General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAmidst all the calls to outlaw gun ownership, where is the concern for mental health care?
Lanza was obviously a very troubled person. Treat the illness, how about?
Bake
aquart
(69,014 posts)How about that?
Bake
(21,977 posts)Not carrying water for anyone.
But in the hysteria going on here, I'm simply asking a question. That doesn't make me a criminal. Your reaction makes you suspect, however. Democrats are supposed to be RATIONAL people.
Bake
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)...and supporting the NRA? How about that?
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)The mother was a nut also. I'm guessing the father and borther washed their hands of both of them.
In case you didn't know, you're flogging the the NRA's current talking point.
Bake
(21,977 posts)Sane people don't do what he did.
Bake
yellowcanine
(35,699 posts)For someone protesting about linking you to the NRA you sure do have their lingo down pat.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)Its not clear what the family dynamics on this one were. The divorce was due to his straying. No info on his role as a parent.
The mother's nut status is now coming into doubt. The weapons collection is not that of a serious prepper
Many people have been calling for better mental health coverage for quite some time. That does not make them NRA stooges.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)I want both.
This is our chance. This is the tipping point.
yellowcanine
(35,699 posts)They are obviously both important. Pay attention to both, how about?
Saying "it is a mental health problem" is not an excuse for not addressing the gun issue and vice versa. Presenting false choices is why nothing gets done.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)If he had, I'd agree it was a false dichotomy. But that's not how the OP was worded. It noted that there seem to be few calls for improving our mental healthcare delivery system (which is an embarrassing, broken shambles...).
Bake
(21,977 posts)I thought my OP was pretty clear. I've been labeled an NRA water-carrier, however, simply for asking a question.
Bake
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)...where lack of rigid ideological purity is anathema.
Bake
(21,977 posts)Reminds me of a song ... hmmm.
Bake
yellowcanine
(35,699 posts)They aren't. In fact, to my knowledge President Obama hasn't even mentioned guns. He has emphasized the need to address the issue in a broader way.....
The newly re-elected president offered few specifics about how he planned to proceed, saying only that he will engage with law enforcement, mental health professionals, parents and educators in the coming weeks.
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-signals-action-following-school-shooting-080147217--politics.html
President Obama has also said that no single law or group of laws is going to fix this. That sounds like a recognition that gun laws are not the only solution. But why let the facts get in the way of a good contrarian rant?
Yes Diane Feinstein is talking about an assault weapons ban. And why not? It is a logical first step. But it doesn't mean she would not support reform of the mental health delivery system.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Thank you for the clarifying response!
bullwinkle428
(20,629 posts)Bake
(21,977 posts)Apparently some here cannot.
Bake
DURHAM D
(32,610 posts)"6. I would like to discuss a surtax on
all license, weapons and ammunition and the proceeds to be earmarked for mental health programs."
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)That does nothing to detract from the fact that we need to have better control of our death machines, nor does it detract from the fact that you're floating a right-wing talking point.
Bake
(21,977 posts)I've been out of communication all weekend (my father is dying with Stage 4 lung cancer and I went to spend some time with him), so I don't know who's talking about what talking points. I just asked what seems to me to be a reasonable question.
Thanks for labeling me.
Bake
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)And it's being used to try to eclipse the problem with guns.
Bake
(21,977 posts)Bake
yellowcanine
(35,699 posts)Sorry but that is how it looks from here.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)automatically wrong.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)ownership, increased awareness, education, funding and availability of mental health services.
Zoeisright
(8,339 posts)And the point remains, without easy access to guns he could not have committed that mass murder so easily.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)they'd kill dozens of people with baseball bats and machetes?
Lanza also obviously came from a relatively privileged background (GE executive father, a brother who works for Ernst & Young in NYC) and would have gotten the best mental health care available had his mother thought there was a serious enough issue to warrant it. Clearly she didn't, and clearly treating mental illness isn't actually something that's possible when people don't perceive a serious enough issue.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)27 dead Friday if he didn't have easy access to his mother's guns.
I can be ok in a room with a mentally ill person like him but bring in a gun and I am not so ok. The constant is the illness the variable is the gun. Remove the gun and we'd still have our children.
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)Virtually no one is calling to outlaw gun ownership.
I am calling for making illegal and having extremely harsh penalties for NEGLIGENT gun ownership that results in guns in the hands of the violent. If people own dangerous toys and don't secure them, they need to suffer consequences with teeth.
Don't tell me you have a problem with THAT???
Bake
(21,977 posts)I call bullshit on that.
I don't have a problem with your suggestion about negligent gun ownership, by the way.
Bake
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)it as facetiousness or trolling.
Among friends and family I don't know a soul who supports a total gun ban.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)There is a decent list of names here on DU...but callouts are only allowed in meta.
I support safe storage requirements as well.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)took her son's mental health issues seriously enough. If MY kid had been burning himself with a lighter there is no way I'd be leaving him at home while I went to a local bar. With the kind of money the family had they could have had him in a facility quickly. Self harm is adequate justification for committal. That's what I would have done for my child to keep him safe. In Adam's case they might have found out he had homicidal and suicidal ideations.
This is not a judgment call. It's obvious on its face.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)the mental health system issue is minor here, as to causation of and curing of Adam's issues...based on what we know.
I've written on more than one thread, but the real facts are there are two things that can be done with a disturbed...particularly developmentally disturbed...young person...and adult, as well. Talk therapy of some kind 45 minutes of week of talking to a psychologist. And a referral and appointment to a psychiatrist...15 minutes max every 3-6 weeks...either in person or over the internet. Thus, you're off to the the pharmacy to partake in one of the many anti-psychotics "expensive and incomplete guessing" about something they know very little...the brain chemistry of the individual.
It would be heavily weighted towards parents bringing in children...it happened with ADHD...throngs thought the pill was the solution to inappropriate behavior. it was, but more often not...and short-term. But as for the Doc: Try this one, ok, now that one or these together, OK, well here's another et al. A psychological evaluation for one or both divorcing spouses, can cost upwards of $10,000 each.
Even if we provided free mental health care, which I agree would be helpful to some extent, the cost would put Obamacare costs into the region of very cheap. Or, they could make it an insurance and force everyone to get it so as to cut the cost, but that's not likely. Mental health talk therapy ... other types come and go ... requires weeks and often years at an average cost of $600 a month, plus the meds...$.50 to $8 apiece.
If mental health care were accessed by everyone who needs it or they or someone else thinks they do, and for often negligible progress, it is so far from affordable to be laughable. Ending Mental health is one of the first thing Reagan did to balance California's budget. Reason...has to show justification for the huge costs and mostly the results aren't there. Not much different anywhere else...the buck stops...at home or in Juvie or Prison.
The greatest users will be children because it's hard to tell what is a stage, hormone, bad home, bad school, bad friends, nasty parent's divorce, all of the above....etc. (We still don't know about Adam) And there is NOTHING that can be done about most of those. The hope that they will outgrow it and/or not act out in society...the Best Guess.
After all of this, the government, the Human Services department, private providers, all set it aside and end up sending them one place ... home.
Now we come to guns. Those are tangible items that lend themselves to management far easier than trying to solve all the emotional and mental ills of our society, particularly the young ones who are also the most vulnerable to gun horror...at home and in the outer world. Gun Management and training and registration vs. increased mental health care. Both ... but the first will definitely support the second.
One last thought...there is revenue ... lots of it ... in Gun Management...and it is tangible and lends itself to Objectives. It is a black hole in national Mental Health cost, highly Subjective and intangible with questionable outcome.
ancianita
(36,060 posts)right now.
I have friends with bipolar disorders who've had a helluva time just getting proper treatment. One of them says:
"I am all for a discussion of the failure to provide better access and delivery of mental health care in America.
However, the fact that the subject is beginning to dominate many threads in the wake of Sandy Hook is vulgar bullshit.
When was the last time a prolifically offending pedophile was arrested and millions of hand-wringing people flooded Facebook to ask the question, "why, why, why wasn't there proper mental health care for the offender?!"
Never. The answer to the question is NEVER.
It's something you only hear when guns are used to perpetrate a mass killing and it is used in an attempt to deflect the conversation away from the guns.
Period.
What we always ask, because it's sane, is how could a pedophile have been allowed around children at all.
So, why isn't the first question from everyone's lips following a mass shooting why and how the guns were available to a lunatic... at all?
The answer to that question is because millions of people who don't actually give much of a shit about the mental health care crisis, a crisis which impacted my life dramatically and I deal with everyday, pretend to care so they can prevent legitimate debate over America's gun culture."
I call it the pathologizing of the problem of response-ability. That is one weapon here against any talk whatsoever about tighter control of gun use.
Bake
(21,977 posts)Although she should have seen/known son wasn't quite right ...
Bake
ancianita
(36,060 posts)is that this claim of mental illness and greater access to mental health care isn't going to affect those gun owners who don't recognize its existence in their families. She knew the son wasn't quite right. Had known for years, and yet allowed him access to her guns.
That's why people here are looking at the more relevant issue of tighter regulation of gun owner background checks, tighter licensed use, since mental health history isn't always available.
Blaming mental health institutions is another way that pro-gun nuts deflect from their responsibility to control family's or friends -- or thieves -- access to their guns. DU people here are not buying that bogus issue.