WBUR: Tackling Mental Health and Gun Violence

Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
8,252
Likes
5,782
Location
My forest stronghold
Interesting twenty minute discussion on mental health and gun laws.

Linksky is there, of course.

Tim O’Leary, deputy director of the Massachusetts Association for Mental Health makes some really good points.

Bill Fisher, professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice at The University of Massachusetts Lowell and Adjunct Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Massachusetts Medical School is conducting a survey of chiefs and their licensing practices.

http://radioboston.wbur.org/2013/12/09/guns-mental-health

Sorry the picture isn't as good as my last post.....
 
Rating - 100%
23   0   0
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
14,292
Likes
2,132
Location
New Hampshire
Oh god, do they basically just say we're all going to be prohibited if we ever had anxiety?

Feeling a little anxious?

This is how it all starts. "Oh, don't worry, it's only for the really mentally unstable." Fast forward a decade or so into the future, and they'll expand the definition of "mentally unstable" to include anxiety, nervousness, etc.
 
Rating - 100%
5   0   0
Joined
Oct 28, 2012
Messages
1,439
Likes
221
Location
Greenfield, NH
Libs: "Guns are bad! Ban Guns!"

Gun Guys: "It's not the guns, it's the sick ****s getting guns!"

Libs: "Increased background checks!!"

Gun Guys: "No no no, we need better mental health checks to catch these folks before they shoot up a school."

Libs: "Increase funding and keep those with mental health issues from buying guns!"

Gun Guys: "See, now you are spending too much, and violating the civil rights of those who have mental illness!"

Libs: "Let everyone have guns!"

Gun Guys: "Now you are getting the idea!" (Sues when mentally disabled person up the street ND's and hit's his mailbox, and in general complains about how we need to figure out a way to keep them from being able to afford guns... What about gutting govt funded jobs programs!?!)
 
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
11,243
Likes
5,424
Location
Green Eggs and...
I like how Linsky has any credibility at all. I'm fine with a middle of the road on guns person being on a panel... if they know what the **** they are talking about. Being a rabid anti-gun legislator means nothing as far as one's credibility goes. I've met people I didn't fully agree with (that Yale professor who spoke at Umass, for example, though he was very anti AWB, but pro registration and pro waiting period), but at least they knew exactly what they were talking about. Granted someone who actually knows what they are talking about won't be as polar on the issues as Linsky.

Mike
 

BoltThrower

Banned
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Nov 23, 2013
Messages
607
Likes
48
Feeling a little anxious?

This is how it all starts. "Oh, don't worry, it's only for the really mentally unstable." Fast forward a decade or so into the future, and they'll expand the definition of "mentally unstable" to include anxiety, nervousness, etc.

I love how the one guy with any common sense demolishes Linskys law and he can't even defend it except to say "too many people die". The guy correctly says it would de facto have cops denying anyone with history, and it would keep people from seeking treatment out of fear.

Linskys crap may end up killing people, seriously.
 
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
9,920
Likes
4,252
Location
WNW of MHT
Not me, I've graduated to "eccentric".

It's a difficult balancing act, I don't see a lot of options which don't lead to "de facto have cops denying anyone with history, and it would keep people from seeking treatment out of fear." Most of the effort around dealing with mental illness just increases the stigma around the diagnosis.

USA is basically FUBAR in relation to psycho-pharmaceuticals. I know a bunch of people who self-medicate with booze (including cops) because to try anything that is more effective or just less toxic (with or without seeing a psychiatrist and getting a prescription) is at best seen as "weakness" and at worst is a CLM.

A wise man once said "all women are crazy, it's just a question of knowing in what way, before it's too late". To modernize it, everyone is crazy, it's just a matter of degree and impact on society at large.
 

BoltThrower

Banned
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Nov 23, 2013
Messages
607
Likes
48
It's a difficult balancing act, I don't see a lot of options which don't lead to "de facto have cops denying anyone with history, and it would keep people from seeking treatment out of fear." Most of the effort around dealing with mental illness just increases the stigma around the diagnosis.

USA is basically FUBAR in relation to psycho-pharmaceuticals. I know a bunch of people who self-medicate with booze (including cops) because to try anything that is more effective or just less toxic (with or without seeing a psychiatrist and getting a prescription) is at best seen as "weakness" and at worst is a CLM.

A wise man once said "all women are crazy, it's just a question of knowing in what way, before it's too late". To modernize it, everyone is crazy, it's just a matter of degree and impact on society at large.

Yup, the other thing is what constitutes crazy can change easily. You can be involuntarily committed because you oppose a political party. Then again at that point bring an outlaw will be the way to go.

We can't really stop determined suicides, evidenced in Japan with more suicides and no guns, so what we should be doing is helping those with issues get treatment. Nothing to do with guns, just treatment. Same concept with drugs, treatment and no laws putting away addicts that just makes things worse.
 
Rating - 100%
15   0   0
Joined
Dec 18, 2006
Messages
5,769
Likes
3,542
The only choice is to remove all firearms ownership restrictions. Anything else has two very negative and unavoidable components: (1) Everyone is forced to prove they are not restricted, and that means background checks and government permission required, at minimum, to own/purchase a gun; and (2) The system, as we see now, will always fail, and that will result in its expansion with almost no chance of ever pulling back. The expansion will demand more data, meaning medical records, non-criminal police interactions, and all manner of private behavior will be recorded and parsed to allocate liberties. The result is no liberty at all, with default restrictions on all and privileges allocated to the few. We can have this, or we can open our eyes to the real world where risk is inevitable and safety never absolute.
 
Rating - 100%
5   0   0
Joined
Oct 28, 2012
Messages
1,439
Likes
221
Location
Greenfield, NH
The only choice is to remove all firearms ownership restrictions. Anything else has two very negative and unavoidable components: (1) Everyone is forced to prove they are not restricted, and that means background checks and government permission required, at minimum, to own/purchase a gun; and (2) The system, as we see now, will always fail, and that will result in its expansion with almost no chance of ever pulling back. The expansion will demand more data, meaning medical records, non-criminal police interactions, and all manner of private behavior will be recorded and parsed to allocate liberties. The result is no liberty at all, with default restrictions on all and privileges allocated to the few. We can have this, or we can open our eyes to the real world where risk is inevitable and safety never absolute.

I don't know about you, but I definitely don't want the drunk dude next door cleaning his cheapo Mosin (since it's all he can afford) and putting one through my wall.

Firearms restrictions and "prohibited persons" have a place. And while it's not a popular idea around here, I'd rather be scrutinized the way I am now via NICS, than removing all restrictions.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Feb 8, 2010
Messages
745
Likes
107
I don't know about you, but I definitely don't want the drunk dude next door cleaning his cheapo Mosin (since it's all he can afford) and putting one through my wall.

Firearms restrictions and "prohibited persons" have a place. And while it's not a popular idea around here, I'd rather be scrutinized the way I am now via NICS, than removing all restrictions.

I never ever will trust any the gov't running any prohibited persons list. Ted Kennedy was on the "no fly list" four times. He kept on getting flagged because of someone with the same name. The only way is was cleared was because of his position as a senator. Can you imagine if that was you, or I. It would take years to clear up.

This will definitely have negative effects if they try to obtain mental health records. I guarantee that people will not seek help because they would be too afraid of being put on a list. May sound good in theory for Linsky, but it's a terrible, teriible idea.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 2, 2013
Messages
188
Likes
47
Location
Rhode Island
Feeling a little anxious?

This is how it all starts. "Oh, don't worry, it's only for the really mentally unstable." Fast forward a decade or so into the future, and they'll expand the definition of "mentally unstable" to include anxiety, nervousness, etc.

You want a glimpse into the future? Try The UK.

Anti-depressants are probably the most dispensed drugs as a catch-all for whatever ails you, and the local constabularies (who decide if you are fit to enjoy the 1689 Bill Of Rights) will contact your doctor and try to use the fact you were prescribed anti-depressants to stop you enjoying your right.

For the truly mentally unstable, it is a good thing for them and those around them.

For the anti's, it's nice secure backdoor gun control.

I was handed a form this year to fill in when I went for my annual check-up, which basically was asking me if I was a killy nutjob, and declined to fill in as it had no bearing on me whatsoever, and I know it was something that could come and bite me in the ass if the USA went down the UK route.

I've paid the price by way of a couple of nutjobs to have things taken from me.
 
Rating - 100%
5   0   0
Joined
Oct 28, 2012
Messages
1,439
Likes
221
Location
Greenfield, NH
I never ever will trust any the gov't running any prohibited persons list. Ted Kennedy was on the "no fly list" four times. He kept on getting flagged because of someone with the same name. The only way is was cleared was because of his position as a senator. Can you imagine if that was you, or I. It would take years to clear up.

This will definitely have negative effects if they try to obtain mental health records. I guarantee that people will not seek help because they would be too afraid of being put on a list. May sound good in theory for Linsky, but it's a terrible, teriible idea.

If they don't seek help, they get worse. If they get worse, maybe they will off themselves. Maybe OD, maybe hanging, slit wrists, take a dive off a building...

If they off themselves, then they take themselves out of the gene pool. I see no problem with that.

I do have a problem with mentally ill folks having access to firearms that is limited only by their budget.

I suspect you do to, but wouldn't admit that until it came time to lift restrictions. You would really feel comfortable with ANYONE who could afford a firearm having one?
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Feb 8, 2010
Messages
745
Likes
107
If they don't seek help, they get worse. If they get worse, maybe they will off themselves. Maybe OD, maybe hanging, slit wrists, take a dive off a building...

If they off themselves, then they take themselves out of the gene pool. I see no problem with that.

I do have a problem with mentally ill folks having access to firearms that is limited only by their budget.

I suspect you do to, but wouldn't admit that until it came time to lift restrictions. You would really feel comfortable with ANYONE who could afford a firearm having one?

This is where it gets tricky. What do you consider, "mentally ill." Someone who has mild depression. Someone seeking help because of a bad divorce, or a death in the family. Someone who was raped or beaten. What about people who just get help for whatever reason, and are not suicidal, or homicidal. Who defines the prohibited person list.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Feb 8, 2010
Messages
745
Likes
107
I suspect you do to, but wouldn't admit that until it came time to lift restrictions. You would really feel comfortable with ANYONE who could afford a firearm having one?

Restrictions debate should have nothing to do with mental health. There shouldn't be any restrictions at all. I do feel comfortable with anyone owning a firearm as long as they are not in jail or in a mental institution.
 
Rating - 100%
5   0   0
Joined
Oct 28, 2012
Messages
1,439
Likes
221
Location
Greenfield, NH
Restrictions debate should have nothing to do with mental health. There shouldn't be any restrictions at all. I do feel comfortable with anyone owning a firearm as long as they are not in jail or in a mental institution.

Until the shady guy next door who can barely spell his own name has one...

Just as I said, you are ok with it in theory. But until you are faced with an unresponsible person with a gun, you wont feel that way. Ever see a negligent discharge in person?

I haven't. But I had a buddy with an SKS slamfire and the muzzle was not pointed in the best of directions. There are marks in the door of his jeep where pieces of the bullet bounced after it hit the ground.

I have friends who own guns I won't go shooting with, and thats my choice. You don't necessarily get to choose your neighbors.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Feb 8, 2010
Messages
745
Likes
107
Until the shady guy next door who can barely spell his own name has one...

Just as I said, you are ok with it in theory. But until you are faced with an unresponsible person with a gun, you wont feel that way. Ever see a negligent discharge in person?

I haven't. But I had a buddy with an SKS slamfire and the muzzle was not pointed in the best of directions. There are marks in the door of his jeep where pieces of the bullet bounced after it hit the ground.

I have friends who own guns I won't go shooting with, and thats my choice. You don't necessarily get to choose your neighbors.

Sorry, I don't believe in taking people's rights away based on hearsay.

I am not a psychiatrist, nor do I work in the mental health system. I have a relative, and a close personal friend who is. I had a discussion with them about people mental health and firearms. One of the biggest mistakes they said was what Linsky is proposing. When a patient sees a mental health provider, they are going on the principal of trust, or else they wouldn't go. Nobody is going to seek help, if in return they know their rights may be taken away. This is not a communist country where the government needs to know your medical records, at least not yet. I understand if someone makes a threat during therapy that they will be reported to police. I get that, but this isn't what Linsky is talking about.

He wants anybody, who has gone for any reason, and the chief should know about. So who do you consider mentally ill? Someone who has a bad divorce going on, and they seek help. Someone who was in a bad car accident. Someone who just wants to talk. They're not making any threats, just want to talk with a professional. My point is, what linsky is trying to do has nothing to do with trying to make people safe. He just wants to make it easier to strip people's rights.
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
61   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
82,034
Likes
68,453
I like how Linsky has any credibility at all. I'm fine with a middle of the road on guns person being on a panel... if they know what the **** they are talking about. Being a rabid anti-gun legislator means nothing as far as one's credibility goes. I've met people I didn't fully agree with (that Yale professor who spoke at Umass, for example, though he was very anti AWB, but pro registration and pro waiting period), but at least they knew exactly what they were talking about. Granted someone who actually knows what they are talking about won't be as polar on the issues as Linsky.

Mike

People who aren't stupid and/or hoplophobic douchebags will eventually come to hate most gun control. I'm sure if you sat down with those people "in the middle" and told them how either of those things are terrible ideas, in grave detail, they'd probably come around on at least one point or another.

-Mike
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
61   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
82,034
Likes
68,453
Until the shady guy next door who can barely spell his own name has one...

Just as I said, you are ok with it in theory. But until you are faced with an unresponsible person with a gun, you wont feel that way. Ever see a negligent discharge in person?

Yes, I have, on a couple of occasions. Thankfully in either one nobody was injured. I've also been muzzle swept by retards with loaded guns, too. Is that something I like being exposed to? No, but neither makes me feel any kind of urges or inclination that statist authoritarian bullshit is going to address any of those problems. Admit it, you just like the idea because it makes you feel good, nothing more. Once you cross that bridge and stop trying to blow smoke up your own backside, you'll be a better person, I guarantee it.


-Mike
 

Len-2A Training

Instructor
Instructor
NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 98.6%
71   1   0
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
54,761
Likes
15,367
Location
NH
He wants anybody, who has gone for any reason, and the chief should know about. So who do you consider mentally ill? Someone who has a bad divorce going on, and they seek help. Someone who was in a bad car accident. Someone who just wants to talk. They're not making any threats, just want to talk with a professional. My point is, what linsky is trying to do has nothing to do with trying to make people safe. He just wants to make it easier to strip people's rights.

Using their UNLIMITED "DISCRETION" it is much safer for any chief to not issue/revoke a LTC than issue one where there is ANY RISK WHATSOEVER that the person might go off the rails. Watch the drug commercials on TV and pay close attention to the possible side effects of damn near everything they push these days . . . truly dangerous stuff.

So if MH records get in the hands of a police chief, many/most that ever sought help for whatever reason are very likely to become MA PPs! Those chiefs that look for reasons to deny/restrict will have a field day and MCOPA and many other chiefs in the middle will "take the safe side" in decision making.
 
Rating - 100%
5   0   0
Joined
Oct 28, 2012
Messages
1,439
Likes
221
Location
Greenfield, NH
Yes, I have, on a couple of occasions. Thankfully in either one nobody was injured. I've also been muzzle swept by retards with loaded guns, too. Is that something I like being exposed to? No, but neither makes me feel any kind of urges or inclination that statist authoritarian bullshit is going to address any of those problems. Admit it, you just like the idea because it makes you feel good, nothing more. Once you cross that bridge and stop trying to blow smoke up your own backside, you'll be a better person, I guarantee it.


-Mike

You really don't get me.

I feel that having and owning a gun is a responsibility. I know I am safe. But when I let a buddy shoot my AR the other day, and he hands it back to me with a round in the chamber and the safety off (and I call him on it), and he does it again half an hour later, guess what. He doesn't get to shoot my gun anymore.

And the fact that he has neighbors, and doesn't hunt with his gun, and has a 30-30 for "defense"... Guess what, that guy can take his "right" and shove it. Because the family next door that practices safe firearms handling doesn't deserve to have a bullet come through their wall. Imagine that "banned" Daniel Defense Superbowl commercial, but 10 seconds in a bullet comes ripping into the kitchen and sticks the wife in the neck.

It just seems you are ready to chalk a few folks here and there killed by idiot gun owners as the cost of having your right.

The bottom line here is that we are arguing opinions and when it comes to the real world, both of us can pound sand. We'll never see zero restrictions in our lifetime, and we (probably) won't see increased restrictions on the mentally ill.

We can either keep arguing it in circles on an internet forum, or you can tell me why I should spend more cash on a Savage 11 in 308 over an Axis in 308 if I am going to mod it anyway.
 
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Apr 12, 2013
Messages
78
Likes
11
Location
Eastern MA
I feel that having and owning a gun is a responsibility. I know I am safe. But when I let a buddy shoot my AR the other day, and he hands it back to me with a round in the chamber and the safety off (and I call him on it), and he does it again half an hour later, guess what. He doesn't get to shoot my gun anymore.

And the fact that he has neighbors, and doesn't hunt with his gun, and has a 30-30 for "defense"... Guess what, that guy can take his "right" and shove it. Because the family next door that practices safe firearms handling doesn't deserve to have a bullet come through their wall. Imagine that "banned" Daniel Defense Superbowl commercial, but 10 seconds in a bullet comes ripping into the kitchen and sticks the wife in the neck.

It just seems you are ready to chalk a few folks here and there killed by idiot gun owners as the cost of having your right.

The bottom line here is that we are arguing opinions and when it comes to the real world, both of us can pound sand. We'll never see zero restrictions in our lifetime, and we (probably) won't see increased restrictions on the mentally ill.

I understand where you are coming from japollner, but the problem is in the parts of your post I bolded. The right to bear arms is a right, not just a responsibility, and until that friend or neighbor proves that he or she is willfully putting others in danger, they have the right to own and enjoy their firearms. You can elect to educate, disassociate, or move away from them, but you don't have the right to take away theirs. Once someone has proven that they are violent and a danger to others and/or themselves, then and only then do I think they should be "prohibited" from obtaining firearms (legally at least). I understand that criminals and those intent on suicide can/will obtain weapons and kill themselves despite(inspite? of) legislation, but if the law is in anyway meant to reflect our societies ethics, I don't feel we could in good conscience have ZERO restrictions.

I applaud you for reminding your friend of the importance of safe firearm handling, maybe he will better remember what you told him after you took the fun of shooting your AR away. If you are still his friend and he has access to firearms without you around maybe you should continue to educate him.

Lastly the problem is, as you stated, that we will likely NEVER have zero restrictions but it is only probable that we will not have increased restrictions based on mental health, though in my opinion based on the current trend in different states and nationally, that may not be true at all.

On a side note, I can't believe (but should have expected) Linksy said firearm license applicants should have to "sign away their right to privacy" in regard to mental health records.
 
Last edited:

BoltThrower

Banned
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Nov 23, 2013
Messages
607
Likes
48
You really don't get me.

I feel that having and owning a gun is a responsibility. I know I am safe. But when I let a buddy shoot my AR the other day, and he hands it back to me with a round in the chamber and the safety off (and I call him on it), and he does it again half an hour later, guess what. He doesn't get to shoot my gun anymore.

And the fact that he has neighbors, and doesn't hunt with his gun, and has a 30-30 for "defense"... Guess what, that guy can take his "right" and shove it. Because the family next door that practices safe firearms handling doesn't deserve to have a bullet come through their wall. Imagine that "banned" Daniel Defense Superbowl commercial, but 10 seconds in a bullet comes ripping into the kitchen and sticks the wife in the neck.

It just seems you are ready to chalk a few folks here and there killed by idiot gun owners as the cost of having your right.

The bottom line here is that we are arguing opinions and when it comes to the real world, both of us can pound sand. We'll never see zero restrictions in our lifetime, and we (probably) won't see increased restrictions on the mentally ill.

We can either keep arguing it in circles on an internet forum, or you can tell me why I should spend more cash on a Savage 11 in 308 over an Axis in 308 if I am going to mod it anyway.

Thing is, we can't revoke the rights of people who've done nothing wrong yet. That sets up a slippery slope into revocation for a whole variety of BS reasons. If you shoot someone for any reason other than self defense, then your rights go away once you're convicted. I own a .357 and if I shot through the wall I'd likely tear right through my neighbors house. Doesn't mean I shouldn't have a gun though.
 
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
11,243
Likes
5,424
Location
Green Eggs and...
You really don't get me.

I feel that having and owning a gun is a responsibility. I know I am safe. But when I let a buddy shoot my AR the other day, and he hands it back to me with a round in the chamber and the safety off (and I call him on it), and he does it again half an hour later, guess what. He doesn't get to shoot my gun anymore.

And the fact that he has neighbors, and doesn't hunt with his gun, and has a 30-30 for "defense"... Guess what, that guy can take his "right" and shove it. Because the family next door that practices safe firearms handling doesn't deserve to have a bullet come through their wall. Imagine that "banned" Daniel Defense Superbowl commercial, but 10 seconds in a bullet comes ripping into the kitchen and sticks the wife in the neck.

It just seems you are ready to chalk a few folks here and there killed by idiot gun owners as the cost of having your right.

The bottom line here is that we are arguing opinions and when it comes to the real world, both of us can pound sand. We'll never see zero restrictions in our lifetime, and we (probably) won't see increased restrictions on the mentally ill.

We can either keep arguing it in circles on an internet forum, or you can tell me why I should spend more cash on a Savage 11 in 308 over an Axis in 308 if I am going to mod it anyway.

I'm a huge proponent of VOLUNTEER safety training. Personally if I owned a gun shop I'd have my sales people go over all the safety rules with people who weren't obviously experienced with the use of firearms. I think it would also be a good idea for manufacturers to ship firearms with a dvd, though not a requirement.

That said, statistically, fatal firearms accidents are almost negligable. This doesnt mean we shouldnt work to reduce them further, but at approximately 500 annually when 50% of households have guns... those are good odds. Especially when you look at other accidental death numbers. Which dwarf fatal firearms accidents.

Mike



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk 2
 
Top Bottom