Trump: Fix 'Massive Problem' of Mentally Ill, Let Gun Owners Be

[Cygnus]

I don't want my tax dollars allocated to mental health services. The government can and will **** it up. That is what they do. Yes, even if all they do is fund it they will **** it up.

I don't want them forcing my insurance companies to cover things that will surely raise my rates. The ACA did enough of that.

All of this represents more government.

If you want those things, donate to charities that provide those things.

I see it as equal protection as far as mental versus physical health. I also see it as protecting the general welfare......things government should be doing.
I'd rather pay for someone to get proactive help than have to use my firearm. That is where I am coming from.
What if someone has really good genetics? And has had DNA marker tests and they are very unlikely to get cancer? Should they have to pay for the rest of us who have the average risk?
I do see your point/logic. I just think there's another.

 

[steveh_131]

In all seriousness we have stood for all you preach. We have beat the drum and lifted up those around us. Some of the attempts bore fruit but people are fickle and lazy. The easy path is bright and alluring.

I have lost all hope of effecting change. Yes, a fallen world.
My effort is now focused on family and their survival in this world.
Beyond that.........

Not a quieter just tired.

I completely understand that. Government fixes are the easy path, bright and alluring. They don't work and they cost us too much, both in dollars and liberties. Focus on protecting your family and let the crazies fend for themselves.

I see it as equal protection as far as mental versus physical health. I also see it as protecting the general welfare......things government should be doing.
I'd rather pay for someone to get proactive help than have to use my firearm. That is where I am coming from.

Eh. This more ACA-type stuff. It doesn't work. Government force rarely, if ever, accomplishes what you hope it will accomplish - other than taking your money.

What if someone has really good genetics? And has had DNA marker tests and they are very unlikely to get cancer? Sould they have to pay for the rest of us who have the average risk?
I do see your point/logic. I just think there's another.

They don't have to pay for anything. They should have the freedom to choose an insurance plan that pools them with whichever risk pool they want.

 

[cbhausen]

Exactly. Most of you are likely aware of the following:

Donald Trump on Gun Control

" For assault weapon ban, waiting period, & background check

I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record. Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000 "

That was 15 years ago... I'd like to see if his opinion has "evolved" regarding an assault weapons ban. This would be a deal-breaker for me.

 

[JTScribe]

When the government funds it. There are always strings attached. Someone who has motives other than the purpose seems to always be at the other end of the string.

Yup. Like speed limits being linked to highway funds, or education dollars being linked to curriculum.

Jamil 2016!

 

[JTScribe]

That was 15 years ago... I'd like to see if his opinion has "evolved" regarding an assault weapons ban. This would be a deal-breaker for me.

If only someone from the gun rights movement had interviewed and asked him . . . well, I'll be.

Evolution in Progress - Trump on Guns [VIDEO] - The Truth About Guns

 

[Leadeye]

In all seriousness we have stood for all you preach. We have beat the drum and lifted up those around us. Some of the attempts bore fruit but people are fickle and lazy. The easy path is bright and alluring.

I have lost all hope of effecting change. Yes, a fallen world.
My effort is now focused on family and their survival in this world.
Beyond that.........

Not a quieter just tired.

My philosophy for some years now. Take care of your own.

 

[SSGSAD]

Any step in the right direction (and this is) I am open to. We can not do this. It has to be done by Gov. like it or not.

AMEN, to THAT !!!!!

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Marion Co. Sheriff runs the largest mental illness facility in Indianapolis: the jail | Fox 59

In 2015, the sheriff budgeted $640,000 for prescriptions, $5 million for medical staff and $2.1 million for deputies assigned to deal with mentally ill offenders, meaning $7,740,000 spent on mentally-ill inmates is not being spent on more serious offenders or preventing crime.
“The vast majority of these folks, if they were on proper medication, would not be committing the crime they’re committing,” said Dezelan.

We can pay for mental health via the criminal justice system or we can do a better job of keeping the mentally ill out of the criminal justice system via increased resources.

I guess we could just ask them to not be mentally ill, though, and solve the problem through the magic of wishful thinking and ignoring the problem until it goes away.

 

[steveh_131]

I guess we could just ask them to not be mentally ill, though, and solve the problem through the magic of wishful thinking and ignoring the problem until it goes away.

No, let's solve the problem through the magic of Big Government and Pissing Money and Sacrificing Liberties until it goes away. That always works out well.

Most mentally ill people do not want treatment or medication. There is no good way to force them into it before they have done something that causes them to give up their right to make that choice, like commit a crime.

Yes, people get hurt. Yes, it sucks. Yes, the world is a cold, dark, nasty place. No, Big Government is not the solution to every problem we encounter. Sometimes there just isn't a magic solution.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

No, let's solve the problem through the magic of Big Government and Pissing Money and Sacrificing Liberties until it goes away. That always works out well.

Most mentally ill people do not want treatment or medication. There is no good way to force them into it before they have done something that causes them to give up their right to make that choice, like commit a crime.

Yes, people get hurt. Yes, it sucks. Yes, the world is a cold, dark, nasty place. No, Big Government is not the solution to every problem we encounter. Sometimes there just isn't a magic solution.

That just means you choose "We can pay for mental health via the criminal justice system ". You still pay for it. Just in the least efficient way possible, and after those people get hurt.

 

[steveh_131]

That just means you choose "We can pay for mental health via the criminal justice system ". You still pay for it. Just in the least efficient way possible, and after those people get hurt.

Can you prove to me that it is less efficient to treat only the violently mentally ill after they do something violent than it would be to treat every person the government might suspect to be mentally ill by forcing medication and/or institutionalizing them before they do anything wrong?

How many non-violent people would you be ok with locking up, as a sort of collateral damage? A hundred? A thousand? Can we put a price on that sort of tyranny?

 

[Timjoebillybob]

That's a tough call. There are folks out there who would want us 'checked in' because of our SHTF paranoia and gun hoarding. Should there be a process for stripping a person of his or her liberty because someone thinks our behavior is 'abnormal'?

If someone is crazy enough to try to hurt someone or their property, government is welcome to step in.

I've had people in all seriousness say that if someone wants to own guns, that is a sign that they are crazy and therefor should not be able to own them. Depends on abnormal. You believe that the headcase at Sandy Hook's Mom shouldn't have been able to get him committed before he tried? (that is if she had started the process a bit earlier).

If they are saying/doing something that leads you to believe they pose a risk to themselves or others, call 911 and we can place them under an Immediate Detention under code 12-26-4-1. This is just temporary. For someone to be committed to an institution for a long duration, the family, with the help of doctors, must file in probate court for a Mental Writ. We then serve the writ on the person, much like a warrant, and transport them to the facility the judge ordered.

Thanks much, but I understand how it works. I was asking how would/could you do it without the govt.

I see it as equal protection as far as mental versus physical health. I also see it as protecting the general welfare......things government should be doing.

If your talking fed, under what part of the Constitution would those fall under?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Can you prove to me

You? No.

 

[steveh_131]

You? No.

Are my standards of evidence unreasonable?

 

[Twangbanger]

As per: Trump: Mental health, not gun problem - CNNPolitics.com

Regardless what you think about Trump it's a refreshing change of pace to see common sense things being discussed, or rather reported, to a large audience.

Quite right, OP. I think Trump is somewhat of a loose cannon with incomplete grasp of the issues, however: I think many voters are also at a point where they see so many politicians whose policies are "directionally incorrect," that when one finally comes along whom they consider to be "directionally correct" on an issue of importance to Main Street America, they are thrilled and don't particularly care whether he grasps all the details or not. When you have a candidate who has no plan and who is directionally incorrect, and another who also has no detailed plan but is directionally correct about the nature of the problem...who you gonna choose?

If the GOP doesn't figure this out, Trump is going to keep eating their lunch. Jeb Bush sounded like he was starting to get frustrated yesterday. He thought he'd be out in front and have this wrapped up by now. Reality intervened. He whined that Trump doesn't have a plan. Problem is, Bush apparently doesn't either, in the minds of a lot of people.

There are certain issues the political class has no intention of dealing with. One is Immigration. Another is the above-mentioned Mental Health issue. One issue they absolutely _do_ plan to "do something" about, however, is Gun Control. So what's to worry about in Trump's comments? We have already seen the Assault Weapon ban debated a couple times in Congress, and passed into law once. In my opinion, Trump is doing good on this particular issue of Mental Health. He's deflecting the public's momentum away from one governmental intervention that has a danger of actually happening (Gun Control), and steering it in the direction of an issue the government has no intention of doing anything about. That sounds like a net wash outcome, which sounds good to me in this case.

The ACLU, Ruling Class, Pharmaceutical companies, and Fundatarian Homeschoolers seem to be in lock-step agreement that nothing will be done about Mental Health Treatment from a government standpoint. There's no danger of jack happening on this issue. Let Trump play with it a little bit. If he manages to deflect calls for gun control this way, good on him. We'll just keep waiting for the mentally ill to commit crimes, then throw them in jail to rot like we currently do. Some times, the status quo is the best you can hope for, I guess.

"Prozac to Prison" is our Mental Health System. For better or worse. If Trump wants to point that out as a means of deflecting Gun Control, I'm good with it.

 

[eldirector]

Oh, I think they ALL have plans. It is just that none of those plans actually address issues that are important to VOTERS.

The Left has a plan to milk every horrific story they can to push their agenda of control. They have a plan to keep folks divided along racial, income, gender/sex, and religious lines. Right now, that plan appears to be working. All they need is a figurehead that doesn't disgust a lot of folks.

The Right has a plan as well: beat the "conservative" drum as hard as you can. So loud, that it drowns out the voters. Hope and prey that the Left's candidate is the greater of two evils, and makes you look pretty good.

I see Trump simply not playing either game. Whether he believes all he says or not, he is at least acknowledging the voters. Isn't sticking to the media's script.

If the Right was smart (ha, that's a laugh), they would find the most likable, well-spoken, nice looking candidate (take a play from the Left's book), and start putting some meat behind several of TRUMP's talking points. Detailed plans, and a strong heart-felt reason WHY it should be done. Trump has struck a chord. Whoever plays it best will win.

Now, is Trump the best candidate? Ha! He has his own issues. The problem is: the type of person WE want in the highest office is NOT the type of person that actually WANTS that job.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I see it as equal protection as far as mental versus physical health. I also see it as protecting the general welfare......things government should be doing.
I'd rather pay for someone to get proactive help than have to use my firearm. That is where I am coming from.

That sounds good but has some problem issues. First and foremost is a correct understanding of 'general welfare'. In most cases in which I hear the General Welfare Clause invoked, it is as a justification for federal spending and/or other intervention on behalf of the specific welfare of individuals which is an entirely different matter. General welfare is the maintenance of conditions which facilitate people being able to see to their own welfare (like the .gov NOT picking the winners so anyone who wants to work hard enough can succeed), NOT redistribution. I suppose that in this case, one could make the argument that keeping dangerously unstable people out of circulation falls under that umbrella, but it definitely demands specific attention to detail rather than a drive-by reference.

Marion Co. Sheriff runs the largest mental illness facility in Indianapolis: the jail | Fox 59



We can pay for mental health via the criminal justice system or we can do a better job of keeping the mentally ill out of the criminal justice system via increased resources.

I guess we could just ask them to not be mentally ill, though, and solve the problem through the magic of wishful thinking and ignoring the problem until it goes away.

This is the substance of the matter. Case in point, when Central State closed its doors, most of its 'residents' simply migrated wonthe street to the Department of Correction where they received most likely a similar amount of spending per capita, but had focused medical treatment replaced with an occasional evaluation and having pills shoved down their throats twice a day, with a significant amount of money shifted from treatment to security. There are times when we are forced to deal with distasteful matters under circumstances in which reality leaves us to choose the least bad alternative rather than the 'good' alternative that we want in spite of its nonexistence, unless, of course, we are going to argue in favor of self-liquidation either through the elements or armed victims.

 

[jamil]

That just means you choose "We can pay for mental health via the criminal justice system ". You still pay for it. Just in the least efficient way possible, and after those people get hurt.

I have to agree with this at least a little.

There are people who simply can't function, can't really take care of themselves, are a danger to themselves and others. Someone has to take care of those people. And most people don't have the resources to care for family members who need that kind of care.

With just about any decision/action point, if no one does anything, the default thing happens. Has anyone read the article about San Francisco's homeless population ****ting in the streets? Yeah. Mostly mentally ill. They have to **** somewhere. Do nothing and the default is human **** in the streets. It becomes a public health issue. Doing nothing still makes society pay one way or another. In that respect, you're right. Society will pay for the mentally ill one way or another, even if just by default.

But we're talking about how to solve these revenge on society shootings. I see no effective public health solution for that. How would this particular lunatic have been indicated for treatment, or denial or rights? What separates him from other narcissists who would never hurt anyone? A government solution to this problem would require a net way too big.

 

[steveh_131]

With just about any decision/action point, if no one does anything, the default thing happens. Has anyone read the article about San Francisco's homeless population ****ting in the streets? Yeah. Mostly mentally ill. They have to **** somewhere. Do nothing and the default is human **** in the streets.

I agree, we should do something.

Why must it be our default position to assume that 'we should do something' means that 'we should have the government take money from other people then have other people do something'?

There are charities for the mentally ill, are there not?

But we're talking about how to solve these revenge on society shootings. I see no effective public health solution for that. How would this particular lunatic have been indicated for treatment, or denial or rights? What separates him from other narcissists who would never hurt anyone? A government solution to this problem would require a net way too big.

Definitely agree.

 

[jamil]

I agree, we should do something.

Why must it be our default position to assume that 'we should do something' means that 'we should have the government take money from other people then have other people do something'?

There are charities for the mentally ill, are there not?



Definitely agree.

I'm all for that. Private charities can take that burden from government today. The problem is, there isn't enough capacity in the .orgs to handle it. There could be. But there isn't.