WBUR: Tackling Mental Health and Gun Violence

Reptile

NES Member
Rating - 100%
116   0   0
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
22,577
Likes
13,442
Linsky said that his plan to show medical records to the police would result in 5% fewer suicides in Massachusetts.

In 2010 there were 600 suicides in Mass.

132 were by guns.

Of those 132 people, how many of them were the actual licensed gun owners?

Of the actual gun owners - lets say "50 people" - how many of them would have had mental health records that would be bad enough to be a prohibited?person?

10?

You are left with 10 very suicidal people.

Less than 25% of suicides happen by guns alone so it is likely that of the 10... 3 would only have used a gun since most people do not use guns for suicide.

Ok so 3 people saved.

http://www.mass.gov/eohhs/docs/dph/injury-surveillance/suicide/suicide-update-spring2013.pdf

Now out of 300,000 gun owners in Mass, NONE of those people will be getting help in the future for their mental health for fear of losing their guns.

If 1% of gun owners does have a mental health issue that amounts to 3,000 people.

There will then be 3,000 people who have untreated mental health problems.

I would be more worried about those 3,000 people eventually hurting themselves or others for lack of treatment.

Of those 3,000 gun owners- they should be getting help for their mental health problems rather than being in fear of losing their guns.

Linsky's law will prevent sick people from seeking help which will no doubt result in more deaths.

I think it is more likely that there will be more deaths from Linsky's law than from lives saved from people having to submit mental health records.


Maybe Linsky is smarter than we think...

I am sure he would be high fiving Rosenthal if there were lots more gun violence.

Just like Finestein and Holder salivating after Newtown - Linsky would be joyous at an opportunity to demand more gun restriction due to legal gun owners killing themselves or others.
 
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
29,885
Likes
4,691
Location
Clowns->Here<-Jokers
Linksy has no business setting public policy. He's not very bright and what little he's bothered to read about history seems to have only given him enough information to repeat the worst mistakes of the past.
 

HTRN

Instructor
Dealer
NES Member
Rating - 100%
5   0   0
Joined
Sep 10, 2007
Messages
4,453
Likes
874
Location
York county Maine
Reason.tv did a great piece on this about a month ago called "The Truth About Mental Illness and Guns"

Trying to create yet another class of prohibited persons is a tactic of the enemy. Folks with "mental illness" are generally LESS dangerous than not.



Unfortunately in this, just like so many other topics, emotion rules the conversation and not reason.
We need to control the conversation and shut this BS down as soon as it comes up. We can't debate the merits of banning guns for any group of people, ever. Everyone gets all the rights, until they are locked up because violate the rights of another. Pretty easy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

sig shooter

NES Member
Rating - 100%
10   0   0
Joined
Jan 21, 2007
Messages
3,477
Likes
709
Location
SE MA
The potential for abuse with linskys proposals is astounding. I would even go as far to say that police WII ABUSE IT!!' I cant believe any person would want to give anyone this much power unless they themselves are truly mentally ill!


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk
 

Rob Boudrie

NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
42,533
Likes
23,697
Of the actual gun owners - lets say "50 people" - how many of them would have had
mental health records that would be bad enough to be a prohibited?person?

I suspect Linsky is interested in expanding the definition of prohibited person to include just about anyone with a history of mental illness, even absent the triggers under the current prohibited person definition.

The danger is that such an expansion, or threat thereof, will provide an extremely powerful incentive for LTC holders to keep their problems to themselves and not seek assistance.
 
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
29,885
Likes
4,691
Location
Clowns->Here<-Jokers
I suspect Linsky is interested in expanding the definition of prohibited person to include just about anyone with a history of mental illness, even absent the triggers under the current prohibited person definition.

The danger is that such an expansion, or threat thereof, will provide an extremely powerful incentive for LTC holders to keep their problems to themselves and not seek assistance.
Let's be honest, Linksy is looking to expand the definition of prohibited person to everyone outside LEO/MIL, so debating the finer points with him is pointless. There is no negotiation in good faith with him specifically.
 
Last edited:

PaulD

NES Member
Rating - 100%
27   0   0
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
12,180
Likes
1,255
O'Leary was pretty reasonable.

The others were spewing the typical BS we're all used to in MA.
 

Horrible

NES Member
Rating - 100%
16   0   0
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
12,488
Likes
5,466
Location
NOLA
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.

Linsky and all other Bloomturd followers depend upon propaganda and play on people's emotions to win support. By trotting out the victims of Newtown they are attempting to pull on people's heartstrings. How else will they get people to sacrifice their rights?
 
Top Bottom