1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Thousand oaks shooting

Discussion in 'North American Politics' started by Curious George, Nov 8, 2018.

  1. Nous

    Nous Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2015
    Messages:
    8,734
    Ratings:
    +2,213
    Every state has a mental health agency that provides free or nearly free psychiatric services regardless of one's ability to pay. They are basically pill mills that dispense one or more of the psychiatric drugs that have been shown to be disproportionately associated with acts of violence.

    One can also walk into any hospital and simply tell them at the desk that you have had a thought or thoughts of taking your semiautomatic weapon to a bar and shooting a bunch of people, and you will be treated to all psychiatric services available immediately (i.e., one or more of the psychiatric drugs that have been shown to be disproportionately associated with acts of violence, in addition to a bed that one will occupy for a while).

    The Thousand Oaks obviously didn't avail himself of any of these services. He was undoubtedly asked by the "mental health specialist" he was referred to months earlier if he wanted some kind of psychiatric services. So what do you recommend in such a case in order to address the problem of mass shootings?
     
  2. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2016
    Messages:
    7,747
    Ratings:
    +3,751
    Religion:
    atheist

    One must remember that the current view is derived from the interpretation of: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    It would not take a Constitutional Amendment to change the interpretation. It would take a SCOTUS decision recognizing that the Constitutional reason for the Right to Bear Arms is no longer valid.

    We do not have the right to bear arms as would be required for the security of a Free State. In order to provide security for a Free State, everyone would need to be able to own 50 Cal machine guns mounted on armored vehicles, flamethrowers, and tactical nukes.

    The need for a well regulated militia was supplanted by the advent of the paid military services branches.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  3. PureX

    PureX Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    11,625
    Ratings:
    +4,054
    Religion:
    Philosophical Taoist/Christian
    The medical bills should be covered by a single-payer universal health care system. The lost wages or any other expenses I might incur I choose to insure myself against, or choose not to. As can you or anyone else. The same should apply to all forms of injury regardless of who's "fault" it is.
    Insurance companies don't want to pay out, and lawyers love to litigate, so they bribed the politicians to bamboozle us into thinking someone must be blamed and punished for everything that happens to anyone at any time. There is no such thing as an accident or misfortune to a lawyer or insurance company. And fools that we are, we let them force us to buy insurance to cover everyone else when we should each be buying insurance to cover ourselves to whatever degree we want to be covered.
    No, I should be, if I want to be compensated for accidental losses.
     
  4. esmith

    esmith Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2010
    Messages:
    11,505
    Ratings:
    +1,467
    Religion:
    No name designated at this time.
    Again that is your opinion that has not been found to be Constitutional as of this date and in the foreseeable future(IMO)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. PureX

    PureX Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    11,625
    Ratings:
    +4,054
    Religion:
    Philosophical Taoist/Christian
    Regulating the flying of airplanes isn't in the constitution, either, but common sense and public safety made doing so inevitable. And when we stop obsessing over our absurd gun fetish in this country we will regulate their use as well. Because the public has a right stop individuals from doing things that endanger the lives of others. But until then, more and more and more of us will die unnecessarily and unfairly at the hands of idiots who should never have been allowed to gain access to a gun, but did so easily because we were too selfish and ignorant to stop them.
     
  6. oldbadger

    oldbadger Skanky Old Mongrel!

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2012
    Messages:
    15,186
    Ratings:
    +4,337
    Religion:
    deist
    Well I'll be damned.

    I've just been reading about how, when a drunk driver knocks over somebody you love, although the driver should be punished they wouldn't be responsible for the dreadful damages and costs.

    Or the idiot with a gun who accidentally discharges it into your partner or spouse.

    Now I've read it all. Upside down land for real..... :shrug:
     
  7. Curious George

    Curious George Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2012
    Messages:
    12,849
    Ratings:
    +2,551
    Theory and practice are often very different. I agree that there are agencies that can provide some services, but i also understand that in the real world there are barrier to those services.
    Yes and one can walk into those hospitals and let them know that they are thinking of suicide as well, yet suicide still persists as an issue.
    I would suggest tjat we do more. I wpuld suggest that we find better ways to detect and address psychological problems. Work to remove the stigma from mental health issues so more people will avail themselves of the services that are present.
     
  8. Shad

    Shad Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2014
    Messages:
    13,920
    Ratings:
    +3,148
    Religion:
    Theological noncognitivist
    I was asking as different parts of the legal system have different definitions. One list I read used 2 or more. Obviously that list is larger than the list you are using and includes are more "common" crimes not just extremism. Ergo the demographic highlighted is not the same as your own list.

    That is what I read. However there is no legal definition which is a major problem
     
  9. esmith

    esmith Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2010
    Messages:
    11,505
    Ratings:
    +1,467
    Religion:
    No name designated at this time.
    Sorry you feel that way, I wish senseless gun violence as seen in the past mass shooting could be stopped. However, regulating firearms is not the answer, what is the answer is addressing mental health issues. Just about every person who committed these acts had some form of mental problems that for some reason was not addressed which allowed them either to purchase a firearm or retain possession of. To my best recollection every firearm that was used was obtained legally and were purchased through a FFL dealer.
     
  10. PureX

    PureX Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    11,625
    Ratings:
    +4,054
    Religion:
    Philosophical Taoist/Christian
    Yes, how could we possibly live in a land without blame and condemnation? Where crimes are viewed as a problem of collective security instead of a call for vengeance. How could our egos ever survive in such an environment?
     
  11. Nous

    Nous Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2015
    Messages:
    8,734
    Ratings:
    +2,213
    What "barriers" are you referring to?

    There were no barriers to the Thousand Oaks shooter getting psychiatric "services" from the state agency that provides such services regardless of a person's ability to pay. Right?

    Many of the mass shooters of the past few years were receiving psychiatric "services" at the time that they perpetrated mass murder. In particular, many of the mass shooters were taking one or more of the psychiatric drugs that have been shown to be disproportionately associated with acts of violence.

    This only raises the question as to why you think such psychiatric "services" somehow reduce the incidence of such mass shootings.

    By what method do you recommend "detecting and addressing psychological problems"?

    I do not perceive that there is any overarching "stigma" attached to getting psychiatric "services" that prevent Americans from availing themselves of those "services". A huge percentage of Americans take one or more of those psychiatric drugs that have been shown to be disproportionately associated with acts of violence. Such drugs are among the most often consumed on a regular basis of all drugs that Americans eat, and about two-thirds of Americans take one or more drugs every day. Moreover, Americans freely talk about the psychiatric drugs that they or a family member or other loved one take, as well as about their (or the loved one's) diagnosis and/or symptoms. There seems to be not a week that goes by where there isn't such a thread discussing such matters just among the few people who post on RF. It seems to me that Americans especially are more willing to discuss the psychiatric drugs that they or a loved one take than they are to discuss the diet that they eat.
     
  12. Curious George

    Curious George Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2012
    Messages:
    12,849
    Ratings:
    +2,551
    I do not know what barriers were in place for that individual. I do know that he needed help and we were unable to do so. When that help was needed is also up in the air. Maybe it was a week before the night of the shooting; maybe it wad when he returned from his afghan tour; Maybe it was years before when he was in high school; maybe even before that during his early childhood years. I do mot know what barriers to services he faced aling the way, and neither do you. What we do know, is that he needed help and we were unable to provide that help with pur current services.
    Sounds like there are issues with how we try to help some of these individuals. I agree with that.
    Because I think addressing mental health is important? Do you disagree?
    Surely you are not expecting me to have all of the answers. Perhaps this question is better left fielded by a mental health professional. I do not imagine that a mental health professional would say there is no better way we can detect or earlier detect mental health issues.
    Then you are out of touch with reality
    I agree there are plenty of people who freely discuss mental health issues. There are plenty who do not.
    Then your perception is skewed by your data sample. Most individuals with whom I come in contact are more apt to discuss what they eat over what pills they take or what mental health issues they have.
     
  13. Nous

    Nous Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2015
    Messages:
    8,734
    Ratings:
    +2,213
    Why are you so disinterested in doing what we as a society can do to reduce the incidence of such mass shootings?

    I already asked the question of whether there is any evidence that psychiatric treatment is effective for preventing violence: Is There Any Evidence that Psychiatric Treatment Is Effective for Preventing Violence? You posted on that thread, and didn't cite any evidence that psychiatric treatment is effective. Are you able to cite any such evidence now?

    If not, why not focus your attention on what can be done to address the problem of mass shootings? Since no one can predict which individuals are going to perpetrate such mass shootings, one reasonable response is to seek to prevent all civilians from having access to those militaristic guns that can kill 100 people per minute at long range. Right?

    Figuring out a solution to the problem is much easier when one doesn't have a bias against enacting the solution.

    In your mind, how do "mental health professionals . . . detect mental health issues" currently?

    After all, one cannot rationally advocate that anyone use some other method for "detecting" something called mental disorders without knowing what so-called method is used now. Right?
     
  14. Curious George

    Curious George Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2012
    Messages:
    12,849
    Ratings:
    +2,551
    I would ask the same of you.
    I do not have evidence that psychiatric treatment is effective. If ypu wanted to research it, I would suggest pursuing the efficacy of anger management to start.
    I believe focusing my energy on mental health, education and poverty is doimg precisely that. These are some of the things which I believe will reduce not just mass shootings but all homicide.
    Reasonable to achieve that goal, If we do not look at the cost of such measures. So would instituting Marshall law or banning all guns. I just do not think that the results are worth the freedom these solutions concede or the benefits of having the gums in the first place.
    I am not so sure you understamd my "bias" enough to make that assumption in this case.
    Largely, referral and assessment.

    Better referrals and better assessment would then lead to better results in detection.
     
  15. Nous

    Nous Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2015
    Messages:
    8,734
    Ratings:
    +2,213
    Obviously you have no desire to prevent the deaths of the young adults and children killed in mass shootings such as Thousand Oaks and Parkland if it means preventing someone from having semiautomatic weapons.

    I'm sure you can't define what you mean by "assessment".

    I can only assume that you don't have a clue as to what, in your mind, is being "detected" when a "mental health professional" sitting on the other side of a desk asks someone questions then makes a diagnosis of a mental disorder.
     
  16. Curious George

    Curious George Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2012
    Messages:
    12,849
    Ratings:
    +2,551
    Or I just think there is a better way to achieve more impactful results
    Assume away
     
  17. Nous

    Nous Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2015
    Messages:
    8,734
    Ratings:
    +2,213
    Why haven't you told us what that "better way" to prevent such mass shooting is?
     
  18. Curious George

    Curious George Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2012
    Messages:
    12,849
    Ratings:
    +2,551
    Better education, less poverty, larger social welfare net, decreased fear mongering, increased access to mental healthcare, increased detection of mental issues to name a few. Haven't you been paying attention?
     
  19. Nous

    Nous Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2015
    Messages:
    8,734
    Ratings:
    +2,213
    Obviously you haven't given us any rational reason to assume that any of your vague ideas here ("better education"; "larger social welfare net," etc., etc.) are or would be effective at reducing the incidence of mass shootings such as that in Thousand Oaks as long as people have ready access to semiautomatic weapons that can kill 100 people per minute.

    In particular,anyone who truly wants to reduce the incidence of mass shootings in the US and truly believes that getting more people diagnosed with and treated for mental disorders would diligently research what mental disorders are, how mental disorders are diagnosed, and what treatments have been shown to be effective at preventing violence. What have you done in that regard? Apparently nothing that you can specify.

    That's one of the primary factors that make makes it extremely doubtful that you're truly concerned about the children and adults killed by people wielding semiautomatic weapons in mass shootings.

    I've written a little bit about diagnosis of mental disorders and the effectiveness or lack of effectiveness of psychiatric treatments on this board. E.g.: When Are Designations of Mental Disorders Just Expressions of Prejudice?

    You haven't posted on any of those threads except the one above where you were unable to cite any evidence that psychiatric treatments are effective for preventing violence.

    Moreover, there remains the fact that the Thousand Oaks shooter had reportedly been assessed by a "mental health professional" several months prior to his mass shooting, and this person determined that he did not need to be detained. Obviously he was offered psychiatric treatment during this assessment, and chose not to avail himself of it. You haven't told us anything of any practical value to deal with a such a circumstance in any different way than what this "mental health professional" did.

    Again, this is why it seems that saving the lives of the children and adults killed by people wielding semiautomatic weapons is not your primary concern.
     
  20. Curious George

    Curious George Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2012
    Messages:
    12,849
    Ratings:
    +2,551
    Well that was a lengthy post say tjat I haven't quoted you enough research. I can't say that I think you have persuaded me that you were actually interested enough to look at any research I might provide. It is well accepted that mental health, education, and social economic status are all correlated with crime. Violent behavior is certainly too complex for a silver bullet solution. Somehow I get the impression you keep expecting me to produce a silver bullet.
     
Loading...