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

[steveh_131]

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.

Then anyone who thinks 'we need to do something' should donate to those charities, not take money from me to give to the government.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

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.

Some of you might be. You've never dealt with family members at their wit's end because they know Jr is going to hurt himself or others but they are turned away from help because the hospitals are at capacity, private providers are too expensive and also at capacity, etc. The chick who hangs herself after calling 911 to report demons in her body and obviously TRYING to get help or she wouldn't have called 911. The guy you send to the hospital because he's fighting demons with a jeweler's hammer in a hotel lobby at the beginning of your shift and then arrest him at the end of your shift because the hospital has already put him out because he's not an "immediate threat to himself or others."

Somehow saying these folks should have easier and cheaper access to mental health facilities is championing FEMA camps for anyone who was sad once once it runs through the INGO machine.

 

[steveh_131]

Some of you might be. You've never dealt with family members at their wit's end because they know Jr is going to hurt himself or others but they are turned away from help because the hospitals are at capacity, private providers are too expensive and also at capacity, etc. The chick who hangs herself after calling 911 to report demons in her body and obviously TRYING to get help or she wouldn't have called 911. The guy you send to the hospital because he's fighting demons with a jeweler's hammer in a hotel lobby at the beginning of your shift and then arrest him at the end of your shift because the hospital has already put him out because he's not an "immediate threat to himself or others."

Somehow saying these folks should have easier and cheaper access to mental health facilities is championing FEMA camps for anyone who was sad once once it runs through the INGO machine.

Should we have a frank discussion about why our medical facilities are all at capacity and overpriced?

I'll give you a hint, the answer is 'government'.

 

[jamil]

Some of you might be. You've never dealt with family members at their wit's end because they know Jr is going to hurt himself or others but they are turned away from help because the hospitals are at capacity, private providers are too expensive and also at capacity, etc. The chick who hangs herself after calling 911 to report demons in her body and obviously TRYING to get help or she wouldn't have called 911. The guy you send to the hospital because he's fighting demons with a jeweler's hammer in a hotel lobby at the beginning of your shift and then arrest him at the end of your shift because the hospital has already put him out because he's not an "immediate threat to himself or others."

Somehow saying these folks should have easier and cheaper access to mental health facilities is championing FEMA camps for anyone who was sad once once it runs through the INGO machine.

I thought THIS discussion was about the shooter and whatever mental issues he had. You're bringing a whole other topic into the conversation, which I kinda agree with you on that.

 

[jamil]

Then anyone who thinks 'we need to do something' should donate to those charities, not take money from me to give to the government.

No one wants to do anything. So then the default thing happens, which is, we all pay for it anyway. I'd like to get to the point where private charities take on that cause. But it's like the premise of my proposed tax plan where, if you want government to do more, then you volunteer to pay more taxes to do it. I know that if taxes were voluntary beyond the real function of government, these programs would just end. Everyone is very charitable when it's other people's money. They're just not all that charitable with their own.

Kike I said to BBI, this discussion is more about the shooter, and what the government should or shouldn't do to stop more shootings like that. On that I think you and I pretty much agree.

 

[steveh_131]

No one wants to do anything. So then the default thing happens, which is, we all pay for it anyway.

Yes, we pay for 'it' anyways. 'It' being the incarceration of people who should have been institutionalized.

The alternative is to pay hugely more in preventative measures that will be ineffective, inefficient, abused, and used to trample our liberties.

I'll take option 'A'.

ETA: Also, I'd like to add that this logic brought us the ACA. "We're paying for it already because of emergency room visits, we might as well just socialize the whole system!"

 

[jamil]

Yes, we pay for 'it' anyways. 'It' being the incarceration of people who should have been institutionalized.

The alternative is to pay hugely more in preventative measures that will be ineffective, inefficient, abused, and used to trample our liberties.

I'll take option 'A'.

ETA: Also, I'd like to add that this logic brought us the ACA. "We're paying for it already because of emergency room visits, we might as well just socialize the whole system!"

Still not part of this conversation but what the hell. Might as well perpetuate it.

I'm okay with institutionalization for people who beat themselves with hammers to crush the nuclear reactors the government installed in their joints. Probably the guy who feared the boner drone could reasonably be institutionalized. But we mostly got rid of the institutions. If we brought them back, who pays for the institutions? I think that is a legitimate shared cost to society. It's probably cheaper to do that then the default we have now.

And the rationale behind the ACA was a lie. Medical costs weren't/aren't high because of uninsured people. They're high because all of the market pressure pushes prices higher and not lower. There is no reason for providers to lower their prices. There is every reason they can push them higher.

But that's yet another conversation.

 

[steveh_131]

I'm okay with institutionalization for people who beat themselves with hammers to crush the nuclear reactors the government installed in their joints. Probably the guy who feared the boner drone could reasonably be institutionalized. But we mostly got rid of the institutions. If we brought them back, who pays for the institutions? I think that is a legitimate shared cost to society. It's probably cheaper to do that then the default we have now.

It only seems cheaper because you aren't considering the unintended costs. All the people who will abuse the system. Or the people who will be institutionalized who probably never would have done anything to anyone. It will be just as ineffective and inefficient as every other government program that has ever existed.

And the rationale behind the ACA was a lie.

Yes, it was a lie. This is the same thing.

Medical costs are high because the government has been encouraging and subsidizing the consumption of health care since the 1920's.

Mental health costs will rise similarly if you start having the government analyze and round up mentally ill people. But just as with the ACA, they'll pretend like it's going to save us money in the long run.

 

[IndyDave1776]

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.

I would argue that the reason for this is that the money simply doesn't exist to support them adequately no matter how much the willing might want to do so because the .gov takes its cut off the top and then wastes at least 3/4 of the money.

It only seems cheaper because you aren't considering the unintended costs. All the people who will abuse the system. Or the people who will be institutionalized who probably never would have done anything to anyone. It will be just as ineffective and inefficient as every other government program that has ever existed.



Yes, it was a lie. This is the same thing.

Medical costs are high because the government has been encouraging and subsidizing the consumption of health care since the 1920's.

Mental health costs will rise similarly if you start having the government analyze and round up mentally ill people. But just as with the ACA, they'll pretend like it's going to save us money in the long run.

It seems to me that we did better both fiscally and practically when we still had a viable network of state hospitals rather than simply putting the same people in prison. I am not in the habit of trusting government to get much of anything right, but at the same time, I will settle for a less bad solution over the more bad solution.

 

[steveh_131]

What of liberty? Do you think this will be accomplished without trampling it?

I don't buy that it will save us money, but even if it did, I'd rather pay the extra money than sacrifice one more liberty in the name of "general welfare ".

 

[IndyDave1776]

What of liberty? Do you think this will be accomplished without trampling it?

I don't buy that it will save us money, but even if it did, I'd rather pay the extra money than sacrifice one more liberty in the name of "general welfare ".

Generally, I agree with that. My point is when the bottom line comes down to the choice between putting mentally ill people in a hospital or a prison, it seems to me that the hospital is a better, or at least less bad, alternative.

 

[steveh_131]

Generally, I agree with that. My point is when the bottom line comes down to the choice between putting mentally ill people in a hospital or a prison, it seems to me that the hospital is a better, or at least less bad, alternative.

Ok, here's the problem though. How do they get to the hospital?

Are we talking about forcing them into some sort of inpatient treatment? If so, by what standard do we do that if they haven't done anything prison-worthy yet? Have you considered the costs of treating a potentially large number of people who may not have ever ended up in prison, but still end up in forced treatment? How does that affect the cost-analysis, when comparing it to the cost of incarceration?

Or are we just talking about voluntary treatment, funded by the government? Have we considered the costs of the rampant abuse of this that will certainly take place?

 

[Hookeye]

And how many of the mass shooters have already gotten "help"?

(were on psych drugs or just quit taking them)????

Maybe the help is worse than not helping.

Problem is cultural. People don't care about others, or themselves.........or what happens in an afterlife.

Everybody has a friggin' excuse.

IMHO the liberal media has pushed this crap, by pushing their agenda and sensationalizing such events (if just for ratings).
Poetic justice........??? Reporter shot by reporter on live TV ??

Sure looks like the media had a hell of a lot to do with the development of that monster.

Look at how another monster kills a bunch of church goers and the media goes after flags, people talk of digging up Civil War generals and taking down monuments..........but this monster kills folks on TV and all the media says is he needed help.

Saw one idiot on Fox tell the show's host that this wasn't a hate crime, was just workplace violence.

The world has gone insane.

 

[Hookeye]

We need to get rid of known evil people to make room for the wackos.
The Charleston church shooter? He admitted it. Put a .22rf in his ear canal and be done with him.
The 4 rapist home invasion guys getting life in prison?.......snuff 'em.

Start removing these people in an expedient manner, don't hype their violence........just fix the problem.
Do this repeatedly, let others know how this new system works.

Let a generation or two have this as the norm and lets see what effect it has.

If it does nothing, at least we got rid of some trash.

 

[Bill of Rights]

At least there's that.


I'm not a zero government kind of person like many of the libertarians are. But on this I have to agree with steveh. I ask, what can government do to fix this? Trump's right when he says it's a people problem. I'm at a loss for what people in government can do to solve the problem of crazy people who want to kill people. Are we going to have everyone psychologically profiled? How else do we parse the crazies?

Maybe we could offer more mental health programs. Do you think this guy thought he needed them? I think he was pretty convinced he's right and everyone else is wrong.

I think we have two choices. 1) improve the quality of our nation's individuals or 2) restrict enough freedom until the frequency of violence is tolerable.

I'd much rather we take on character. Not at the behest of government, because all government will do is impose politically expedient measures that at best treats the symptoms. For example, I guarantee that if we locked everyone up in individual padded cells forever, there would be zero shootings ever. If we choose a government solution, since we're not willing to lose that much freedom, we'll have to find a balance of lost freedom in exchange for reduced violence.

Values and character have been shunned by the popular culture for so long that they are considered taboo. I think we're seeing the results of that now. To me this guy sounds like he had disabling inability to cope with criticism that grew over time. People who worked with him several years ago said they never saw him act like this last TV station described. So it grew worse. Why couldn't he cope? What was missing? Did his parents raise a narcissist? I think many parents don't know how to teach coping. I encounter more narcissists now than I ever have back in the day. I think the quality of our character as a nation has dwindled. We don't care about life or liberty, just the pursuit of happiness at someone else's expense.

I think if we're not willing or able to address the character problem, and we're not willing to impose harsh restrictions on freedom, then we need more freedom to defend ourselves, not less.

Sorry for the screed. All that to say this. The only thing more government can give us is less freedom to defend ourselves. We'd need to defend ourselves less if we had higher moral character.

Exceptionally well said. Repped.

Not so much him but 3 of the last 5 have.

Hold on, CM. This guy isn't "one of them". He shot two people other than himself. Mass shooters have been defined as shooting three or more victims, IIRC, so including him with those others you reference is only helping the antis, kinda like NY defined a mag that was "too big" as holding more than 7, where previously, the anti's standard was 10.

Changing each other. Participating in communities. Looking out for your neighbor. Charities. Proper self defense precautions. Etc.

Obviously, telling people about Jesus is the greatest method in my mind but some won't agree with that.

There are lots of ways to improve the world. Why must we immediately turn to the government to save us?

Regardless, some things will never change. People will always be trying to kill each other. Accepting it and doing what you can, as an individual, to prevent it is the best we're gonna get.

Jesus may be a solution and may work for you. Telling me about Jesus will have no effect at all; my belief system, and it's a strong one, does not include that name for Deity. Still, the principle is correct: What He taught is sound practice- love your fellow man.

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 "

And Dan Coats was vilified (correctly) for his role in the 1994 BS. He came back and has been a friend to gun owners in his time back in the Senate. (or if not a friend, he's kept most of our enemies at bay.)

Please notice that the things I said the government could do start with the word "stop". That means less government and not more. I'm not proposing that anyone legislates character. The government already tries to legislate character anyway. I suggest they stop that.

I also didn't say I want the government to promote good character. How can it? I said that the government can stop doing things that promote bad character traits, like perpetuating the welfare state, and it can stop doing things that hinder good character traits, like all the stupid **** they teach in public schools.

In other words, the government would do better to do less.

Promoting values must come the individuals, and various organizations that make up society.

Government is made up of people. We improve government by putting people of character in office, rather than filling offices with a bunch of characters like we've been doing.

Yes, we pay for 'it' anyways. 'It' being the incarceration of people who should have been institutionalized.

The alternative is to pay hugely more in preventative measures that will be ineffective, inefficient, abused, and used to trample our liberties.

I'll take option 'A'.

ETA: Also, I'd like to add that this logic brought us the ACA. "We're paying for it already because of emergency room visits, we might as well just socialize the whole system!"

The problem with institutionalizing the "mentally ill" is that people were "warehoused"... in essence, locked away and mistreated for however many more years they had on the planet. That's not a solution.

We need to get rid of known evil people to make room for the wackos.
The Charleston church shooter? He admitted it. Put a .22rf in his ear canal and be done with him.
The 4 rapist home invasion guys getting life in prison?.......snuff 'em.

Start removing these people in an expedient manner, don't hype their violence........just fix the problem.
Do this repeatedly, let others know how this new system works.

Let a generation or two have this as the norm and lets see what effect it has.

If it does nothing, at least we got rid of some trash.

Right to speedy trial... I can get on board with this. I just don't know how we'd prevent the mob mentality from demanding the deaths of people "we know" are guilty... only they aren't. There's no coming back from that course of action, as we know. No reset buttons. If we're going to begin executing without all appeals carried out, we're going to start having some "collateral damage" in the form of innocent people executed for crimes they didn't commit.

This is not justice, it's only revenge, such as the mobs we see now and saw a year ago in Ferguson, demanding death for the officer, when he did nothing wrong.



Blessings,
Bill

 

[jamil]

I would argue that the reason for this is that the money simply doesn't exist to support them adequately no matter how much the willing might want to do so because the .gov takes its cut off the top and then wastes at least 3/4 of the money.



It seems to me that we did better both fiscally and practically when we still had a viable network of state hospitals rather than simply putting the same people in prison. I am not in the habit of trusting government to get much of anything right, but at the same time, I will settle for a less bad solution over the more bad solution.

I have to agree on both. I have to admit that my charitable giving has been less since my healthcare costs increased because of Obamacare. And a mental health institution is likely a much better place for the boner drone guy than a jail cell.

What of liberty? Do you think this will be accomplished without trampling it?

I don't buy that it will save us money, but even if it did, I'd rather pay the extra money than sacrifice one more liberty in the name of "general welfare ".

More dichotomous thinking. There are natural costs to living among a society of hundreds of millions of individuals. Sometimes principle leaves us with a worse choice. That is the point where reason demands a pragmatic solution. So we'll just have to disagree on that.

Ok, here's the problem though. How do they get to the hospital?

Are we talking about forcing them into some sort of inpatient treatment? If so, by what standard do we do that if they haven't done anything prison-worthy yet? Have you considered the costs of treating a potentially large number of people who may not have ever ended up in prison, but still end up in forced treatment? How does that affect the cost-analysis, when comparing it to the cost of incarceration?

Or are we just talking about voluntary treatment, funded by the government? Have we considered the costs of the rampant abuse of this that will certainly take place?

I'd rather the institutions be private and funded by charitable donations. And committal to them be through due process.

 

[jamil]

Exceptionally well said. Repped.

Thanks. You too.

Government is made up of people. We improve government by putting people of character in office, rather than filling offices with a bunch of characters like we've been doing.

As I said before, I think we should take on the character problem America has. But as bad a character problem I think society has now, our government doesn't truly represent its constituents' character. Elected leaders are worse. And that may be partly the fault of the people--I mean half the people still want to elect Hilary even though most people think she's not trustworthy! WTF?

But the people elected are worse than than the people that elect them. I think this is largely because we have a dishonest, idealistic press. If the press had reported honestly on GWB, people would still have hated him, but probably, deservedly, less. If the press had reported honestly on Obama, he probably would not have won a second term.

Also, people don't seem to be able to parse the truth, and it is not so much because they are immoral--it's partly that--but because they lack the skills. And they are attracted to shiny objects. For example, Trump is probably every bit as immoral as any candidate in the race. But he is a shiny object.

Another character flaw in people, which isn't really so much immoral, is that they want so much to be seen as being on the "good" side, that they take the side that they perceive everyone else is on. Makes them very vulnerable to Alinsky style, pile-on mob-shaming. I have watched our nation shift sharply to the left in just a few years.

The problem with institutionalizing the "mentally ill" is that people were "warehoused"... in essence, locked away and mistreated for however many more years they had on the planet. That's not a solution.

I agree with that. State run hospitals were mostly, not all, just a warehouse for crazies. But I don't see jails as any better. Ideally, institutionalization would be handled case by case, by due process. The institutions themselves would be run by private organizations by people who are compassionate about people with mental illness. They would be funded by private donars. My mother was a compassionate person and ran a nursing home as a small business. Some of the residents were severely mentally ill people. They were well cared for. She treated them like members of the family. But that kind of care was expensive. Not everyone can afford that kind of care. I'd like to see charitable institutions and donars step it up and provide that kind of care.

I think it bears saying that this part of the discussion is really apart from the discussion of the high profile mass revenge killings. With the possible exception of Holmes, none of perpetrators of these shootings would have been a case for institutionalization. For example, Roof was young, impressionable, probably had some mental cobwebs, but was mostly seduced by an ideology. He's not insane. The Virginia shooter was not insane. They knew what they did was wrong, but they justified it with hatred.

 

[steveh_131]

Jesus may be a solution and may work for you. Telling me about Jesus will have no effect at all; my belief system, and it's a strong one, does not include that name for Deity. Still, the principle is correct: What He taught is sound practice- love your fellow man.

Like I said, some may disagree.

The problem with institutionalizing the "mentally ill" is that people were "warehoused"... in essence, locked away and mistreated for however many more years they had on the planet. That's not a solution.

Exactly. Not a solution, never was.

More dichotomous thinking. There are natural costs to living among a society of hundreds of millions of individuals. Sometimes principle leaves us with a worse choice. That is the point where reason demands a pragmatic solution. So we'll just have to disagree on that.

We disagree that forced institutionalization for people who have done nothing wrong is pragmatic in any way. A world where the government can decide my mental state and lock me away for it is not a world that I want to live in.

I'd rather the institutions be private and funded by charitable donations. And committal to them be through due process.

What, like make it a crime to be paranoid and have a jury decide it?

 

[Hookeye]

I see no problem with snuffing the openly guilty.
By all means have a trial first.
Bringing up Ferguson and mobs..........uh, even the initial evidence suggested a righteous shoot.
So I don't see how that even applies.

The SOB that blew up the Boston Marathon, the shooters at Charleston and Aurora............be done with them.

Indy Star reports the guy that turned witness on the Carmel home invasion says "he wasn't that kind of kid". Excuses.
Drugs...........excuses. He gets 70 yrs?

He should get 70 cents worth of CCI.

At most.

 

[Cygnus]

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

The preamble to the constitution