Mental Illness is not to blame for gun violence

[NiftyNiblick]

Right, which means you can walk into a store and walk out with a gun 10 minutes later.

You're the one who doesn't think that.

That can be corrected easily enough without banning firearms.
It should be in fact.
Even if you have a license to carry, there's a minimum three day waiting period in my state.
It prevents one from doing something stupid while she's having a bad day.

I don't know how to express my concern about gun violence while defending uniquely American rights.
I can only say that it's a very tough dilemma.
But I've seeing gun violence close up--was disgustingly a part of same as coerced by my government--and it does suck.
Nobody's arguing that.

 

[LV426]

I am amused that you still think CRIMINALS will get their guns from a gun store, moron.

Then you're a fucking idiot who can't read because I said that most criminals get their guns FROM YOU.

You're the ones who buy the guns at the gun stores, and then leave your guns unattended and unsecured in your house and car where thieves target and steal them.

The spree shooters, like the "very fine person" in Atlanta, get their guns from gun stores. They largely buy their guns and ammo legally, and have largely never been subject to any mental health evaluation or diagnosis.

 

[LV426]

Still can't make a coherent argument

I made a coherent argument that stumped you.

Most gun deaths are suicides.

Gun suicides are 85% effective.

15,000 people die by gun suicides each year, which means 17,000 people attempt suicide with gun.

If instead of a gun, they attempted suicide with drugs -which is the #1 preferred method- only 3% of those 17,000 people would have died instead of 85%.

So mental health pre-screenings would catch depression and suicidal thoughts, preventing as many as 15,000 deaths each year.

How is that not a coherent argument?

 

[LV426]

Only if you stupidly believe that the mental health profession can screen for mental illnesses and that criminals will obey our laws.

So breaking the law is NOT a mental illness, then, which means criminals are not mentally ill, which means you cannot blame gun violence or gun deaths on mental illness.

 

[LV426]

So you finally admit that you want a total ban and confiscatiopn of the 393 million guns in the US. ]

No, I just want to ban depressed, suicidal, homicidal, out of control and desperate people like you from getting guns.

 

[LV426]

What does my accepting a certain level of risk in my life have to do with success or "quitt(ing)?"

Because it's you telling everyone else that we have to accept YOUR level of risk...which is an accommodation you didn't earn, and not something anyone else agreed to.

You're basically self-centered. You have no empathy for others, and you think everyone should adopt the same level of risk that provides you with personal comfort.

That's pretty shitty, my dude.

 

[LV426]

How is my assessment that some risk is acceptable "not... big picture think(ing)?" It is exactly that.

No.

It is small, self-centered thinking because what you're trying to do is gain accommodation of your personal comfort level, that no one else agreed to, at the expense of everyone else's.

That is the justification you're using to be incredibly fucking lazy.

 

[LV426]

I am stating that a reasonable screening doesn't mean a full battery of psychological testing is necessary and required on a sustained basis to own a firearm, particularly if that testing is done by the government or agents of the government

Why isn't it necessary? People's lives are on the line.

The pre-screening is done by mental health professionals, just like it's done now, so "government" isn't a factor there. In fact, all "government" is doing is paying the doctor to do the exam.

I am willing to accept some reasonable requirements for a purchase of a firearm but not ones that demand 100% safety. That standard is unachievable in a functioning society.

No one is pretending that these things will completely eliminate all gun violence here and now and forever. But, these things can certainly mitigate gun deaths, particularly suicides, if put into practice.

15,000 people die every year from gunshot suicides because they're 85% effective.

If instead of guns, those people tried to kill themselves with drugs, fewer than 600 would die every year...we'd save nearly 15,000 lives all because we decided to make everyone undergo a psych eval before getting a gun, which is a totally reasonable thing to do.

 

[Rune]

You almost never hear about an INCEL go on a mass murder spree with a kitchen knife or lead pipe.

Yet you do.
Japan, where they also used sarin gas.

Nevermind that the worst mass killings in history used bombs and koolaid.

 

[LV426]

That you call it "lazy" is simply an ad hominem since you aren't giving us an alternative argument

Jesus fucking Christ.

It's not my fucking job to make your argument for you, or to do your thinking for you.

You're more than welcome to come up with a plan of your own, but don't try to push your inherent laziness and tendency towards inaction as your plan, because we've just seen on this thread how worthless (and damaging) inaction can be.

for how such screening is possible without massive cost and bureaucratic delay

What cost? What delay? What are you talking about? It just seems like you're tossing off all these non-sequiturs after it's already been fuckin explained to you!

These screenings could be run by fuckin' Medicare...they could be funded by the fees for background checks...

I would envision a system similar to how you get pre-screened for medical marijuana in some states, or how you get screened for Social Security Disability if you have a behavioral or mental condition.

The point is there are myriad ways to implement it and execute on it...you just need to do it to find out what the best methods are.

 

[LV426]

Ah, finally, we reach the ad hominem... How usual.

Way to latch onto the smallest of red herrings to avoid the argument I made.

Oh, if only your delicate sensitivities would allow you to see the argument I made in my post.....but alas, I used a mean word while making my argument, and that was just too much for poor little TA...and now his feelings are hurt.

Boo Hoo.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

ALRIGHT! NOW WE ARE GETTING SOMEWHERE!

What would be an "unreasonable interval"?

Annually? Semi-annually?

I would say...once a year is reasonable. Just like getting your car inspected, or if you live in a state with it, your medical marijuana license renewed. When I lived in CA years ago, before legal pot, I had a Medical Marijuana card that I had to renew every year, and the terms by which I had to renew it was to go to the doctor and get a screening. That was just a copay.

For this, I think the service should be completely free, or perhaps funded by the application and background check fees, which you already pay.

In fact, maybe it's a function of Medicare for All? Maybe M4A provides the free pre-screenings.




Well, of course it's going to be the doctor's determination, so why is that a bad thing? Don't you want a medical opinion on your mental health?

More importantly, it also forces accountability where there currently isn't any. So if a doctor approves someone and that someone turns out to have been mentally ill and went on a rampage, then the doctor who issued the pre-screening faces accountability, so they must also be careful and professional in what they do.




What vested interest would a psychiatrist have in denying or approving your pre-screening? They get paid either way.

you just said it, they are liable. it's safest to flag all people as crazy. its a bad system.

 

[LV426]

Suicide is nobody's business but the that of the person who decided to leave.
People know when they've had enough.
None of us asked to be here in the first place.
We should at least have the right to decide when to leave.
Suicide is not a valid argument in the gun discussion.

Well, unfortunately most gun deaths are suicides, so it is a major part of this debate.

Guns are the most successful way people kill themselves, with an 85% "success" rate.

Drugs, the most common form of suicide attempts, has only a 3% "success" rate.

So I think it's safe to assume that of the 17,000 people who attempt to kill themselves with a gun every year, if those people couldn't get access to a gun and had to try another means to kill themselves, they will more likely than not end up choosing drugs, and 97% of those attempts are not going to succeed.

So if we are able to prevent suicidal people from getting guns, we could potentially save 15,000 lives every year.

 

[domer76]

You need airdropped into an American wilderness with Grizzly bears and wolves.

Why are high-cap magazines needed? Because blacks go home-invading 6 deep.

Your concession is noted.

Next

 

[LV426]

It looks like half a person difference per 100,000 people.

Again, not what I asked.

I asked how does NY's statistics look within the context of every other state?

Is it in the middle?

Is it at the high end?

Is it at the low end?

I have the number, you gave it to me, but have no idea of the context.

 

[LV426]

That can be corrected easily enough without banning firearms.
It should be in fact.
Even if you have a license to carry, there's a minimum three day waiting period in my state.
It prevents one from doing something stupid while she's having a bad day.

I don't know how to express my concern about gun violence while defending uniquely American rights.
I can only say that it's a very tough dilemma.
But I've seeing gun violence close up--was disgustingly a part of same as coerced by my government--and it does suck.
Nobody's arguing that.

Sure a waiting period makes sense, and I totally agree that waiting periods probably prevent gun violence.

But mental illness is patient...depression is patient. Bipolar is patient. These mental illnesses have spent an entire lifetime being patient. So 3 days isn't going to make a difference there.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

Well, unfortunately most gun deaths are suicides, so it is a major part of this debate.

Guns are the most successful way people kill themselves, with an 85% "success" rate.

Drugs, the most common form of suicide attempts, has only a 3% "success" rate.

So I think it's safe to assume that of the 17,000 people who attempt to kill themselves with a gun every year, if those people couldn't get access to a gun and had to try another means to kill themselves, they will more likely than not end up choosing drugs, and 97% of those attempts are not going to succeed.

So if we are able to prevent suicidal people from getting guns, we could potentially save 15,000 lives every year.

I understand and empathize with your concerns, LV.
We need solutions, but we need them in a nation where being a citizen with full rights means having access to personal gun ownership.
We can't change the constitution right now, so shall we dissolve the nation to accomplish this goal?
As I said, you're probably more against that than I am.

 

[domer76]

I thank you for confirming you are a leftie DEm boy. Now do your homework and off to bed with you boy.

I sure am left of center. And you’re still a fucking idiot.

 

[LV426]

Yet you do.
Japan, where they also used sarin gas.
Nevermind that the worst mass killings in history used bombs and koolaid.

You can't kill 100 people in 60 seconds with a knife.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

You can't kill 100 people in 60 seconds with a knife.

That would be even hard to do with a machine gun, in fact.
I doubt if it's ever been done unless one of the bullets struck a gigantic propane gas tank on top of which 100 people were having lunch.