Mass shootings

[Benton]

(03-01-2018, 12:22 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I said laws are as effective as folks are willing to follow them; I assume you're still not following. That law did not work in the situation and the point trying to be made that this example supports that trained educators should not be allowed to conceal carry actually proved exactly the opposite. The "gun free zone" law did not work in this situation.

Not sure if you will get it after this explanation or not, but I'm done explaining it; folks can just read it. 

So if nobody follows a law, we should just abandon it?

[*bfine32*]

(03-01-2018, 12:27 AM)Benton Wrote: So if nobody follows a law, we should just abandon it?

Well if nobody follows a law we may want to re-look it. Do you disagree with this? 

[Benton]

(03-01-2018, 12:33 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Well if nobody follows a law we may want to re-look it. Do you disagree with this? 

"Nobody" is a pretty broad term. If "nobody" means a significant portion of the population participating, it's different than "nobody" meaning it's generally acceptable by a significant portion of the population.

Applying it to different issues, abortion is 'working' in the former but not in the latter. Or, being an illegal alien is more acceptable in the latter and not common in the former.

So , I dunno, I just wish we were more consistent. Let's either go total totalitarianism or let people have their freedoms. But that's a broader answer to your question.

[BmorePat87]

(03-01-2018, 12:22 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I said laws are as effective as folks are willing to follow them; I assume you're still not following. That law did not work in the situation and the point trying to be made that this example supports that trained educators should not be allowed to conceal carry actually proved exactly the opposite. The "gun free zone" law did not work in this situation.

Not sure if you will get it after this explanation or not, but I'm done explaining it; folks can just read it. 

I mean, I follow what you actually said: If one person breaks a law it "doesn't work".


So if we then make a law saying teachers can carry guns in schools following certain training procedures or certification, it's reasonable to believe that, like all laws, one person will violate that law and it won't work. 

In fact, we can say that about every law, even if the vast majority of people follow it. As long as one person violates the law, it "doesn't work".



Or we can abandon this incredibly flawed logic as a way of evaluating policy and look at actual data:

-More guns means more violence. 
-Gun free zones are not more likely to attract violence
-School violence has decreased since enacting gun free zone laws

I get that using data to draw conclusions rather than using a single anecdote to make a declaration about a law is a ridiculous concept, but I really think there's something to it. 

[BmorePat87]

(03-01-2018, 12:33 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Well if nobody follows a law we may want to re-look it. Do you disagree with this? 

True story, every one comes to school strapped.

[*bfine32*]

(03-01-2018, 12:47 AM)Benton Wrote: "Nobody" is a pretty broad term. If "nobody" means a significant portion of the population participating, it's different than "nobody" meaning it's generally acceptable by a significant portion of the population.

Applying it to different issues, abortion is 'working' in the former but not in the latter. Or, being an illegal alien is more acceptable in the latter and not common in the former.

So , I dunno, I just wish we were more consistent. Let's either go total totalitarianism or let people have their freedoms. But that's a broader answer to your question.

I'm not sure how broad the term nobody (no person; not anyone; no one) is.  

[*bfine32*]

(03-01-2018, 12:50 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: True story, every one comes to school strapped.

....and that's when you realize the discussion has run its course. Bye. 

[BmorePat87]

(03-01-2018, 12:57 AM)bfine32 Wrote: ....and that's when you realize the discussion has run its course. Bye. 

[BmorePat87]

[*bfine32*]

I will say this: I just watched a story on those kids from Marshall County and they are some amazing kids. They did mention that it's not good to make a sudden movement or make a noise. We can insult each other from now until eternity, but none of us know what those kids will carry for the rest of their lives.

I will say that I think those that I have disagreed with in this thread want the same thing I do, we just disagree on the most effective way to do it.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(02-28-2018, 11:40 PM)GMDino Wrote: Just got back from the school board meeting for our district.  We are in a rural area and we've had a couple "threats" but no guns in the school or on the school grounds.

My wife and I were very happy with the moves that have been made, the ideas that were discussed and the items coming up:  Added metal detectors, increased security, armed security, better track of locked doors even in the after school hours when activities are going on, etc.

One thing NOT brought up was arming teachers.

After the meeting two of the older teachers were talking.  One is a hunter the other never fired a gun in his life.  Both said if they offered they would have no problem with the trained, experienced teachers carrying though.

Overall a good meeting with input from the security, school board, teachers and parents.  We all agreed that this isn't a single answer problem and that a spectrum of answers will be required.

In my hometown, the local PD has agreed to add 2 more SROs for the city school, and is working with the Sheriff's Dept to add to the county schools.  This is the first step there, and is something I like.

Here, I have one child in 1st grade (the other in preschool at our church).  There are two entry points.  The buses unload up front, and we drop our daughter off at the entrance to the gym where they only allow x amount of cars at a time to unload.  They have always had a teacher at each entry.  Recently, there has been an armed officer with a K9 at the entry to the gym.  It's scary to see, as I remember going in any door I chose in elementary school, but it was also a tad comforting in today's climate.  Good to see local LE being proactive....and lemme tell you, that dude's head was on a swivel, he was watching EVERYONE.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(02-28-2018, 11:51 PM)BengalHawk62 Wrote: Another article but this one is an opinion piece that sheds light on the heart of the issue from my prospective.



http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/Op-Ed/2012/12/23/I-am-Adam-Lanza-s-mother-My-son-threatens-to-kill-me-I-ve-tried-everything-everything-is-not-enough/stories/201212230224

That is rather chilling to read.  It lends some credence to Lucie's position on mental treatment centers.  We're just sending these people to jail and compounding the issues.

[Belsnickel]

(03-01-2018, 12:14 PM)WychesWarrior Wrote: That is rather chilling to read.  It lends some credence to Lucie's position on mental treatment centers.  We're just sending these people to jail and compounding the issues.

Over the years we have reduced the funding that has gone into mental health treatment. This has resulted in people that need help in that regard being imprisoned, and often over and over again. If they aren't imprisoned, they end up being homeless. It's a serious problem that we need to focus on. The issue is that mental health is a difficult topic that is still stigmatized in significant ways. This is getting better, but it's nowhere near where it needs to be in order for us to seriously address the problems. Frank, open, and honest discussions about mental health issues are happening more now than ever but we still have a high level of ignorance in society surrounding these issues.

To connect this to the firearm violence issue specifically, though, is a dangerous situation. I have a problem with comments like those Lucie made and with others discussing stripping people of their liberties for mental health issues. Forced institutionalization like what has been advocated on this forum is fascist and un-American. It's a violation of the unalienable rights we all possess. I have no objections with this occurring when due process is followed and other options are exhausted, but it should always be an absolute last resort. That is not the way it is often presented in the discussions. I served as foreman for a jury that institutionalized someone against their will. It was one of the most difficult things I have ever dealt with even though I know I made the correct decision.

I would also like to say, and I wish I had the data on hand at this moment but I have forgotten where I read it, that people diagnosed with mental disorders commit violent crimes at a lower rate than those that do not have diagnosed disorders. There are a ton of factors in there that can explain this correlation, but this is what the data tells us. The data also tells us that people with mental disorders are victims of violent crimes at a significantly higher rate than people that are not.

I don't disagree that we need to take a harder look at mental health in our country, I advocate for it on a regular basis. But tying it into this conversation is harmful to the overall movement.

[BengalHawk62]

(03-01-2018, 12:14 PM)WychesWarrior Wrote: That is rather chilling to read.  It lends some credence to Lucie's position on mental treatment centers.  We're just sending these people to jail and compounding the issues.

I agree. We need more mental health facilities through out the country. Unfortunately here in my state, the gov’r and his cronies in their infinite wisdom has decided they are no longer needed and has closed all but 2 or 3 in the state. The leadership has taken the approach if you ignore the mental health issue, it’ll just go away. This article proves it doesn’t just go away, it gets put into places and areas where it should never be, the prison system.

I feel we need a lot more than just that here. I’d dump more money into mental health facilities to bring them back and even bring back county homes for folks who need the help.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-28-2018, 11:51 PM)BengalHawk62 Wrote: Another article but this one is an opinion piece that sheds light on the heart of the issue from my prospective.



http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/Op-Ed/2012/12/23/I-am-Adam-Lanza-s-mother-My-son-threatens-to-kill-me-I-ve-tried-everything-everything-is-not-enough/stories/201212230224

This is the best post in the thread, by a large degree.  I can't tell you how many phone calls I've fielded from distraught mothers who want help with their child, almost always their son.  We can refer them to voluntary services, but they're just that, voluntary, and these mothers have generally lost control of their children.  Most of the time, during the course of my conversation with them, it becomes very apparent that the parent is not actually parenting their child.  They aren't holding them accountable or they are inconsistent in doing so.  I'll give them advice on how to do so and you'd be amazed how many times they'll say something the effect of, "I never thought of that".

For the parents that are doing their job and it's just not working there are extremely limited options, and the social worker quoted in the link you provided relayed the only real way to get government provided intervention, have the minor charged with a crime so they can be placed on probation.  As every other intervention is voluntary, this is currently the only way to impose mandatory intervention.  Having a mental health focused "probation", meaning participation is compulsory, would be an excellent use of government funds.

As a further aside to the above, I noticed that the women in the story was a single mother.  I think this is a significant part of our national problem; fathers have been seen as a less than necessary parent.  This is the fault of both women and men in our society.  Men, for walking away from their responsibilities towards their children, and women for thinking they can meet the needs of children without male support.  Men and women are different, they provide different things for a child.  They are also of equal importance in my mind and our system does not reflect that.  How often do women automatically get the children and the house in a divorce?  This is changing, a bit, but we all know the answer.  The idea that the mother is more important is subtly engrained in our society, and it is affecting our children.  A committed father is extremely important, it provides boys with a model for how a man should conduct themselves and it provides daughters with a template for the type of man they'll want to be involved with as an adult.  Remove the father and you are setting yourself up for failure.  As I said, both genders are responsible for this failure and we need to start having this discussion with that as the foundation.

[BengalHawk62]

(03-01-2018, 12:55 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Over the years we have reduced the funding that has gone into mental health treatment. This has resulted in people that need help in that regard being imprisoned, and often over and over again. If they aren't imprisoned, they end up being homeless. It's a serious problem that we need to focus on. The issue is that mental health is a difficult topic that is still stigmatized in significant ways. This is getting better, but it's nowhere near where it needs to be in order for us to seriously address the problems. Frank, open, and honest discussions about mental health issues are happening more now than ever but we still have a high level of ignorance in society surrounding these issues.

To connect this to the firearm violence issue specifically, though, is a dangerous situation. I have a problem with comments like those Lucie made and with others discussing stripping people of their liberties for mental health issues. Forced institutionalization like what has been advocated on this forum is fascist and un-American. It's a violation of the unalienable rights we all possess. I have no objections with this occurring when due process is followed and other options are exhausted, but it should always be an absolute last resort. That is not the way it is often presented in the discussions. I served as foreman for a jury that institutionalized someone against their will. It was one of the most difficult things I have ever dealt with even though I know I made the correct decision.

I would also like to say, and I wish I had the data on hand at this moment but I have forgotten where I read it, that people diagnosed with mental disorders commit violent crimes at a lower rate than those that do not have diagnosed disorders. There are a ton of factors in there that can explain this correlation, but this is what the data tells us. The data also tells us that people with mental disorders are victims of violent crimes at a significantly higher rate than people that are not.

I don't disagree that we need to take a harder look at mental health in our country, I advocate for it on a regular basis. But tying it into this conversation is harmful to the overall movement.

I respectfully disagree with your last sentence. Tying mental health to gun violence is not ‘harmful’.....it’s all included. Unless I’m not understanding what you are trying to say.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(03-01-2018, 12:55 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Over the years we have reduced the funding that has gone into mental health treatment. This has resulted in people that need help in that regard being imprisoned, and often over and over again. If they aren't imprisoned, they end up being homeless. It's a serious problem that we need to focus on. The issue is that mental health is a difficult topic that is still stigmatized in significant ways. This is getting better, but it's nowhere near where it needs to be in order for us to seriously address the problems. Frank, open, and honest discussions about mental health issues are happening more now than ever but we still have a high level of ignorance in society surrounding these issues.

To connect this to the firearm violence issue specifically, though, is a dangerous situation. I have a problem with comments like those Lucie made and with others discussing stripping people of their liberties for mental health issues. Forced institutionalization like what has been advocated on this forum is fascist and un-American. It's a violation of the unalienable rights we all possess. I have no objections with this occurring when due process is followed and other options are exhausted, but it should always be an absolute last resort. That is not the way it is often presented in the discussions. I served as foreman for a jury that institutionalized someone against their will. It was one of the most difficult things I have ever dealt with even though I know I made the correct decision.

I would also like to say, and I wish I had the data on hand at this moment but I have forgotten where I read it, that people diagnosed with mental disorders commit violent crimes at a lower rate than those that do not have diagnosed disorders. There are a ton of factors in there that can explain this correlation, but this is what the data tells us. The data also tells us that people with mental disorders are victims of violent crimes at a significantly higher rate than people that are not.

I don't disagree that we need to take a harder look at mental health in our country, I advocate for it on a regular basis. But tying it into this conversation is harmful to the overall movement.

I agree with a lot of this....I just said that for the sake of brevity.  However, there ARE those who have mental issues that get their hands on guns....legally.  It seems some of those people perpetrate mass killings.  It is a very complex issue, for sure.  The thing is, we're forcing some of these people into prison, if they won't seek help, I don't see the issue in making them seek it.  We do it with addicts.

FWIW, I'm not advocating asylums with shock therapy, I'm for treatment centers that delve at the root of the problem and treating it.  It HAS to be a better option than prison for profit or the streets.

(03-01-2018, 12:56 PM)BengalHawk62 Wrote: I agree.  We need more mental health facilities through out the country.  Unfortunately here in my state, the gov’r and his cronies in their infinite wisdom has decided they are no longer needed and has closed all but 2 or 3 in the state.  The leadership has taken the approach if you ignore the mental health issue, it’ll just go away.  This article proves it doesn’t just go away, it gets put into places and areas where it should never be, the prison system.

I feel we need a lot more than just that here.  I’d dump more money into mental health facilities to bring them back and even bring back county homes for folks who need the help.

Absolutely.  Our POS governor is a lot like yours.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(03-01-2018, 12:58 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This is the best post in the thread, by a large degree.  I can't tell you how many phone calls I've fielded from distraught mothers who want help with their child, almost always their son.  We can refer them to voluntary services, but they're just that, voluntary, and these mothers have generally lost control of their children.  Most of the time, during the course of my conversation with them, it becomes very apparent that the parent is not actually parenting their child.  They aren't holding them accountable or they are inconsistent in doing so.  I'll give them advice on how to do so and you'd be amazed how many times they'll say something the effect of, "I never thought of that".

For the parents that are doing their job and it's just not working there are extremely limited options, and the social worker quoted in the link you provided relayed the only real way to get government provided intervention, have the minor charged with a crime so they can be placed on probation.  As every other intervention is voluntary, this is currently the only way to impose mandatory intervention.  Having a mental health focused "probation", meaning participation is compulsory, would be an excellent use of government funds.

As a further aside to the above, I noticed that the women in the story was a single mother.  I think this is a significant part of our national problem; fathers have been seen as a less than necessary parent.  This is the fault of both women and men in our society.  Men, for walking away from their responsibilities towards their children, and women for thinking they can meet the needs of children without male support.  Men and women are different, they provide different things for a child.  They are also of equal importance in my mind and our system does not reflect that.  How often do women automatically get the children and the house in a divorce?  This is changing, a bit, but we all know the answer.  The idea that the mother is more important is subtly engrained in our society, and it is affecting our children.  A committed father is extremely important, it provides boys with a model for how a man should conduct themselves and it provides daughters with a template for the type of man they'll want to be involved with as an adult.  Remove the father and you are setting yourself up for failure.  As I said, both genders are responsible for this failure and we need to start having this discussion with that as the foundation.

Very well said sir.  I agree 100%.

[Belsnickel]

(03-01-2018, 01:05 PM)BengalHawk62 Wrote: I respectfully disagree with your last sentence. Tying mental health to gun violence is not ‘harmful’.....it’s all included. Unless I’m not understanding what you are trying to say.

What I see when the issue of mental health is tied to shootings like these is that this is really the only time the conversation comes up. When it does, it has the potential to further stigmatize those with mental disorders. Also, because of the data I mentioned regarding the rate as which those with mental disorders are perpetrators and victims of violence I see it as using the issue as a scapegoat. This is why I see the tying of these two issues together in this way as harmful in both directions.

[Belsnickel]

(03-01-2018, 01:05 PM)WychesWarrior Wrote: FWIW, I'm not advocating asylums with shock therapy, I'm for treatment centers that delve at the root of the problem and treating it.  It HAS to be a better option than prison for profit or the streets.

The problem right now is that the facilities we have for this don't have the resources to treat mental disorders. They are essentially prisons in their own right. I took advantage of an opportunity to tour such a facility after my experience on the jury. We have a facility nearby that handles juveniles and adults. After the trial of which I was a part, I wrote to an elected official and we were able to tour the place. It's not a policy area I am well versed in, but I became a bit more of an advocate for these issues after seeing the place.