ScorpSuperior
@ScorpSuperior
18 Years10,000+ Posts
Comments: 3 · Posts: 10583 · Topics: 206
Do Something?
Posted by ScorpSuperior
If you're willing and able, please.
We the People
Give up my mind?
No thanks.
Read my reply in Let*It*Be's thread.
^^^ "@Dazed" Thread. Posted 12-18-2012
Okay, thank you anyway.
Posted by ScorpSuperior
Okay, thank you anyway.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin said that.
And he was right.
And he was right.
Posted by seraph
Thank you, ScorpSuperior.
Signed.
Signature # 179,921
I'm happy to support our cousins to the South in this cause.
Thank you. 🙂🙂
Posted by MrFirebirdPosted by ScorpSuperior
Okay, thank you anyway.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.click to expand
What liberties are you giving up?
For what purpose do you need to own a machine gun, MFB?
Posted by xdimplez
who are they limiting exactly? it never stated in there as to what the criteria would be for someone to purchase a gun
i'm iffy about this. if people really wanted to get a hold on a gun. they will. they might even make it themselves. think of the prohibition era. alcohol was taken away and people started making them in their own homes and holding 'speakeasys' or what not. in fact, i bet the home made alcohol was even more potent if it wasnt done properly. i do beleive that guns should be monitored, but id like to see the full details first.
what about the innocents who really only use it for protection? there are still other dangers out there in the world
It is asking that Congress reconsider the criteria- that laws be re-evaluated.
Also, it is much easier to make alcohol than it is to self-manufacture an AK-47. Heck, I evenmade alcohol by accident once (water + honey + time = fermentation). 😛
*even made
Posted by ScorpSuperiorPosted by MrFirebirdPosted by ScorpSuperior
Okay, thank you anyway.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
What liberties are you giving up?
For what purpose do you need to own a machine gun, MFB?click to expand
I ask that you read my reply in that thread.
As for the machine gun question -
Have you ever heard the saying "don't take a knife to a gunfight"?
IF it were the only weapon that saved your life from
a murderous butcher about to take it, you would love the warmth of that gun
in your hands.
What you are saying is simply this: I am willing to give up my right to defend myself
against a powerful enemy so I "feel" safe.
"Feelings" are NOT "FACTS", my dear.
Do I make myself clear?
GUNS do not kill people, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE.
Please, contemplate that concept.
It's NOT the guns, it's the people.
People need to change.
Remember.... a looney with a gun taken from him, might
just choose a car for a trip to the parade - thumpety thump thump.
knock on wood.
Visualize that alternative weapon - Are you willing to give up your car??
Again, please read my replies posted today in LIB's thread.
Posted by seraph
Thank you, ScorpSuperior.
Signed.
Signature # 179,921
I'm happy to support our cousins to the South in this cause.
Seraph, Are you a Citizen of The United States?
Does anyone here think that the US would have come to be had it not been for men with firearms that could compete
with the British Empire—??
Hello, people!!!!
with the British Empire—??
Hello, people!!!!
Posted by MrFirebirdPosted by ScorpSuperiorPosted by MrFirebirdPosted by ScorpSuperior
Okay, thank you anyway.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
What liberties are you giving up?
For what purpose do you need to own a machine gun, MFB?
I ask that you read my reply in that thread.
As for the machine gun question -
Have you ever heard the saying "don't take a knife to a gunfight"?
IF it were the only weapon that saved your life from
a murderous butcher about to take it, you would love the warmth of that gun
in your hands.
What you are saying is simply this: I am willing to give up my right to defend myself
against a powerful enemy so I "feel" safe.
"Feelings" are NOT "FACTS", my dear.
Do I make myself clear?
GUNS do not kill people, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE.
Please, contemplate that concept.
It's NOT the guns, it's the people.
People need to change.
Remember.... a looney with a gun taken from him, might
just choose a car for a trip to the parade - thumpety thump thump.
knock on wood.
Visualize that alternative weapon - Are you willing to give up your car??
Again, please read my replies posted today in LIB's thread.click to expand
I'm with Mr.FIREBird on this one.. The masses don't see their rights are underhandedly being taken away..Unfortunately, sing a mass shooting to their advantage to CONTROL the masses..ie: "We the People."
I've only got two words.."MARTIAL LAW"
I WANT to...NEED be prepared.
Using**
MrFirebird
I can't reply to LIB's thread.
When the 2nd Amendment was created, every citizen was issued a gun (if they didn't have one) by the government for the purposes of standing with the militia to defend the free State. Are the British still coming for us, MFB? I think not.
Yes, people kill people, BY WAY OF guns and [insert other means here]. Guns just so happen to be one of the most effective and common ways of doing this. Ever heard of a mass stabbing? Not so much. And your scenario with the "the looney" who has his gun taken from and chooses a car? Well, that loon has one less option- one less weapon, now doesn't he? And considering that many murders are committed in the heat of the moment, so to speak, by the time a person makes their way to a car (assuming they have one of their own) and locates a crowd of people and police barracade to bypass, the chances they will have de-escalated or give up (for the time being) will have increased.
Agreed, people need to change. But, until we can change the parts of our culture that perpetuate violence, we can make it more difficult for people to commit mass murder by limiting their access to firearms. Modification of a law does not suggest its complete removal.
I can't reply to LIB's thread.
When the 2nd Amendment was created, every citizen was issued a gun (if they didn't have one) by the government for the purposes of standing with the militia to defend the free State. Are the British still coming for us, MFB? I think not.
Yes, people kill people, BY WAY OF guns and [insert other means here]. Guns just so happen to be one of the most effective and common ways of doing this. Ever heard of a mass stabbing? Not so much. And your scenario with the "the looney" who has his gun taken from and chooses a car? Well, that loon has one less option- one less weapon, now doesn't he? And considering that many murders are committed in the heat of the moment, so to speak, by the time a person makes their way to a car (assuming they have one of their own) and locates a crowd of people and police barracade to bypass, the chances they will have de-escalated or give up (for the time being) will have increased.
Agreed, people need to change. But, until we can change the parts of our culture that perpetuate violence, we can make it more difficult for people to commit mass murder by limiting their access to firearms. Modification of a law does not suggest its complete removal.
Posted by ellessque
*signed*
This isn't a petition to BAN guns.
FFS, does anybody fucking read?
Thank you, elle!!!
Posted by Sizzurp
What about the fact that the US is the world's top arms exporter? Is that going to be considered as well?
Let's hope.
In the case of the Newton school shooting, stricter gun purchase protocol would have done nothing. His mother was a teacher, his father makes half a million dollars a year. Surely, no one would have questioned them and they would have hurdled across every stop gap instituted.
The root of the problem has nothing to do with less guns, more guns or better gun policy. It is really about mental health and mental health policies. Afterall, the guns were in the home with the mother for years and nothing happened. It wasn't until the guns fell into the hands of a mentally unstable person that the tragic events unfolded.
I think the petition is a good idea. Sign it don't sign it. Sadly, it's not going to change a thing.
Every single mass shooter in recent memory has had mental health issues. If we focus our efforts on treating that we might get somewhere.
Adam Lanza's former classmates are all jockeying for their 15 minutes of fame by stating to any media outlet that will listen, how strange, odd and wierd he was. Go figure. That's a given because you simply don't wake up one day and decide to take out an elementary school.
Start doing something about the strange, odd and wierd people in your life. Talk to them. Get to know them. Find out if they are a danger to you or anyone else. Guns have been around for hundreds and hundreds of years. They aren't going anywhere as long as gun lobbyists exist and gun manufactures contribute mass amounts to political campaigns.
The root of the problem has nothing to do with less guns, more guns or better gun policy. It is really about mental health and mental health policies. Afterall, the guns were in the home with the mother for years and nothing happened. It wasn't until the guns fell into the hands of a mentally unstable person that the tragic events unfolded.
I think the petition is a good idea. Sign it don't sign it. Sadly, it's not going to change a thing.
Every single mass shooter in recent memory has had mental health issues. If we focus our efforts on treating that we might get somewhere.
Adam Lanza's former classmates are all jockeying for their 15 minutes of fame by stating to any media outlet that will listen, how strange, odd and wierd he was. Go figure. That's a given because you simply don't wake up one day and decide to take out an elementary school.
Start doing something about the strange, odd and wierd people in your life. Talk to them. Get to know them. Find out if they are a danger to you or anyone else. Guns have been around for hundreds and hundreds of years. They aren't going anywhere as long as gun lobbyists exist and gun manufactures contribute mass amounts to political campaigns.
Posted by ellessque
talk about mind control.
let's make everyone afraid of everyone and everything in the entire world, so much so we have to stock pile weapons because even OUR NEIGHBORS are out to get us.
what the hell is WRONG with having a REAL discussion about it within congress WITHOUT the NRA?
You *think* the NRA has your back but the only thing they are concerned about is lining their pockets with *your* money.
They aren't on the frontlines like the first responders of that school shooting or even the theatre shooting. They could give a rats ass about consequences.
Should your guns be taken away from you? No. It's HIGHLY unlikely that will EVER happen.
However, should the laws be more stringent and actually FOLLOWED THRU WITH? Hell yes.
The decision to have people we PUT in office actually DISCUSS this openly should be a no brainer.
I read it. Say what you want, say what you will. Discussions are great..bla-bla-bla..but what really matters is WHERE will the discussion LEAD?? CLEARLY the aim is to limit guns. Then what comes after LIMITATIONS— BANS. Can't help but to think ahead. I'm not hopping into any rabbit hole without looking at EVERYTHING.
Posted by SizzurpPosted by ScorpSuperiorPosted by MrFirebirdPosted by ScorpSuperior
Okay, thank you anyway.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
What liberties are you giving up?
For what purpose do you need to own a machine gun, MFB?
You can't own a "machine gun" without a class c license. Its very tough to obtain a class c and those that have one are strictly monitored. So what are you asking?click to expand
I was asking MFB about the usefulness of a civilian having access to a firearm that is capable taking out large numbers of people in a short amount of time. I'm clearly not as savvy as some of you, in terms of classification of firearms. Thanks for your input. In my mind, all guns are evil. Seems they were created for the sole purpose of causing harm.
In any case, I have trouble seeing how the cons outweigh the pros when it comes to reassessing gun control.
Posted by Sizzurp
I don't mean to sound crass, but the sensation these school shootings generates really bothers me. You folks do understand that our own government has crippled the Iraqi infrastructure so badly that and untold amount of women and children have died because of starvation, illness, exposure, you name it?
But, I guess 500k+ is less important than a few instances cropping up. Oh, and instead of reforming our government we address gun legislation.
I guess I just don't understand.
siigh...sensationalism was just talking about that yesterday.
Posted by Sizzurp
Why aren't we addressing the military industrial complex? Why aren't addressing these lobbyists that have basically purchased our government-representatives included. Why not the pharmaceutical industry that purposely sells highly addictive drugs whilst and untold amount of street hustlers are locked up, costing tax money for doing the same thing. I don't even want to get into the environment mayhem we've caused...
I don't understand why instances like this are so important when other things are falling apart in a major way. Besides, all the media buzz just encourages these freaks to cause destruction.
They're all important.
I'm with you, Sizzurp! Let's take them all on! Where do we start?
Posted by SizzurpPosted by ScorpSuperiorPosted by Sizzurp
Why aren't we addressing the military industrial complex? Why aren't addressing these lobbyists that have basically purchased our government-representatives included. Why not the pharmaceutical industry that purposely sells highly addictive drugs whilst and untold amount of street hustlers are locked up, costing tax money for doing the same thing. I don't even want to get into the environment mayhem we've caused...
I don't understand why instances like this are so important when other things are falling apart in a major way. Besides, all the media buzz just encourages these freaks to cause destruction.
They're all important.
I'm with you, Sizzurp! Let's take them all on! Where do we start?
I wish I knew my sweet.click to expand
Prod our local Congressman? Write more petitions? Squeeky wheel gets the oil, no? Call me an idealist, but I believe in us, Sizzy.
well I,m a canadian and whatever you americans do you do for you but I,ll say this here there are strict controls on handguns for the reason that they are easily concealed and not used for hunting in this country.. I have no problems with that at all. Hunting with rifles and shotguns is similar to usa and its simply being of legal age and passing a FAC ceritifcate and background check to buy one..
I'll say this to one arguement I've seen here people don't change and wont change for a very long time and only if forced too. We,ve been killing each other for thousands of year and we will continue to do so and the only thing thats cchanged is how efficently we do it..
The truth is don't do anything and watch the slaughter continue as it has I see it so often on the news I just turn off the tv now. Something has to change but thats your countrys decision good luck with that 😢
I'll say this to one arguement I've seen here people don't change and wont change for a very long time and only if forced too. We,ve been killing each other for thousands of year and we will continue to do so and the only thing thats cchanged is how efficently we do it..
The truth is don't do anything and watch the slaughter continue as it has I see it so often on the news I just turn off the tv now. Something has to change but thats your countrys decision good luck with that 😢
Chance- by no means am I trying to divert the issue from gun control but do you think it a mere coincidence that the increase in mass shootings started occuring at the same time that mental health policies changed in America?
Combined with a sharp rise in homelessness during the 1980s, Ronald Reagan pursued a policy toward the treatment of mental illness that satisfied special interest groups and the demands of the business community, but failed to address the issue: the treatment of mental illness
The 2nd admendment isn't going anywhere, ever. America will always be a nation built on and around guns. Hell we took this county with guns. Are we obsessed with them, maybe.
I don't have all the answers but a gun whether a semi automatic weapon or not in the hands of a mentally stable person should not be a primary concern. However, when said weapon is placed in the hands of a mentally ill person, it becomes a weapon of mass destruction.
Combined with a sharp rise in homelessness during the 1980s, Ronald Reagan pursued a policy toward the treatment of mental illness that satisfied special interest groups and the demands of the business community, but failed to address the issue: the treatment of mental illness
The 2nd admendment isn't going anywhere, ever. America will always be a nation built on and around guns. Hell we took this county with guns. Are we obsessed with them, maybe.
I don't have all the answers but a gun whether a semi automatic weapon or not in the hands of a mentally stable person should not be a primary concern. However, when said weapon is placed in the hands of a mentally ill person, it becomes a weapon of mass destruction.
Posted by Nala13
Chance- by no means am I trying to divert the issue from gun control but do you think it a mere coincidence that the increase in mass shootings started occuring at the same time that mental health policies changed in America?
I don't have all the answers but a gun whether a semi automatic weapon or not in the hands of a mentally stable person should not be a primary concern. However, when said weapon is placed in the hands of a mentally ill person, it becomes a weapon of mass destruction.
maybe its just me...but the mentally ill probably shouldn't be allowed within ANY proximity of a shooting range either. What kind of parent does this? one that not only taught gunman HOW to shoot but was also KILLED...smh.
I'm all for improving mental health resources..just stay away from "the Heat".
Just throwing this out there...
Anyone is capable of having a psychotic break at any point during their lives. People with chronic mental illness are no more likely to be violent when compared to the general population. In fact, they are a lot less violent and more likely to be victims of crime, rather than perpetrators.
I say this to say that this discussion goes beyond the question of what happens when a gun gets into the hands of someone who has been labelled as mentally ill.
Anyone is capable of having a psychotic break at any point during their lives. People with chronic mental illness are no more likely to be violent when compared to the general population. In fact, they are a lot less violent and more likely to be victims of crime, rather than perpetrators.
I say this to say that this discussion goes beyond the question of what happens when a gun gets into the hands of someone who has been labelled as mentally ill.
Posted by ScorpSuperior
MrFirebird
I can't reply to LIB's thread.
When the 2nd Amendment was created, every citizen was issued a gun (if they didn't have one) by the government for the purposes of standing with the militia to defend the free State. Are the British still coming for us, MFB? I think not.
Yes, people kill people, BY WAY OF guns and [insert other means here]. Guns just so happen to be one of the most effective and common ways of doing this. Ever heard of a mass stabbing? Not so much. And your scenario with the "the looney" who has his gun taken from and chooses a car? Well, that loon has one less option- one less weapon, now doesn't he? And considering that many murders are committed in the heat of the moment, so to speak, by the time a person makes their way to a car (assuming they have one of their own) and locates a crowd of people and police barracade to bypass, the chances they will have de-escalated or give up (for the time being) will have increased.
Agreed, people need to change. But, until we can change the parts of our culture that perpetuate violence, we can make it more difficult for people to commit mass murder by limiting their access to firearms. Modification of a law does not suggest its complete removal.
You're not getting it. But you and these supporters are NOT alone.
The US is NOT getting it:
Listen to what Chris Morris, a friend of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold has to say:
He tells you exactly the root cause of the tragedy they caused
Pay very close attention. He says one thing at the beginning then is lost at the end - trust me, he lost sight
of the root cause.
Ellesque, you want the answer....
I have updated - please review.
http://www.dxpnet.com/opinion/scorpio/@-Dazed-3548453.asp?p=17#3554088
I have updated - please review.
http://www.dxpnet.com/opinion/scorpio/@-Dazed-3548453.asp?p=17#3554088
Posted by ellessque
Mr.Firebird,
Stop being condescending with me. I'm not going to sit here and try to figure out one of your cryptic messages. I don't know if you are doing it on purpose or if that is just the way you communicate, but it's not working with us.
If you want to address my posts, do it straight to the point without hidden messages or videos. I cannot decipher a real opinion from you at all when you do that. With that said, any conversation you and I have essentially has no benefit to either one of us.
Color me rude, but that is just how *I* see the dialogue between you and I. You cannot see my point and I cannot see yours. It is what it is.
Ellesque,
IF I could, I'd gladly give you my shoes.
No! Pro guns, pro 2nd amendment.
How about we reform healthcare and get mentally ill people the care they need instead of trying to put a band-aid on a gaping wound.
How about we reform healthcare and get mentally ill people the care they need instead of trying to put a band-aid on a gaping wound.
DXP community...
We are not talking about the dismissal of the 2nd amendment. We are simply talking about facilitating bipartisan discourse.
We are not talking about the dismissal of the 2nd amendment. We are simply talking about facilitating bipartisan discourse.
Posted by DazedScorp
Have any of these people considered writing to their Governers and State senetors about writing a piece of legislation to put through Congress?
Even is the Obama Admin writes anything... It has to go through them.
I have been lucky enough to be able to communicate with my local Congressman's office and State Senator's office via written correspondence. They even repsonded in a timely fashion! Not everyone's representatives are as accessible, unfortunately.
Posted by MrFirebirdPosted by ScorpSuperiorPosted by MrFirebirdPosted by ScorpSuperior
Okay, thank you anyway.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
What liberties are you giving up?
For what purpose do you need to own a machine gun, MFB?
I ask that you read my reply in that thread.
As for the machine gun question -
Have you ever heard the saying "don't take a knife to a gunfight"?
IF it were the only weapon that saved your life from
a murderous butcher about to take it, you would love the warmth of that gun
in your hands.
What you are saying is simply this: I am willing to give up my right to defend myself
against a powerful enemy so I "feel" safe.
"Feelings" are NOT "FACTS", my dear.
Do I make myself clear?
GUNS do not kill people, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE.
Please, contemplate that concept.
It's NOT the guns, it's the people.
People need to change.
Remember.... a looney with a gun taken from him, might
just choose a car for a trip to the parade - thumpety thump thump.
knock on wood.
Visualize that alternative weapon - Are you willing to give up your car??
Again, please read my replies posted today in LIB's thread.
click to expand
I agree with this, and in these school massacres you will find mind altering psychotropic drugs played a role.
You know what concerns me most here though...
When I look back over the thread, it seems an assumption has been made that there is only a single approach to addressing an issue. The root of a problem can be multifaceted, so why not address it from a holistic approach?
Or must we think in terms of "all or nothing" extremes?
We all live and work in the real world here. I'm sure that many of us here work/have worked in agencies where there are interdepartmental meetings and monthly/bimonthly/yearly reviews of policies to ensure they appropriately align with the needs of the population it serves. Any entity, company, committee, institution, etc., in order to be responsible, maintain accountability, and run efficiently, must attempt to resolve its issues from a multidisciplinary approach. Therefore, it is not enough to point the finger solely at the healthcare system or any other. We must all work together. This is the purpose of opening a dialogue for reflection and reassessment of standards.
If anyone considers inaction to be meaningful, so be it. This is why the OP read, "*if* you're *willing* or able..." Because it is a choice, and I understand that we each can only govern our own actions. If you believe that your actions (or lack thereof) should be self-serving, that is your right as well.
When I look back over the thread, it seems an assumption has been made that there is only a single approach to addressing an issue. The root of a problem can be multifaceted, so why not address it from a holistic approach?
Or must we think in terms of "all or nothing" extremes?
We all live and work in the real world here. I'm sure that many of us here work/have worked in agencies where there are interdepartmental meetings and monthly/bimonthly/yearly reviews of policies to ensure they appropriately align with the needs of the population it serves. Any entity, company, committee, institution, etc., in order to be responsible, maintain accountability, and run efficiently, must attempt to resolve its issues from a multidisciplinary approach. Therefore, it is not enough to point the finger solely at the healthcare system or any other. We must all work together. This is the purpose of opening a dialogue for reflection and reassessment of standards.
If anyone considers inaction to be meaningful, so be it. This is why the OP read, "*if* you're *willing* or able..." Because it is a choice, and I understand that we each can only govern our own actions. If you believe that your actions (or lack thereof) should be self-serving, that is your right as well.
Posted by DazedScorp
^^^^^Whaaaaaaaaaaaat———————————————?
What is what?
Posted by seraphPosted by DeeGee
you can't impose anymore restrictions that hasn't already been established...
click to expand
Let's use this argument in the case of the Newton School shootings.
Only licensed gun owners may lawfully acquire, possess or transfer a firearm or ammunition.-The mother owned the guns. She was licensed, registered and acquired them legally.
Licensing authorities are required to conduct interviews with, or to advise an applicant's spouse, partner, or next of kin before
issuing a gun license. .-No history of any of that in their family. They would have notified her family of what exactly. They all knew. They went to the shooting range with her.
An understanding of firearm safety and the law, tested in a theoretical and/or practical training course is required for a firearm license.-She considered herself a "gun enthusiast" and went to the range often. In fact, her range buddies have been on the news all week.
Gun owners must re-apply and re-qualify for their firearm license every 5 years.-She did.
My point is, all "firearm safety" precautions were excerised in this case.
Let's talk about what wasn't.
The mother and million dollar father did not get their son the mental health treatment he desperately needed becasue of the stigma attached to having a mental disorder. It might reflect poorly on the family. As if having your wacko ass son shoot up a bunch of babies reflects positvely. Go figure.
In America, we have a history of treating sysmptoms. That is what we do. We don't treat root causes. No sane person kills their mother, 28 people (most of them children) and then committs suicide. It doesn't happen. Again, you do not wake up on Friday morning and just decide to so this. There are months if not years of behavioral patterns that lead up to this.
You want to know why it only happens in America because other countries have the foresight to do something about their citizens who suffer from mental illness. Yes, it may not be a perfect solution to medicate and lock them up or down however, sometimes the end justifies the means.
Columbine shooter-James Holmes under the care of a psychiatrist when he shot up his high school.
Virgina Tech shooter-documented mental illness
Gabby Giffords/Arizonia shooter-documeted mentally ill
Everyone wants to do news stories about how "crazy" they were after the fact. Oh yea? No kidding?
On a side note-More than 1 million deer hunting licenses were sold in Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin in the last 45 days. Guess how many mass shootings of deer hunters happened during this time frame?
It's not guns. Sure the 2nd amendment could use some updating but that could be said for the entire Constitution.
Virgina Tech shooter-documented mental illness
Gabby Giffords/Arizonia shooter-documeted mentally ill
Everyone wants to do news stories about how "crazy" they were after the fact. Oh yea? No kidding?
On a side note-More than 1 million deer hunting licenses were sold in Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin in the last 45 days. Guess how many mass shootings of deer hunters happened during this time frame?
It's not guns. Sure the 2nd amendment could use some updating but that could be said for the entire Constitution.
Posted by DazedScorpPosted by LunarMaidenPosted by DazedScorp
^^^^^Whaaaaaaaaaaaat———————————————?
What is what?
you linked the school shootings with pyschotropic drugs...click to expand
Yes, there seems to be a pattern.
If the individual or guardian of the person who is ill does not wish to seek treatment for whatever reason, can we really blame the mental health system? The same way we cannot force someone who is diabetic to take medication or attend nutrition classes, we can't force someone with a mental illness to get treatment. They must first demonstrate that they are an imminent danger to themselves or others before we can "medicate and lock them up or down". The same way police officers cannot arrest someone until they have actually committed a crime.
The treatment of symptoms seems to be one of the most effective ways to address mental illness because it empowers the individual to change what they can. The root of a problem may be linked to a genetic predisposition or parenting style s- factors we cannot manipulate. We can look into household dynamics and suggest family therapy, but that isn't always feasible. In the meantime, we can only hope to encourage those who are ill to be open to treatment that is oriented in the present and teaches them to utilize their available resources.
It is unfortunate that a person like this becomes the face of the mentally ill population- a product of the sensationalism someone else mentioned earlier. If we make the argument that because a number of mass killings were committed by a mentally ill person, then our mental health system is to blame, then which system is to blame for the disproportionate representation of black people among homocide offenders (by gun)? Do we then say that the issue is black people having access guns? Certainly not. Still, these numbers and incidents are a problem whose roots have yet to be thoroughly addressed.
The bottomline is, demographics aside, an angry person in the presence of stressors with no coping skills is a danger. I don't have all the answers, but all of these issues should be up for discussion among ourselves and our leaders. In the meantime, I don't see the downside to limiting the number of guns available, especially those with high-capacity magazines. By-laws do not change amendments.
The treatment of symptoms seems to be one of the most effective ways to address mental illness because it empowers the individual to change what they can. The root of a problem may be linked to a genetic predisposition or parenting style s- factors we cannot manipulate. We can look into household dynamics and suggest family therapy, but that isn't always feasible. In the meantime, we can only hope to encourage those who are ill to be open to treatment that is oriented in the present and teaches them to utilize their available resources.
It is unfortunate that a person like this becomes the face of the mentally ill population- a product of the sensationalism someone else mentioned earlier. If we make the argument that because a number of mass killings were committed by a mentally ill person, then our mental health system is to blame, then which system is to blame for the disproportionate representation of black people among homocide offenders (by gun)? Do we then say that the issue is black people having access guns? Certainly not. Still, these numbers and incidents are a problem whose roots have yet to be thoroughly addressed.
The bottomline is, demographics aside, an angry person in the presence of stressors with no coping skills is a danger. I don't have all the answers, but all of these issues should be up for discussion among ourselves and our leaders. In the meantime, I don't see the downside to limiting the number of guns available, especially those with high-capacity magazines. By-laws do not change amendments.
Sorry, the above post was in response to Nala's.
Posted by seraphPosted by ScorpSuperior
If you're willing and able, please.
We the People
It's getting noticed. Dialogue is happening. 🙂
click to expand
w00t!!! thanks, seraph!
Join the Conversation. Explore Yourself. Connect with Others.
Discover insights, swap stories, and find people. dxpnet is where experiences turn into understanding.
Create Your Free Account →Related Topics
Just curious to see what you guys think of this: I had an ex-girlfriend (Scorpio Sun/Moon/and Rising) invite me to he
Scorpios are coming through my life thick and fast. This is long but can you tell me what this scorp is about? I spen
So initially I was hesitant to go out with Scorpio guy. I am a Gemini, born in the cusp of Taurus, with moon in Taurus.
Hi; Im kinda new to that and I really hope someone could help me. I know a lot about these two signs in general,but
Why and why not? I met a scorpio man and I'm a Scorpio-sag cusp. Just wondering if it is something worth pursuing. Th
Discuss.
I met a great Gemini guy almost 2 weeks ago and we have been hitting it off great. Ive been keeping it interesting and l
I have been talking with this Scorpio male on the internet/phone texting, I've known him for a few years, just never rea
Hey guys! I am new here nice to meet u all. Soo I find that I am always inspired by a Capricorn man's ambition and drive
I thought I'd share something I shared with someone: The subject is about people who have nothing better to do than
We sail!!! A epic journey awaits!
Hi, Can someone help me here ? I am a Scorpio woman and have been trying to get into a long term relationship since
I was dating a scorpio guy and I feel really hard for him and he did too. Saturday he was supposed to come over after h
I have friend scorpio man. Sometimes he says mean things about my look (my hair, my body). Then I say something back. Th
Saturn, Mercury, Sun and Pluto here. All in Scorpio. Anyone else like this? Read a description on Astrology Blog... Seem
Hello to all my wonderful SCORPs. I read this statement in another forum: Ive always envied scorpio girls for be
There is this Scorpio guy I am interested in we have slept together twice and we have a connection for sure. I am in a r
I've been friends with a Scorpio male. He seems to be attracted to me but then he started to date someone else, somethin
We the People