Mental Health Treatment in the US

[Belsnickel]

(02-07-2017, 12:41 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I probably shouldn't offer up my opinion because what I know of the mental health system in America comes almost exclusively from movies and TV shows, but assuming they're relatively accurate, I gotta wonder if part of the problem is that we treat these institutions as another form of prison, in terms of punishing people as opposed to actually "reforming" them.

That is part of the problem, to be painfully honest. I mean, in some instances there are people that will never be able to function outside of an institution. But even with that being the case, a lot of these places are very prison-esque in their feel. A lot of the reason for this is because of the funding for them. Every square foot costs money, every bed adds costs, quality staff to do the job aren't cheap. Because of this you get overcrowded, underfunded, understaffed (and the staff that are there have high turnover) institutions that operate more like a prison than a hospital. Patients are there, they have group meetings a couple of times a week, occasional meetings one-on-one with doctors, and they try to keep them occupied. The only addition is the nurses tending to the more basic needs for some of them.

[Benton]

(02-07-2017, 12:41 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I probably shouldn't offer up my opinion because what I know of the mental health system in America comes almost exclusively from movies and TV shows, but assuming they're relatively accurate, I gotta wonder if part of the problem is that we treat these institutions as another form of prison, in terms of punishing people as opposed to actually "reforming" them.

Treatment costs money. Like any other illness. And often times these are people without a lot of resources, so it falls to society to decide how to handle it.

Right now the mindset is 'get them out of sight.'

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-04-2017, 03:21 PM)Benton Wrote: And there's this part of the issue.

http://thehill.com/regulation/317634-house-republicans-block-obama-era-gun-rule


Then: Mentally ill, and the government knows? You get a background check. If you're a risk to others, no gun. Not? Here's your firearm, take your meds!
Now: Mentally ill, and the government knows? Here's your firearm. Enjoy!

Every gun store owner and law enforcement official I've talked to about gun violence has the same answer: more background checks. If we as a society aren't going to address treating the mentally ill, we need to at least deal with the fallout from that.

The opposition to background checks from gun owners/advocates is the concern that the checks will be used to establish a database of who owns what.  They don't trust the governments intent in creating such a database, with some justification.  More below.

(02-04-2017, 03:37 PM)wildcats forever Wrote: How do we get out of the loop that says "they're coming to take our guns" ??  Hasn't enough time gone by to prove that isn't the case? 

My favorite proposal was/is to treat guns as we treat regulating car ownership. Both provide enjoyment and both can cause harm if misused. Registration and insurance speaks to responsible ownership. What's not to like? Keeping the background check in place only enhances intended safety for others.

First, as to your second point, owning a car is not a constitutional right.  What you're advocating is, in essence, no different than a poll tax, that is making someone pay a fee to exercise their constitutional rights.  I understand that firearms are potentially lethal objects but the fact remains that owning them is a constitutional right.

As to your first point, "They're coming to take our guns" will go away when governments stop trying to take our guns.  Xxlt had a good time mocking me in another thread regarding the current gun laws in CA.  They have created an entire category of firearms, centerfire magazine loaded long guns, that are henceforth illegal to own, unless they are registered, or transferred, under any reason.  This prohibition exists after you die as well, ownership is non-transferable, meaning I own the gun and once I die it has to be either rendered inoperable, taken out of state or surrendered to the state.  This is precisely "taking away our guns", it's just a back door way of doing so.  It's no different than anti-abortion lawmakers forcing clinics to have admitting privileges as a local hospital.  They can say they aren't banning abortions, but in essence they are by making the conditions necessary to perform them untenable. 

Still not convinced?  CA banned standard capacity magazines long ago, but stated in doing so that magazines already in the state were grandfathered in and that this would not change.  They have no banned all magazines over ten round capacity and any already possessed must be surrendered or transferred out of state or the owner is committing a crime.  This isn't even backdoor confiscation, this is right in your face confiscation.  I won't even get into the absurd ammunition purchase law that will hopefully be struck down by the courts.

If lawmakers wanted gun owners, and the NRA's, assistance on this issue then they need to stop being so disingenuous about their ultimate intentions.  Gun owners don't believe a single thing about gun ownership that comes out of many politicians mouths and thus far events have shown they shouldn't.

Lastly, I completely agree that mental health issues receive a fraction of their needed support.  Most mass shootings have been carried out by a mentally ill person. 

[GMDino]

(02-07-2017, 06:12 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The opposition to background checks from gun owners/advocates is the concern that the checks will be used to establish a database of who owns what.  They don't trust the governments intent in creating such a database, with some justification.  More below.


First, as to your second point, owning a car is not a constitutional right.  What you're advocating is, in essence, no different than a poll tax, that is making someone pay a fee to exercise their constitutional rights.  I understand that firearms are potentially lethal objects but the fact remains that owning them is a constitutional right.

As to your first point, "They're coming to take our guns" will go away when governments stop trying to take our guns.  Xxlt had a good time mocking me in another thread regarding the current gun laws in CA.  They have created an entire category of firearms, centerfire magazine loaded long guns, that are henceforth illegal to own, unless they are registered, or transferred, under any reason.  This prohibition exists after you die as well, ownership is non-transferable, meaning I own the gun and once I die it has to be either rendered inoperable, taken out of state or surrendered to the state.  This is precisely "taking away our guns", it's just a back door way of doing so.  It's no different than anti-abortion lawmakers forcing clinics to have admitting privileges as a local hospital.  They can say they aren't banning abortions, but in essence they are by making the conditions necessary to perform them untenable. 

Still not convinced?  CA banned standard capacity magazines long ago, but stated in doing so that magazines already in the state were grandfathered in and that this would not change.  They have no banned all magazines over ten round capacity and any already possessed must be surrendered or transferred out of state or the owner is committing a crime.  This isn't even backdoor confiscation, this is right in your face confiscation.  I won't even get into the absurd ammunition purchase law that will hopefully be struck down by the courts.

If lawmakers wanted gun owners, and the NRA's, assistance on this issue then they need to stop being so disingenuous about their ultimate intentions.  Gun owners don't believe a single thing about gun ownership that comes out of many politicians mouths and thus far events have shown they shouldn't.

Lastly, I completely agree that mental health issues receive a fraction of their needed support.  Most mass shootings have been carried out by a mentally ill person. 

Can you still own guns?

They didn't take away your guns then.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-07-2017, 06:14 PM)GMDino Wrote: Can you still own guns?

No, I cannot own the guns I want that are legally available to the vast majority of the country.  By your logic if I could own a single shot .22lr pistol than I can still owns "guns"

Quote:They didn't take away your guns then.

No, they'll wait until I die, then take them.  People like you are why the gun lobby exists and why gun owners will never trust the other side.  Disingenuous and facetious arguments don't win converts.

[Benton]

(02-07-2017, 06:12 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:   This prohibition exists after you die as well, ownership is non-transferable, meaning I own the gun and once I die it has to be either rendered inoperable, taken out of state or surrendered to the state. 

Wow. Hadn't heard that part of it. Not surprised they tried, but I'll be surprised if that holds up.

[GMDino]

(02-07-2017, 06:28 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, I cannot own the guns I want that are legally available to the vast majority of the country.  By your logic if I could own a single shot .22lr pistol than I can still owns "guns"


No, they'll wait until I die, then take them.  People like you are why the gun lobby exists and why gun owners will never trust the other side.  Disingenuous and facetious arguments don't win converts.

So you can still own guns.  Just not every gun you "want".  

And when you die they aren't your guns. 

I'm not even saying I agree with it...but they didn't "take away your guns".

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-07-2017, 06:37 PM)Benton Wrote: Wow. Hadn't heard that part of it. Not surprised they tried, but I'll be surprised if that holds up.

Nor am I and I certainly hope it doesn't hold up.  The scuttlebutt is that banning all semiautomatic long guns is on this years agenda.

(02-07-2017, 06:55 PM)GMDino Wrote: So you can still own guns.  Just not every gun you "want".  

And when you die they aren't your guns. 

I'm not even saying I agree with it...but they didn't "take away your guns".

Yes, they absolutely did.  My property is my property until it is transferred to someone else.  Alive or dead this is the case, in this instance I am prevented from transferring my property to the person I choose and must either send it out of state, destroy its functionality or surrender it.  In regards to not owning what I want, you could make the same argument, as I just did, that owning a single shoot .22lr pistol is still a right to own a gun.  Using your logic that is.

I notice you ignored the magazine ban, as you couldn't make your "not confiscation" argument with that at all.

[GMDino]

(02-07-2017, 07:22 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Nor am I and I certainly hope it doesn't hold up.  The scuttlebutt is that banning all semiautomatic long guns is on this years agenda.


Yes, they absolutely did.  My property is my property until it is transferred to someone else.  Alive or dead this is the case, in this instance I am prevented from transferring my property to the person I choose and must either send it out of state, destroy its functionality or surrender it.  In regards to not owning what I want, you could make the same argument, as I just did, that owning a single shoot .22lr pistol is still a right to own a gun.  Using your logic that is.

I notice you ignored the magazine ban, as you couldn't make your "not confiscation" argument with that at all.

I didn't ignore anything.  You still own what you already owned.

They didn't come and take anything from you.

But then I don't care what you own.  And I don't care if you can't buy one thing when you can get two dozen others that are the same thing.

No one took your guns.  That's just paranoid thinking.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-07-2017, 07:45 PM)GMDino Wrote: I didn't ignore anything.  You still own what you already owned.

They didn't come and take anything from you.

Magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds? 

Quote:But then I don't care what you own.  And I don't care if you can't buy one thing when you can get two dozen others that are the same thing.

If they're the same thing then why is one banned and the other isn't?  There seems to be an inherent lack of logic in this line of thinking.

Quote:No one took your guns.  That's just paranoid thinking.

Sure it is.  Also, the anti-abortionists aren't trying to ban abortion, they just don't want federal funds to go to it.  I suppose people put their head in the sand on numerous issues in this country.

[Rotobeast]

(02-07-2017, 07:45 PM)GMDino Wrote: And I don't care if you can't buy one thing when you can get two dozen others that are the same thing.

No one took your guns.  That's just paranoid thinking.

I'm curious as to what you meant, about the two dozen that do the same thing statement ?

Also....
He probably didn't have anything taken away.

A. He's not dumb enough to tell everyone what he's got.

B. He's a LEO.

C. He lost every firearm he owned in a tragic boating accident.

[GMDino]

(02-08-2017, 04:26 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: I'm curious as to what you meant, about the two dozen that do the same thing statement ?

Also....
He probably didn't have anything taken away.

A. He's not dumb enough to tell everyone what he's got.

B. He's a LEO.

C. He lost every firearm he owned in a tragic boating accident.

Let's say he owns the guns that he can't buy anymore.

He still owns them even after the law was passed.  They didn't come and "take his guns".

He can buy lots of other guns.  He can't buy that one.

I don't want to know what he has.  None of my business.

If he lost all his guns he can but almost all them again...just not one.

Unless it's some special Mexican Ghost Voter killing gun it's just another gun.

And, again, I don't even care if people CAN buy the gun.  I'm just saying no one "took his guns".

Until he dies.  Then this ONE type has to be disabled or turned into the state.  I'm still not sure how that is "taking his guns".

But I know a lot of people think a lot of their guns.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-08-2017, 04:26 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: I'm curious as to what you meant, about the two dozen that do the same thing statement ?

Also....
He probably didn't have anything taken away.

A. He's not dumb enough to tell everyone what he's got.

B. He's a LEO.

C. He lost every firearm he owned in a tragic boating accident.

Actually, I can buy handguns that are "off roster".  The handguns available to CA residents are very limited and the list shrinks every year.  It's backdoor banning and people like GMDino like to pretend it isn't but then act aghast when gun owners don't trust word one from the mouths of anti-firearms politicians and activists.

(02-08-2017, 10:37 AM)GMDino Wrote: Let's say he owns the guns that he can't buy anymore.

He still owns them even after the law was passed.  They didn't come and "take his guns".

He can buy lots of other guns.  He can't buy that one.

I don't want to know what he has.  None of my business.

If he lost all his guns he can but almost all them again...just not one.

Unless it's some special Mexican Ghost Voter killing gun it's just another gun.

And, again, I don't even care if people CAN buy the gun.  I'm just saying no one "took his guns".

Until he dies.  Then this ONE type has to be disabled or turned into the state.  I'm still not sure how that is "taking his guns".

But I know a lot of people think a lot of their guns.

Chortle, "one type".  Incorrect, a huge category of firearms, not to mention the absurd handgun roster that, as mentioned above, gets smaller every year.

Yet, I'm curious, you said there's no confiscation, what about magazines that hold more than 10 rounds?  Those are being "taken away".  Why do you ignore that undeniable fact?  The government is taking away people's legally purchased property and this doesn't bother you?  The failure of said people to turn in their legally purchased property turns a law abiding citizen into a criminal and this doesn't bother you?  All, btw, while CA reduces sentences for child sex traffickers and other odious convicted criminals.  When the state is more concerned with citizens that have never been convicted of a crime than those that have committed felonies something is very wrong and something is very wrong with anyone who can't see that.

[GMDino]

(02-08-2017, 12:58 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Actually, I can buy handguns that are "off roster".  The handguns available to CA residents are very limited and the list shrinks every year.  It's backdoor banning and people like GMDino like to pretend it isn't but then act aghast when gun owners don't trust word one from the mouths of anti-firearms politicians and activists.


Chortle, "one type".  Incorrect, a huge category of firearms, not to mention the absurd handgun roster that, as mentioned above, gets smaller every year.

Yet, I'm curious, you said there's no confiscation, what about magazines that hold more than 10 rounds?  Those are being "taken away".  Why do you ignore that undeniable fact?  The government is taking away people's legally purchased property and this doesn't bother you?  The failure of said people to turn in their legally purchased property turns a law abiding citizen into a criminal and this doesn't bother you?  All, btw, while CA reduces sentences for child sex traffickers and other odious convicted criminals.  When the state is more concerned with citizens that have never been convicted of a crime than those that have committed felonies something is very wrong and something is very wrong with anyone who can't see that.

I believe I said (twice) I don't care what you can buy.  I do not know why this type/category was taken off the shelves so I don't have a feeling one way or the other on it.

But you feel put off by it so that's bad for you.

You can still own guns.  No one came to your house to take your guns.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-08-2017, 01:04 PM)GMDino Wrote: I believe I said (twice) I don't care what you can buy.  I do not know why this type/category was taken off the shelves so I don't have a feeling one way or the other on it.

But you feel put off by it so that's bad for you.

You can still own guns.  No one came to your house to take your guns.  

Keep dodging and avoiding made points.  I don't know why I'd expect something like a logical, cogent, counterpoint.

[GMDino]

(02-08-2017, 01:08 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Keep dodging and avoiding made points.  I don't know why I'd expect something like a logical, cogent, counterpoint.

Unless the are coming door to door to take away what have they have deemed "illegal" they are not taking away your guns.

Again, you can own as many guns as you want.  Why a particular category or type is seen as taking away your guns is beyond me.

And I support your right to own a gun, lots if you want.  For hunting, collecting, or to lead an overthrow of the government some day.  Doesn't matter to me.

But no one has come to you home to take your guns.  Period.

[Rotobeast]

(02-08-2017, 12:58 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Actually, I can buy handguns that are "off roster".  The handguns available to CA residents are very limited and the list shrinks every year.  It's backdoor banning and people like GMDino like to pretend it isn't but then act aghast when gun owners don't trust word one from the mouths of anti-firearms politicians and activists.


Chortle, "one type".  Incorrect, a huge category of firearms, not to mention the absurd handgun roster that, as mentioned above, gets smaller every year.

Yet, I'm curious, you said there's no confiscation, what about magazines that hold more than 10 rounds?  Those are being "taken away".  Why do you ignore that undeniable fact?  The government is taking away people's legally purchased property and this doesn't bother you?  The failure of said people to turn in their legally purchased property turns a law abiding citizen into a criminal and this doesn't bother you?  All, btw, while CA reduces sentences for child sex traffickers and other odious convicted criminals.  When the state is more concerned with citizens that have never been convicted of a crime than those that have committed felonies something is very wrong and something is very wrong with anyone who can't see that.

Yes, that ban covers a lot of different guns.
That's why I was trying to find out (for clarification) what the other same/similar guns being referenced were.
Dino's not a big gun guy, so I don't expect him to know what a wide range that ban covers.

If anything politically radical were going to happen, in the US, we know it's going to take place in CA or NY.
It's obvious that is why they wish to push more and more strict gun laws.
Referring to the child-trafficking, maybe their softening the blow to their elite (oh, Polanski !!!) for when Pizza-Gate comes crashing down ?

[GMDino]

I don't see where " CA reduces sentences for child sex traffickers and other odious convicted criminals" either.


Unless it was about the child prostitution changes that has been debunked when accused of legalizing it.

Quote:http://www.theblaze.com/news/2016/12/30/california-is-not-actually-legalizing-child-prostitution/



The state of California has not legalized child prostitution, contrary to reports you may have read online recently.

The law, signed by Gov. Jerry Brown (D) in September, does decriminalize prostitution in the case of minors — an important distinction as the law aims to protect children by treating them as victims, not as criminals.

SB 1322, in fact, bans police officers from charging minors with prostitution. Law enforcement officials will be able to take minors into temporary custody but under limited circumstances — including if there is an imminent threat to their lives.

And sex traffickers will still be held accountable.

As Snopes noted in September when the law was passed:

Quote:This does not, however, mean that child prostitution is legal. It is still illegal for Californians to hire prostitutes (child or otherwise), and sex traffickers will still face consequences if they are caught prostituting children.

The actual text of the bill states:

Quote:Existing law makes it a crime to solicit or engage in any act of prostitution. Existing law makes it a crime to loiter in any public place with the intent to commit prostitution.

This bill would make the above provisions inapplicable to a child under 18 years of age who is alleged to have engaged in conduct that would, if committed by an adult, violate the above provisions. The bill would authorize the minor to be taken into temporary custody under limited circumstances.

“The law is supposed to protect vulnerable children from adult abuse, yet we brand kids enmeshed in sex-for-pay with a scarlet ‘P’ and leave them subject to shame and prosecution,” California state Sen. Holly J. Mitchell (D) said in a statement when Brown signed the legislation. “This is our opportunity to do what we say is right in cases of sex trafficking: stop the exploiters and help the exploited.”

Though it has been months since the law was signed, some conservative media outlets and Twitter accounts have recently began peddling the idea that California will allow child prostitution unfettered beginning in January.

An op-ed in the Washington Examiner published Thursday reads:

Quote:SB 1322 bars law enforcement from arresting sex workers who are under the age of 18 for soliciting or engaging in prostitution, or loitering with the intent to do so. So teenage girls (and boys) in California will soon be free to have sex in exchange for money without fear of arrest or prosecution.

The piece erroneously states that: “Immunity from arrest means law enforcement can’t interfere with minors engaging in prostitution.”

If there is something else I'm sorry I did not find it.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-08-2017, 01:14 PM)GMDino Wrote: Unless the are coming door to door to take away what have they have deemed "illegal" they are not taking away your guns.

Again, you can own as many guns as you want.  Why a particular category or type is seen as taking away your guns is beyond me.

And I support your right to own a gun, lots if you want.  For hunting, collecting, or to lead an overthrow of the government some day.  Doesn't matter to me.

But no one has come to you home to take your guns.  Period.

Keep ignoring the property confiscation I keep reminding you of.  It only makes your argument look weak, which it is.

(02-08-2017, 01:17 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Yes, that ban covers a lot of different guns.
That's why I was trying to find out (for clarification) what the other same/similar guns being referenced were.
Dino's not a big gun guy, so I don't expect him to know what a wide range that ban covers.

If anything politically radical were going to happen, in the US, we know it's going to take place in CA or NY.
It's obvious that is why they wish to push more and more strict gun laws.
Referring to the child-trafficking, maybe their softening the blow to their elite (oh, Polanski !!!) for when Pizza-Gate comes crashing down ?

That's the problem, gun legislation is largely drafted, and supported, by people who know jack shit about guns.  People like GMDino also believe that they'll stop at the current level of restriction, which is naive to believe.

(02-08-2017, 01:32 PM)GMDino Wrote: I don't see where " CA reduces sentences for child sex traffickers and other odious convicted criminals" either.


Unless it was about the child prostitution changes that has been debunked when accused of legalizing it.

Cough, Prop 57. 

 https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_57,_Parole_for_Non-Violent_Criminals_and_Juvenile_Court_Trial_Requirements_(2016)

We're already seeing a huge impact from this garbage proposition, not a good one if you were wondering.

[GMDino]

(02-08-2017, 01:47 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Keep ignoring the property confiscation I keep reminding you of.  It only makes your argument look weak, which it is.

Are they going door to door confiscating guns? No? Not coming for your guns then.

(02-08-2017, 01:47 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: That's the problem, gun legislation is largely drafted, and supported, by people who know jack shit about guns.  People like GMDino also believe that they'll stop at the current level of restriction, which is naive to believe.

Why you keep saying I support it I can't imagine. Oh, wait....you aren't reading what I say you're just arguing.

(02-08-2017, 01:47 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Cough, Prop 57. 

 https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_57,_Parole_for_Non-Violent_Criminals_and_Juvenile_Court_Trial_Requirements_(2016)

We're already seeing a huge impact from this garbage proposition, not a good one if you were wondering.

I'd be interested in what the impact has been.

As it reads it is non-violent offenders and for good behavior. Has the impact really been "huge"? And in what ways. Genuinely curious.