Mentally Ill Introduce Bill....

[nuf]

This really is comedy deluxe, first you were only copying and repeating Fox News bullet points over and over, now you even copy dawg and use the same lame excuse for your sissy ass fear to repeat to other peoples posts. We all know that all the pansy "i ignore you" people read the posts by Slick and Res.

So put away your skirt and dry your tears, then stop pretending to ignore people and a real discussion can be had.

The only time I have the misfortune of reading the crap posted by the ignorees
is when I forget to log in or their foolish dribble is quoted in a post by someone I respect.

[Dawg]

In the news today, I saw where this guy was adjudicated mentally incompetent and kicked out of school... while you gun hater types might not know this, he lied, so far, on at least part of the FBI back ground check on that "legally purchased firearm".
Theres a list of questions you fill out- then they run your social thru "NICS" they either approve or disapprove or make you wait etc.

[Pudfark]

I have refrained from posting further on this thread on purpose....
I was curious to see? What the comments would be....

Slick seemed to grasp the meaning immediately...but, he didn't pursue it....(I had hoped he would)
Ruggie responded to Slick's comment about it...but, he didn't pursue it....(I had hoped that he would)

No Politician has addressed the "root problem"...and it seems likely they won't.

The problem is Mental Health.
1. How to identify those with that issue.
2. How to treat them, involuntarily.
3. How to pay for it, who?

The tragedy in Arizona and others else where, have all occurred because?
All of the State's governments have refused to address these issues.

When I retired from Law Enforcement, Harris County Tx, population 5 million plus,
had less than 100 beds available for indigent mentally ill patients. Every bed was
full, 24-7. The overflow? Given a shot of Thorazine, a prescription and shoved
out the door. A never ending repetitive cycle day after day. That was seven years
ago and it still has not changed.

So, here is some common sense for all.
The path to fewer tragedies lies in treating the mentally ill, not regulating the sane.

It is that simple.

[Buzz]

It's pretty hard to commit someone.

It's not that simple.

You'll never catch them all in time.

[Pudfark]

Buzz, I used to "commit" folks all the time, involuntarily...by, that, I mean the mentally ill.
It was call an EMHO...Emergency Mental Health Order....
All you had to do? Swear to and briefly state what actions the "patient/person" did, that was
a danger to their self or another....

I see your point...it is correct...changes need to be made to the laws first, then procedures and funding...
This is the only way to "regulate" care for the mentally ill.
Once the process of identifying these persons has begun?
Common sense would dictate a national data base to I.D. them.
Integrate that with the NCIC data base and State data bases?
You can then regulate licenses and permissions to the identified
persons with mental health issues.

Had that system been in place and people educated to use it?
The tragedy in Arizona might well have been averted.
No system is perfect.
Not to have any system for something like this is?
Damn near criminal in my opinion....
My opinion in this regard is professional and based upon my experiences.

Anybody got a better idea? I'm all "ears".

[callmeslick]

Pud, your thinking on this one is refreshingly sound. However, it isn't as simple as you or I might wish. Every state has different laws. Here in PA, for instance it is near-impossible to commit someone until they demonstrate to be a 'clear and imminent danger to themself or others'. By which time, it is often too late. I have worked a long time, and spent a fair bit of coin trying to rectify this, due to a tragic event in my wife's family decades back. Until a more enlightened method emerges of treating the mentally ill, not only will tragedies like this recent shooting continue, the lives of thousands of seriously ill people will be tragic on a daily basis. Ultimately, in a hundred different ways, society pays for this failure.

[callmeslick]

Callmesick and RD are both rabid leftists. They obviously want to ban guns in order to
keep our rights in check to further their Communist Utopia.

of course, if you read what I wrote above, you'd know that not to be the case, but you're too stupid to do so.

The second amendment was written by the same armed rebels that started a revolution and
wrote the declaration of independence.
The second amendment is all about keeping government in check.
Armed people gathering to discuss FREEDOM and RIGHTS is what
the second amendment is all about.

actually, no, it was about maintaining a militia, when no standing army was provided for due to lack of government funds at the time. SOME of the founders felt as you do, but clearly not all of them. As I stated above, the amendment is clear, and doesn't preclude owning any weaponry. That has been diluted down for a few generations worth of legislatures and Supreme Courts.

Once again, you are both too thick to grasp these simple words in the 2nd, and too stupid to open your minds to the imput of others based upon preconceived, ignorant notions. Live and be well, and know that you would be an ongoing embarrassment to the enlightened souls that founded this nation.

[callmeslick]

I see no reason why you or I could not both own and carry a shoulder-fired missle.

I havent looked it up but im pretty sure the gov have classed that as a D/D hence spoiling your fun

no matter what the government has classed what, the wording of the 2nd is abundantly clear:
The People shall have the right to keep and bear Arms. Now, that usage of the language is pretty archaic, but in modern terms, it says the People have the right to own and carry weapons. It doesn't limit the scope whatsoever. Now, do I think that it is a good idea to run with that wording, in a civil society? No. One illusion that people cite, who cling to the 2nd is that it preserves the freedoms of the people. However, as you point out, the government has long since established that the People can only own small-scale weaponry of no real threat to that of the government. Such was not the case when the Amendment was adopted, at all.
Frankly, in modern times(post industrialization) the People are FAR more likely to be subjugated by lack of financial means than by force, but nevermind, if we give to rubes the illusion of a limited 2nd amendment, they might not notice......until it's far too late.

[Buzz]

Slick.....I apologize for my comment about your family if they were involved in something like this.

I was just trying to drive my point across that we need to stop guys like this. One way of the other. Sometimes violence prevents violence of the innocent. It's not my style to shoot someone, but I would to protect others.

Getting them committed before damage is done is the answer, but is it practicable? So many are out there that don't show a real problem until it's too late.

[callmeslick]

Slick.....I apologize for my comment about your family if they were involved in something like this.

I was just trying to drive my point across that we need to stop guys like this. One way of the other. Sometimes violence prevents violence of the innocent. It's not my style to shoot someone, but I would to protect others.

Getting them committed before damage is done is the answer, but is it practicable? So many are out there that don't show a real problem until it's too late.

don't worry, Buzz......I have a thicker skin that some others apparently have, and further, read no malicious intent in your words in the first place. So, no, I didn't put you on my 'ignore' list

My point was this: despite the idea you express, regarding violence to prevent other violence, the whackos are always going to get the first shot, unless the crowd includes someone as paranoid as they are. Further,
human reaction always seems to dictate a pause to process the reality unfolding, and a hundred armed citizens aren't going to prevent anything. As to the practical reality of intervention, you might be surprised at how often schizophrenia and other psychotic illnesses DO manifest in far less harmful ways at first. It's just that our society, and healthcare system, don't like to bother to treat until things are too far gone. In this case, it seems obvious that Loughner was clearly delusional, and acting out in such a way that I suspect part of him was seeking out intervention. Sadly, we'll never know how that could have worked out.....