Anti-gun groups merge

[308]

Americans for Responsible Solutions, the organization founded by former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.....

This Gabrielle Giffords? She scares me with those assault rifles...

 

[tac]

I believe what Tac may have been meaning, and if I'm wrong please tell me, that at least they will not likely do mass killings (with a gun). Sure they can get a knife, cars, gas & fertilizer to do their bizzaro bidding but it would take some of the pressures off of guns and focus on the mentally challenged people (where it should have been all along) instead of us law abiding gun owners (who just want to be left alone)....

'zackly. Over in Northern Ireland a few years ago, a young man who had overlooked taking his meds for a couple of years, and had a very odd take on reality as a result, cunningly converted a fire-extinguisher into a flame-thrower, and used it on a classroom full of girls in a Catholic high school.

At least he could not get a gun to do something his addled brain told him was necessary.

tac

 

[etrain16]

For those commenting and steering this thread toward mental health, I encourage you to read this (maybe some folks didn't read my original column... )
This is a story done by Susannah Frame over at KING. She's a good reporter.

http://www.king5.com/story/news/loc...velopmental-disability-civil-rights/81947398/

I don't see quite how that applies here Dave. That article is referring specifically to people with developmental disabilities. While she didn't list out what those are, I assume it refers to folks with things like autism or other physical/mental disorders that retard normal development and make it difficult, if not at times, impossible, to function normally in society. And yes, there is a need to care for these folks, but these are not the folks getting guns and shooting up schools.

My comments are aimed at dangerously mentally ill people. That may include folks who may be sociopaths, suffer from extreme depression, uncontrollable rage, or other psychosis. These are far different from developmentally disabled folks that just have trouble navigating day to day affairs. The types I'm referring to are folks like Adam Lanza, a kid with a very long list of serious mental health issues that was not properly dealt with, and that left us with a devastating school shooting that branched out into extreme gun control measures.

For the worst of the worst, there may be no other choice than to remove them from public interaction, and for some, that may need to be for the rest of their lives. And due to the possibility of violent outbreaks, it will likely need to be in an institutional setting, something with the type of security that can keep them safely out of the public eye. I'm no mental health expert, and I do understand that some institutions in the past have mistreated and abused these people - that isn't what we need. We need proper care, proper restraint and oversight by 3rd parties that can advocate on their behalf should the treatment and facilities be inadequate or even dangerous.

There are some people in this world that are simply too dangerous to leave out on the streets. I find that the 'compassion' that booted many of these folks out of institutions, ends up leaving them with families that don't have the means to properly care for them or even worse, leaves them living on the streets, where they suffer and commit crimes simply to survive. I think sometimes the most compassionate thing to do is to take them out of the public and provide them as comfortable a place as you can, while treating them (where possible) and keeping everyone else protected. That should be possible, if everyone is on the same page on this issue.

 

[tac]

If the choice is between the occasional nut-job getting a gun that shouldn't have one and the tyranny you live under, I'll take the nut-job any day. At least with them I am on equal footing if I take the responsibility to try to defend myself and family. Under your tyranny, where a man can get life in prison for obvious self-defense, I would have no chance.

You ARE allowed to defend yourself and your family and your home in UK, with whatever is to hand. Of course, here in yUK that is unlikely to be a gun, since they are usually locked up.

However, in the last ten years, five criminals have died at the hands of the home-owner, using the weapons that they brought with them to intimidate or injure. None of the home-owners was sentenced to prison for his actions. More recently, a couple in a farmhouse, invaded by an itinerant group of house-breaking gypsies armed with clubs, crowbars et al. They defended themselves with shotguns.

The gypsies were injured, and although none of them died, their lengthy sentences were prefaced by a comment from the judge that they were very lucky not to have been killed by the innocent people whose home they had invaded.

I 'just happen' to have my live iado swords on the wall in my house, and I'd have no second thoughts about using them on anybody breaking into my teeny little house. Of course, all MY guns are safely locked away, in accordance with the law here.

tac

 

[nammac]

I don't see quite how that applies here Dave. That article is referring specifically to people with developmental disabilities. While she didn't list out what those are, I assume it refers to folks with things like autism or other physical/mental disorders that retard normal development and make it difficult, if not at times, impossible, to function normally in society. And yes, there is a need to care for these folks, but these are not the folks getting guns and shooting up schools.

My comments are aimed at dangerously mentally ill people. That may include folks who may be sociopaths, suffer from extreme depression, uncontrollable rage, or other psychosis. These are far different from developmentally disabled folks that just have trouble navigating day to day affairs. The types I'm referring to are folks like Adam Lanza, a kid with a very long list of serious mental health issues that was not properly dealt with, and that left us with a devastating school shooting that branched out into extreme gun control measures.

For the worst of the worst, there may be no other choice than to remove them from public interaction, and for some, that may need to be for the rest of their lives. And due to the possibility of violent outbreaks, it will likely need to be in an institutional setting, something with the type of security that can keep them safely out of the public eye. I'm no mental health expert, and I do understand that some institutions in the past have mistreated and abused these people - that isn't what we need. We need proper care, proper restraint and oversight by 3rd parties that can advocate on their behalf should the treatment and facilities be inadequate or even dangerous.

There are some people in this world that are simply too dangerous to leave out on the streets. I find that the 'compassion' that booted many of these folks out of institutions, ends up leaving them with families that don't have the means to properly care for them or even worse, leaves them living on the streets, where they suffer and commit crimes simply to survive. I think sometimes the most compassionate thing to do is to take them out of the public and provide them as comfortable a place as you can, while treating them (where possible) and keeping everyone else protected. That should be possible, if everyone is on the same page on this issue.

Actually Adam Lanza was on the autisim spectrum with Aspergers. And stopped taking his medication(s). Otherwise I fully agree...

The issue is treatment other than"here's your medications, be sure to take them every day, don't miss a day now, forever..."

That cannot be the solution for mental health, as the politicians line their pockets with big drugs money... It should be Moms Demand Action for Mental Health...

 

[etrain16]

Actually Adam Lanza was on the autisim spectrum with Aspergers. And stopped taking his medication(s). Otherwise I fully agree...

The issue is treatment other than"here's your medications, be sure to take them every day, don't miss a day now, forever..."

That cannot be the solution for mental health, as the politicians line their pockets with big drugs money... It should be Moms Demand Action for Mental Health...

True. Autism is a very broad spectrum issue that can allow some folks to live entirely normal lives and others hardly able to function. I had a step-brother years ago that would probably be classified as a low-function autistic - he couldn't communicate and really just would never be able to care for himself. Folks more on the Asberger's side may hold important jobs and simply have difficulty navigating some forms of human social interaction.

I honestly don't know how to turn the tide on this. But I think it is possible. We may, as a culture, have to make some hard choices. And yes, we need to find a way to stop lining the pockets of politicians every time they give someone a favor. It really needs to come down to the demands of voters. Until we hold them accountable, they will continue to go down the wrong path, and we will continue to pay for those choices.

 

[Mikej]

Problem is, with the general distrust of the government, so frequently expressed here at Northwest Firearms, just who would be trusted to dig around in peoples psyche to make the determination of who might get some treatment, or who will need some serious time in a padded room? We all want the people that "Will" commit these terrible crimes locked away/treated but who will make those decisions?

I see a person that get's depressed and has the money to grab five or six sessions with a good psychologist just to talk and get his focus back. You're going to have to have a lot of money, those guy/gals don't work cheap! Dude gets back on with his life and the general rigors of life. A year or two later he goes to buy a gun and finds out those 5-6 sessions have precluded him from buying firearms. Good lord, there's all kinds of people that split up a 1/4 pound of dirt weed with a buddy 30 years ago, got busted for sales, and can't buy firearms to this day. Or worse, after that first session with the shrink the sheriff takes your guns, "For the Protection of the Collective/Public". How much will you need to straighten that mess out. And all because you just needed to get your focus back.

 

[Caveman Jim]

Here in Washington there are policies called Extreme Risk Protection Order and Child Access Prevention that will not advance this election year (we must wonder why).
Two of my Democrat representatives are Pro-2A & the third only when it suits him and during elections.... They all are called to the mat when anti-gun legislation is afoot in the big house in Olympia.
The rights of the people must be protected but those who see people going off the deep end must speak up.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

I don't see any chance of dealing with the issue of crazy people shooting up schools, etc., until we get serious about mental health care. And by serious, I don't mean speeches from blowhard politicians about what they'll do if they're elected, or people screaming in the streets that "something needs to be done". I'm talking about putting money back into mental health care. I mean re-opening asylums for the worst of the worst. I mean increasing inpatient facility space for those that can be treated, but need to have an extended stay. I mean stopping the B.S. talk about their 'rights' and considering the rights of others to be kept safe from unrestrained psychotics. Anti gun groups have focused huge amounts of resources into changing laws to restrict law-abiding, mentally stable people. If they would turn those enormous resources to caring for the mentally ill, then I do believe this problem would, in a large part, go away. And the rights of the rest of us would remain intact.

Yes! Exactly this!

 

[ZigZagZeke]

Problem is, with the general distrust of the government, so frequently expressed here at Northwest Firearms, just who would be trusted to dig around in peoples psyche to make the determination of who might get some treatment, or who will need some serious time in a padded room? We all want the people that "Will" commit these terrible crimes locked away/treated but who will make those decisions?

I see a person that get's depressed and has the money to grab five or six sessions with a good psychologist just to talk and get his focus back. You're going to have to have a lot of money, those guy/gals don't work cheap! Dude gets back on with his life and the general rigors of life. A year or two later he goes to buy a gun and finds out those 5-6 sessions have precluded him from buying firearms. Good lord, there's all kinds of people that split up a 1/4 pound of dirt weed with a buddy 30 years ago, got busted for sales, and can't buy firearms to this day. Or worse, after that first session with the shrink the sheriff takes your guns, "For the Protection of the Collective/Public". How much will you need to straighten that mess out. And all because you just needed to get your focus back.

We are not talking about someone who goes to a therapist for help in getting over a divorce, or about someone who seeks therapy for anxiety attacks. What we are talking about is the guy who is running down the street buck naked with a meat cleaver, chasing his wife and screaming about her having sex with the martians. These are the kind of people the sheriff used to deliver to the ward at the state mental hospital where I worked as a psych tech in about 1965. In those days law enforcement or immediate family could commit a person involuntarily for 72 hours observation by a state employed psychiatrist and his staff. After the 72 hour assessment there was a court hearing before a judge experienced in psychiatric hearings. The patient was represented by counsel. The hospital staff and law enforcement/family testified as to the patient's condition and behavior. Then a decision was made by the judge either to release the patient or to retain the patient for further treatment for a period of several weeks. At the end of that time the patient got another hearing. Rinse and repeat.

Most of the recent shooters would have been swept up in this process at some point prior to their crimes. All of them had people around them who were concerned about the mental stability of the future shooter and the safety of those around them. This would go a long way toward eliminating some of the most bizarre and gruesome crimes committed these days.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

I don't see quite how that applies here Dave. That article is referring specifically to people with developmental disabilities. While she didn't list out what those are, I assume it refers to folks with things like autism or other physical/mental disorders that retard normal development and make it difficult, if not at times, impossible, to function normally in society. And yes, there is a need to care for these folks, but these are not the folks getting guns and shooting up schools.

My comments are aimed at dangerously mentally ill people. That may include folks who may be sociopaths, suffer from extreme depression, uncontrollable rage, or other psychosis. These are far different from developmentally disabled folks that just have trouble navigating day to day affairs. The types I'm referring to are folks like Adam Lanza, a kid with a very long list of serious mental health issues that was not properly dealt with, and that left us with a devastating school shooting that branched out into extreme gun control measures.

For the worst of the worst, there may be no other choice than to remove them from public interaction, and for some, that may need to be for the rest of their lives. And due to the possibility of violent outbreaks, it will likely need to be in an institutional setting, something with the type of security that can keep them safely out of the public eye. I'm no mental health expert, and I do understand that some institutions in the past have mistreated and abused these people - that isn't what we need. We need proper care, proper restraint and oversight by 3rd parties that can advocate on their behalf should the treatment and facilities be inadequate or even dangerous.

There are some people in this world that are simply too dangerous to leave out on the streets. I find that the 'compassion' that booted many of these folks out of institutions, ends up leaving them with families that don't have the means to properly care for them or even worse, leaves them living on the streets, where they suffer and commit crimes simply to survive. I think sometimes the most compassionate thing to do is to take them out of the public and provide them as comfortable a place as you can, while treating them (where possible) and keeping everyone else protected. That should be possible, if everyone is on the same page on this issue.

Once again you are speaking my mind, and my experience exactly. There is a completely different population of people who are too dangerous to have walking the streets. I know because I once worked with them daily. These are NOT the developmentally disabled (autistic, Down's Syndrome, etc.). These are the violently crazy paranoids and manic-depressives. These are the sociopaths who have no conscience and no regard for other human beings. These people are responsible for a disproportionate chunk of the most heinous and vile crimes being committed in our society. If we continue to let the ignorant anti-gunners blame guns and pass anti-gun laws instead of re-opening our locked down mental facilities these crimes will continue.

 

[etrain16]

Once again you are speaking my mind, and my experience exactly. There is a completely different population of people who are too dangerous to have walking the streets. I know because I once worked with them daily. These are NOT the developmentally disabled (autistic, Down's Syndrome, etc.). These are the violently crazy paranoids and manic-depressives. These are the sociopaths who have no conscience and no regard for other human beings. These people are responsible for a disproportionate chunk of the most heinous and vile crimes being committed in our society. If we continue to let the ignorant anti-gunners blame guns and pass anti-gun laws instead of re-opening our locked down mental facilities these crimes will continue.

That must have been very difficult work. I can't imagine being face to face with such disturbed folks on a regular basis.

It's good to hear your perspective as someone who has been involved in such institutions in the past. I think many feel the same way, but it seems that thinking is simply not okay with far too many people. Maybe someday they'll wake up and find a way to allow this back again, if only in a limited fashion.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

That must have been very difficult work. I can't imagine being face to face with such disturbed folks on a regular basis.

It's good to hear your perspective as someone who has been involved in such institutions in the past. I think many feel the same way, but it seems that thinking is simply not okay with far too many people. Maybe someday they'll wake up and find a way to allow this back again, if only in a limited fashion.

That guy with the meat cleaver gets put down on the spot by the LEOs these days. People like Lanza get sent to an emergency room somewhere, where a medical doctor prescribes some form of psychoactive drug and sends them home with an appointment for therapy in 6 weeks. The drugs are typically not taken and the appointment is typically not kept. Untrained family members are supposed to manage these things as well as the violent behavior. It seldom works out well, as we have seen. Medication does make a significant difference. It makes it possible to get through to these people in some cases. Others remained violent and delusional. Some could return to society relatively quickly. Others never did. The problem is that those people are out walking around in a world with sharp objects these days.

 

[etrain16]

That guy with the meat cleaver gets put down on the spot by the LEOs these days. People like Lanza get sent to an emergency room somewhere, where a medical doctor prescribes some form of psychoactive drug and sends them home with an appointment for therapy in 6 weeks. The drugs are typically not taken and the appointment is typically not kept. Untrained family members are supposed to manage these things as well as the violent behavior. It seldom works out well, as we have seen. Medication does make a significant difference. It makes it possible to get through to these people in some cases. Others remained violent and delusional. Some could return to society relatively quickly. Others never did. The problem is that those people are out walking around in a world with sharp objects these days.

And that really hits a point I don't think anyone has made yet - the average person really is in no position to deal with certain mental illnesses, especially violent behavior. But you're right, the expectation is that the family will just deal with it. And unfortunately, over and over again, we see the results of those choices. I just have a hard time understanding why so many people are against providing better care, under the supervision of properly trained professionals and, when necessary, under lock and key. It seems to me that would be a no brainer, but for some reason, people really reel against that idea.

 

[kilimanjaro]

I know here in our County the Northern State Hospital for the mentally challenged and ill was closed and the entire site turned over to the local tribe. Now the tribe is trying to get rid of the site due to unmaintained buildings, and Governor Innslee made a visit. There was discussion about Chinese industrial parks and such things, but absolutely no discussion about reopening the site as a mental hospital.

So this is what we get from politicians. Lip service about issues, but no action. They want more money, and when they get it, it's not going to be spent actually doing something about the problem.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

And that really hits a point I don't think anyone has made yet - the average person really is in no position to deal with certain mental illnesses, especially violent behavior. But you're right, the expectation is that the family will just deal with it. And unfortunately, over and over again, we see the results of those choices. I just have a hard time understanding why so many people are against providing better care, under the supervision of properly trained professionals and, when necessary, under lock and key. It seems to me that would be a no brainer, but for some reason, people really reel against that idea.

Once again, we agree completely. It's good to know that somebody else "gets it".

 

[bbbass]

One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest was right here. But the abuses were not uncommon and still exist in various kinds of institutions nationally, not just mental facilities. So yes, people are afraid of extending the abuse. IMO we need to restart mental care facilities under careful monitoring. But there is zero political will for that. Things will have to get much worse.

I'll give another example... Against my advice, my wife befriended a gal that was schizophrenic and had sued the Pendleton mental facility for release after years of commitment there. She had a touch of tremors from the heavy drugs used. Several months after release she began drinking. Now, booze and schizophrenia don't mix. She had a total relapse and was recommitted after trying to burn her rental house down and a naked car chase thru town resulting in criminal charges. Point being is that some people can't take care of themselves and wind up being a risk to themselves and others.

Our mental care system is broke and is failing patients and the public. Duh!

 

[ZigZagZeke]

And that really hits a point I don't think anyone has made yet - the average person really is in no position to deal with certain mental illnesses, especially violent behavior. But you're right, the expectation is that the family will just deal with it. And unfortunately, over and over again, we see the results of those choices. I just have a hard time understanding why so many people are against providing better care, under the supervision of properly trained professionals and, when necessary, under lock and key. It seems to me that would be a no brainer, but for some reason, people really reel against that idea.

These people can be dealt with successfully in a setting where they are contained and where there are no sharp objects or firearms. Appropriate medication really does work wonders with these people, and it allows therapy in groups or individually, and despite what you may have heard, most of the people treating them are really hard to fool or con. When they do act out they can usually be restrained by a team of people and put in restraints until they calm down and treatment can be reassessed.

Right now the last resort for these people is living with their families, who try desperately to get some kind of help and almost always fail, who can't get them to take medication regularly, and who don't have time to deal with them 24/7/365. It's no wonder that Lanza killed his mother in her sleep, got access to her guns, and carried out his paranoid fantasies against an unarmed and unsuspecting group of victims. He was put into a situation that was set up to fail. All this was done in order to cut taxes and assuage the feelings of those who watched "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" and felt bad about these "victims" of the system. Well, now society at large is the real victim of the system, and society is trying to create that same environment free of sharp objects (e.g. knives and firearms) that we had in our mental hospitals. The big problem is that you can't do that in an unlimited environment. It just doesn't work.

 

[Slobray]

These people can be dealt with successfully in a setting where they are contained and where there are no sharp objects or firearms. Appropriate medication really does work wonders with these people, and it allows therapy in groups or individually, and despite what you may have heard, most of the people treating them are really hard to fool or con. When they do act out they can usually be restrained by a team of people and put in restraints until they calm down and treatment can be reassessed.

Right now the last resort for these people is living with their families, who try desperately to get some kind of help and almost always fail, who can't get them to take medication regularly, and who don't have time to deal with them 24/7/365. It's no wonder that Lanza killed his mother in her sleep, got access to her guns, and carried out his paranoid fantasies against an unarmed and unsuspecting group of victims. He was put into a situation that was set up to fail. All this was done in order to cut taxes and assuage the feelings of those who watched "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" and felt bad about these "victims" of the system. Well, now society at large is the real victim of the system, and society is trying to create that same environment free of sharp objects (e.g. knives and firearms) that we had in our mental hospitals. The big problem is that you can't do that in an unlimited environment. It just doesn't work.

Correct, Families can only do so much and more often than not the mentally ill end up become the responsibility of law enforcement and/or the prison system and we, as a society end up footing the bill; either in the form of taxes or life lost. What we need is to divert some of the money we spend on prisons and put it back to the state mental hospitals.

http://www.tacreports.org/storage/documents/no_room_at_the_inn-2012.pdf
"No room at the Inn Trends and Consequences of Closing Public Psychiatric Hospitals" is an older 5 year study on the closing of and reducing the number of beds in state mental hospitals. While not perfect, it paints a pretty good picture of what is happening.

A statistical trend emerged between public hospital bed populations and certain violent crimes, including homicide. States that closed more public psychiatric beds between 2005 and 2010 experienced higher rates of violent crime generally and of aggravated assault in particular (2010 data).

Law enforcement impacts
Police and sheriffs in every state have been overwhelmed by an increasing number of mental illness-related calls. A 2011 survey of more than 2,400 law enforcement officials reported that police-related incidents involving individuals with severe mental illnesses were perceived as "a major consumer of law enforcement resources nationally" and are requiring an increasing amount of time and manpower. Respondents reported that mental illness-related calls outnumbered calls for routine larceny, traffic accidents and domestic disputes.

These findings are consistent with anecdotal reports. For example, "San Diego police have seen a 54% increase in the number of mental health and suicide-related calls" and, in Medford, Oregon, police were dealing with "an alarming spike in the number of mentally ill people coming in contact with the police on an almost daily basis." In North Carolina in 2010, sheriffs' departments "reported more than 32,000 trips last year to transport psychiatric patients for involuntary commitments."

Violent crimes and homicides
When individuals with severe mental illness receive appropriate and effective treatment, their risk of committing violent acts is no greater than that of the general population. When they do not receive treatment, multiple studies have found their risk of violent behavior, including homicides, to be significantly elevated.

Ray

 

[bbbass]

those who watched "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" and felt bad about these "victims" of the system. Well, now society at large is the real victim of the system,

Are you saying that Ken Kesey wasn't a victim of the system? And by association that there weren't/aren't any?

I'm not sure what the state of mental health care is in institutions now. We have a relative that works in Pendleton State Hospital be we don't discuss the details. Back in the day that my wife's friend was there, anti-psychotics like Haldol and Thorazine were the rule rather than the exception. Tardive Dyskinesia was rampant with it's permanent damage and life long side-effects - a chemical lobotomy.

So, discounting all institutional mistreatment regardless of what kind of facility (like some general hospitals in the UK) if mental health treatment in a committed setting is better now, then the word needs to get out. Because people my age have long memories.