Another mass murder

[Ken L]

All,

 

This article express my view probably better than I can.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/12/17/...r-mentally-ill/

 

Phone

Today, Monday, 12/17/2012 may be the biggest day in (private) gun sales history. All the stats are not yet tabulated.

 

Worrying Phone. Very worrying.

Proper psychiatric care is a cornerstone of a civilised society and is absolutely not something that should be in the hands of insurance companies or the lowest bidder. It should be properly funded by the state.

It needs to be psychiatric care.

America's state of denial about it's guns means you run the risk of protecting that "freedom" by sacrificing an even greater freedom through sanctioning the enforced administration of psychotropic medication to anyone arbitrarily considered a mental health threat.

Would you be happy if a soldier returning from Afghanistan and having difficulty adjusting was given a cursory assessment, then tagged and GPS tracked and compeled to acept the administration of depot injections of anti psychotic drugs for the next ten years ?

How about a troubled teenager from a home where his parents were divorcing ?

You run the risk of passing knee jerk laws that allow anyone deemed a threat to be kept down with a chemical kosh.

Edited December 18, 2012 by Ken L

[Sportsman]

All,

 

This article express my view probably better than I can.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/12/17/...r-mentally-ill/

 

Phone

Today, Monday, 12/17/2012 may be the biggest day in (private) gun sales history. All the stats are not yet tabulated.

 

Two issues here I think.

One is the appalling lack of proper mental health care.

The other is the easy potential access (as in this case) to automatic weapons and seemingly unlimited amounts of ammunition.

A deadly combination.

Maybe both aspects require some modification.

[ayjay]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/12/17/...r-mentally-ill/

 

I started to read the article with some hope, but after only a couple of lines we get;- "Too many guns isn’t the issue" - I stopped reading right there.

 

It's not good enough America - trite remarks like "guns don't kill people" will no longer do, those kids all died of gunshot wounds.

 

I'm in my sixties, I don't own a gun, I've never owned a gun, I've never felt the need to own a gun, I don't believe I've suffered by not owning a gun, you have to change your mindset and get rid of the guns, they have no place in the 21st century - and if you're determined to hang onto them in the numbers you have now, then these killings will continue.

[Andrew]

Obama has promised he will act on the gun laws, a brave man indeed to meddle with the all powerful gun lobby agencies over there.

 

As long as its easy to walk into a store off the street, buy guns after a simple check, mass murders like this will continue to happen.

The gun mentality of the general public MUST change about owning firearms. It will take a very brave President to interfere with the present gun laws in the USA. A very brave man indeed.

Has anyone seen that very disturbing program on Sky, FAMILY GUNS, take an ordinary gun in, get it pimped up to fire all manner of things.

Edited December 18, 2012 by Andrew

[snakey1]

If the number of guns in circulation denotes the number of firearms homicides then why when the USA which has approx 270,000,000 firearms in civilian hands and annual firearms homicide total of approx 10000, does Brazil which has approx 17,000,000 firearms in civilian hands have an annual firearms homicide total of approx 30000, 3 x the amount of the USA ?

Will tighter legislation reduce gun crime ? possibly but probably not as dramatically as many would like to think, especially as how easy it is to legally obtain firearms already varies greatly from state to state, in some states its relatively easy in others its as hard as it is over here.

You could ban all civilian firearms and it still wouldn't have stopped this. should we be disarming the military as well as obviously some of them can't be trusted with firearms.

Edited December 18, 2012 by snakey1

[Steve Walker]

Proper psychiatric care is a cornerstone of a civilised society and is absolutely not something that should be in the hands of insurance companies or the lowest bidder. It should be properly funded by the state.

 

Hmm - the extent of socialisation of essential services (including healthcare) is a key ideological distinction between the American and European ways of life. I would disagree that the US approach is intrinsically uncivilised, but they may need to address this problem in a more pragmatic way.

[robtherake]

....sanctioning the enforced administration of psychotropic medication to anyone arbitrarily considered a mental health threat.

Would you be happy if a soldier returning from Afghanistan and having difficulty adjusting was given a cursory assessment, then tagged and GPS tracked and compeled to acept the administration of depot injections of anti psychotic drugs for the next ten years ?

How about a troubled teenager from a home where his parents were divorcing ?

You run the risk of passing knee jerk laws that allow anyone deemed a threat to be kept down with a chemical kosh.

 

At the risk of moving away from the main point, I think it's worth noting that far from being a panacea, if the prescription administered is the wrong one, rather than "coshing" the recipient there's a very real chance that the symptoms will be amplified and exacerbated.

 

As a long-term sufferer from bouts of clinical depression, there have been times when some medicines have left me feeling like the victim of an experiment in brain chemistry. A couple of these drugs have put me on the edge of the abyss, causing a complete change in personality, perception and reaction to external stimuli.

It can take years to find the right solution, and for an unlucky percentage - estimated by some to be as high as a third - these medicines just don't work, at least not in the way they are designed to.

Although it's impossible to assess, it would be unsurprising if a fair proportion of these events turned out to be precipitated by an ineffective and potentially dangerous prescription or misdiagnosis.

Edited December 18, 2012 by robtherake

[Ken L]

If the number of guns in circulation denotes the number of firearms homicides then why when the USA which has approx 270,000,000 firearms in civilian hands and annual firearms homicide total of approx 10000, does Brazil which has approx 17,000,000 firearms in civilian hands have an annual firearms homicide total of approx 30000, 3 x the amount of the USA ?

Will tighter legislation reduce gun crime ? possibly but probably not as dramatically as many would like to think, especially as how easy it is to legally obtain firearms already varies greatly from state to state, in some states its relatively easy in others its as hard as it is over here.

You could ban all civilian firearms and it still wouldn't have stopped this. should we be disarming the military as well as obviously some of them can't be trusted with firearms.

 

The population of Brazil is 193m. The population of the USA is 312m. In terms of demographics, Brazil has a much higher proportion of children who won't have access to firearms, so if you look at the two countries in terms of their armed to the teeth adult population, the homicide rate per 100,000 of population will be about the same.

[snakey1]

Firearms homicide rate per 100,000 people USA approx 3.5, Brazil approx 18.0 figures can be found here

Edited December 18, 2012 by snakey1

[Old geezer]

Very much like care in the community here, I suspect.

 

People who are very much in need of care are swept out of the system ito privately rented flats with a view to forgetting they ever existed.