But you don't care. You've already shown disdain for a rational attempt to limit mentally ill people from freely acquiring guns. I think your opinion is clear on the subject.
No limit the mentally ill's rights.
Not the law abiding.
You have it backwards.
If Holmes required as much psych medication as has been indicated thus far why was he not adjudicated incompetent which under present law would have prevented the purchase of the weapons he used?
An excellent question. I would assume because there is shit poor focus in this country on keeping mentally ill people from acquiring weapons or helping them in general.
Well it helps when we dont declare eveyone mentailly ill. I mean 1 out ever 4 people have autism...blab blah blah....
We used to have institutions for mentally ill, but somepeople didnt like them (One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest ring a bell?)
Here is one
Inside The Nation's Largest Mental Institution : NPR
http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/11/3/186.full.pdf
Then, a
social movement aimed at freeing patients from big, overcrowded and often squalid state hospitals succeeded. Rather than leading to quality treatment in small, community settings,
however, it often resulted in no treatment at all.
Now WHO is big in social movements that cause UNINTENDED consequence.....OOOOPS
or ADD or ADHA, those are not real problems, kids have energy and they dont like to be confined in class, you dont have to drug them for it.
So in essence liberals let mentally ill people OUT of the assylums and then ***** because they get guns, If your ******* social engineering didnt **** it up the first time, we wouldnt have this problem......And yea that's also the same issue that cause the homeless....and somehow republicans were blamed for it.....Unfucking believable....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinstitutionalization
Community services that developed include
supported housing with full or partial supervision and specialised teams (such as
assertive community treatment and
early intervention teams). Costs have been reported as generally equivalent to inpatient hospitalisation, even lower in some cases (depending on how well or poorly funded the community alternatives are).
[6]
Although deinstitutionalisation has been positive for the majority of patients, it also has severe shortcomings.
[11] Expectations that community care would lead to fuller social integration have not been achieved; many remain without work, have limited social contacts, and often live in sheltered environments.[
citation needed]
New community services are often uncoordinated and unable to meet complex needs. Services in the community sometimes isolate the mentally ill within a new
ghetto, where service users meet each other but have little contact with the rest of the public community. It has been said that instead of "
community psychiatry", reforms established a "psychiatric community".
[6]
Existing patients are often discharged without sufficient preparation or support. A greater proportion of people with mental disorders become homeless or go to prison.
[6] Families can often play a crucial role in the care of those who would typically be placed in long-term treatment centres. However, many mentally ill people are resistant to such help due to the nature of their conditions. The majority of those who would be under continuous care in long-stay psychiatric hospitals are paranoid and delusional to the point that they refuse help, believing they do not need it, which makes it difficult to treat them.
[12]
So we stopped listening to you dumb ******* ideas......your "equality" as you put it, is a joke and causes alot more problems than is solves