2 Million Mentally Ill poeple running round with Guns....

2 million mentally ill people running around with guns. Wonder how they came up with that figure, and is that within the entire US or only Southern California? I keed, I keed.

reply to post by ~Lucidity


ohh you mean kinda like exactly how our military industrial complex works?!

reply to post by Sly1one

Now that you mention it...maybe. I'm sure there's a way to justify just about anything.

reply to post by TedHodgson


I'm not a gun guy. I was raised in Southern California by a single mom, so I didn't have any "father figures" who introduced me to guns or taught me to shoot.

That said -- almost everything is a weapon. I could kill someone with a rolled up magazine, CD case, or roll of pennies, under the right circumstances, and with the proper motivation. Guns might make it easier for a crazy person to act out violently, but nothing we can do, short of downloading everyone into a virtual reality, will ever make us completely safe from violence, should someone decide to do a little dirty business, and anyone who tells you otherwise is selling you something.

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
Sounds about right.

Add angry people to that mix, and we have ourselves a real pressure cooking going here.

That priest they locked up for having over 200 guns? Yeah. Makes you wonder what a person needs that many guns for.

Whats wrong with owning that many firearms, there are many people that collect them you know, many that admire the craftsmanship that a certain maker put into their product, some are marvels of mechanical precision like a fine swiss watch. There are a whole lotta people that have collections with more than that priest, and collectable firearms are like artwork, they only go up in value as they get older. I don't see why anyone should have a problem with someone having that many guns and it certainly should not be a crime. Does one need that many, no. But does someone that has a whole room in there house filled with baseball cards or stamps or swords and knives deserve to be arrested because they collect too many stamps? Its not like the guy could take all 200 guns to a gunfight. I don't know all the details behind this story but just saw this sentence and figured i'd add my 2 cents worth.

reply to post by Aliensdoexist

Let's be intellectually honest here. There's a difference between collecting and stocking up an arsenal. And most people can tell this difference.

But one of the most shocking gaps in the effort to prevent people prohibited by law from purchasing firearms continues to fly beneath the radar. Records of at least two million dangerously mentally ill individuals whose names should already be in the nation’s criminal background check system remain missing.

After a brief opening paragraph of reification asserting that the Loughner incident has brought the issue of gun control back to the forefront, a fallacy of reification that has no merit, this article follows with the above quoted histrionic paragraph.

What evidence is there of this horrifying claim that at least two million dangerously mental ill individuals are not in any data base that would prevent them from purchasing firearms?

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, the nation’s largest, non-partisan gun control group, noted last month – the day before the Tucson massacre -- that a report conducted by the National Center for State Courts and SEARCH, the National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics “estimated that more than 2 million disqualifying mental illness records” have yet to be entered into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS.

The Raw Story is echoing what The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence said that The National Center for State Courts, along with what appears to be another organization SEARCH said about these "missing" 2 million records of "dangerously mentally ill" people. SEARCH and NCSC have made an estimate of records that have not yet been entered into any data base, and this little fact should make clear that the Raw Story's assertion that the records "remain missing" is at best disingenuous, and at worst willful deceit.

Further, the claim that the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence is a "non-partisan" gun control group is oxymoronic. Partisan by definition is a fervent even sometimes militant supporter of or proponent of a party, cause, faction, person, or idea. The Brady Center certainly qualifies, under this definition, as being a fervent cause, and arguably sometimes militant, in that it lobby's the legislative process to bring about stricter gun control legislation, expecting the state, or federal governments to use their militant force to enforce this legislation.

Here is the mission statement for the NCSC:

The mission of the National Center for State Courts is to IMPROVE THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE through LEADERSHIP and SERVICE to state courts, and courts around the world.

www.ncsc.org...

Following that with this:

The National Center continues to be the preeminent judicial reform organization in the United States.

There are many who believe that the rise of lawless judges in the United States has reached critical mass. Is this the reform the NCSC has preeminently aimed towards?

The Board of Directors of the NCSC reveals a virtual country club of the priest class lawyer set, with numerous judges, lawyers, and other government officials. The Board of Directors for SEARCH hosts a bevy of law enforcement personnel, and government attorneys. These are two political action committees comprised of government personnel whose primary objective is to influence through lobbying and other means the direction of government. As such, they should be as suspect as any other political action committee. There is no such thing as a "non partisan" political action committee.

Returning back to the Raw Story article, it should be keenly noted that Brad Jacabson made reference to expert gun control advocates twice. Thrice if you count the final sentence in which he declares Mayor Bloomberg an "other expert", presumably meaning an expert on gun control. Yet, what the hell is an "expert on gun control"? Is there some sort of credential that goes along with this moniker, or are they merely paid pundits, who, at least in part, get paid to lobby for stricter gun control?

So much of the Raw Story article is suspect, poorly written, and sloppily researched, with no attempt what-so-ever to offer a balanced view of the issue, with no quotes from members of the NRA or other gun advocate groups, even if the article does quote the President of the Brady Center, and a Congresswoman as defending the NRA regarding the funding of a bill. In terms of mental illness, particularly "dangerously mental illness", the article makes no attempt at all to define what it is, or offers no "expert" quotes on how it is determined who is labeled a "dangerously mental ill" person.

The Raw Story article is nothing more than a thinly veiled propaganda piece, hoping to stir up interest in a gun control debate that most Americans have no interest in having.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Jean Paul, Your a genious to say the least

Even if it's not 2 million, there probably are quite a few people running around with guns who by any standards should not have them.

No matter what failsafes are put in place, there are ways around them or failures within the system. Isn't it true that with the Loughner incident there was a failure by the Army to report why he was rejected from their program? Apparently that reason would have prevented him from acquiring a weapon, at least legally. This was something I heard on NPR or some news show. Maybe its just a "propaganda" piece too.

So what we have here, as usual, is the battle of the propagandists while real issues remain unidentified, unprioritized, undiscussed, and unresolved.

2 Million Mentally Ill poeple running round with Guns....

Oh c'mon now, the Army isn't that bad!

(Go Navy)

reply to post by bourbon2nite


I am a gun owner and a member of the U.S.C.C.A.!
I have a .38 that I carry in my purse and a .357 by
my bed:

reply to post by mamabeth


I most certainly would not consider lurking on your turf

P. s. could I have my cork back? uugghh Please!

reply to post by ~Lucidity

So what we have here, as usual, is the battle of the propagandists while real issues remain unidentified, unprioritized, undiscussed, and unresolved.

The real issue, when it comes to "gun control" is that the United States has, arguably, the most powerful and invasive military in the world. Indeed, in history! The United States military has the one of the largest nuclear arsenals in the world, not to mention the military's biological weapon's program. What is not discussed is the level of sanity of even having such an arsenal of "weapons of mass destruction", let alone the sanity of having a standing army in perpetuity. Is it of any surprise that since the establishment of a standing army the United States has been involved in either officially declared wars, "military actions" and other incursions?

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment, and it is clear in its language, is to prevent government from disarming the public, which in turn allows for a well armed public capable of defending themselves against tyrannical nations, including, and especially, their own. If we are truly to have an honest and open discussion about "gun control" it seems to me, that we should begin with how we can control the weapons of a standing military that all too often threatens to bring the planet to the brink of destruction.

With 1 in 5 veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan, some number from Desert Storm, and some number from all previous wars having been diagnosed with PTSD, why is the 2 million number so hard to believe? Add to this the unemployment rate of 15.2 percent for veterans that have served in the Afghanistan and Iraq war, and then all the other people who are unemployed and stressed out or depressed and the million more on the brink of losing their homes this year alone, and you have a ticking time bomb.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Someone made this exact point in another thread this morning. Quite valid in my opinion. You were typing as I was, but I think we're hovering in the same vicinity. You just put it much better and get to the root cause faster.

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Someone made this exact point in another thread this morning. Quite valid in my opinion. You were typing as I was, but I think we're hovering in the same vicinity. You just put it much better and get to the root cause faster.

I actually thought we were on the same page in this regard. You, in fact, make a very valid point, only underscoring the serious problem we have with a standing military, by pointing to all the veterans diagnosed with post traumatic stress disorder. Of course, I am skeptical that PTSD actually qualifies as a "mental illness" and seems to me to be a very normal consequence of the horrors of war.

While I had suspected you would be inclined to agree with my assertions that if we are to seriously consider "gun control" we should begin with our own government, I have no idea whether you might be inclined to agree with my next assertion, which is that the psychiatric movement has been given far too much credence in a court of law, particularly given their sketchy history, and the fact that they are colloquially known as a "soft science", which means they do not, nor do I believe they can, provide incontestable laws to the table. The psychiatric movement is not a rigid science, does not adhere anywhere near the scientific method, and has been guilty of many crimes as a whole, including the indiscriminate practice of lobotomies, and over medicating people, as well as "misdiagnosis". I place quotes around misdiagnosis, because only a cursory look at their bible the Diagnostic and Statistical Manuel of Mental Disorders demonstrates a book that keeps growing at an alarming rate and certain types of behaviors, once merely thought to be quirky or odd, are now listed in this DSM, and even more disturbing, certain types of behaviors described in that DSM describe a vast majority of people.

Yet another discussion, rarely discussed, but in my not so humble opinion, one that merits discussion, is how sane are psychiatrists?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

PTSD is both a normal consequence of was and very real, An interesting side note here is that many of these cases have in recent years been diagnosed as "personality disorders" are now being reevaluated for reclassification. Make of that what you will...military...guns.

I do agree that the classifications of mental disease needs some serious reassessment and revamping, particularly if they're going to rely on reports to base gun and other laws on. I've heard tell that some people by just being on anti-depressants are denied certain types of insurance (life maybe? disability?)

It's become almost and involuntary action for physicians and psychiatrists alike to diagnose someone with depression or bipolar disorder to push pills and to shuttle the cattle through the mill. This is seriously detracting from identifying and coping with real mental illnesses, which we can all agree do exist.

However, having said this, I'd still say the 2M might just be in the ballpark for a nation of 311M. even discounting the quack diagnoses. It's less than .75% of the population.

reply to post by ~Lucidity

However, having said this, I'd still say the 2M might just be in the ballpark for a nation of 311M. even discounting the quack diagnoses. It's less than .75% of the population.

Less than one percent of the population is yet another cogent point germane to the discussion. Should such a small percentage of the population become the excuse for alarmist organizations to rally for even more gun control?

Personal disclosure compels me to add that I do not own any guns, I do not like guns, and I pray to God I never need a gun. However, my strong distaste for guns does not in anyway cloud my judgment when it comes to the need for an armed populace. The 2nd Amendment does call for a well regulated militia, which would be we the people, and because of this, I do understand the compunction to discern whether or not certain people should be regulated more thoroughly. However, when we begin regulating people based on their mental capacity, there are sane people, there are insane people, and then there are those who have been diagnosed as being "mentally ill". If the gun control advocates want to bring into the fray this problem, then so be it. It is a problem, (the psychiatric movement and their efficacy), that needs to be looked at from all angles, and taken every bit as seriously as "gun control".

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

No it shouldn't be the entire weight or argument, but it should be a consideration provided what we've already discussed about mental health trends/diagnoses is revisited and redefined to some level of (erm) sanity. I'm not sure we're capable of honest and open discussions, never mind drilling down to that granular of a point. Sort of germane to the discussion of mental illness and diagnosis, do you recall the New Freedom Commission, and the stir that caused? This could be twice as explosive.

reply to post by ~Lucidity


Right, it is wrong to have "crazy ticking timebomb" military guys armed! Unless of course they are in some other country, fighting for the rich man's agendas, i mean our freedom.