Skip to main content

View Diary: In wake of latest mass shooting, senators call for an investigation ... but not about guns (63 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Always treating the symptom, not the cause, is (12+ / 0-)

    inevitably malpractice.

    "Toutes les guerres sont civiles, car c'est toujours l'homme contre l'homme... (All wars are civil wars, because it's always brother against brother...)" - Francois Fenelon (1651-1715)

    by Superskepticalman on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 08:43:42 AM PDT

    •  The cause is lack of mental health care.. (7+ / 0-)

      .in this country.

      Do a search on Google Images for "inpatient psychiatric beds per capita", and you'll see they have declined over 90% since 1960.

      Learn about Centrist Economics, learn about Robert Rubin's Hamilton Project. www.hamiltonproject.org

      by PatriciaVa on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 09:04:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Would the shooters in Newtown and the Navy ... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        judyms9, Superskepticalman

        ... Yard have accepted mandatory mental health screening and treatment? I think that is very unlikely.

        True, we need more and better mental health treatment, including "psychiatric beds", but that's not gonna be any answer to all the "Gun Fail" violence David Waldman's diaries document, for example, or for any of those massacre shooters for whom no one identified or disclosed any mental health concern.

        2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

        by TRPChicago on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 09:27:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Can't keep the mentally impared from guns (5+ / 0-)

        because Paranoid Delusionals make up the base for the NRA.

        The polls don't tell us how a candidate is doing, the polls tell us how the media is doing.

        by Thumb on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 10:01:32 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Really? (0+ / 0-)

          How many of these mass shootings have been perpetrated by someone that is a member of the NRA? I don't recall a single one where this was raised, although I'm sure there must have been some just by random chance given the number of NRA members in the country.

          Although I'm not a member of the NRA, I've met quite a few people who I know are members and not a single one of them has struck me as "Paranoid" or "Delusional" or mentally ill in any way. It is the case that I live in an urban rather than rural setting and live where the education level is high so my experiences are not statistically representative of the whole country.

          But, do you have any statistically significant evidence for your claim?

          •  Setting aside the snark (0+ / 0-)

            My comment wasn't a professional clinical assessment, and it was less an assessment of mass shooters' membership in the NRA as it was an indictment of those NRA supporters who defend the rights of these shooters to have accessed the weapons that they did.

            That said, when I hear NRA supporters claim that their right/justification to own guns is based on their perceived need to be able to defend themselves from an "oppressive government" I think I can safely put them down in the Paranoid Delusional camp without having to find a link to a scientific study backing this up, as well as feel justified in my belief that there's no practical assessment for "mental health" that they would consider an acceptable reason to restrict anyone's access to guns.

            The polls don't tell us how a candidate is doing, the polls tell us how the media is doing.

            by Thumb on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 03:11:21 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Maybe it depends on where one hangs out. (0+ / 0-)
              feel justified in my belief that there's no practical assessment for "mental health" that they would consider an acceptable reason to restrict anyone's access to guns.
              You have obviously met very different NRA members than I have over the years. I think few that I've met wouldn't support a firearms possession restriction on those adjudged to currently be mentally ill (perhaps limited to diagnoses that tend to be correlated with violence against others and those that are not managed reliably through medication) through a legal process.
              when I hear NRA supporters claim that their right/justification to own guns is based on their perceived need to be able to defend themselves from an "oppressive government" I think I can safely put them down in the Paranoid Delusional camp
              Speaking as a supporter of the Second Amendment (although I'd entertain repealing it or amending it) along with all the other parts of the Constitution, I would simply say that it's just as reasonable to reword that this way:
              when I hear ACLU supporters claim that their right/justification for their email not to be snooped on by the government is based on their perceived need to be able to avoid retribution from an "oppressive government" I think I can safely put them down in the Paranoid Delusional camp
              Of course I also reject the reworded "quote" (and would not entertain amending or repealing the Fourth Amendment to make such government snooping clearly acceptable).
      •  How much of this... (0+ / 0-)

        ...is the result of court rulings in lawsuits brought by the ACLU et al that limited the ability of governments to commit people to mental hospitals if they were not a danger to themselves or society?

        It seems like any comparisons of inpatient beds which span those decisions are pretty meaningless.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site