Another CNN Commentator Reverses Course Re: Gun Control

[fyrediver]

What's going on over there? Someone spike the punch with some sense?


?Let?s Talk About Guns?: CNN Anchor Says This Is Making Him Rethink His Stance on Guns | TheBlaze.com

Read More

 

[oknow]

It sounds like they thought of a new way to start going after guns. On this artical it sounds like he is wanting to go after handguns instead of those e b r's

 

[2506]

well, they got you to click the link. Eyeballs on the page is all they're after.

 

[deen_ad]

It sounds like they thought of a new way to start going after guns. On this article it sounds like he is wanting to go after handguns instead of those e b r's

I wondered when that would happen!


Deen
NRA Life Member, Benefactor Level
"Defender of Freedom" award
Second Amendment Foundation Member
Washington Arms Collectors Member
Arms Collectors of SW Washington Member

"Having a gun is like a parachute, if you need one and don't have it you may never need it again"

 

[hoody]

Here's a similar "rethink" story, but CNN's LZ Granderson..

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/17/opinion/granderson-gun-control-fail/

 

[Morpheus]

Now, do be careful here. Remember, there are those in the gun control crowd that believe if you own or want to own a firearm it should be considered a mental illness. Thus, some of this 'lets deal with mental illness' could be used to remove your rights.

But, with that said, it is nice for people to recognize we have a serious mental health issue in our country. We also have an inner city crime issue with drugs. These are the hard issues to deal with. Much easier to bang your drum about gun control.

I'm very appreciative to see that people might be trying to look deeper into these issues, but I always approach a snake cautiously. Even a well trained snake.

 

[unklekippy]

We do need t deal with the mental illness problem in this country, but I believe the only way to do that is to hold the families responsible. I know that it is never that simple, but if families took in their sick, instead of pretending that it is "society's problem", we wouldn't see this happen so often. Maybe if a parent that stated that he/she knew their kid was a ticking time bomb, who also did their best to alienate the time bomb were held accountable, we would see less mass shootings and less homeless people with mental illness.

It's also important to remember that "Shall Not Be Infringed" does not exclude the mentally ill. They have the right to defend their Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness as well. Quite frankly, if the families would take care of their own, maybe an insane person wouldn't need to arm him/herself.

 

[Morpheus]

We do need t deal with the mental illness problem in this country, but I believe the only way to do that is to hold the families responsible. I know that it is never that simple, but if families took in their sick, instead of pretending that it is "society's problem", we wouldn't see this happen so often. Maybe if a parent that stated that he/she knew their kid was a ticking time bomb, who also did their best to alienate the time bomb were held accountable, we would see less mass shootings and less homeless people with mental illness.

It's also important to remember that "Shall Not Be Infringed" does not exclude the mentally ill. They have the right to defend their Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness as well. Quite frankly, if the families would take care of their own, maybe an insane person wouldn't need to arm him/herself.

<sarcasm>
Wait, what? Take responsibility for one's actions and your children's actions? Not in this day and age of it is everyone else's fault. How dare you make me be responsible for my own children. That is the totally the school's fault right? I mean those teachers, they should be doing it. Or the police, they should be making sure my kid doesn't turn into a criminal. Or, or!
</sarcasm>

In other words, I fully agree with your statement! If people did this perhaps the country would feel a lot better in general. Couple it with the ability for them to actually find help without creating turning their child into a social pariah and maybe we could start to address the issues.

 

[Caveman Jim]

It's the same old/new way of liberals, if something gun related happens, just blame the damn gun!!!! Not the mentally ill person holding it!!!! MORONS!!!!

 

[chemist]

There are countless examples of families begging and pleading with authorities to institutionalize or at least forcibly medicate their obviously psychotic children, to no avail. The problem is there's nowhere to put them any more, since the public mental institutions were all shuttered during the Reagan administration. That was also the start of this Psychotropic Circus where there's a brain-altering pill to treat absolutely anything you think or feel. The trouble is, they all have unintended consequences, like the infamous case of suicidal ideation resulting from antidepressants.

I know a couple schizophrenics who have been locked away for most of their lives in private facilities, without recourse. They really do need to be protected from the world outside, and to a lesser extent the reverse is true too. Those adults who display frank psychosis need to be kept out of the breeding stock and away from any and all lethal weapons, but there's simply no mechanism to do so in this country.

 

[unklekippy]

There are countless examples of families begging and pleading with authorities to institutionalize or at least forcibly medicate their obviously psychotic children, to no avail. The problem is there's nowhere to put them any more, since the public mental institutions were all shuttered during the Reagan administration. That was also the start of this Psychotropic Circus where there's a brain-altering pill to treat absolutely anything you think or feel. The trouble is, they all have unintended consequences, like the infamous case of suicidal ideation resulting from antidepressants.

I know a couple schizophrenics who have been locked away for most of their lives in private facilities, without recourse. They really do need to be protected from the world outside, and to a lesser extent the reverse is true too. Those adults who display frank psychosis need to be kept out of the breeding stock and away from any and all lethal weapons, but there's simply no mechanism to do so in this country.

Of course every case has it's own circumstances, but the families need to deal with it, not beg authorities to deal with it. Again, I understand that extreme cases do need real help, but when families used to take care of their own(The State of Oregon only took care of the mentally ill at the state hospital for what, 100 years? That leaves a lot of human history in which the family took responsibility for the families problems.), we had far less "crazies" shooting people and a much smaller amount of homeless people that are mentally ill. I don't believe it to be the state's problem, but the families.

As long as the families will not take care of their ill, their ill will live on their own and will need to defend themselves like everyone else. If the family takes care of their ill and the security of them, we will see far less of them do these things.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

Of course every case has it's own circumstances, but the families need to deal with it, not beg authorities to deal with it. Again, I understand that extreme cases do need real help, but when families used to take care of their own(The State of Oregon only took care of the mentally ill at the state hospital for what, 100 years? That leaves a lot of human history in which the family took responsibility for the families problems.), we had far less "crazies" shooting people and a much smaller amount of homeless people that are mentally ill. I don't believe it to be the state's problem, but the families.

As long as the families will not take care of their ill, their ill will live on their own and will need to defend themselves like everyone else. If the family takes care of their ill and the security of them, we will see far less of them do these things.

The problem is that families ARE taking care of their own mentally ill members, and they are unequipped to do so. They don't have the expertise, medications, or physical control that is required. You are calling for precisely what causes mass shootings now. Most of these mass shooters have families who tried to take care of them. You can see where that leads. We need a viable mental health program, including lock-down facilities in this country. People are doing the very best they know how, with no support from anyone, and it's not working.

 

[SonicBlue03]

Here's a similar "rethink" story, but CNN's LZ Granderson..

Opinion: Gun control is not the answer - CNN.com

That article surprised me when I read it. LZ is generally not one to take that approach. Kudos to him.

 

[duginsky]

The problem is that families ARE taking care of their own mentally ill members, and they are unequipped to do so. They don't have the expertise, medications, or physical control that is required. You are calling for precisely what causes mass shootings now. Most of these mass shooters have families who tried to take care of them. You can see where that leads. We need a viable mental health program, including lock-down facilities in this country. People are doing the very best they know how, with no support from anyone, and it's not working.

Agreed...couple this with the incredibly high bar set to obtain civil commitment - which in part reflects the lack of faciltities to manage the mentally ill; mental illness has never been profitable aside from pharmaceutical companies that have contributed to an utterly watered down diagnostic process. It seems clear that the training process for diagnosing mental illness has been incredibly broadened in order to allow a prescription for any manner of remarkably expensive medication that at best gives some illusion of transient benefit. When that one eventually doesn't work, well, try this one...This results in a shift away from treatment and resources for the truly mentally ill, but also doesn't often result in any sort of hospital-based (read: expensive) treatment. This in turn takes resources away from treatment for the more well-established biologically-based illnesses such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, TRUE major depression, etc. There is no profit in hospitalizing that population, so this shifts the burden to the tax-payer. I'm fine with helping to fund taking care of those who are are legitimately mentally ill, but the diagnostic process needs to tighten up and shift away from the worried-well. There also needs to be a significant revision of the civil commitment process. Right now, at least in OR, this process requires in indisputable evidence of an individual being: 1. In imminent danger to self, 2. In imminent danger to others, 3. Unable to meet their own basic needs. Seems simple, but isn't. Everyone in the room might know that someone is going to eventually present a harm to self or others, but if it isn't imminent, it's a no-go. As for basic needs, all someone needs to do is tell a judge is that yes, they have a place to stay and access to meals. I can't tell you how many people I've seen released from commitment hearings that were clearly incapable of meeting their own basic needs, but said the right thing. As such, this requires a review of civil rights in this population, which is likely at the crux of the matter, but unfortunately needs revision. As for the mentally ill individual's right to protection, in the case of truly mentally ill, that doesn't realistically call for 2A rights for them; that is where, as a civilized society we need to ensure that - protection for and from them. So-called institutionalization sounds archaic and in some circles cruel, but it's a lot more civilized, safe, and compassionate than letting them roam the street or live with a family powerless to manage them when they have the potential to pose an eventual risk to society. Taking care of someone at home who is profoundly mentally ill - it's beyond a full time 2-7-365 job as well as beyond the vast majority of any one person's capacities.