Violence Control.....

[rwsmith]

I'm super plealsed with the responses here....

There are scads of good thinking in the responses and it makes me feel better to that most of us believe that there is more to our social problems than guns. I think we should try to make this point whenever possible.

Gun grabbers arguments aren't hard to refute, because it's based on the false assumption that guns CAUSE violence.

PS: I also thought that the sheer length of the post would keep people from digesting it, but I'm glad to see so many take the time to see it through.

 

[Alk8944]

Crazy Phil;
"When Reagan was president, we emptied all of the mental institutions and put them out on the streets. It was a mental problem and it still is a mental problem. We need to learn to identify those with problems and give them treatment."

Abbynormal:
"Back in the 70's, state Legislatures were trying to find ways to decrease the budget. State run mental hospitals and associated programs were the first to go. In the 40+ years on, people with mental health issues and that includes some criminal mentally ill, fell into the "public health" private residence system that then formed.

Instead of putting seriously ill mental patients into asylums, they were put in public/private facilities that required SS, insurance or public assistance to provide for the patients. As a result, many psychiatric and mentally impaired patients fell through the cracks and then the flood gates opened. Disturbed patients weren't placed into the system or just walked away and the numbers of disturbed people transitioned or were just there and blended into the normal population without treatment, care or supervision."

Neither of these posts is exactly correct. The situation occurred well before Ronald Reagan, and the sitting President had no part in this! And it occurred during the early-mid 1960s while Earl Warren was Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Just another of many poor decisions made by the SCOTUS while Warren was Chief Justice, including the current situation where SCOTUS determined they had the right to "Interpret" the Constitution rather than legislation being judged in light of the "Supreme Law of the Land", the Constitution. This is not political, simply fact! The mental institutions were actively being cleared out because of SCOTUS decisions regarding the mentally ill.

Whether it was a factor or not the POTUS at the time of this SCOTUS decision was either Lyndon Johnson or Richard Nixon. I am relatively sure it was Johnson.

The closure of mental institutions was a direct result of lawsuits brought by the ACLU (Sound familiar?) on behalf of mentally ill patients committed against their will to various mental institutions. The basis of the ACLU lawsuit was that mental illness is not criminal, and therefore there was no legal justification for the mentally ill being "incarcerated" against their collective will. SCOTUS agreed with this premise and emptying of both state and private mental institutions was well underway at the time I was hired as a Police Officer in late 1969. This SCOTUS decision was one of the training points in our academy training.

 

[Faulkner]

It is a mental problem, but it goes deeper than that. It starts with a Spiritual problem.

I agree. As we move to a more secular culture something will fill the void, and in my opinion Hollywood is seeing to it that the void is filled with violence and wickedness.

 

[amazingflapjack]

Looking at the perpetrator of the church shooting, as well as his pathology, causes me to guess that he has fetal alcohol affect-the "milder" version of fetal alcohol syndrome. These conditions are caused by heavy drinking during pregnancy, and are the easiest birth defects to prevent. The mother has to abstain from alcohol. The scourge that this malady brings on society is very negative, and easily overlooked. You can read about this condition in the DSM. Tragic.

 

[Cardboard_killer]

The basis of the ACLU lawsuit was that mental illness is not criminal, and therefore there was no legal justification for the mentally ill being "incarcerated" against their collective will. SCOTUS agreed with this premise and emptying of both state and private mental institutions was well underway at the time I was hired as a Police Officer in late 1969. This SCOTUS decision was one of the training points in our academy training.

The government was simply acceding to economic pressure. It is not possible to pay for the care and upkeep of the mentally ill anymore. The costs have skyrocketed since the 1940s, and no one is willing to pay another 15% of their paycheck to house the mentally ill. These aren't criminals that we can toss into poorly kept prisons and let them run themselves behind bars. These are people that are going to need hundreds of thousands of nurses and thousands of doctors and literally tons of pills and state of the art living quarters. No one is going to pay for it; no one can afford to pay for it. So you can bemoan the decision to close the hospitals, but it was going to happen whether the ACLU existed or not because no one can pay for it anymore.

And in any case there is no political will to do it. There is no political will even to take firarms rights away from the mentally ill, let alone housing them in hospitals. The ACLU, the NRA and other gun right activists will fight tooth and nail to keep the mentally ill from losing their gun rights without due process. Like it or not, we are stuck with the mentally ill on the streets. About the only thing we can do is ensure we have adequate case workers to help them keep it together.

 

[rwsmith]

One, two, three ,main problems.....

IMO there are too many factors to point to just one. As awful as these killings are, we are in a safe society, no matter what the media tries to convince us otherwise.

If you know what the problem(s) are you can think up ways to address them. Then you can implement them. I think this would at least be fighting the real problem rather than constantly blaming guns or some other ancillary factor and constantly talk about banning them, which most of us agree would be ineffective. Also a great many people acknowledge the horrible state of mental health in this country and this would be a real attempt at getting some improvement.

 

[rwsmith]

I'm going to make a general statement...

It seems that we can pay for a lot of things that aren't necessary but we can't (or won't) take care of the basics. Other countries have social problems, health and mental care problems, foreign competition, immigration problems, in other words, the same problems we do and they are concerned about their status in the world. We have a huge economy, but we don't seem to be able to use it well at all.

 

[Wise_A]

Frankly, I'm tired of folks blaming movies and video games. Largely because I enjoy them. It's a tenuous link at best, but one that's been clung to since Wolfenstein and Doom got released in 1992 and 1993, respectively.

Playing SimCity has not lead me to fantasize about city planning. Just the same as owning a 629 has not made me dress up like Dirty Harry. You'd think it was insane if someone suggested that cowboy action shooters were harboring fantasies of shooting up a bar, right? If you wouldn't apply that logic to guns, so don't apply it to movies and video games. It's a dumb attempt to marginalize and blame segments of the society that aren't you.

The answer is two-headed and patently obvious.

(1) We have a liberal attitude towards mental health in this country. Mental health professionals only have a duty to report in the most extreme cases, and it's perfectly legal not to take your meds. We also have extraordinarily high standards for non-voluntary committals. On the whole...these are probably good things. People probably shouldn't be forced to take medication or locked up without due process. But as any economist will explain, everything has a cost.

(2) We have an unregulated forum (the internet) where it's perfectly acceptable to dehumanize people that don't look, act, or think like you. Remember after LV, how outraged you were when you heard major network news producers Tweeting that the victims deserved it, because they were probably Trump supporters? Go ahead--pop on over to Antifa's subreddit. I'll wait. And to be frank, those guys are almost tame in comparison to some stuff I've come across. On both sides.

Combine (1) with (2) and you have an engine that radicalizes mentally imbalanced people and provides them with a menu of targets to choose from.

 

[JSR III]

Unfortunately, looking to big brother to do something about the ills of the world never seems to work.

If one can believe the media (which lately I have grown to be suspect) this recent shooter was dishonorably discharged for domestic violence but that it was never reported by the Navy and therefore he was able to purchase firearms that he wouldn't have had it been reported.

Secondly, I read another account that said he WAS institutionalized but that he escaped. That too should have precluded him from firearm ownership.

Again, only stating what I read online but sure seems plausible.

All I can add is that there is another former POTUS from Texas that is probably grateful that he has been out long enough now that everything is no longer "his fault".

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

By most all measure violent crime has been trending down over the past couple decades, not up. So why is there an opposite perception?

My conclusion is the one BIG change during the past couple decades is that violent crime it's being reported and pumped into homes across the nation 24/7 via cable news. Things you would never hear about 25 years ago are reported over and over again until the viewer gets brainwashed into believing that society must be on the verge of apocalypse. Once brainwashed, they are much more receptive to the notion of 'something must be done'. That 'something' typically translates into an assault on liberty. No thanks.

Turn off cable news. You'll likely find a much more peaceful world for yourself.

 

[Arik]

Back in the 70's, state Legislatures were trying to find ways to decrease the budget. State run mental hospitals and associated programs were the first to go. In the 40+ years on, people with mental health issues and that includes some criminal mentally ill, fell into the "public health" private residence system that then formed.

Instead of putting seriously ill mental patients into asylums, they were put in public/private facilities that required SS, insurance or public assistance to provide for the patients. As a result, many psychiatric and mentally impaired patients fell through the cracks and then the flood gates opened. Disturbed patients weren't placed into the system or just walked away and the numbers of disturbed people transitioned or were just there and blended into the normal population without treatment, care or supervision.

Now 40 years later, the population of mentally ill, psychiatric patients and those truly mentally disturbed are considered "normal population" and are part of what we have to deal with on a day to day basis.

As daily stresses and personal interaction apply stress to these people, they snap and all sorts of EVIL occurs.

We can only blame ourselves and the politicians of the past for what we coming in our future!

Mental health is a very broad term you can't lock everybody in an asylum. Having anxiety, depression, eating disorders, addictive behavior, OCD is mental illness. You're going to lock away someone whos a germaphobe and obsessively washes their hands? What about postpartum depression? About 15% of women suffer from it.

It's impossible to lock away people who have mental disorders and most of them are none aggressive none violent and many you probably wouldn't suspect.



Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

 

[crazyphil]

Because I respect your knowledge and expertise in the field of vintage gun leather, I won't give in to the temptation to call you crazy, or even crazyphil. I think that would be in poor taste.

What I will do is wait with bated breath for you to come back and post the punchline to what has to be a really bad joke.

No joke Watchdog. I am semi-serious, although as I said it will
never happen. If "likes" are any indication it looks like a dozen
agree while only you and one other think it's a bad idea. The
folks in Israel use a similar strategy. If the most recent (Texas)
shooter had been greeted by 20 or 30 adults with guns would the
outcome be the same? I don't think so. And thank you for the
compliment regarding vintage gun leather.

 

[Arik]

No joke Watchdog. I am semi-serious, although as I said it will
never happen. If "likes" are any indication it looks like a dozen
agree while only you and one other think it's a bad idea. The
folks in Israel use a similar strategy. If the most recent (Texas)
shooter had been greeted by 20 or 30 adults with guns would the
outcome be the same? I don't think so. And thank you for the
compliment regarding vintage gun leather.

People have a big misconception about Israel and Switzerland.

Soldiers are allowed to carry their firearms on and off duty. Otherwise, only a small group of people are eligible for firearms licenses: certain retired military personnel, police officers or prison guards; residents of frontier towns, or those who often work in such towns; and licensed hunters and animal-control officers.

Firearm license applicants must have been a resident of Israel for at least three consecutive years, pass a background check (criminal, health, and mental history), establish a genuine reason for possessing a firearm (such as self-defense, hunting, or sport), and pass a weapons-training course. Around 40% of applications for firearms permits are rejected. Holding firearms licenses must renew them and pass a shooting course every three years, and undergo psychological assessment at least once every six years. Security guards must pass these tests to renew their license to carry firearms belonging to their employers. Applicants must demonstrate that they have a safe at their residence in which to keep the firearm. Permits are given only for personal use, and holders for self-defense purposes may own only one handgun and purchase an annual supply of 50 cartridges (although more may be purchased to replace rounds used at a firing range).


Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

 

[rwsmith]

I don't doubt we hear too much....

By most all measure violent crime has been trending down over the past couple decades, not up. So why is there an opposite perception?

My conclusion is the one BIG change during the past couple decades is that violent crime it's being reported and pumped into homes across the nation 24/7 via cable news. Things you would never hear about 25 years ago are reported over and over again until the viewer gets brainwashed into believing that society must be on the verge of apocalypse. Once brainwashed, they are much more receptive to the notion of 'something must be done'. That 'something' typically translates into an assault on liberty. No thanks.

Turn off cable news. You'll likely find a much more peaceful world for yourself.

I don't doubt we hear too much, I just saw an article about an Iranian woman being kicked off a plane in India (?). Who cares. BUT large massacres in this country haven't happened since the Idian Wars in THIS country. Ghengis Khan and Idi Amin were worlds away. And one thing I can agree with is that HUGE publicity for doing something like a Vegas,a church,a concert guarantees widespread publicity for weeks and glorifies the act.

PLEASE don't imply that I am 'brainwashed'. I'm sure you've heard enough out of me to have a broader opinion. If you truly do think I'm brainwashed, please tell me again so I can get UN brainwashed.

 

[JSR III]

As I have stated several times in other threads, 10,000 to 15,000 folks are typically killed each year in the US as a result of drunk driving. That works out to around 27 deaths each and every day of the year (using the lower number). That is equal to a Sandy Hook school shooting EVERY day of the year.

There is no outrage from Washington. You don't see the loud mouth pols jumping ugly to ban booze or cars.

Mostly because most folks like an occasional cocktail and need our cars to get to work.

Guns are a much easier target. Not everyone is into guns and those that aren't see absolutely no reason for anyone to own one.

I also love when the pols attack the NRA like it is some government bureaucracy. Do they not understand that they merely represent the will of nearly 5 million Americans?????

 

[Rule3]

Crazy violence goes way back to 1927.(and before) Total of 45 dead.

The Bath School Massacre

Bath School disaster - Wikipedia

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

I don't doubt we hear too much, I just saw an article about an Iranian woman being kicked off a plane in India (?). Who cares. BUT large massacres in this country haven't happened since the Idian Wars in THIS country. Ghengis Khan and Idi Amin were worlds away. And one thing I can agree with is that HUGE publicity for doing something like a Vegas,a church,a concert guarantees widespread publicity for weeks and glorifies the act.

PLEASE don't imply that I am 'brainwashed'. I'm sure you've heard enough out of me to have a broader opinion. If you truly do think I'm brainwashed, please tell me again so I can get UN brainwashed.

Of course my commentary was general in nature.

Mass killings... whether one in a year or five, more in this century or last, I believe are an infinitesimally small aberration among a population of 350,000,000 rather than a societal barometer of America.

Overall, violent crime is measured to be significantly trending down over the last 25 year. That's a societal barometer. Yet, there are a variety of groups with an array of agendas who place blame for violence due to allowing mental patients on the street, too many guns, not enough God, bad economy, one parent families, video games, (banned topics)... on and on... all during the same time period as violent crime has been trending down. Hmmmm.

Honestly, I don't much care about the fear that folks wish to live with in their head. What I do care about is when the fear translates into the notion that more government control is the solution to their fear.

Brainwashing + Agenda + Government solution = Loss of liberty.

 

[Arik]

I don't doubt we hear too much, I just saw an article about an Iranian woman being kicked off a plane in India (?). Who cares. BUT large massacres in this country haven't happened since the Idian Wars in THIS country.

Not counting the most recent (Church, Vagas, Sandy Hook, Orlando, San Bernardino, Aurora CO, Dylan Roof)

There was...
2013 Washington Navy Yard 12 dead
2011 Seal Beach Cal. 8 killed
2011 Carthage NC. 8 killed
2010 Manchester Conn. 8 killed
2009 Fort Hood 13 dead
2009 Alabama 9 dead
2007 Virginia Tech, 32 dead 17 wounded
2007 Omaha Nebraska 8 killed
2005 Red Lake MN 9 killed
1999 Atlanta 12 dead
1999 Columbine 13 dead
1993 San Francisco 8 killed
1991 Killeen Tx 23 dead 27 wounded
1991 Arizona Buddhist temple 9 killed
1990 Jacksonville FL 9 killed
1989 Louisville KY 8 killed
1986 Edmond Ok. 14 dead 5 wounded
1984 San Ysidro Cal. 22 dead 19 wounded
1983 Seattle. 13 killed
1982 Wilkes Barre Pa 13 dead
1982 Miami FL 8 killed
1966 Austin Texas 17 dead 31 wounded
1949 Camden NJ. 13 dead

Out of those two in 1982 were over 10 deaths. 1966, 1949, 1983, 1986, 1999

1984, 1991, 2007 over 20




Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

 

[rwsmith]

Go ajead and enjoy video games...

Frankly, I'm tired of folks blaming movies and video games. Largely because I enjoy them. It's a tenuous link at best, but one that's been clung to since Wolfenstein and Doom got released in 1992 and 1993, respectively.

Playing SimCity has not lead me to fantasize about city planning. Just the same as owning a 629 has not made me dress up like Dirty Harry. You'd think it was insane if someone suggested that cowboy action shooters were harboring fantasies of shooting up a bar, right? If you wouldn't apply that logic to guns, so don't apply it to movies and video games. It's a dumb attempt to marginalize and blame segments of the society that aren't you.

The answer is two-headed and patently obvious.

(1) We have a liberal attitude towards mental health in this country. Mental health professionals only have a duty to report in the most extreme cases, and it's perfectly legal not to take your meds. We also have extraordinarily high standards for non-voluntary committals. On the whole...these are probably good things. People probably shouldn't be forced to take medication or locked up without due process. But as any economist will explain, everything has a cost.

(2) We have an unregulated forum (the internet) where it's perfectly acceptable to dehumanize people that don't look, act, or think like you. Remember after LV, how outraged you were when you heard major network news producers Tweeting that the victims deserved it, because they were probably Trump supporters? Go ahead--pop on over to Antifa's subreddit. I'll wait. And to be frank, those guys are almost tame in comparison to some stuff I've come across. On both sides.

Combine (1) with (2) and you have an engine that radicalizes mentally imbalanced people and provides them with a menu of targets to choose from.

I believe i mentioned that controlling violent games and movies etc is NOT the answer. The answer is to teach people to not allow ALL of this exposure to violence to infuence them negatively. There are TONS of influences that advocate and glorify violence, and it's naive to think that removing it is practical or desirable. I've played superviolent video games too, but when I stopped playing, I stopped thinking that violence was going to gain me anything. What we can do is teach people not to blur the lines between play and reality. I think the worst of the influences are in the street culture and it's code of 'disrespect' and 'vengeance' that is so glorified in this country. You can't change that, but you can teach kids not to be susceptible to everything they hear. I think this is as much of a part of a 'Health' class as anything.
Bottom line, before you try to eliminate the sources of violence, which is probably impossible, make the individual aware of how this influences the mind and mindset, to be more resistant to thinking that violence is the only answer to problems and a good answer as well. Materialism is as much to blame. People kill each other to get their designer shoes. I don't think we can let kids grow up in today's society without giving them tools to discriminate when they are being showered by violence and that there are levels of response and coping skills that should come into play BEFORE even considering violence. If kids aren't taught these skills early, often attitudes toward violence kick in early. We KNOW that kids are going to be exposed to it, let's give them tools to put it in the proper perspective. Now, there are still going to be nutcases but more people will grow up with healthy and realistic attitude about violence.

 

[rwsmith]

That's for sure......

Unfortunately, looking to big brother to do something about the ills of the world never seems to work.

If one can believe the media (which lately I have grown to be suspect) this recent shooter was dishonorably discharged for domestic violence but that it was never reported by the Navy and therefore he was able to purchase firearms that he wouldn't have had it been reported.

Secondly, I read another account that said he WAS institutionalized but that he escaped. That too should have precluded him from firearm ownership.

Again, only stating what I read online but sure seems plausible.

All I can add is that there is another former POTUS from Texas that is probably grateful that he has been out long enough now that everything is no longer "his fault".

It start with parents. And if parents are worried enough to have books like "Huckleberry Finn' taken out of schools that can advocate to have mental/social skills taught early on in school to supplement what they learn at home. Everybody is wringing their hands and saying "What do we DO" about all this, so banning guns and getting rid of violent video games is the default position. We need to get to the problem of what we CAN control and go from there. Since kids ARE going to grow up expose to violence right away, if we fail to teach them to deal with it, then it's our own fault that our kids are zombies programmed to.violence through years of training.

Parents have to be aware that their kids need sex education. Well, some realistic social education is needed just as badly.