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

[bwframe]

We can analyze the crap out of all this, but it boils down to very few incidences of the bat crazies shooting folks up.
While it's devastatingly terrible that some of our most beloved don't make it to thirty, this story would have never went national had the poor journalists been run off the road to their deaths by a left lane texter.

We don't have to have a "fix" for everything.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Now Bill, you know better than that. I'm not a Psychiatrist, and even if you could prove to the whole world that that there Twangbanger doesn't know a whit about what makes people crazy, it still wouldn't invalidate my argument. Do you believe it is possible for there to be a definition? If the answer is no...if your position is that nobody is qualified to sit in judgement in that capacity...that it isn't for anybody to say...then there's nothing for us to talk about. (Is that your position?)

Simply put, I want people like the Aurora dweeb locked up. They were free because nobody seems to be paying attention.

It wasn't specifically to put you on the spot. My point was that for some people, anyone who is diagnosed with "depression" is not fit to own a firearm. For some, it's the "bipolar". For still others, only the truly psychotic sociopaths. Had you given me an answer, that's what I was going to ask you: Why you, (and this is irrespective of any psych knowledge) chose to place the line "here" as opposed to "there".

I once heard a psychiatrist (I think... might have been psychologist.) speak. In the course of his talk, this particular head shrinker made the claim that he could diagnose everyone in the room (a hundred or so, if I recall) with a serious mental disability. He was quick to add, "I choose not to do that." The problem is that if he could do it, any head shrinker could do it.... and some of them might not have his scruples. Result: I'm not so binary that I think we have to say either "lock up all the crazies" or "don't lock up anyone." I think if someone (a specific one person) shows that s/he cannot be trusted in public alone, then that one needs to find a home in a secure facility. To reduce it to a discussion solely of diagnoses, however, does everyone a disservice. OTOH, some will then argue that for someone like the Aurora shooter to prove that he cannot be trusted in public alone, people had to die. True enough. The sad but simple fact is that we all have to die. While we'd like to eliminate the means by which some die, hence the mandating by law of seatbelts being put in cars, for example, which when combined with the law requiring people to wear them does reduce deaths by traffic collision, the fact is that it does so at the cost of freedom. Freedom is inherently unsafe. Should I have the choice to wear a seatbelt? Sure, and if we get down to liberty being the deciding point, it should be the market driving peoples' choices to buy exclusively vehicles that come with belts installed. Ideally, that would be the case, but realistically, I suppose I'm OK with the manufacturers having to install them. It should still be my choice to wear it or not, without the government being due a portion of my hard-earned income if they catch me not doing so. Similarly, since the only way to ensure that no one kills someone else is to lock everyone in their own, individual cell, but that level of loss of freedom is beyond what any of us will accept, and doesn't account for "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
So the question becomes, "at what point between total freedom (anarchy) and the above non-solution of total control are we willing to accept?" I suggest that it should be far closer to the former than the latter... and justice in such cases should be exceedingly swift; The intended victim rarely makes a mistake of who is guilty when preventing him- or herself from being that victim. Ergo, more people should be armed in their own defense, and should want to be trained to stop the aggression. This won't end all aggression, but evidence seems to show that it would reduce it a da*n sight more than disarming innocent people for the actions of the not-so-innocent.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Twangbanger]

It wasn't specifically to put you on the spot. My point was that for some people, anyone who is diagnosed with "depression" is not fit to own a firearm. For some, it's the "bipolar". For still others, only the truly psychotic sociopaths. Had you given me an answer, that's what I was going to ask you: Why you, (and this is irrespective of any psych knowledge) chose to place the line "here" as opposed to "there".

I once heard a psychiatrist (I think... might have been psychologist.) speak. In the course of his talk, this particular head shrinker made the claim that he could diagnose everyone in the room (a hundred or so, if I recall) with a serious mental disability. He was quick to add, "I choose not to do that." The problem is that if he could do it, any head shrinker could do it.... and some of them might not have his scruples. Result: I'm not so binary that I think we have to say either "lock up all the crazies" or "don't lock up anyone." I think if someone (a specific one person) shows that s/he cannot be trusted in public alone, then that one needs to find a home in a secure facility. To reduce it to a discussion solely of diagnoses, however, does everyone a disservice. OTOH, some will then argue that for someone like the Aurora shooter to prove that he cannot be trusted in public alone, people had to die. True enough. The sad but simple fact is that we all have to die. While we'd like to eliminate the means by which some die, hence the mandating by law of seatbelts being put in cars, for example, which when combined with the law requiring people to wear them does reduce deaths by traffic collision, the fact is that it does so at the cost of freedom. Freedom is inherently unsafe. Should I have the choice to wear a seatbelt? Sure, and if we get down to liberty being the deciding point, it should be the market driving peoples' choices to buy exclusively vehicles that come with belts installed. Ideally, that would be the case, but realistically, I suppose I'm OK with the manufacturers having to install them. It should still be my choice to wear it or not, without the government being due a portion of my hard-earned income if they catch me not doing so. Similarly, since the only way to ensure that no one kills someone else is to lock everyone in their own, individual cell, but that level of loss of freedom is beyond what any of us will accept, and doesn't account for "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
So the question becomes, "at what point between total freedom (anarchy) and the above non-solution of total control are we willing to accept?" I suggest that it should be far closer to the former than the latter... and justice in such cases should be exceedingly swift; The intended victim rarely makes a mistake of who is guilty when preventing him- or herself from being that victim. Ergo, more people should be armed in their own defense, and should want to be trained to stop the aggression. This won't end all aggression, but evidence seems to show that it would reduce it a da*n sight more than disarming innocent people for the actions of the not-so-innocent.

Blessings,
Bill

That's fair enough, and I think I get it. Just like many people on many issues we discuss here on INGO, you want the line to be drawn in the right place, in respect of freedom. The line can be a slippery one, when there are dedicated anti-gunners (and others) who would seek to shift that line to further their agenda. I'm well aware of that, just so you don't get me wrong. But there are those here who are uncomfortable with the mere existence of the "line" at all, and want a "no government" solution to this issue, ie, no person is qualified to rule on another person's sanity in any official capacity. (Similar to the position that nobody in government is qualified to set a limit and determine who can and can't cross the border, no government may rightly execute anyone for a crime...etc. both of which I learned here in other INGO discussions).

If you're not one of them on the mental health issue, then I got it & thanks.

Hey, lock the crazies up. I'm all for it. Due process. Yep he's a danger to himself and others. Lock him up. You can do that now. There is a legal process to have someone committed.

As I said, there's already a process for doing that...

Point noted, Jamil. But I gather that there are those here (unless I'm reading it wrong), who believe this process you mention above should not exist. No?

 

[Redtbird]

There is no step in the right direction that includes the government.

Then, we should all go live some place where there is no government at all? Interesting...

 

[jamil]

But anyway, my purpose was not to dissect the father's logical errors one by one. It's just to point out that this stuff is never going to stop, and much as we'd like to believe the do-nothing approach will hold, people are going to eventually get sick of this and demand something be done. My fear is that if we're not open to some mechanism for the singling-out of disturbed people, and restraining them and limiting their freedoms, then the next lower piece of fruit the Mob will try to pick off the tree will be to single out gun-purchasers a state-by-state basis, in ways we won't like.

When that day comes, I sure hope "the public" are amenable to INGO arguments about transforming society into some sort of hippie religious commune where everybody takes responsibility for policing themselves and their circle of acquaintances, impeccable standards of character are practiced, and the government is allowed to do nothing. We'd best get cracking on that.

Point noted, Jamil. But I gather that there are those here (unless I'm reading it wrong), who believe this process you mention above should not exist. No?

I think almost no one opposes the ability for society to commit clinically insane people who are a danger to themselves and others. It's really not more than a fringe part of the argument that wants no line at all. But I think what you're talking about is a Holmes, and not a Houser. Almost no one is opposed to fixing whatever went wrong that allowed Holmes to do what he did. Almost everyone thinks Holmes is clinically insane.

But for government to fix whatever went wrong with Houser, that's a different story. Everyone has some cobwebs in their heads. We want a way to determine which cobwebs produce violent behavior. And not so that we can spread a blanket of prohibition on that entire population. It should be so that we can figure out how to clear those cobwebs and heal people.

The purpose of gun control isn't to heal the people that abuse their rights. It's to eliminate the gun culture in America, to prevent as many people as possible from owning guns. To kill the gun culture they need to have fewer gun owners, fewer enthusiasts, and therefore fewer people lobbying against their efforts to eliminate guns. Their efforts after revenge shootings isn't to fix what makes people want to kill people. They want to exploit public grief to further their cause against the gun culture.

We simply can't allow any solution that gives ground to that cause. The response to their non-common-sense gun control must always be, "**** you!"

These revenge shootings aren't even a blip on the radar compared to the non-cobweb induced violence in the inner cities. But the gun control lobby, which of course includes the press, ensures that the violence that tugs at America's heartstrings most, is at the forefront of problems that America thinks it needs to solve.

You're right that it's going to continue. I think in a way they want revenge violence to continue so they can keep the pressure on. And the only common ground we can have with them on revenge shootings, is pursuing a way to identify violent people, and heal them, rather than giving up another mechanism to disqualify more people from the 2A.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I think almost no one opposes the ability for society to commit clinically insane people who are a danger to themselves and others. It's really not more than a fringe part of the argument that wants no line at all. But I think what you're talking about is a Holmes, and not a Houser. Almost no one is opposed to fixing whatever went wrong that allowed Holmes to do what he did. Almost everyone thinks Holmes is clinically insane.

But for government to fix whatever went wrong with Houser, that's a different story. Everyone has some cobwebs in their heads. We want a way to determine which cobwebs produce violent behavior. And not so that we can spread a blanket of prohibition on that entire population. It should be so that we can figure out how to clear those cobwebs and heal people.

The purpose of gun control isn't to heal the people that abuse their rights. It's to eliminate the gun culture in America, to prevent as many people as possible from owning guns. To kill the gun culture they need to have fewer gun owners, fewer enthusiasts, and therefore fewer people lobbying against their efforts to eliminate guns. Their efforts after revenge shootings isn't to fix what makes people want to kill people. They want to exploit public grief to further their cause against the gun culture.

We simply can't allow any solution that gives ground to that cause. The response to their non-common-sense gun control must always be, "**** you!"

These revenge shootings aren't even a blip on the radar compared to the non-cobweb induced violence in the inner cities. But the gun control lobby, which of course includes the press, ensures that the violence that tugs at America's heartstrings most, is at the forefront of problems that America thinks it needs to solve.

You're right that it's going to continue. I think in a way they want revenge violence to continue so they can keep the pressure on. And the only common ground we can have with them on revenge shootings, is pursuing a way to identify violent people, and heal them, rather than giving up another mechanism to disqualify more people from the 2A.

Exactly. The problem, of course, is that there are those whose minimal acceptable standard for any and all is 'more perfect than God' while signally failing to consider that some of the most disturbed and corrupt people in the nation are making the rules, leading to your situation of there being no line as no one is good enough to have their rights.

 

[steveh_131]

Then, we should all go live some place where there is no government at all? Interesting...

If I said that there was no step in the right direction for the government to further regulate guns, would you also call me an anarchist?

 

[Bill of Rights]

Then, we should all go live some place where there is no government at all? Interesting...

More that the people who make up the current form of our government (not just the ones currently in office, but those who perpetuate the culture of "government exists to grow its own power" should be removed from it. Government exists to protect the rights of the people. It has no other proper purpose. Put another way, I own guns. You do not have a right to not be scared of me. You do have a right to remove yourself from any interactions with me. To exercise that right, all you have to do is leave. I don't mean that in terms of "leave the country if you don't like it", I mean that if I'm shopping at my local Kroger and you happen to see that I'm carrying (whether due to a high reach for something or sloppy CC or even a (for me) rare OC,) you have the right to leave your cart and leave the store. You do not have the right to force me to leave the store. Gun owners exercise that right all the time- it's the reason I made up the Indiana version of the No gun, no $$ cards. You may have your rule, but you may not have your rule and my money at the same time.

If we had a government that remained within its delineated bounds, we would not have this issue.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[jamil]

More that the people who make up the current form of our government (not just the ones currently in office, but those who perpetuate the culture of "government exists to grow its own power" should be removed from it. Government exists to protect the rights of the people. It has no other proper purpose. Put another way, I own guns. You do not have a right to not be scared of me. You do have a right to remove yourself from any interactions with me. To exercise that right, all you have to do is leave. I don't mean that in terms of "leave the country if you don't like it", I mean that if I'm shopping at my local Kroger and you happen to see that I'm carrying (whether due to a high reach for something or sloppy CC or even a (for me) rare OC,) you have the right to leave your cart and leave the store. You do not have the right to force me to leave the store. Gun owners exercise that right all the time- it's the reason I made up the Indiana version of the No gun, no $$ cards. You may have your rule, but you may not have your rule and my money at the same time.

If we had a government that remained within its delineated bounds, we would not have this issue.

Blessings,
Bill

That is a view shared by very few. Perhaps even on INGO.

 

[Bill of Rights]

That is a view shared by very few. Perhaps even on INGO.

"Right is right, even if no one does it, and wrong is wrong, even if everyone does it." --my mother

 

[jamil]

"Right is right, even if no one does it, and wrong is wrong, even if everyone does it." --my mother

Yeah, but it's hard to get everyone to do right if no agrees what right is.