This is where we fall into the loop of "anyone who shoots another person is obv. mentally ill." "Not guilty by reason of being mentally ill" I mean, clearly, obviously, no doubt about it, if a person does these things, they are insane. If you try to argue that they are not, then we need to recalibrate/redefine insanity to include these people. But until we get the 2A people to concede that people who are {{choose your terminology}} not sane {{choose a degree}} should not be in possession of {{choose your weapon}}, then the mental health argument is a distraction. I'm perfectly fine with people having guns. I'm also fine with people not having access to guns unless they show some basic level of being responsible. Like, get an endorsement on your driver's license.
When we are talking about restrictions based on mental stability, the question does become how broadly would the net be cast? To be adjudged not guilty by reason of insanity, it must be proven that the defendant did not understand what is right and what is wrong at the time of the crime’s commission. That is a narrow standard, one that probably would not be met in most of these mass shooting incidents.
Especially not if recklessly projected on Tik Tok and Facebook. I mean, there's insanity and there's insanity...
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
May 9, 2023 - 11:22am
ScottFromWyoming wrote:
This is where we fall into the loop of "anyone who shoots another person is obv. mentally ill."
"Not guilty by reason of being mentally ill"
I mean, clearly, obviously, no doubt about it, if a person does these things, they are insane. If you try to argue that they are not, then we need to recalibrate/redefine insanity to include these people. But until we get the 2A people to concede that people who are {{choose your terminology}} not sane {{choose a degree}} should not be in possession of {{choose your weapon}}, then the mental health argument is a distraction. I'm perfectly fine with people having guns. I'm also fine with people not having access to guns unless they show some basic level of being responsible. Like, get an endorsement on your driver's license.
When we are talking about restrictions based on mental stability, the question does become how broadly would the net be cast?
To be adjudged not guilty by reason of insanity, it must be proven that the defendant did not understand what is right and what is wrong at the time of the crimeâs commission. That is a narrow standard, one that probably would not be met in most of these mass shooting incidents.
I mean, clearly, obviously, no doubt about it, if a person does these things, they are insane. If you try to argue that they are not, then we need to recalibrate/redefine insanity to include these people.
Hunter Biden lied on his forms and has gotten a pass on that so far. It's been under "investigation" for what 4 years ?
2. Selective enforcement of laws is exactly how we got to where we are today in this country. Selective enforcement has been a concern of mine going back to the mid 60's.
2. Yes, and right now laws are different between states. Some states want to control women's bodies in the name of life, but can't bring themselves to do background checks on all gun sales.
Not all all 50 states have the same laws. Utopian Law Enforcement is another misdirection.
Let's stop right here.
The background checks are a federal program, the same in every state.
Biden got a pass, because of selective enforcement of a federally administered program.
Seems like the gun and immigration issue is primed for a compromise...GOP gives something on guns, Dems on immigration.
But what do I know.
The lonely middle. Pragmatic compromise is hard to do in the current climate of extreme polarization and rules of thumb/ideology gone wild.
I am not a fan of the presidential system for a laundry list of reasons and have often wondered if the presidential system â combining the head of state and head of government in the same inevitably partisan individual â contributes to this polarization and the culture wars. But many other countries have a presidential system minus the extreme polarization.
So let's distract with a discussion of these issues in Canada.
Gun control and reforms in the last several decades have been effective in Canada. Recently, the federal government brought in more severe restrictions on hand guns that seem to go too far and have catalyzed considerable push back. We don't have a 'freedom gun' suicide problem in the Canada (yet) and hand guns that are typically used in crimes are illegal, many if not most originating from the USA. Hunters and target shooters who carry hand guns are not a problem.
Immigration rates are proportionately the highest among the rich western countries and myths abound. Most are family reunification recruits, and do not come in under economic criteria. Many if not most experience severe difficulty communicating in one of the official languages. Not surprisingly, Canadian productivity and real per capita incomes have largely stagnated over the course of this century.
Socialized health services work because of frustratingly long waiting lists. Family reunification candidates step foot in British Columbia for example and are immediately eligible for full medical coverage.
Debates about immigration are not about flow numbers or criteria or actual net benefits for the ALL Canadians. They quickly dissolve into a "Oh you are against immigration, therefore you must be a racist." These same people are utterly incapable of explaining how the current immigration policy benefits First Nations. Many First Nations are not particularly happy with the current flow of immigrants. To understate the case. When throngs of recent SE Asia immigrants travel over your traditional lands harvesting everything in sight....
On immigration, Canadians are just as anti-data, anti-science and anti-expertise as the worst MAGA Republicans and Biden Democrats. It is possible for a Canadian to just watch television news and be an expert. Read elite media? Huh!?!! Read peer-reviewed journals. Nevah! Know what economists and demographers have to say about immigration? Are you kidding!?!!
Carefully examine crime data in places like Greater Vancouver? Why on earth? Perhaps targeted shootings and drive by shootings are viewed as a badge of honour, as a status symbol for chronically insecure Canadians?
One of the problems that has been pointed out in the literature on numerous occasions is that immigrants in Canada do not integrate well compared to other jurisdictions. This seems to also carry forward to first generation children of immigrants. Roughly 1/3 of the targeted shootings in Greater Vancouver are Punjabi on Punjabi, for example. Most are secularized Sikhs from what I observe. In passing, traditional believing and practising Sikhs are the sweetest people you could imagine.
Glance at the lists of the most dangerous violent criminals published by the police for southwestern British Columbia and the majority appear to be children of recent immigrants. You can tell there is a big disconnect when the police continue to demonize patched motorcycle club members yet many ordinary people are super happy to have patched motorcycle club members living close to them as neighbours.
In terms of how people relate on a day to day basis, social conventions and norms are critically important in regards to how resources are allocated. Bring in large numbers of outsiders with different values and that equilibrium is upset.
To be clear, I am not saying that the complexity of the problem justifies delaying actions that can and should be taken now until such time, perhaps never, that an all-encompassing strategy materializes. I am not in agreement with those who deny that the ready availability of guns is a significant part of the problem, if not the heart of the problem.
Although I recognize that there can be a mental health component to these mass shootings, I also fear it is being used as a cop out to avoid the focus on the ready availability of guns in this society. One certainly can assert that anyone who goes heavily armed into a school or shopping mall or a bank or a dance hall and shoots as many people as he can has a mental deficiency. That, however, is a retroactive assessment, and an anecdotal one as opposed to a clinical one. Many of these mass shooters had not been â or could not have been â diagnosed as suffering from a mental illness before the commission of these acts. As others here have underscored, that someone suffers from a mental illness does not mean they are prone to violence. In fact, the vast majority are not.
Some of these mass shooters were law-abiding citizens â up till the time they were not. And then it was too late.
Although I recognize that there can be a mental health component to these mass shootings,
This is where we fall into the loop of "anyone who shoots another person is obv. mentally ill."
"Not guilty by reason of being mentally ill"
I mean, clearly, obviously, no doubt about it, if a person does these things, they are insane. If you try to argue that they are not, then we need to recalibrate/redefine insanity to include these people. But until we get the 2A people to concede that people who are {{choose your terminology}} not sane {{choose a degree}} should not be in possession of {{choose your weapon}}, then the mental health argument is a distraction. I'm perfectly fine with people having guns. I'm also fine with people not having access to guns unless they show some basic level of being responsible. Like, get an endorsement on your driver's license.
We have plenty of laws that are not enforced. 1. Why should we add more that may or may not be enforced ?
2. Selective enforcement of laws is exactly how we got to where we are today in this country. Selective enforcement has been a concern of mine going back to the mid 60's.
We have so many bad laws on the books as it is that 3. anyone can drag out and ruin some poor soul's life just because they looked at someone wrong.
Start enforcing laws. 4. Then we can see the ones that work and should be kept and see the ones that don't work and should be ended. The only way to do that is to enforce the laws as written and act accordingly.
1. What the hell kind of logic is that? Unless no one ever speeds again, so we shouldn't have speed limits? No more EPA, since pollution keeps happening. Why bother?
2. Yes, and right now laws are different between states. Some states want to control women's bodies in the name of life, but can't bring themselves to do background checks on all gun sales.
3. Right now we have people being shot and killed for just pulling in the wrong driveway, getting in the wrong car or knocking on the wrong door. Ending those soul's lives.
4. How well must a law work for anyone to determine if its good or not? Perfectly? Most of the time?
Current rights being taken away and laws passed that ban women's private reproductive health decisions are being made not on 'evidence,' but on belief. Religion, not fact, is being allowed to make law now. Are those the kinds of laws you are referring to?
Not all all 50 states have the same laws. Utopian Law Enforcement is another misdirection.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
May 9, 2023 - 8:30am
Beaker wrote:
Amen.
More need to grasp the link between mental health issues and these mass shootings. Short of grabbing every gun and grabbing disturbed people off the streets and throwing them in mental institutions with indeterminate release possibilities, there's just no simple fix. Political capital will need to be spent by some brave politicians to make any measurable difference.
To be clear, I am not saying that the complexity of the problem justifies delaying actions that can and should be taken now until such time, perhaps never, that an all-encompassing strategy materializes. I am not in agreement with those who deny that the ready availability of guns is a significant part of the problem, if not the heart of the problem.
Although I recognize that there can be a mental health component to these mass shootings, I also fear it is being used as a cop out to avoid the focus on the ready availability of guns in this society. One certainly can assert that anyone who goes heavily armed into a school or shopping mall or a bank or a dance hall and shoots as many people as he can has a mental deficiency. That, however, is a retroactive assessment, and an anecdotal one as opposed to a clinical one. Many of these mass shooters had not been â or could not have been â diagnosed as suffering from a mental illness before the commission of these acts. As others here have underscored, that someone suffers from a mental illness does not mean they are prone to violence. In fact, the vast majority are not.
Some of these mass shooters were law-abiding citizens â up till the time they were not. And then it was too late.
I was putting the "Guns aren't the issue, Mental Health is" argument by using Fentanyl in place of guns. I'm shocked you guys didn't catch that.
Of course I know about addiction. But why is the drug itself the problem, but it's a 'mental health' issue with guns? Guns are a common denominator in mass shootings like Fentanyl is with overdoses. Yet, treated differently. Anyone for a slice of Selective Cause and Effect? Apparently the sacred second amendment means it can never be about the "guns."
. Still no one addressed my point of questioning the absolutism in: "Why have laws at all if they don't completely solve the problem?" mindset of gun enthusiasts.
Ok, point taken, but it is not the same thing. A gun is a gun is a gun. With fentanyl, you never know when it's present.
Regarding your last point ...
We have plenty of laws that are not enforced. Why should we add more that may or may not be enforced ?
Hunter Biden lied on his forms and has gotten a pass on that so far. It's been under "investigation" for what 4 years ?
Selective enforcement of laws is exactly how we got to where we are today in this country. Selective enforcement has been a concern of mine going back to the mid 60's.
We have so many bad laws on the books as it is that anyone can drag out and ruin some poor soul's life just because they looked at someone wrong.
Start enforcing laws. Then we can see the ones that work and should be kept and see the ones that don't work and should be ended. The only way to do that is to enforce the laws as written and act accordingly.
See our border. We have plenty of immigration laws, few of which are being enforced.
And yet, other nations do seem to take action well short of "grabbing every gun and grabbing disturbed people", and it typically has a net positive effect. There are fine examples (and yes, many include letting people have guns), of policies that work.
More need to grasp the link between mental health issues and these mass shootings. Short of grabbing every gun and grabbing disturbed people off the streets and throwing them in mental institutions with indeterminate release possibilities, there's just no simple fix. Political capital will need to be spent by some brave politicians to make any measurable difference.
Mental Illness is a straw man argument. The truly mentally ill generally don't go looking for guns to kill. Mental Illness is not the issue behind much of gun violence as much as group think mentality online, vitriol that incites violence, fear, hatred, resentment ... these are the reasons given in shooter manifestos and investigations after the fact. Anti semitism, anti-illegal immigrant, anti-women, anti democracy, etc. January 6 had a lot of mob mentality and nearly a third were armed... all of them mentally ill?
Let's stick with solid evidence instead of ephemeral naval gazing on 'mental health.'
Implement Red Flag Laws, Thorough Background Checks, Waiting Periods, Raise the Age, Safe Storage Laws NOW. No misdirection, no absolutism.
More need to grasp the link between mental health issues and these mass shootings. Short of grabbing every gun and grabbing disturbed people off the streets and throwing them in mental institutions with indeterminate release possibilities, there's just no simple fix. Political capital will need to be spent by some brave politicians to make any measurable difference.
And yet, other nations do seem to take action well short of "grabbing every gun and grabbing disturbed people", and it typically has a net positive effect. There are fine examples (and yes, many include letting people have guns), of policies that work.
I do not believe anyone here is arguing that placing further restrictions on the purchase and ownership of guns is all that need be done. A focus on enhancing treatment opportunities available to those with mental health issues certainly is warranted and not just for reasons of addressing the blight of mass murders (those opportunities are sorely lacking). That said, a focus on mental health in the context of mitigating these mass shootings cannot be divorced from restrictions on purchasing and owning guns. The point of these nascent red flag laws, for example, is to impose additional restrictions on those adjudged to be a danger to others due to mental illness.
Amen.
More need to grasp the link between mental health issues and these mass shootings. Short of grabbing every gun and grabbing disturbed people off the streets and throwing them in mental institutions with indeterminate release possibilities, there's just no simple fix. Political capital will need to be spent by some brave politicians to make any measurable difference.
I was just (what I thought) correcting your apparent misconception regarding fentanyl.
Just wait until ammunition is being created with 3-D printing. Delran slugs anyone ?
AI is for sure going to be helpful with that.
I was putting the "Guns aren't the issue, Mental Health is" argument by using Fentanyl in place of guns. I'm shocked you guys didn't catch that.
Of course I know about addiction. But why is the drug itself the problem, but it's a 'mental health' issue with guns? Guns are a common denominator in mass shootings like Fentanyl is with overdoses. Yet, treated differently. Anyone for a slice of Selective Cause and Effect?
Apparently the sacred second amendment means it can never be about the "guns."
Still no one addressed my point of questioning the absolutism in: "Why have laws at all if they don't completely solve the problem?" mindset of gun enthusiasts.
I do not believe anyone here is arguing that placing further restrictions on the purchase and ownership of guns is all that need be done. A focus on enhancing treatment opportunities available to those with mental health issues certainly is warranted and not just for reasons of addressing the blight of mass murders (those opportunities are sorely lacking). That said, a focus on mental health in the context of mitigating these mass shootings cannot be divorced from restrictions on purchasing and owning guns. The point of these nascent red flag laws, for example, is to impose additional restrictions on those adjudged to be a danger to others due to mental illness.
Agreed...
And if it's generally agreed that mental health is a growing problem, shouldn't we do everything in our power to prevent the lonely, depressed, and struggling members of our society from harming themselves or others?
So people have fewer friends
And accordingly get less emotional support....
Not restricting their access to guns is dangerous for all, and is profoundly hypocritical for the "pro-life" party to ignore an obvious method of protecting human beings.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
May 8, 2023 - 4:32pm
I do not believe anyone here is arguing that placing further restrictions on the purchase and ownership of guns is all that need be done. A focus on enhancing treatment opportunities available to those with mental health issues certainly is warranted and not just for reasons of addressing the blight of mass murders (those opportunities are sorely lacking). That said, a focus on mental health in the context of mitigating these mass shootings cannot be divorced from restrictions on purchasing and owning guns. The point of these nascent red flag laws, for example, is to impose additional restrictions on those adjudged to be a danger to others due to mental illness.
To understand the level of intransigence, it helps to think about the ideology that conservatives subscribe to. Fear and a sense of futility are central to right-wing thinking. For the right, the world is a dangerous and terrifying place in which Evil is lurking around every corner. Such Evil could be in the form of âgroomersâ coming for your children (by reading to them while wearing makeup) or it could be the âChina threat.â Paranoia about globalists, communists, immigrants, criminals, and other Big Scary Others is ubiquitous on the right.
If your mental world is already one of extreme (and delusional) fear, mass shooters do not seem like an aberration. They are just another threat among many. The natural state of life, in much conservative literature, is ânasty, brutish, and short,â and the forces of order and civilization only just barely keep the forces of evil chaos at bay. Conservatism is characterized by an extreme pessimism about our ability to improve the world; the standard argument is that progressives are naive and hubristic in their desire to effect change through social policy and whatever they do will âhurt the very people they are trying to help.â The view of human nature that underpins right-wing thought is false, but itâs a compelling story.
If you view the world as a place full of virtually uncontrollable menacing evil, itâs easy to see why gun control doesnât make sense. Under a conservative framework, itâs hard to understand why gun control would ever work. After all, weâre up against the forces of Pure Evil. Surely Pure Evil would not let mere laws stand in its way. If it was determined to kill, it would find a way to get a gun. As Arjun Byju noted for this magazine in a piece on the normalization of âactive shooter drillsâ in schools, âwe cannot legislate away evilâ is a common GOP refrain, with shootings treated âlike the fates and furies of Greek mythology, something horrible that may strike us from without, and to which we are all but consigned.â
