|
|
Post by Ranger John on Feb 22, 2018 20:16:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Feb 23, 2018 0:08:20 GMT -5
Maybe he was cold, and since fossil fuels are killing the planet, he decided to do away with some more, and warm himself at the same time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Feb 23, 2018 14:35:28 GMT -5
Maybe he was cold, and since fossil fuels are killing the planet, he decided to do away with some more, and warm himself at the same time. Most likely he was just another Nikolas Cruz. Like Cruz, Ellam had a series of run-ins with law enforcement. At least the police in Connecticut were more competent than their counterparts in Florida, and arrested him a few times, precluding him from purchasing a gun. Not that it matters a whole lot. Driving your car into an ER, and lighting yourself on fire could certainly have resulted in innocent fatalities. That it didn't is more a matter of luck than intention. Clearly, like Cruz, he has some significant mental health issues that weren't properly addressed by the shrinks. Not sure if we'll ever know why he targeted the hospital, but I wouldn't be shocked to discover his percieved grievances against the hospital are similar to Cruz's against the school. Edit: apparently we do know why he targeted the hospital. He thought it was an illuminati headquarters. |
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Feb 23, 2018 14:36:51 GMT -5
How do you know he was not getting any help, RJ? While there appears to be some history of violence, there's nothing recent, and no indication from neighbors that he was any sort of problem.
Again, you should learn to think logically and not make unwarranted, unnecessary, and unfounded leaps.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Feb 23, 2018 14:43:18 GMT -5
How do you know he was not getting any help, RJ? While there appears to be some history of violence, there's nothing recent, and no indication from neighbors that he was any sort of problem. Again, you should learn to think logically and not make unwarranted, unnecessary, and unfounded leaps. How do I know he wasn't getting help? Really? The glaring sign was that he drove his car into the ER, stripped naked, and set himself on fire. And just to be fair to you, I'm not even going to dwell on his insane anti-Trump views which he was screaming before lighting himself on fire. I'd say that is incontrovertible proof that either a) he wasn't receiving any help at all, or b) the help he was getting was wholly inadequate to the point of professional incompetence. |
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Feb 23, 2018 15:01:51 GMT -5
While I understand what you're saying, it's still not supported by the evidence in the article. Does the guy have mental health issues? Absolutely. What he was saying and what he did clearly show that there's something wrong.
But it is possible that he was receiving help, perhaps was on meds, and was doing OK. Remember, nothing from his neighbors.
Perhaps he forgot his meds for a day or more. Perhaps he was upset about something the President did or said (though I'd tend to doubt this -- I'd think there was some sort of obsession with the President for quite a while before this incident).
All we know right now, RJ, based on the published report, is that he has mental health issues and that he had the incident at the ER. Don't know anything about treatment, don't know that he was receiving help or not, don't know if he was on any meds or not, don't know if there was some sort of trigger or not.
So, while you love to bash psychologists and psychiatrists, you really should wait until there's more evidence. You might be completely right, you might be totally wrong. But right now you're not informed enough.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Feb 23, 2018 15:18:45 GMT -5
While I understand what you're saying, it's still not supported by the evidence in the article. Does the guy have mental health issues? Absolutely. What he was saying and what he did clearly show that there's something wrong. But it is possible that he was receiving help, perhaps was on meds, and was doing OK. Remember, nothing from his neighbors. Perhaps he forgot his meds for a day or more. Perhaps he was upset about something the President did or said (though I'd tend to doubt this -- I'd think there was some sort of obsession with the President for quite a while before this incident). All we know right now, RJ, based on the published report, is that he has mental health issues and that he had the incident at the ER. Don't know anything about treatment, don't know that he was receiving help or not, don't know if he was on any meds or not, don't know if there was some sort of trigger or not. So, while you love to bash psychologists and psychiatrists, you really should wait until there's more evidence. You might be completely right, you might be totally wrong. But right now you're not informed enough. None of that really matters. Clearly Ellam has some serious problems. If the professionals aren't sufficiently on top of those problems, they also aren't able to adequately protect the public. Relying on them to do so is foolish. |
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Feb 23, 2018 20:48:44 GMT -5
How do you know he was not getting any help, RJ? While there appears to be some history of violence, there's nothing recent, and no indication from neighbors that he was any sort of problem. Again, you should learn to think logically and not make unwarranted, unnecessary, and unfounded leaps. How do I know he wasn't getting help? Really? The glaring sign was that he drove his car into the ER, stripped naked, and set himself on fire. And just to be fair to you, I'm not even going to dwell on his insane anti-Trump views which he was screaming before lighting himself on fire. I'd say that is incontrovertible proof that either a) he wasn't receiving any help at all, or b) the help he was getting was wholly inadequate to the point of professional incompetence. Just another instance where the "experts" failed, and failed spectacularly. If he was under medical supervision, they didn't know enough about his condition to predict this sort of behavior. If he wasn't under supervision, why not? He apparently was in the past, so why didn't the "experts" know he was violent? |
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Feb 24, 2018 12:34:21 GMT -5
How do I know he wasn't getting help? Really? The glaring sign was that he drove his car into the ER, stripped naked, and set himself on fire. And just to be fair to you, I'm not even going to dwell on his insane anti-Trump views which he was screaming before lighting himself on fire. I'd say that is incontrovertible proof that either a) he wasn't receiving any help at all, or b) the help he was getting was wholly inadequate to the point of professional incompetence. Just another instance where the "experts" failed, and failed spectacularly. If he was under medical supervision, they didn't know enough about his condition to predict this sort of behavior. If he wasn't under supervision, why not? He apparently was in the past, so why didn't the "experts" know he was violent? Well... he was screaming about Trump being the anti-christ, and trying to stop an illuminati plot at the hospital. I'm pretty sure this is completely in-line with what most head-shrinkers believe today. They probably thought his behavior was completely rational. This is the same community that thinks they can diagnose Trump though the TV, so they ought to know. |
|
|
|
Post by breakingbad on Feb 24, 2018 14:50:03 GMT -5
While I understand what you're saying, it's still not supported by the evidence in the article. Does the guy have mental health issues? Absolutely. What he was saying and what he did clearly show that there's something wrong. But it is possible that he was receiving help, perhaps was on meds, and was doing OK. Remember, nothing from his neighbors. Perhaps he forgot his meds for a day or more. Perhaps he was upset about something the President did or said (though I'd tend to doubt this -- I'd think there was some sort of obsession with the President for quite a while before this incident). All we know right now, RJ, based on the published report, is that he has mental health issues and that he had the incident at the ER. Don't know anything about treatment, don't know that he was receiving help or not, don't know if he was on any meds or not, don't know if there was some sort of trigger or not. So, while you love to bash psychologists and psychiatrists, you really should wait until there's more evidence. You might be completely right, you might be totally wrong. But right now you're not informed enough. None of that really matters. Clearly Ellam has some serious problems. If the professionals aren't sufficiently on top of those problems, they also aren't able to adequately protect the public. Relying on them to do so is foolish. Unfortunately, mental illness is a very complex issue. I'm not sure that there are any health care professionals that fully understand it and can always treat it in the right way to ensure the public's safety. Sometimes you just can't predict how a mental illness will manifest itself. It could be that he was being treated, but they chose the wrong medication. Most of the time they have to experiment with different cocktails to see what has an effect. And 10 different doctors may come up with 10 different treatments. This can also be very frustrating for the mental patient, and lead to distrust of doctors and medicines. I've been through this with someone very close to me. He was in and out of rehabs and psych wards, had several different doctors try to treat him. What finally saved him was going to a Buddhist monastery and learning meditation, believe it or not. He is now doing very well. |
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Feb 24, 2018 17:10:19 GMT -5
None of that really matters. Clearly Ellam has some serious problems. If the professionals aren't sufficiently on top of those problems, they also aren't able to adequately protect the public. Relying on them to do so is foolish. Unfortunately, mental illness is a very complex issue. I'm not sure that there are any health care professionals that fully understand it and can always treat it in the right way to ensure the public's safety. Sometimes you just can't predict how a mental illness will manifest itself. It could be that he was being treated, but they chose the wrong medication. Most of the time they have to experiment with different cocktails to see what has an effect. And 10 different doctors may come up with 10 different treatments. This can also be very frustrating for the mental patient, and lead to distrust of doctors and medicines. I've been through this with someone very close to me. He was in and out of rehabs and psych wards, had several different doctors try to treat him. What finally saved him was going to a Buddhist monastery and learning meditation, believe it or not. He is now doing very well. All valid points, but it still leaves us with there are a lot of mentally damaged people out there. The professionals, whether they're on the mental health side or the law enforcement side can not protect innocents. Ellam is an example of what happens when a gun isn't an option. It doesn't keep these people from wreaking havoc. At the end of the day, self defense is a human right. And it has to stay that way. |
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Feb 24, 2018 21:03:25 GMT -5
None of that really matters. Clearly Ellam has some serious problems. If the professionals aren't sufficiently on top of those problems, they also aren't able to adequately protect the public. Relying on them to do so is foolish. Unfortunately, mental illness is a very complex issue. I'm not sure that there are any health care professionals that fully understand it and can always treat it in the right way to ensure the public's safety. Sometimes you just can't predict how a mental illness will manifest itself. It could be that he was being treated, but they chose the wrong medication. Most of the time they have to experiment with different cocktails to see what has an effect. And 10 different doctors may come up with 10 different treatments. This can also be very frustrating for the mental patient, and lead to distrust of doctors and medicines. I've been through this with someone very close to me. He was in and out of rehabs and psych wards, had several different doctors try to treat him. What finally saved him was going to a Buddhist monastery and learning meditation, believe it or not. He is now doing very well. One thing to remember is that psychiatry is not a settled field, unlike medicine. There are no 'diseases' to identify, no germs, viruses, or bacteria to point to, no ruptured organs or broken bones to repair. It's all a guess and experiment, and the drugs used don't necessarily respond in visible or immediate, recognizable ways. Which is why it's something that shouldn't be used for legal testimony, except in rare, extreme cases. However, the fact that at least 2 police agencies were notified, one in an almost emergency call, and did absolutely nothing, and one did absolutely nothing while the shooting was going on shows that the police can't be counted on in emergencies. |
|
|
|
Post by breakingbad on Feb 25, 2018 6:52:33 GMT -5
The police are not here to protect us. They arrive after the carnage to clean up the mess and process the paperwork. It is totally up to us to ensure our own safety.
|
|
|
|
Post by rocketwolf on Feb 25, 2018 7:50:36 GMT -5
Just another instance where the "experts" failed, and failed spectacularly. If he was under medical supervision, they didn't know enough about his condition to predict this sort of behavior. If he wasn't under supervision, why not? He apparently was in the past, so why didn't the "experts" know he was violent? Well... he was screaming about Trump being the anti-christ, and trying to stop an illuminati plot at the hospital. I'm pretty sure this is completely in-line with what most head-shrinkers believe today. They probably thought his behavior was completely rational. This is the same community that thinks they can diagnose Trump though the TV, so they ought to know. So true So true |
|
|
|
Post by rocketwolf on Feb 25, 2018 7:53:32 GMT -5
The police are not here to protect us. They arrive after the carnage to clean up the mess and process the paperwork. It is totally up to us to ensure our own safety. Yes now its 4 cops that didn't go into that school. When seconds count, the cops are minutes away Or stand around for a few minutes until the shooting stops! |
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Feb 25, 2018 13:40:03 GMT -5
How many people died?... if the answer is none, it seems the regulations on automobiles and gasoline are adequate... Sure, drunk drivers kill more people... but drunk drivers outnumber mass shooters by the thousands... and when drink drivers do kill... the death count is usually very low... Keep a wary eye on those who are suspicious... but be sure to limit the mode used by mass killers with guns... cars aren't allowed to drive as fast as the driver wants to drive... and must pass many other restrictions... that mode is limited... And don't give me this "right" vs "privilege" thing... you brought up cars... but I view them as pretty much the same thing... |
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Feb 26, 2018 10:51:31 GMT -5
The police are not here to protect us. They arrive after the carnage to clean up the mess and process the paperwork. It is totally up to us to ensure our own safety. While I agree with your asssessment in part, they are required to act on information they receive. This police department made at least 39 calls to this dirt bag's house, for everything from felony threatening to domestic violence, and did nothing at all. As I've said, I have nothing against arming teachers, administrators, even janitors, but there is a risk. When police come in cold to a hot situation, they have no idea who is doing the shooting. Unless there is a system for the teachers, ect, to communicate to the responding officers, there is a real risk of an armed teacher being shot because the cops don't know who they are. |
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Feb 26, 2018 10:55:04 GMT -5
How many people died?... if the answer is none, it seems the regulations on automobiles and gasoline are adequate... Sure, drunk drivers kill more people... but drunk drivers outnumber mass shooters by the thousands... and when drink drivers do kill... the death count is usually very low... Keep a wary eye on those who are suspicious... but be sure to limit the mode used by mass killers with guns... cars aren't allowed to drive as fast as the driver wants to drive... and must pass many other restrictions... that mode is limited... And don't give me this "right" vs "privilege" thing... you brought up cars... but I view them as pretty much the same thing... First, there is no right to drive a car. Second, how many were killed in Europe by cars or trucks? In just one instance, there were over 80 killed, so don't concentrate on firearms. If a terrorist, or a whack job, wants to kill people, they will. Notice that this dirt bag also had smoke grenades. What would the head count have been if he had L2s, or M26's? Had the police and the FBI done the job they were hired to do, this dirt bag wouldn't have been able to buy a firearm. |
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Feb 27, 2018 16:59:21 GMT -5
How many people died?... if the answer is none, it seems the regulations on automobiles and gasoline are adequate... Sure, drunk drivers kill more people... but drunk drivers outnumber mass shooters by the thousands... and when drink drivers do kill... the death count is usually very low... Keep a wary eye on those who are suspicious... but be sure to limit the mode used by mass killers with guns... cars aren't allowed to drive as fast as the driver wants to drive... and must pass many other restrictions... that mode is limited... And don't give me this "right" vs "privilege" thing... you brought up cars... but I view them as pretty much the same thing... First, there is no right to drive a car. Second, how many were killed in Europe by cars or trucks? In just one instance, there were over 80 killed, so don't concentrate on firearms. If a terrorist, or a whack job, wants to kill people, they will. Notice that this dirt bag also had smoke grenades. What would the head count have been if he had L2s, or M26's? Had the police and the FBI done the job they were hired to do, this dirt bag wouldn't have been able to buy a firearm. I wondered if someone would be ok with this because no one died. Dude drove into an ER, stripped naked, and lit himself on fire... but that is of no concern to the left because no one died, and the incident can't be used as an excuse to grab guns. Ellam couldn't pass a background check to buy a gun, because law enforcement did it's job. But even without a gun, he still managed to wreak havoc, and the lack of fatalities is the result of luck, rather than Ellam's actions. |
|
|
|
Post by kemmer on Feb 28, 2018 0:10:57 GMT -5
None of that really matters. Clearly Ellam has some serious problems. If the professionals aren't sufficiently on top of those problems, they also aren't able to adequately protect the public. Relying on them to do so is foolish. Unfortunately, mental illness is a very complex issue. I'm not sure that there are any health care professionals that fully understand it and can always treat it in the right way to ensure the public's safety. Sometimes you just can't predict how a mental illness will manifest itself. It could be that he was being treated, but they chose the wrong medication. Most of the time they have to experiment with different cocktails to see what has an effect. And 10 different doctors may come up with 10 different treatments. This can also be very frustrating for the mental patient, and lead to distrust of doctors and medicines. I've been through this with someone very close to me. He was in and out of rehabs and psych wards, had several different doctors try to treat him. What finally saved him was going to a Buddhist monastery and learning meditation, believe it or not. He is now doing very well. Yes, to all of that. Mental illnesses are many and varied, most not leading to any behavior that endangers anyone. This is particularly true now that the mental health industry is determined to diagnose everyone with an illness. (Some claim that at any given time, fully 20% of the population is mentally ill-- that's one person out of every 5 you meet every day. Some claim it's closer to 30%. Of course, they're counting people grieving at the funeral of a loved one as "in need of treatment.") There will be another problem with background checks-- a major one. There is an expectation of confidentiality between psychiatrist and patient. Without that, the people who are in need of help will be reluctant to seek help. The idea of intimate disclosures being loaded into a data base to be accessed by future employers (among others) is rather daunting. Teachers all have to have a background check before hire, as do volunteers in schools, nowadays. I'm sure other employment requires this, too. Then there's the question of how well these databases are protected against hacking-- or malicious use by insiders. (We know of NSA employees who were checking up on ex-spouses, and such... never heard if any of them were fired after the furor died down.) It really would be a bad thing if, say, a rape victim refused counseling because she didn't want to land in some data base-- and be forced to give up her deer-hunting rifle. What about Aunt Betty who was told to seek help because she was still mourning Uncle Jim two years after his death? Maybe having a gun gives her comfort, now that everyone knows she's a woman living alone. Just something to think about when we cry for mental health databases. Congrats on your relative for finding a way to deal. I tend towards clinical depression-- runs in the family, actually. I do the opposite of meditation. Whenever I feel the gloom coming on, I run up a flight of steps a few times--works like a charm. I think it's about taking control of the black beast. (Damn! The NSA collects every keystroke. I hope this admission doesn't make them come and take away my guns!) |
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Feb 28, 2018 7:58:35 GMT -5
Unfortunately, mental illness is a very complex issue. I'm not sure that there are any health care professionals that fully understand it and can always treat it in the right way to ensure the public's safety. Sometimes you just can't predict how a mental illness will manifest itself. It could be that he was being treated, but they chose the wrong medication. Most of the time they have to experiment with different cocktails to see what has an effect. And 10 different doctors may come up with 10 different treatments. This can also be very frustrating for the mental patient, and lead to distrust of doctors and medicines. I've been through this with someone very close to me. He was in and out of rehabs and psych wards, had several different doctors try to treat him. What finally saved him was going to a Buddhist monastery and learning meditation, believe it or not. He is now doing very well. Yes, to all of that. Mental illnesses are many and varied, most not leading to any behavior that endangers anyone. This is particularly true now that the mental health industry is determined to diagnose everyone with an illness. (Some claim that at any given time, fully 20% of the population is mentally ill-- that's one person out of every 5 you meet every day. Some claim it's closer to 30%. Of course, they're counting people grieving at the funeral of a loved one as "in need of treatment.") There will be another problem with background checks-- a major one. There is an expectation of confidentiality between psychiatrist and patient. Without that, the people who are in need of help will be reluctant to seek help. The idea of intimate disclosures being loaded into a data base to be accessed by future employers (among others) is rather daunting. Teachers all have to have a background check before hire, as do volunteers in schools, nowadays. I'm sure other employment requires this, too. Then there's the question of how well these databases are protected against hacking-- or malicious use by insiders. (We know of NSA employees who were checking up on ex-spouses, and such... never heard if any of them were fired after the furor died down.) It really would be a bad thing if, say, a rape victim refused counseling because she didn't want to land in some data base-- and be forced to give up her deer-hunting rifle. What about Aunt Betty who was told to seek help because she was still mourning Uncle Jim two years after his death? Maybe having a gun gives her comfort, now that everyone knows she's a woman living alone. Just something to think about when we cry for mental health databases. Congrats on your relative for finding a way to deal. I tend towards clinical depression-- runs in the family, actually. I do the opposite of meditation. Whenever I feel the gloom coming on, I run up a flight of steps a few times--works like a charm. I think it's about taking control of the black beast. (Damn! The NSA collects every keystroke. I hope this admission doesn't make them come and take away my guns!) The key is the whole "danger to self and others" diagnosis. Most won't meet that standard. And those that do will likely have been arrested at some point. So how do we stop Nikolas Cruz? Law enforcement needs to do it's job in Broward County. He was flying all the red flags in the world. He could have been disarmed. The next Steve Ellam though... He just proved you don't need a gun to kill and terrorize. |
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Feb 28, 2018 10:56:59 GMT -5
Unfortunately, mental illness is a very complex issue. I'm not sure that there are any health care professionals that fully understand it and can always treat it in the right way to ensure the public's safety. Sometimes you just can't predict how a mental illness will manifest itself. It could be that he was being treated, but they chose the wrong medication. Most of the time they have to experiment with different cocktails to see what has an effect. And 10 different doctors may come up with 10 different treatments. This can also be very frustrating for the mental patient, and lead to distrust of doctors and medicines. I've been through this with someone very close to me. He was in and out of rehabs and psych wards, had several different doctors try to treat him. What finally saved him was going to a Buddhist monastery and learning meditation, believe it or not. He is now doing very well. Yes, to all of that. Mental illnesses are many and varied, most not leading to any behavior that endangers anyone. This is particularly true now that the mental health industry is determined to diagnose everyone with an illness. (Some claim that at any given time, fully 20% of the population is mentally ill-- that's one person out of every 5 you meet every day. Some claim it's closer to 30%. Of course, they're counting people grieving at the funeral of a loved one as "in need of treatment.") There will be another problem with background checks-- a major one. There is an expectation of confidentiality between psychiatrist and patient. Without that, the people who are in need of help will be reluctant to seek help. The idea of intimate disclosures being loaded into a data base to be accessed by future employers (among others) is rather daunting. Teachers all have to have a background check before hire, as do volunteers in schools, nowadays. I'm sure other employment requires this, too. Then there's the question of how well these databases are protected against hacking-- or malicious use by insiders. (We know of NSA employees who were checking up on ex-spouses, and such... never heard if any of them were fired after the furor died down.) It really would be a bad thing if, say, a rape victim refused counseling because she didn't want to land in some data base-- and be forced to give up her deer-hunting rifle. What about Aunt Betty who was told to seek help because she was still mourning Uncle Jim two years after his death? Maybe having a gun gives her comfort, now that everyone knows she's a woman living alone. Just something to think about when we cry for mental health databases. Congrats on your relative for finding a way to deal. I tend towards clinical depression-- runs in the family, actually. I do the opposite of meditation. Whenever I feel the gloom coming on, I run up a flight of steps a few times--works like a charm. I think it's about taking control of the black beast. (Damn! The NSA collects every keystroke. I hope this admission doesn't make them come and take away my guns!) Another issue is, once that power is given to government, how long before it's used to silence any and all opposition? The Puppet was spying on American citizens, his IRS was using the power of government to silence opposition, and he went after a reporter for writing stories he didn't like. How long before some future President decides to use the mental health system to lock up anyone that disagrees with him in a mental institution, because they are "mentally ill" if they don't agree with everything he says? Remember the USSR, and their use of "mental health" to silence dissent. |
|
|
|
Post by breakingbad on Mar 4, 2018 6:06:07 GMT -5
Unfortunately, mental illness is a very complex issue. I'm not sure that there are any health care professionals that fully understand it and can always treat it in the right way to ensure the public's safety. Sometimes you just can't predict how a mental illness will manifest itself. It could be that he was being treated, but they chose the wrong medication. Most of the time they have to experiment with different cocktails to see what has an effect. And 10 different doctors may come up with 10 different treatments. This can also be very frustrating for the mental patient, and lead to distrust of doctors and medicines. I've been through this with someone very close to me. He was in and out of rehabs and psych wards, had several different doctors try to treat him. What finally saved him was going to a Buddhist monastery and learning meditation, believe it or not. He is now doing very well. Yes, to all of that. Mental illnesses are many and varied, most not leading to any behavior that endangers anyone. This is particularly true now that the mental health industry is determined to diagnose everyone with an illness. (Some claim that at any given time, fully 20% of the population is mentally ill-- that's one person out of every 5 you meet every day. Some claim it's closer to 30%. Of course, they're counting people grieving at the funeral of a loved one as "in need of treatment.") There will be another problem with background checks-- a major one. There is an expectation of confidentiality between psychiatrist and patient. Without that, the people who are in need of help will be reluctant to seek help. The idea of intimate disclosures being loaded into a data base to be accessed by future employers (among others) is rather daunting. Teachers all have to have a background check before hire, as do volunteers in schools, nowadays. I'm sure other employment requires this, too. Then there's the question of how well these databases are protected against hacking-- or malicious use by insiders. (We know of NSA employees who were checking up on ex-spouses, and such... never heard if any of them were fired after the furor died down.) It really would be a bad thing if, say, a rape victim refused counseling because she didn't want to land in some data base-- and be forced to give up her deer-hunting rifle. What about Aunt Betty who was told to seek help because she was still mourning Uncle Jim two years after his death? Maybe having a gun gives her comfort, now that everyone knows she's a woman living alone. Just something to think about when we cry for mental health databases. Congrats on your relative for finding a way to deal. I tend towards clinical depression-- runs in the family, actually. I do the opposite of meditation. Whenever I feel the gloom coming on, I run up a flight of steps a few times--works like a charm. I think it's about taking control of the black beast. (Damn! The NSA collects every keystroke. I hope this admission doesn't make them come and take away my guns!) Let them just try to pry them from your hands! As far as your assertion that one in five are mentally ill. At one point when my loved one was in the throws of his mental illness, he said, "Take a look at what is going on in the world right now. How can they say I'm the crazy one!" I couldn't disagree with him. I think the whole collective world is suffering from mental illness. |
|
|
|
Post by kemmer on Mar 5, 2018 0:56:09 GMT -5
The key is the whole "danger to self and others" diagnosis. Most won't meet that standard. And those that do will likely have been arrested at some point. So how do we stop Nikolas Cruz? Law enforcement needs to do it's job in Broward County. He was flying all the red flags in the world. He could have been disarmed. The next Steve Ellam though... He just proved you don't need a gun to kill and terrorize. Agreed that law enforcement / mental health professionals/ et al failed in the Cruz case. I base this on the calls (I believe there were two) made to the FBI tip line that were never passed on. (Somewhat like concerns about wannabe pilots with no interest in how to LAND a plane, no?) However, "to err is human," so we can never expect perfection on that front. Mistakes will be made. The whole "danger to self or others" sounds clear enough, but is it, really? I can state from experience that one can be a "danger to self" one day, and not the next, nor on any day thereafter. A permanent blot on one's record for a temporary aberration seems a mite harsh. Remember, I've been fingerprinted three times, for background checks, so I have an interest in this topic. What happens when psychiatrists, psychologists, various "counselors" (the credentials for the last vary widely from state to state) become overly cautious, lest they land themselves in the headlines? Our criminal justice system is based on the concept that it is better to let the guilty walk free than unjustly imprison an innocent. Should those not yet accused of, nor tried for, any crime not receive the same consideration? |
|
|
|
Post by kemmer on Mar 5, 2018 1:25:23 GMT -5
Another issue is, once that power is given to government, how long before it's used to silence any and all opposition? The Puppet was spying on American citizens, his IRS was using the power of government to silence opposition, and he went after a reporter for writing stories he didn't like. How long before some future President decides to use the mental health system to lock up anyone that disagrees with him in a mental institution, because they are "mentally ill" if they don't agree with everything he says? Remember the USSR, and their use of "mental health" to silence dissent. Ummm... you're conflating the excesses of government bureaucrats (who are, naturally, thinking of their own pocketbooks regarding pay raises and obscene benefits) with your dislike of President Obama's administration. This reduces the effect of your argument and draws attention away from your point. Yes, the USSR did use "mental health diagnoses" as an excuse to lock away dissenters. We have seen, in America, the invention of the pseudo-psychological term "homophobia" to describe anyone who thinks marriage should be confined to a couple comprising one man and one woman-- with the ostensible purpose of producing children who will legally inherit the assets of the parents. (Yes, legal marriage is all about inheritance, always has been. That's why the man's by-blows are called "illegitimate" heirs, whilst the woman's by-blows are the "legitimate" heirs of the husband who is not their father. Yes, DNA testing puts all that in the past, but the fact remains that "religious" marriage is a very different thing from "legal" marriage.) But I digress... the whole "people who disagree with me are nut-cases" is currently abroad only in Academia (and on the internet, of course.) I agree we must be cautious about this eagerness to diagnose dissidents. The price of freedom remains eternal vigilance... and given the ease of maintaining databases (AKA "dossiers") on everybody and his pet cat, I find the whole situation... disquieting. Oh, and let us, please, remember that it was NIXON who actually went after someone's psychiatric records-- not Obama. |
|
