians. We grow up from earliest childhood playing "cops and robbers" and "cowboys and Indians". Always the dichotomy, always the endless battle. And anyone who's any age from newborn to their mid-60s lives in a country that has been, for his/her entire life, at war somewhere. Continuously.

If all that ain't drumming in the continuous relentless message that you deal with a problem by shooting at it, I don't know what is. What would be shocking would be if NO ONE took that message to heart.

In a nutshell you could say these killers are simply doing what they've been told to do all their lives.

My question is --- why are we telling ourselves that?

First, without access to firearms, people like these would find some other way to assert their "power" some other way.

Of course they would. That's what I said in my clown comparison.

So the problem does not lie with their chosen tool, but rather in the reason why they feel powerless and needful to assert themselves.

?? Huh?

Does not follow. If the way to deal with one's power issues were to dress up like a clown, those issues wouldn't be resulting in mass slayings. Or ANY slayings. So the chosen tool is exactly the point here.

You have a point about the saturation in media and entertainment that glorifies violence as a means to express oneself. But if you dare propose reining in the media/entertainment industries, the same dichotomy that hijacks the ban/don't ban argument inevitably drag out their First Amendment protections.

Again, it does not follow that "reining in the media/entertainment industries" is the only way to address it. That's just reverting back to the same old "let's pass a law and ban it" mentality as the "let's ban guns" mentality.

Nobody reaches for a gun because it's legal or illegal. They reach for a gun because they want what it delivers. That desire is what needs to change. And you don't legislate desire. Can't be done. Think more originally than that. Laws are not the answer to everything. They just ain't.

Seventy-five years ago smoking cigarettes was pervasive. It was everywhere. People did their TV shows smoking. They smoked around their kids. They smoked while eating. Doctors did it, and then recommended a brand. It was "cool" because some movie action figure did it.

That cultural "coolness" is gone now. No doctor will tell you what brand you should be smoking. You won't see the practice on T or in a move except in a rare exception of a very bad guy character. It is in short socially disapproved.

That happened outside the realm of the Law. And it's more powerful than the Law.

So we come back to the problem, how do we identify people with these violent, destructive tendencies before they act on them? And having identified them, how should we deal with them?

I see it as two separate questions. Do these people need to be identified? Of course they do, and they deserve addressing in whatever way is effective. But simultaneous with that we've got this value problem, which applies to everybody whether they're mentally ill or not.

We have violence because we have (certain) violent people. That is true everywhere around the world.
But we have GUN violence (specifically) because we have a collective gun fetish.

And that needs to go, yesterday.

We'll still have violence from violent people. There's no way around that basic human flaw. But we wouldn't have an epidemic of Rambos and copycats mowing down people out of a love of carnage.

I'm not advocating the "ban-it-all" mentality in either case, firearms or media. While I agree that people tend to be influenced by much of what they see/read/hear, disagree that we have a gun fetish. I believe we have eliminated the concept of personal responsibility for our actions. It's all OK. One only acts out because of one's victimhood. While some may argue that punishment is not the answer, obviously "rehabilitation" has failed society as a panacea for violence. Perhaps we should label the acts as the pure, unmitigated evil they represent and then contemplate why there is such an increase in evil in our society?

Disagree.

We have not “eliminated the concept of personal responsibility for our actions.” Nor has anyone promoted rehabilitation as a “panacea for violence”; any failure is the consequence of our unwillingness to pursue a comprehensive and effective mental health policy. Moreover, there has not been an “increase in evil in our society,” this is mere perception the consequence of the 24/7 news cycle and the instantaneous dissemination of information and events absent context and background intended as entertainment.

It is perfectly plausible to explore solutions to gun violence that both comport with Second Amendment jurisprudence and seek to enhance the effectiveness of mental healthcare delivery to citizens in a manner designed to detect mental illness before it develops to the point where treatment is ineffective and the mentally ill person poses a threat to himself and society.

Last, any effective policy will require Americans to acknowledge and deal with certain unpleasant aspects of our society – in particular our propensity toward violence and the perception of violence as a legitimate means of conflict resolution; we are an inherently violent society, a Nation forged in the crucible of war, the Civil War our most violent and costly – changing that cultural component will be a necessary part of any successful resolution.

 

[Bonzi]

I think we will find that when mental health care becomes competent, that the need for gun control will diminish significantly

You could have stopped right there. Exactly!

 

[JoeB131]

I think we will find that when mental health care becomes competent, that the need for gun control will diminish significantly.

Well, no, you really wouldn't.

The vast majority of gun murders are not crazy people. That crazy people are able to buy guns is a symptom of the problem, not the problem.

The majority of gun homicides and suicides are that a gun was readily available and turned a bad s ituation into a tragedy.

 

[Christophera]

I think we will find that when mental health care becomes competent, that the need for gun control will diminish significantly.

Well, no, you really wouldn't.

The vast majority of gun murders are not crazy people. That crazy people are able to buy guns is a symptom of the problem, not the problem.

The majority of gun homicides and suicides are that a gun was readily available and turned a bad s ituation into a tragedy.

Your use of the word "crazy" is the classic cognitive distortion of "labeling" working to prevent understanding of the problem.

"The majority of gun homicides and suicides are that a gun was readily available and turned a bad s ituation into a tragedy."

Correct, BUT by virtue of a bad decision NOT a gun.

Often a person who is "sane" or not "crazy" simply has an issue in life they cannot deal with. In the crisis attempting to deal with it they make the wrong decision and kill others and perhaps themselves in their inability to cope.

Mental health care in the context that Bonzi and I are referring to is an OPTION. No effective option exists in our society and people KNOW this. IF such an option were developed, AND publicized on national TV with testimonials, THEN people in such a situation would realize that they do not have to kill in order to find relief to their torment, frustration, anger, grief or whatever.

Now,IF that exists and works as well as it could, and very likely should, THEN people that are "crazy" can also get help.

Allow an analogy.

A person with an issue they cannot cope with who uses a gun, has a "short circuit", the treatment proposed goes directly to the short and re insulates the unwanted, destructive drain, load, etc. making the bad connection. A "crazy" person needs some new insulation on circuits and maybe some re routed connections.

All of these things are primarily of the unconscious, intuitive, right brain and get "wired up" by virtue of capacity of inherited genetics and conditioning at early childhood.

Currently, psychology DOES NOT WORK DIRECTLY with the unconscious mind, and I've extensively tested that statement to find it true. I have the proof of that if you need it.

The fact that the killing occur that do, proves it, IF you understand the situation with human behavior and psychology.

That provision and information to the public of the OPTION decreases the demand for gun control because its really the people that are killing not the guns.

 

[blunthead]

We don't need gun control in the US.

We need better mental health care.

Agree or not?

I agree. There's no such thing as "Gun Control" nor should there be. The very thought is unconstitutional, not to mention ultimately lame since all that so-called gun control laws do is free criminals to wreak more havoc than they would without those laws. People who can't see this are blind due to having been brainwashed their entire lives.

I'm not sure why certain psychologically unbalanced individuals aren't easily detected. I assume that clear warning signs are sometimes ignored or missed, especially since I seem to remember that being said about this killer or that, but I think society can't be expected to catch most or even very many such malcontents before they fly off their handles. This reduces the problem to one with a simple solution, which the Founding Fathers, who were smarter than all the rest of us combined, including politicians, foresaw when they decided that gun ownership is not only not the problem but is necessary. Countless examples are available of lives which would have been saved if guns had not been (unconstitutionally) prohibited where those lives were lost.

 

[blunthead]

I think we will find that when mental health care becomes competent, that the need for gun control will diminish significantly.

Well, no, you really wouldn't.

The vast majority of gun murders are not crazy people. That crazy people are able to buy guns is a symptom of the problem, not the problem.

The majority of gun homicides and suicides are that a gun was readily available and turned a bad s ituation into a tragedy.

I think we would see less "gun violence" (a term I despise) if more people got mental health treatment. It's quite logical to expect that result. Only a hopeless, hallucinating idealist believes that all guns could and therefore should be confiscated. Guns will always be readily available to criminals, so laws prohibiting guns don't work because they can't. And I also believe that the majority of homicides and suicides are not committed by mentally healthy people; just the opposite is obviously true.

 

[D Truth]

We don't need gun control in the US.

We need better mental health care.

Agree or not?

Disagree.
The controls you speak of are exactly the same:
People should not be allowed to defend themselves.

Correct?

 

[D Truth]

I think we will find that when mental health care becomes competent, that the need for gun control will diminish significantly

You could have stopped right there. Exactly!

Spoken like true communists.