Skip to main content

View Diary: Stop blaming mental illness (58 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Better treatment for mental illness (0+ / 0-)

    is important, but I think the. discussion is not very relevant to finding a solution to these mass murders.

    I do find it fascinating how the right wing is trying to use it as a talking point.
    There not doing a very good job. It goes something like this.

    "We need to do something about these massacres. Let's do something about mental illness. But not Obamacare, because that is bad. We need to be able to identify these crazy people before they do something. But banning assault weapons won't work because it is to difficult to identify an assault weapon".

    What are they suggesting? Screen every American for mental illness, or just people who want buy a weapon?
    Are they suggesting it is easier to identify the potential crazy person who will be the next mass murderer, than to come up with a definition for an assault weapon?

    I think people should be very alert when the right wing start talking about mental illness being the problem. I seriously doubt that would lead to better treatment programs, and probably may be an excuse to gut  4th amendment in order to preserve the 2nd, eventhough that would not address the real problem.

    •  There is no guarantee that (0+ / 0-)

      any given gun owner won't develop a mental illness at some point in their lives. So there is always going to be a danger that someone who is mentally ill has access to a gun.

      Because gun ownership is a Constitutional right, it's clear that public access to weapons isn't going to be nullified in my lifetime (or yours, probably). And not all - or even very many - mental health abnormalities cause sufferers to become murderously violent. Mental health care is difficult enough to access as it is, and automatic abrogation of Constitutional rights if one does get help surely isn't conducive to people seeking out that help.

      Probably the most effective thing we could do is impose much greater restrictions on semi-automatic weaponry, especially the number of bullets that can be fired before reloading. Special classes (of people) do need guns with greater capacity, but the general public does not. 5 or 6 bullets in a magazine should be enough for any purpose a regular person has - like those who aren't such good shots who need to kill a rabid animal instead of simply wound it.

      That is me speaking as a person who has chosen to live far out in the country where police are 45 minutes away on a good day, neighbors cannot be seen or heard, and three-quarters of the property is bordered by state game lands and about a million acres of National Forest bear sanctuary. Worse, I've got livestock, pets and grandkids who are here a lot. We have had to kill rabid animals, starving abandoned dogs (always pisses me off that they were abandoned, but I'm not going to let them eat my ducks or tear into my dogs or grandkids). And way too many well-armed hunters don't pay any attention to posted private property signs on their way to killing some deer/bear/turkeys. They universally have more respect when they know we aren't helpless here.

      Cities and crowded megaburbs are a whole different deal, I don't know what ultimately is the best gun control there.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site