The Language of Mental Illness in Gun Debates

Zukiphile you are entirely correct about a what we always used to call a "72 hr Hold." Normally after we used the words we would roll our eyes and shake our heads, knowing we would see them in the ER inside of a week, just as sick and miserable(or even dangerous) as they were before. Unless they tried to commit suicide or beat someone severely, they were always released only now they were angry and paranoid. More of a danger than if we did nothing. LE did their jobs, we did ours, the people we sent them to were overwhelmed, understaffed and afraid of the lawyers representing the patients.
Mleake, you were right about my mistake, I was amazed at the thought of that some state might actually move that fast.
Look at it this way, Sandy hook nut (I refuse to use his name) gets a 72hr hold. he is released, see reasons above, he does exactly what he did, knowing that in 10 days they might lock him up. There were multiple reports that he did this because Mom was trying to lock him up. My way he gets his exam done before he is released. Not a whole lot different, and if done correctly can be done during the 72hr hold. The difference I would like to see is the doctors being an advocate for our safety rather than his right to kill me.
 
I have said this a few times in threads lately .

We as Americans and human beings can't sit buy and let 20 children be killed and do nothing .:( Right ?

I have read every post in this thread and it has become very clear to me why they are going after the guns . There is no way in ____ for us to come to an agreement or a legal way to weed out the mentally ill from having guns . The next best thing must be TAKE THE GUNS . :rolleyes:
 
"So, let a layman ask the question: If we agree that "hoplophobe" is a pejorative, what is the preferred term for someone who is afraid of guns? Or are labels useless in this debate?"

How about, "someone who is afraid of guns." Seems to be properly descriptive.
 
Jim if we looked at this from a psychological perspective it seems to me that their fear of guns would be a symptom, not a diagnosis. The pathology and the diagnosis would have to do with their deep seated insecurities and their need to control others.
 
While horrific when they occur, nutcases shooting up malls and schools are still fairly rare occurrences.

Murders by stalkers and domestic partners are much more abundant. In many cases, orders of protection are in place but ineffective.

If Newtown were not a big item with antis and the media, and if we really wanted to cut down on homicides, I would think we would get more serious about consequences for stalkerish behavior and for violating restraining orders.

Mental health issues, as discussed here, account for less overall violence than do more mundanely violent causes.

Edit: This goes back to the argument that in many cases, mechanisms are in place - with regard to existing laws - but enforcement is uneven, or law enforcement priorities are elsewhere.

And, Metal God, as I answered you on a different occasion, there are times when doing something (the wrong action) is in fact worse than doing nothing.

People who want to do something because it makes them feel better, not because their actions really help, are deceiving themselves, potentially inconveniencing others, and squandering time and resources.

Second Edit: I am less concerned with how our legal system handles mental health issues, than with how our legal system so often fails to handle violent recidivists.
 
Last edited:
There is no way in ____ for us to come to an agreement or a legal way to weed out the mentally ill from having guns . The next best thing must be TAKE THE GUNS
Click to expand...
We can't do (A), so we must do (B)? That doesn't wash, and it's the foundation of many bad decisions.

First of all, taking the guns won't fix the problem. Second, it punishes innocents woefully out of proportion to those inclined towards violence.
 
Slightly off-topic --- as a practicing psychiatrist, I would like to insert a simple plea for us to remember that people with serious mental illesses are far more often the victims of violent crime than perpetrators of it, the recent subway murders notwithstanding.
 
Cycle of violence...

I disagree with Q's remarks. There are many, many convicted criminals or registered sex offenders nationwide who were also crime victims, abused children or who had mental health issues.
They in turn, repeated the cycle and lashed out at other members of the public(who had NOTHING to do with them or the abuse).
Look at how child molesters or rapists are treated in some prisons/correctional programs.
Violent behavior is by it's nature anti-social & counter productive. John or Mary citizen in the general public shouldn't be required to have the burden of dealing with a psycotic or unstable subject. That's an issue for the courts & medical professionals.

Clyde
 
What Quincunx said is true, although in many cases the victim and the perp both have a mental health problem. Add in some alcohol, drugs and living on the street and it's hard to tell who did what and why.

There are lots of damaged people in this world who grew up hard, and the majority of them never cause a problem.

John

P.S. - Decades ago I had a client drop out of sight for a couple of months and the phone was cut off. She eventually called me and said her husband broke her leg in a couple of places with a saw horse.

I said, "He beat you with the 2x4 leg off a saw horse?"

"No, he beat me with the whole thing."

Two alcoholics with mental health problems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top