Harleyman Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 Let me say first that like any sane person I abhor the death of any innocent children and feel nothing but revulsion for such an act. But... lets look for a moment at the above post. The guy who committed the atrocity had mental health issues and presumably intended to commit suicide so would the threat of life imprisonment or a zillion dollar fine have deterred him? sadly not. You cant legislate for crazy people. In the Uk the amount of guns in private ownership was very small in comparison to the population and so it was relatively easy for the government to ban the private ownership of guns. Even so there are still shootings mostly gang or drug related. My point being criminals will always find ways round legislation. In the states there are millions of guns in circulation. Even if the government were to demand all law abiding citizens hand in the guns there would still be plenty of guns for criminals to use so legislation which makes politicians look like they are doing something in reality won't make this sort of thing stop. This may sound defeatist but I'm just trying to be realistic. That was a good post and made a lot of sense. It's mental illness that is the problem but how do you "control" mental illness. A person may be mentally ill yet to all outward appearances perfectly normal and having committed no crime either is not subject to detention or arrest. Such people can only enter an institution voluntarily for treatment but many dont and many dont even realize they have a problem until one day something that happens might drive them over the edge to snapping point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fivetide Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 That was a good post and made a lot of sense. It's mental illness that is the problem but how do you "control" mental illness. A person may be mentally ill yet to all outward appearances perfectly normal and having committed no crime either is not subject to detention or arrest. Such people can only enter an institution voluntarily for treatment but many dont and many dont even realize they have a problem until one day something that happens might drive them over the edge to snapping point. You 'control' mental illness through appropriate support. That means making sure people who have mental health issues are able to access support and help before their issues develop into anything which might cause them to become a danger to themselves or others - and in the vast majority of cases it's to themselves their problems cause the greatest risk of harm. 'Snapping point' as you term it, is only reached if there was no help to ease the problems earlier - no-one wants to be in such a desperate position that they 'snap'. The best thing to do is make sure good, free-to-access support is available to anyone whose issues might develop into more serious problems and cause them to become a danger to themselves or others - which necessitates state provision of mental health services. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EASTWOOD141 Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 A person only has to mention guns or America on the forum and then it's the same two or three that go on and on, they probably do it on here because real Americans would tell em to shurrup! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 You 'control' mental illness through appropriate support. That means making sure people who have mental health issues are able to access support and help before their issues develop into anything which might cause them to become a danger to themselves or others - and in the vast majority of cases it's to themselves their problems cause the greatest risk of harm. 'Snapping point' as you term it, is only reached if there was no help to ease the problems earlier - no-one wants to be in such a desperate position that they 'snap'. The best thing to do is make sure good, free-to-access support is available to anyone whose issues might develop into more serious problems and cause them to become a danger to themselves or others - which necessitates state provision of mental health services. Suppose that person doesn't choose to avail himself of the help? You cant force them to. Adam Lanza the Newtown shooter never sought help. His mother apparently knew of his problem but did nothing. Her friends knew that Adam possibly had problems but she never discussed Adam with them. It was all kept private between Adam and her. On top of that she took him to the gun range to learn to fire her guns including the semi-automatic Bushmaster ---------- Post added 30-01-2013 at 17:21 ---------- A person only has to mention guns or America on the forum and then it's the same two or three that go on and on, they probably do it on here because real Americans would tell em to shurrup!:hihi: A piece of advice you should follow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 A person only has to mention guns or America on the forum and then it's the same two or three that go on and on, they probably do it on here because real Americans would tell em to shurrup! Americans have no more or less authority to speak on this subject than anyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fivetide Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 Suppose that person doesn't choose to avail himself of the help? You cant force them to. Adam Lanza the Newtown shooter never sought help. His mother apparently knew of his problem but did nothing. Her friends knew that Adam possibly had problems but she never discussed Adam with them. It was all kept private between Adam and her. On top of that she took him to the gun range to learn to fire her guns including the semi-automatic Bushmaster If help doesn't appear to be available, if you don't feel the support is there, if it looks like you have nowhere to turn... then you probably won't admit you have problems. You're not going to seek help that doesn't exist. Not only that but when people stigmatise (and demonise - literally) those with mental health problems by suggesting they're automatically dangerous to society - speaking as though mental health problems = dangerous individual - then it discourages anyone with developing issues from admitting their problems. (And why shouldn't she have taken him to the range to learn to fire weapons? I doubt she'd have done it had she had any idea what was going to happen. It's no more loopy than making guns freely available to society, then acting surprised there are so many deaths from guns in your society. ) And as far as I can tell, your post would suggest the only way to prevent the atrocity would have been to stop him having access to weapons. And as you couldn't stop his mother buying a gun just on local hearsay her son was a bit weird, it would mean stopping anyone buying hand-guns - just in case. The real problem is, as with so much in American society and British, the corporations make too much profit from things that cause harm for the general population. imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EASTWOOD141 Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 Suppose that person doesn't choose to avail himself of the help? You cant force them to. Adam Lanza the Newtown shooter never sought help. His mother apparently knew of his problem but did nothing. Her friends knew that Adam possibly had problems but she never discussed Adam with them. It was all kept private between Adam and her. On top of that she took him to the gun range to learn to fire her guns including the semi-automatic Bushmaster ---------- Post added 30-01-2013 at 17:21 ---------- A piece of advice you should follow :loopy: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 Let me say first that like any sane person I abhor the death of any innocent children and feel nothing but revulsion for such an act. But... lets look for a moment at the above post. The guy who committed the atrocity had mental health issues and presumably intended to commit suicide so would the threat of life imprisonment or a zillion dollar fine have deterred him? sadly not. You cant legislate for crazy people. In the Uk the amount of guns in private ownership was very small in comparison to the population and so it was relatively easy for the government to ban the private ownership of guns. Private ownership of guns isn't banned in the UK Even so there are still shootings mostly gang or drug related. My point being criminals will always find ways round legislation. In the states there are millions of guns in circulation. Even if the government were to demand all law abiding citizens hand in the guns there would still be plenty of guns for criminals to use so legislation which makes politicians look like they are doing something in reality won't make this sort of thing stop. This may sound defeatist but I'm just trying to be realistic. Of course it won't make it stop, it will reduce it though. Eventually over the years as existing guns (the ones kept back and not handed in) wear/sustain damage/are discarded etc, there will be less around. The only problem I can see is that there may be an increase in gun smuggling/dealing, which will be offset by the benefits of fewer guns in general. ---------- Post added 30-01-2013 at 18:59 ---------- Suppose that person doesn't choose to avail himself of the help? You cant force them to. Adam Lanza the Newtown shooter never sought help. His mother apparently knew of his problem but did nothing. Her friends knew that Adam possibly had problems but she never discussed Adam with them. It was all kept private between Adam and her. On top of that she took him to the gun range to learn to fire her guns including the semi-automatic Bushmaster No you can't force them to seek help, but you can make it harder to obtain guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 No you can't force them to seek help, but you can make it harder to obtain guns. This is what I was thinking..it's like "we believe it wont work so therefore we wont try", expecting the mentally unstable to recognise their own instability, self medicate and cure seems the preferred answer, even though the means are either unavailable or sparse...as fivetide has suggested..if you don't know you're a nutter you aint likely to seek help, and if you do the cost will more than likely kick the idea into touch.. Arming every citizen better come with a good plan. It's also argued that the responsible owner is not a threat..remove peace officers from that equation and I'd bet shootings would rise dramatically considering that's why the gun was introduced initially. Americans (and others) it seems want to kill each other is the sad truth, it's immortalized in their popular culture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 It all turns on the ambiguity of the USA Constitution, so revered by the irreverent. Here's what it says, in article 4 of the Second Amendment: 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. [source: http://myloc.gov/Exhibitions/CreatingtheUS/interactives/bill_of_rights/HTML/beararms/index.html] So is not the arm-bearing limited to the militia-necessity? It does not purport to allow all citizens arms, does it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.