Why doesn't the GOP/Right take on mental health?

[muddywings]

I always here, "we gotta do something" from the liberal left. Sometimes that is not the right answer if that "something" creates a bigger problem (I give the example throwing water on a grease fire).
That being said, I think one of the most obvious correlations with the recent past mass shootings is mental health. Sure, the left can make the argument that guns are the common factor but to me, that's like saying they all wore pants that day. Mental health is a concern in our society, but it doesn't seem like it's a 'major concern' when it should be. I don't run into those people who have mental health issues on a daily basis (any more) but that doesn't mean they aren't out there. And, when left to their own issues, they can create a horrific outcome.
So, if the left is clamoring to do something, why doesn't right say, 'ok, let's tackle mental health. let's figure a way to help integrate mental health professionals into the NICS/CBI system and get these two entities talking.'

I know I know, lots of pitfalls such as, categorizing people who own guns, belong to the NRA and think libertarian ideas as mentally defective....blablabla. So what is the real reason, the Right/GOP aren't countering POTUS and the Left with something such as mental health.

I think it would be outstanding for CO's two newest legislators to introduce something along those lines here at the local level with CBI.

Just spitballing.....

[Irving]

Freedom isn't free; that's why. Not that the GOP understands what that means any more than the Democratic party does.

[Bailey Guns]

I don't really think it's a matter of either of the parties understanding that. I think it's a problem with the people in general understanding that. Too much of the "we have to do something" attitude.

[def90]

The left called for the dismantling of the mental healthcare system under Reagan for very valid reasons and the right was all too happy to agree in the name of saving money.

When the system was taken down it was in a state of disrepair.. people were dumped in extremely underfunded sanitariums and lived in horrible conditions borderlining on subhuman levels.

The failure has been that a system has never been designed or proposed to replace it.


Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk 2

[DavieD55]

It is a slippery slope by asking for more government intervention that would certainly lead to more abuses of authority in medicine. It is already happening with returning vets being labeled as unfit in record numbers. They should take a closer look at the SSRI's that doctors are handing out to people like candy.

[Singlestack]

It is a slippery slope by asking for more government intervention that would certainly lead to more abuses of authority in medicine. It is already happening with returning vets being labeled as unfit in record numbers. They should take a closer look at the SSRI's that doctors are handing out to people like candy.

Whats a SSRI?

[DavieD55]

Whats a SSRI?
antidepressant and psychotropic meds

[merl]

Just a word of warning, start ranting about those at town halls and the entire audience is going to think you need some yourself.

[SA Friday]

What a horrorific idea. The US Govt determining who is sane and who isn't and then removing their constitutional rights based on it. Ya, I want this like I want civil war.

Psychologists and psychiatrists cannot agree on where to draw a line between OK and not OK for behavioral health patients and firearms. Some are obvious, some are obvious but temporary, some are pure gray area, the huge mass majority would fall into not an issue at all.

If you install a system to infringe on individual rights as registering a citizen in a database as a mentally defunct person, how do you install a system to ensure it's not overused, it has an automatic appeals process, when multiple appeals over time should be addressed, who controls that process, who funds that process, who has access to this sensitive medical information as if the courts are used for the appeal then do we close the records?

Seriously, the more I've looked into this the less I'm convinced it's actually possible without MASSIVE instances of abuse and rights infringement. Which is more dangerous?

[nynco]

The right won't do anything about it because the right is ruled by ideologues. This gives the anti gun people an advantage.

The right won't take on mental healthcare because that is too much like socialized medicine and right now the GOP is betting it all on demonizing Obama Care.

So... which do you care more about? Your 2nd Amendment rights or fighting against socialized medicine?

[Jeffrey Lebowski]

Psychologists and psychiatrists cannot agree on where to draw a line between OK and not OK for behavioral health patients and firearms. Some are obvious, some are obvious but temporary, some are pure gray area, the huge mass majority would fall into not an issue at all.

If you install a system to infringe on individual rights as registering a citizen in a database as a mentally defunct person, how do you install a system to ensure it's not overused, it has an automatic appeals process, when multiple appeals over time should be addressed, who controls that process, who funds that process, who has access to this sensitive medical information as if the courts are used for the appeal then do we close the records?


Worse - how do you prevent it from being used as a grudge if someone happens to have some sort of psychological qualifications?

More to the point - you sort of ask these types of workers to take on a liability they may not want to. Make a judgment call on whether or not someone is "OK?" What is "OK?" To your point, we have no idea where that line is.

[brianakell]

Because both sides are the same, and just want $$$. Neither actually wants to improve or think through anything. The D come up with something dumb, and the R love it, because come campaign time, guess how much more leverage they have to pry $$$ out of people opposing it? Why is it they need my $ to donate to them to fight unconstitutional laws, and blatant law breaking politicians. Next week they're gonna ask for $ to start trying to impeach Obama for giving arms to terrorists. Should they need my money to do their job, nope. Do they just want my $, YUP!

I think you can have a mental health institution. However I could see it being gov subsidized, NOT govt run. Which is very tricky. I do think its possible, I do not think with the politicians we have we'd get anything short of a complete disaster. Thinking outloud... What if we had private run institutions, and govt paid the committed, NOT the biz. Just an idea, I can shoot hole in these ideas as fast as I think of them though!

Id say we have a huge mental health problem. And Ill bet within 10 years 1/2 the population will be on anti-something meds if we arent there now. So what is the solution?

[Irving]

Read One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and watch the recent movie Side Effects and rethink the idea.

[Bailey Guns]

I think it's a lot simpler than people want to make it. Irving nailed it:


Freedom isn't free;

It all boils down to accepting a certain amount of risk to live in a free society. You want freedom? Accept the consequences. You want security? Forget about your freedoms.

[Zundfolge]

So, if the left is clamoring to do something, why doesn't right say, 'ok, let's tackle mental health. let's figure a way to help integrate mental health professionals into the NICS/CBI system and get these two entities talking.'

You're still falling for the flaws in the left's view of guns and gun rights. That the solution to the problems of gun violence and mass shootings lies in the supply of or access to firearms and that the government can "solve the problem" by restricting/limiting them. So all you end up doing is compromising away our rights a piece at a time (and at the same time actually INCREASE the problems related to guns in society).

The only thing that government can do to reduce mass shootings and decrease crime is to eliminate the laws and regulations that prevent law abiding citizens from being armed and implement programs that encourage the citizenry to go about armed.


The solution isn't less armed bad guys, its more armed good guys.

[Bailey Guns]

The solution isn't less armed bad guys, its more armed good guys.

True. But:

more armed good guys = less armed bad guys

[muddywings]

Just spitballing here and a lot of good points. I would be hesitant to jump on this idea without serious consideration to the follow on consequences. I think that is something that a lot of politicians, especially (D)s miss....looking at the next step, the next set of consequences to their laws/legislation.

A few things in the thread kinda caused me raise an eyebrow though.

"freedom isn't free"--I'll agree with that but if you were born post-1776 then it kindaaaa is. People take free things for granted all the time and I think a lot of people in our country take what our forefathers did for granted. I've visited my fairshare of places around this big blue marble so I know how it is in other countries. I think it would have been better to go all Franklin with 'freedom does not equal security' which I am perfectly content with. Who knows, maybe someday sooner or later Jefferson's quote about liberty, patriots and tyrants will needed again and then 'freedom isn't free' will be more applicable to our current generation.

I know only sliver of how the mental health system was dismantled in the 80s. I should probably do some research...

I think implementing some type of mental review could be very susceptible to abuses. All systems are susceptible. Hence, why I would be very cautious about some type implementation of my own suggestion. But even more short stint as an LEO, I saw some people completely off their rockers where, even I with my lack of brain training, could say, 'that dude lost his marbles, maybe he should stay here awhile.' Of course, that in itself is ripe for abuse.

I care more about my 2nd amendment rights because...well, sooner or all systems fail. Anybody still running Windows 3.1?? So who likes Windows 8 better? Rome? See my comments about liberty and tyranny above. 2A is more important.

I'm not an anarchist and believe government should have a very LIMITED role in our lives. Let me say it again....L-I-M-I-T-E-D!! I have no problem with paying taxes so that I can have a fire department a few blocks away. I don't have kids but if some of my taxes go to schools, that is cool too. I'm all for paying for a competent, well trained and educated local police force. And for someone who used to wear the uniform and who now collects a paycheck from the DoD, I'm ok with a having a military. I do think that background checks are ok but UBGC are pathetic, unnecessary and don't work (yes, I gathered petitions to recall Morse, for several weekends). I think the ACA is abhorrent and .gov has no need to provide healthcare to the masses at expense to me or others. All that being said, could the .gov somehow be involved with mental health or at least work with them to mitigate (not solve) some of these mental health induced shootings?

I would agree the solution is more good guys with guns. Ask, oh, i dunno, me...what it's like to work on a DoD installation where CCW is prohibited. Even better is working around 4000 young adults, right out of high school, with low maturity, high hormones, and 'i want my bigmac and fries, right now dammit' mentality similar to the rest of their generation. Well, I'll tell ya, it sucks big donkeyballs! However, IMHO, more armed good guys I don't think correlates with less armed bad guys. I think a better correlation is more guns = less crime. http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

Again, just spitballing....

(flame away)

[Zundfolge]

My only problem with all that is the comparison between Windows 3.1 and Windows 8 ... maybe you should have said Windows 7 :p
(I mean, Windows 3.1 actually worked and didn't annoy the crap out of everyone)

[muddywings]

My only problem with all that is the comparison between Windows 3.1 and Windows 8 ... maybe you should have said Windows 7 :p
(I mean, Windows 3.1 actually worked and didn't annoy the crap out of everyone)

I went apple after WindowsME!!! So I lost track of it, LOL....windowsME...what a piece of #$%^&*

[spqrzilla]

Clayton Cramer is about the sole voice talking about this from a conservative POV.

[Watermagnet]

What a horrorific idea. The US Govt determining who is sane and who isn't and then removing their constitutional rights based on it. Ya, I want this like I want civil war.

Psychologists and psychiatrists cannot agree on where to draw a line between OK and not OK for behavioral health patients and firearms. Some are obvious, some are obvious but temporary, some are pure gray area, the huge mass majority would fall into not an issue at all.

If you install a system to infringe on individual rights as registering a citizen in a database as a mentally defunct person, how do you install a system to ensure it's not overused, it has an automatic appeals process, when multiple appeals over time should be addressed, who controls that process, who funds that process, who has access to this sensitive medical information as if the courts are used for the appeal then do we close the records?

Seriously, the more I've looked into this the less I'm convinced it's actually possible without MASSIVE instances of abuse and rights infringement. Which is more dangerous?


This. Name any program that .gov has been involved in where they didn't abuse their priviliges and your rights. Under administrations like the current one, I could see this snowballing into mental evaluations in order to own guns, not prohibit those with with conditions from keeping them. With freedom comes a risk and unfortunatley at times a price. Adding another layer of corruptoin isn't going to solve any of our issues, nor would have it prevented any of the previous tragedies. Furthermore, I believe instituting a mental health program that directly affects your constituitional rights is only going to drive those in need of help further underground. Lose/Lose in my opinion.

[muddywings]

This. Name any program that .gov has been involved in where they didn't abuse their priviliges and your rights. Under administrations like the current one, I could see this snowballing into mental evaluations in order to own guns, not prohibit those with with conditions from keeping them. With freedom comes a risk and unfortunatley at times a price. Adding another layer of corruptoin isn't going to solve any of our issues, nor would have it prevented any of the previous tragedies. Furthermore, I believe instituting a mental health program that directly affects your constituitional rights is only going to drive those in need of help further underground. Lose/Lose in my opinion.

best argument to date if I'm to be the judge...

[Irving]

Freedom isn't free isn't about soldiers or fighting.

[DavieD55]

This. Name any program that .gov has been involved in where they didn't abuse their priviliges and your rights. Under administrations like the current one, I could see this snowballing into mental evaluations in order to own guns, not prohibit those with with conditions from keeping them. With freedom comes a risk and unfortunatley at times a price. Adding another layer of corruptoin isn't going to solve any of our issues, nor would have it prevented any of the previous tragedies. Furthermore, I believe instituting a mental health program that directly affects your constituitional rights is only going to drive those in need of help further underground. Lose/Lose in my opinion.


Exactly.

I wouldn't hesitate to take it a step further by saying that I could see it snowballing into a system used to target political opposition under administrations like the current one. They do it with the IRS, what would stop them from useing the mental health system as an instrument for their plans of gun control.

[Zundfolge]

One of the biggest mistakes that Republicans and Conservatives make is playing the game by the left's rules.


We do not turn to government to solve the ills of society. To do so only empowers tyrants and erodes liberty regardless of how many "just one" lives it saves.

Tweaking the leftist/statist/totalatarian method of "making the world a better place" in such a way that on the surface it doesn't appear to violate out conservative values is foolishness ... and its a trap.




Limited government means they can't do 99% of the bullshit they do now.

A free people are a safe people.

But what do I know I'm a fuckin' Hobbit according to the GOP and DNC leadership.

[muddywings]

My bad if somehow i gave the implication that I'm looking to create a big new alphabet agency where physiologists create mental health wacko panels. Not my intention at all.

Looking at the bottom of: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/general-information/nics-index I guess I'm just surprised that some of these crazies aren't put in the system...which just goes back to, 'we should enforce the laws we already have' which I think is the main problem. Not, let's invent new laws that we won't enforce.

Anywho...thanks for the discussion. (my normal lunchtime debating partner PCSed to greener pastures and my office is kinda stale for this type of discussion)