TexasCHLforum.com

bbhack wrote: Mon Dec 03, 2018 2:51 pm I'm just going to throw this on the table. The DMCA (as an example) has serious consequences for filing false reports (it's perjury). People who file false reports, in bad faith, are bad people, and deserve to be prosecuted to the full extent possible.

My issue with it all is that the term "mentally defective" is subjective. For every Dr that says one is, there is another one who will say the same person isn't. Having a mental illness diagnosis is not like being diagnosed with the flue.

03Lightningrocks wrote: Mon Dec 03, 2018 4:51 pm

bbhack wrote: Mon Dec 03, 2018 2:51 pm I'm just going to throw this on the table. The DMCA (as an example) has serious consequences for filing false reports (it's perjury). People who file false reports, in bad faith, are bad people, and deserve to be prosecuted to the full extent possible.

My issue with it all is that the term "mentally defective" is subjective. For every Dr that says one is, there is another one who will say the same person isn't. Having a mental illness diagnosis is not like being diagnosed with the flue.

In the old Soviet Union, many dissidents were taken off the streets and instititutionalized on the grounds that you’d have to be insane to disagree with the goals and methods of the gov’t.

The Annoyed Man wrote: Mon Dec 03, 2018 5:18 pm

03Lightningrocks wrote: Mon Dec 03, 2018 4:51 pm

bbhack wrote: Mon Dec 03, 2018 2:51 pm I'm just going to throw this on the table. The DMCA (as an example) has serious consequences for filing false reports (it's perjury). People who file false reports, in bad faith, are bad people, and deserve to be prosecuted to the full extent possible.

My issue with it all is that the term "mentally defective" is subjective. For every Dr that says one is, there is another one who will say the same person isn't. Having a mental illness diagnosis is not like being diagnosed with the flue.

In the old Soviet Union, many dissidents were taken off the streets and instititutionalized on the grounds that you’d have to be insane to disagree with the goals and methods of the gov’t.

Exactly!

Archery1 wrote: Mon Dec 03, 2018 10:54 am

oohrah wrote: Mon Dec 03, 2018 9:53 am

Jago668 wrote: Mon Dec 03, 2018 7:34 am It was a good article until it got to support for red flag laws.

To protect ourselves from being denied our rights when we have done nothing wrong, we need to find a way to move the dialog in this direction, instead of just opposing laws that only affect the good guys.

I fully agree that we need policies and laws in place that keep guns away from certain people. But, at the same time, we need to be careful how we accept those policies and laws.

It doesn't seem uncommon now to read lawmakers stating that some proposed law is a little overreaching, but, it is not intended for or will affect law-abiding citizen. It will only be used as a necessary tool to address the law-breakers. In other words, it's their tool to use as they see fit to apply.

Archery1,

Can you clarify the bolded statement above? It sounds like you might believe that these types of laws would not be used against law-abiding citizens.

The major threat from mental illness seems to come from psychotic individuals who can not distinguish their fantasies from reality. While schizophrenics many recover with treatment, about 25% never recover.

Approximately 200,000 individuals with schizophrenia or manic-depressive illness are homeless, constituting one-third of the approximately 600,000 homeless population...At any given time, there are more people with untreated severe psychiatric illnesses living on America’s streets than are receiving care in hospitals. Approximately 90,000 individuals with schizophrenia or manic-depressive illness are in hospitals receiving treatment for their disease.

The most direct answer to psychotic violence would seem to be early diagnosis and improved treatment. Not counting the cost in human life, schizophrenia is costing at least $63B/year.

There were reasons for deinstitutionalization of the dangerous mentally ill. One, the failure to accept they they were really a danger to others, and another, asylums were ghastly places. For some on the left, perhaps, the havoc caused by deinstitutionalization is not an unintended consequence.

Maxwell wrote: Mon Dec 03, 2018 5:54 pm

Archery1 wrote: Mon Dec 03, 2018 10:54 am

oohrah wrote: Mon Dec 03, 2018 9:53 am

Jago668 wrote: Mon Dec 03, 2018 7:34 am It was a good article until it got to support for red flag laws.

To protect ourselves from being denied our rights when we have done nothing wrong, we need to find a way to move the dialog in this direction, instead of just opposing laws that only affect the good guys.

I fully agree that we need policies and laws in place that keep guns away from certain people. But, at the same time, we need to be careful how we accept those policies and laws.

It doesn't seem uncommon now to read lawmakers stating that some proposed law is a little overreaching, but, it is not intended for or will affect law-abiding citizen. It will only be used as a necessary tool to address the law-breakers. In other words, it's their tool to use as they see fit to apply.

Archery1,

Can you clarify the bolded statement above? It sounds like you might believe that these types of laws would not be used against law-abiding citizens.

On the contrary, I was trying to say that it's becoming more common to hear lawmakers and pundits describe proposed laws as, yes, a "little broad", but their intentions are not to wholly enforce but just to have on hand for use as needed. This is a dangerous way to look at lawmaking. Phrases like "we don't intend to go after the law abiding folks, just the ones who openly break the law", never minding that the law itself put everyone in jeopardy of being in the same bucket. "We don't intend to wholly enforce" seems to be the salve to make the proposal seem fairly imposed.

We absolutely still have insane asylums, and they're worse than ever before. Now we call them "prisons". We were distraught by "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" so we traded that for "Oz".

MaduroBU wrote: Wed Dec 05, 2018 11:20 am We absolutely still have insane asylums, and they're worse than ever before. Now we call them "prisons". We were distraught by "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" so we traded that for "Oz".

This! 6% of Schizophrenics live in jails or prisons

County jails are now some of our largest mental health facilities.

bbhack wrote: Tue Dec 04, 2018 3:42 pm For some on the left, perhaps, the havoc caused by deinstitutionalization is not an unintended consequence.

If someone wanted to create problems for society like increasing the number of homeless, increasing rates of violent and non-violent crime, and increasing expensive Emergency Room visits, then deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill would certainly have been the perfect plan. The reaction to mentally ill people roaming the streets is increased calls for welfare, higher crime rates leading to attacks on our fundamental rights, and higher healthcare costs leading to support for socialized healthcare for all. Problem Reaction Solution

The American Psychiatric Association estimated in 2000 that one in five prisoners were seriously mentally ill, with up to 5 percent actively psychotic at any given moment...Many individuals with schizophrenia revolve between hospitals, jails and shelters.