fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2716 ]

[ SECRET POST #2716 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2716 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

__________________________________________________

13.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 044 secrets from Secret Submission Post #388.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 - this is getting too obvious now, anon ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I wish people would make more of an issue about mental health and a good support than guns. Even if you take the guns you still have an angry ill person.

Agreed. I think there needs to be a serious discussion about re-establishing institutions, because it's becoming clear that there are a lot of people out there who are so sick that they really should not be allowed out in society without treatment.

And I say this as someone with a mental illness myself.

Gun Control Anon (just declaring my bias)

I... have absolutely no idea how people can argue that re-establishing institutions, and I infer from your comment increasing involuntary confinement for people with mental health issues in those institutions, is somehow less of a breach of a person's fundamental rights and the better option for stopping mass shootings (despite the fact that there is no evidence that this would actually stop gun related violence) than... say... stricter gun control? Which by the way, has been proved to reduce and prevent gun-related violence?

I say this as someone who has a mental illness and who has no problem with being prevented from owning a gun on the basis of that mental illness.

Because it is an issue that extends beyond guns. Not too long ago, one of the state senators here in the US was stabbed multiple times and nearly killed by his severely schizophrenic son, who then killed himself. He knew his son was dangerous and potentially violent and had been trying to get him committed but was unable to do so. Now he's an outspoken advocate for mental health reform.

We had another incident a couple of months ago where a teenager (most likely also mentally ill) went on a stabbing spree in a school. People like that are dangerous with or without guns and there need to be ways to keep them from hurting themselves or anyone else. If that means putting them in a supervised facility with people who monitor them and make sure they take their medications (because a huge problem with people who are bipolar or schizophrenic is that they will stop taking their medication if they feel better), then so be it.

Mental health (and misogyny) are both issues that need to be addressed better in modern Western society to stop these shootings. But the first step isn't to wait for years for various programs aimed at addressing these issues to take affect.

The second to umpteenth steps are addressing the underlying issues, definitely. But the first step is to make sure angry, ill people do not have access to guns, pure and simple.

I wish that were so easy to ensure.

What part of it isn't easy to ensure?

Kinda hard to ensure crazies don't get guns when you consider that patients have rights that include privacy about their medical issues, be they asthma or mental health issues. Would you advocate taking away that right to privacy? Because doing so would only ensure that fewer people seek treatment.

Well, my bias is that I'm Australian and think the Australian gun control system could and should work in America.

Paraphrased from what I said in another comment:
Within months of the 1996 Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania, in which a single gunman killed 35 people and injured 23, the conservative government of the time used reaction to the tragedy to raise gun control as a political issue and initiated tighter restrictions on gun ownership and a mass gun buyback scheme. This was very unpopular with a lot of the Howard government's voters at the time and in general in opposition to conservative political ideology, but they pushd it through anyway because they thought it was the right thing to do. There haven't been any mass shooting incidents in Australia since, and homicides and suicides by gun have dramatically decreased (without an increase in death by other methods).

In summary: I'm not looking to take away a patient's right to privacy, I'm looking to take away their right to guns. Lol.

In response to your question, specifically this part: "[conducting checks on the mental health history of potential gun buyers' would only ensure that fewer people seek treatment.", I would appreciate it if you could give me some evidence that that is what happens when countries enforce stricter access to guns. Also, if and how they do do mental health checks, and how much of a breach of a patient's privacy that actually entails. Since I did give you a well publicised example supporting my stance on the issue.

In a general sense, I don't see how it would ensure few people seek treatment for mental health issues - I can see only a very few people thinking to themselves "I really, really need to see a psych for my issues, because existence is becoming unbearable. But, you know, I'd better not because at some point in my life I might want to buy a gun." Like, that doesn't seem like a very likely thought process to me at all.

Re: Respectfully, No.

(Anonymous) - 2014-06-11 02:23 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Respectfully, No.

(Anonymous) - 2014-06-11 02:32 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Respectfully, No.

(Anonymous) - 2014-06-11 03:16 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Respectfully, No.

(Anonymous) - 2014-06-11 04:39 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Respectfully, No.

(Anonymous) - 2014-06-11 05:03 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Respectfully, No.

(Anonymous) - 2014-06-11 05:35 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Respectfully, No.

(Anonymous) - 2014-06-11 07:09 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Respectfully, No.

(Anonymous) - 2014-06-11 02:58 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Respectfully, No.

(Anonymous) - 2014-06-11 03:18 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Respectfully, No.

(Anonymous) - 2014-06-11 03:37 (UTC) - Expand

The part where there's a huge black market for guns that would be nearly impossible to completely monitor?

I mean there are already laws in place stopping people who aren't licensed from having guns, and that includes criminals and mentally unstable people. Most of the guns people have used in recent shootings were not legally obtained.

DA

Yup. This is what I was thinking.

To me it seems to be a very complex issue which needs a multipronged attack.
On the other hand, there seems to be a lot of talk (intelligent talk but nonetheless) and not enough action.

Nobody cares how angry and ill someone is so long as they're not committing mass murder.

that's part of the problem, though. People should.

Might want to tell that to Creigh Deeds. I suspect he'll have a very different opinion.

Mental health issues aren't at play here because he had multiple psychiatrists as well as access to very good healthcare. He WAS getting help. Tons of it.

He wasn't taking the medications he had been prescribed, though. Having access to help means nothing if you refuse to cooperate with it.

Then how does this make this a mental health issue that we need to be discussing?

Access to mental health care was not the problem here. So unless your argument is "We need to be talking about mental health, because somebody should have been force-feeding this kid pills" that's not the biggest issue.

We can't control what people do, we can only try to control the tools with which they do it.

There is only so much you can do for an adult with mental illness in a day and age with privacy laws and laws that make it very difficult to institutionalize someone against their will. The UCSB shooter had a long history with the psychiatric profession but had never done anything to warrant an intervention that would have kept him away from society.

So, your argument IS "somebody should have been force-feeding this kid pills/locking him up." Okay, then.

Re: School shooting tw

(Anonymous) - 2014-06-11 02:40 (UTC) - Expand

Re: School shooting tw

(Anonymous) - 2014-06-11 03:22 (UTC) - Expand

That's like 90 percent of what was talked bout after Sandy Hook and...look where it got us. No real changes and more school shootings.

California already has fairly strict gun laws (for the US) and still the shooter managed to obtain his weapons legally. The only thing more they could really do would be to say anyone with a history of seeing a psychologist or psychiatrist would be ineligible to own a gun. But with privacy laws and advocates for people who suffer mental illness this will be a hard sell. The shooter did nothing illegal (that he was caught for) to warrant denying him a gun. I don't think you'll get anywhere in the US trying to take all guns away which seems to be where people are going on this thread.

In Australia you have to state a genuine reason to want to buy a gun, and part of the background check is seeing whether you have been treated for some kind of mental issue or disorder in the last 12 months. Those are two measures that don't involve taking away people's guns that could have prevented the shooter from acquiring his weapons legally.

Oh my god. You've been all over these threads talking about Australia, but Australia is not the US. In the US, checks to "see if you've been treated for a mental illness or disorder" ARE NOT LEGAL. Doctors can't just hand that information out to any shopkeeper that says "Patient X would like to buy a gun..."

Re: School shooting tw

(Anonymous) - 2014-06-11 08:03 (UTC) - Expand

Re: School shooting tw

(Anonymous) - 2014-06-12 07:11 (UTC) - Expand

The only thing more they could really do would be to say anyone with a history of seeing a psychologist or psychiatrist would be ineligible to own a gun.

That would be such a terrible idea. :(

EXACTLY, THANK YOU. That's what I've been trying to say all night, and I wish I had just said it rather than being wordy and confusing trying to justify it.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only