Mass killings and mental health

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • smokey

    2A TEACHER
    Jan 31, 2008
    31,412
    And I'm tired of incidents like this:

    http://abc7ny.com/news/woman-arrested-in-fatal-push-onto-subway-tracks-in-times-square/1594303/

    Why are you defending these people? At best, they're annoying and disruptive, at worst, they're violent and dangerous.

    The 49-year-old female victim was pronounced dead at the scene. The woman suspected of doing the pushing was taken into custody after several people who witnessed the incident flagged down officers.

    Police arrested 30-year-old Melanie Liverpool of Queens. She now faces a charge of second degree murder

    Since a crime was committed, the criminal that committed the crime is now going to face charges for second degree murder. This is how the system works. Perhaps a crime would not have been committed if the person that committed it had more access to mental healthcare and less stigma attached to the mental condition.

    You've already been shown that the rates of crime of those with mental illness are pretty much proportional to their rate in the population. Do you think any demographic group with a much higher rate of violent crime should be involuntarily incarcerated? I can immediately think of a demographic group that's 8 times more likely to commit homicides than other groups and wonder how your argument would apply in that case.
     

    Attachments

    • Screenshot_20170511-204248.jpg
      Screenshot_20170511-204248.jpg
      79.7 KB · Views: 129

    GlocksAndPatriots

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Aug 29, 2016
    763
    The legal test for being committed is dangerous to self and others. Are you suggesting we hold people who are diagnosed untill they can prove they are not a danger?

    No. I'm suggesting that the current test for "danger" is "has done something violent." In other words, we don't act until after it's too late. A person who hears voices and screams at the air should be locked up. Period.
     

    Rab1515

    Ultimate Member
    Patriot Picket
    Apr 29, 2014
    2,081
    Calvert
    No. I'm suggesting that the current test for "danger" is "has done something violent." In other words, we don't act until after it's too late. A person who hears voices and screams at the air should be locked up. Period.

    "Is". Not has been a danger.
     

    zoostation

    , ,
    Moderator
    Jan 28, 2007
    22,857
    Abingdon
    No. I'm suggesting that the current test for "danger" is "has done something violent." In other words, we don't act until after it's too late. A person who hears voices and screams at the air should be locked up. Period.

    No, the current test for danger, at least in this state, is "poses a threat to self or others." There is no requirement to wait until they have done something.

    I can say as someone who has actually testified in competency hearings that while it is, in many cases, too difficult IMHO to confine someone who is dangerous for very long, locking everyone up who has bipolar disorder or schizophrenia is simply ignorance. It makes about as much sense as saying we should suspend the driver's licenses of everyone with a red car, because everybody knows people with red cars cause accidents.

    Not to mention there aren't resources for it, and even when there kind of were, the living and treatment conditions for those people were shameful. If someone wasn't seriously mentally ill going in they damn well would be before too long.

    Mental health is vastly underfunded in this country, after all it's the one thing people can't see on an x-ray, you can't (really) run a lab test to confirm, and the sickest patients often aren't complaining. Right now the LCSW's my wife works with make around $30-35K, with years of experience as well as the master's degree and 2000 hours of generally unpaid practicum work it takes to get licensed. Many of them work only for the health insurance benefits and depend upon their spouse for money to pay the bills. There are very few psychiatrists left to write scrips as few med students want to enter an underpaid field with their quarter million dollars or more in student loans. My wife has worked with more than a couple of MD's who are well into their seventies but won't retire because there is simply no one else to take their place. Specialty psychiatrists like pediatric ones are even more rare. As resources shrink you can only expect it to get worse as it's usually the first thing the insurance companies like to cut. Members here who have written about their $200+ copays per treatment session for relatives can testify to that.

    Even regarding the minuscule percentage of mentally ill who are dangerous there is simply no place to put most of them. Not sure what the answer is.

    But regarding the vast majority of the mentally ill who are not a threat to anyone, fortunately we don't have laws to lock people away in institutions just because they are highly annoying, loud, and unlikable. Of all people, many lawyers especially should be appreciative of that.
     

    alucard0822

    For great Justice
    Oct 29, 2007
    17,643
    PA
    No, the current test for danger, at least in this state, is "poses a threat to self or others." There is no requirement to wait until they have done something.

    I can say as someone who has actually testified in competency hearings that while it is, in many cases, too difficult IMHO to confine someone who is dangerous for very long, locking everyone up who has bipolar disorder or schizophrenia is simply ignorance. It makes about as much sense as saying we should suspend the driver's licenses of everyone with a red car, because everybody knows people with red cars cause accidents.

    Not to mention there aren't resources for it, and even when there kind of were, the living and treatment conditions for those people were shameful. If someone wasn't seriously mentally ill going in they damn well would be before too long.

    Mental health is vastly underfunded in this country, after all it's the one thing people can't see on an x-ray, you can't (really) run a lab test to confirm, and the sickest patients often aren't complaining. Right now the LCSW's my wife works with make around $30-35K, with years of experience as well as the master's degree and 2000 hours of generally unpaid practicum work it takes to get licensed. Many of them work only for the health insurance benefits and depend upon their spouse for money to pay the bills. There are very few psychiatrists left to write scrips as few med students want to enter an underpaid field with their quarter million dollars or more in student loans. My wife has worked with more than a couple of MD's who are well into their seventies but won't retire because there is simply no one else to take their place. Specialty psychiatrists like pediatric ones are even more rare. As resources shrink you can only expect it to get worse as it's usually the first thing the insurance companies like to cut. Members here who have written about their $200+ copays per treatment session can testify to that.

    Even regarding the minuscule percentage of mentally ill who are dangerous there is simply no place to put most of them. Not sure what the answer is.

    But regarding the vast majority of the mentally ill who are not a threat to anyone, fortunately we don't have laws to lock people away in institutions just because they are highly annoying, loud, and unlikable. Of all people, many lawyers especially should be appreciative of that.

    Yes X1000. For a type of ailment almost a quarter of the population has, it's terrible that it's all but ignored, at least that beats locking up and torturing millions. Of course declaring people unfit to excercise rights because they "think wrong" is useful for some, and people love to ignorantly blather about "crazy people", and keep feeding the stigma.
     

    The_Emperor

    Member
    Apr 16, 2017
    30
    No, the current test for danger, at least in this state, is "poses a threat to self or others." There is no requirement to wait until they have done something.

    I can say as someone who has actually testified in competency hearings that while it is, in many cases, too difficult IMHO to confine someone who is dangerous for very long, locking everyone up who has bipolar disorder or schizophrenia is simply ignorance. It makes about as much sense as saying we should suspend the driver's licenses of everyone with a red car, because everybody knows people with red cars cause accidents.

    Not to mention there aren't resources for it, and even when there kind of were, the living and treatment conditions for those people were shameful. If someone wasn't seriously mentally ill going in they damn well would be before too long.

    Mental health is vastly underfunded in this country, after all it's the one thing people can't see on an x-ray, you can't (really) run a lab test to confirm, and the sickest patients often aren't complaining. Right now the LCSW's my wife works with make around $30-35K, with years of experience as well as the master's degree and 2000 hours of generally unpaid practicum work it takes to get licensed. Many of them work only for the health insurance benefits and depend upon their spouse for money to pay the bills. There are very few psychiatrists left to write scrips as few med students want to enter an underpaid field with their quarter million dollars or more in student loans. My wife has worked with more than a couple of MD's who are well into their seventies but won't retire because there is simply no one else to take their place. Specialty psychiatrists like pediatric ones are even more rare. As resources shrink you can only expect it to get worse as it's usually the first thing the insurance companies like to cut. Members here who have written about their $200+ copays per treatment session for relatives can testify to that.

    Even regarding the minuscule percentage of mentally ill who are dangerous there is simply no place to put most of them. Not sure what the answer is.

    But regarding the vast majority of the mentally ill who are not a threat to anyone, fortunately we don't have laws to lock people away in institutions just because they are highly annoying, loud, and unlikable. Of all people, many lawyers especially should be appreciative of that.

    I agree with this sentiment. Even people getting their MS/MA in Clinical Mental Health Counseling require a lot of training and hours to get an LCPC. The pay is not that great, but most of us who went into this profession knew this coming in.
    But there is only so much we can do when we aren't given the help/ support we need, plus it is difficult to advocate for the clients we serve when the government/ insurance companies make it hard for them to receive help. It is a circle that doesn't seem to end.

    That is why I try to help as many people as I can with what I can. And it definitely starts with not focusing on labeling others and giving them help as people. Labels are one thing, but to use it to name a person rather than their given name is going backwards. How can someone come for help when they are seen as a problem not worth helping?

    Hopefully, the face of mental health will start with the upcoming generations, which will be difficult when most CACREP accredited universities are dying out in MD. Loyola University just closed down their Clinical Mental Health Counseling program in MD. Now there are only 2 left, Johns Hopkins and UMCP.
     

    zoostation

    , ,
    Moderator
    Jan 28, 2007
    22,857
    Abingdon
    I agree with this sentiment. Even people getting their MS/MA in Clinical Mental Health Counseling require a lot of training and hours to get an LCPC. The pay is not that great, but most of us who went into this profession knew this coming in.
    But there is only so much we can do when we aren't given the help/ support we need, plus it is difficult to advocate for the clients we serve when the government/ insurance companies make it hard for them to receive help. It is a circle that doesn't seem to end.

    This. This is why I didn't go into the field when I retired from the police department. I didn't mind earning the 18 credits for the second master's, and I didn't mind the lower pay since I would be supplementing it with my retirement. But there was no way I could take in effect a year of working full time for free to get 2,000 hours for licensure.

    It's a shame too because I had been the PD liaison helping manage the Mobile Crisis Team programs and had an undergrad degree in the field already. Thought my background and experiences in the field might really be helpful, especially for working with police and military folks. But the state makes it just not do-able for most people with that 2,000 hour requirement.
     

    The_Emperor

    Member
    Apr 16, 2017
    30
    This. This is why I didn't go into the field when I retired from the police department. I didn't mind earning the 18 credits for the second master's, and I didn't mind the lower pay since I would be supplementing it with my retirement. But there was no way I could take in effect a year of working full time for free to get 2,000 hours for licensure.

    It's a shame too because I had been the PD liaison helping manage the Mobile Crisis Team programs and had an undergrad degree in the field already. Thought my background and experiences in the field might really be helpful, especially for working with police and military folks. But the state makes it just not do-able for most people with that 2,000 hour requirement.

    On a good note, my practicum internship hours counts towards the state requirement for licensure. To me, everyone has their own reason for doing things. I wanted to make a difference within my community, and I hope with hard work I can make a difference. And hopefully, make some coins to make a living haha :)
     

    Biggfoot44

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 2, 2009
    32,877
    Zoo, you could do the loophole end run.

    Get Ordained by Universal Life Church, and then do " Pastoral" Councling for LE/ Mil types as freelance independent Chaplin .

    This is mostly serious.
     

    KJackson

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Apr 3, 2017
    8,613
    Carroll County
    fortunately we don't have laws to lock people away in institutions just because they are highly annoying, loud, and unlikable.

    If there were laws about this, I am sure that there are lots of people who were not mentally ill who could be in trouble just for being annoying, loud, or unlikable.

    Also, what about those who may have a little to much to drink and get out of hand or take some illegal drugs and lose their control? Should they be locked up as well?
     

    teratos

    My hair is amazing
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 22, 2009
    59,775
    Bel Air
    It is so hard to find a psychiatrist who takes insurance. Insurance does not really pay psychiatrists a reasonable amount of money so a lot ask for cash. Some folks can afford it. Sadly, this affects the sicker people. It's a vicious circle. Those who have more severe mental illness typically do not have either the money or the support structure to get adequate help. Add to that the stigma of mental illness that has been so well exemplified in this very thread. That uninformed and immature attitude is pervasive in society. It makes people not want to seek treatment because they will be labeled, ridiculed, and risk losing rights. Not good.

    80% of psychiatric care provided in this Country is done by primary care physicians. You know how much training I got in psychiatry? A 6 week rotation in my 3rd year of medical school in 1998. By necessity, I treat things I'm far from comfortable treating. I have few resources I can rely on. Even my job is made harder because of the yahoo ignorami who make reckless blanket statements that further stigmatize the mentally it. Those people would probably be shocked at the number of folks on this very board being treated effectively for various psychiatric illnesses.
     

    GlocksAndPatriots

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Aug 29, 2016
    763
    It is so hard to find a psychiatrist who takes insurance. Insurance does not really pay psychiatrists a reasonable amount of money so a lot ask for cash. Some folks can afford it. Sadly, this affects the sicker people. It's a vicious circle. Those who have more severe mental illness typically do not have either the money or the support structure to get adequate help. Add to that the stigma of mental illness that has been so well exemplified in this very thread. That uninformed and immature attitude is pervasive in society. It makes people not want to seek treatment because they will be labeled, ridiculed, and risk losing rights. Not good.

    80% of psychiatric care provided in this Country is done by primary care physicians. You know how much training I got in psychiatry? A 6 week rotation in my 3rd year of medical school in 1998. By necessity, I treat things I'm far from comfortable treating. I have few resources I can rely on. Even my job is made harder because of the yahoo ignorami who make reckless blanket statements that further stigmatize the mentally it. Those people would probably be shocked at the number of folks on this very board being treated effectively for various psychiatric illnesses.

    There's nothing ignorant about not wanting schizophrenics roaming free in society.
     

    KJackson

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Apr 3, 2017
    8,613
    Carroll County
    LOL! Do you really think that's an equivalent comparison?

    Well, you are the one who wants them locked away. I am guessing by your posts because you feel that they are a danger to society. Aren't the other groups dangers to society? Well, maybe not the women with PMS unless you happen to live with too many of them.

    All of these groups have committed crimes and harmed society. Then again, you can say that about pretty much any group of people that you choose to name.
     

    zoostation

    , ,
    Moderator
    Jan 28, 2007
    22,857
    Abingdon
    LOL! Do you really think that's an equivalent comparison?

    Pretty much. You've been given solid arguments by other members here, including mental health professionals, at least one physician, and people who actually have education and background in the subject matter. So far, from what I can tell, your entire justification seems to be "I'm from New York and they annoy me." :rolleyes:
     

    GlocksAndPatriots

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Aug 29, 2016
    763
    Pretty much. You've been given solid arguments by other members here, including mental health professionals, at least one physician, and people who actually have education and background in the subject matter. So far, from what I can tell, your entire justification seems to be "I'm from New York and they annoy me." :rolleyes:

    I've read your arguments. At best, you're saying they're weird and annoying, but if lucky, can be harmless with treatment. Their families are usually fed up with them and don't know what to do. Overall, we're better off without them in society.
     

    zoostation

    , ,
    Moderator
    Jan 28, 2007
    22,857
    Abingdon
    I've read your arguments. At best, you're saying they're weird and annoying, but if lucky, can be harmless with treatment. Their families are usually fed up with them and don't know what to do. Overall, we're better off without them in society.

    No, that's actually not what I or the numerous other people trying to talk sense to your extremist position have said. There is no "luck" involved. So no, misrepresentations of what I said really aren't working here. The well-documented statistics about the mentally ill groups you referenced being overwhelmingly nonviolent are there. Your words, however, have no ambiguity, and make about as much scientific sense as saying we should lock away all people with red hair, because anyone who watches Viking movies knows how dangerous they are. But, go ahead and continue to double-down on an indefensible argument. The rest of us will deal with facts.

    Not vaguely "mental illness," but schizophrenics and bipolar people have no business being free, much less owning guns.

    I live in New York. I'm tired of hearing crazy people screaming at the air down the road. We'd be better off putting them in state mental hospitals.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,916
    Messages
    7,258,559
    Members
    33,348
    Latest member
    Eric_Hehl

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom