[billethkid]

the original thread had to do with whether there should be some sort of mental background check. And after a lot of pages of a lot about other subjects the answer to the original question is still a loud and clear NO!

How could there ever be a determination of what is the right level of wacko-ness or non standard behavior or not acting like we thinone should act.

Enforcement IMPOSSIBLE!!!!! Take a real simple one that is very measurable....the speed limit. They can cite you (or not) because they have a standard (the speed limit). Over it = bad under it = OK.
And if......IF....cited the fines are fairly stiff....as they should be.

So they have a standard. Do we still have speeding? Of course. How could that be possible....we have a law that states how fast we are allowed to go, don't we?

The missing ingredient is ENFORCEMENT. We all know if the cops aren't there we speed.

Now that you have my example just how do some of you think a mental state check could be made?

The single biggest problem in the realm of gun control is the existing laws are not ENFORCED.

Enforcement goes against the current permissive direction our society has taken.

Talk is cheap. Enforcement is not!!

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by billethkid

the original thread had to do with whether there should be some sort of mental background check. And after a lot of pages of a lot about other subjects the answer to the original question is still a loud and clear NO!

How could there ever be a determination of what is the right level of wacko-ness or non standard behavior or not acting like we thinone should act.

Enforcement IMPOSSIBLE!!!!! Take a real simple one that is very measurable....the speed limit. They can cite you (or not) because they have a standard (the speed limit). Over it = bad under it = OK.
And if......IF....cited the fines are fairly stiff....as they should be.

So they have a standard. Do we still have speeding? Of course. How could that be possible....we have a law that states how fast we are allowed to go, don't we?

The missing ingredient is ENFORCEMENT. We all know if the cops aren't there we speed.

Now that you have my example just how do some of you think a mental state check could be made?

The single biggest problem in the realm of gun control is the existing laws are not ENFORCED.

Enforcement goes against the current permissive direction our society has taken.

Talk is cheap. Enforcement is not!!

I do not think there is any quick test like that for blood alcohol content for whether or not someone will ACT on mental illness in a violent way. It is a whole lot more than just talking crazy. People watching out for other people is part of a solution to this though. If your neighbor is doing something that looks like it might lead to violence against himself or to others we should certainly call the police. My neighbor David N. in Reno, Nevada shot himself in the head mainly because he felt no one loved nor understood him. At least, that was in the note as I remember it. He was developmentally challenged and I believe some people made fun of him. He was probably about 25 when he killed himself. I was around 13 or 14. We did not know what to do to help David N. He lived with his parents and probably would have remained with them for a long time. The neighbor next to him also in Reno, NV a few years before that hung himself due to gambling debts he could not pay back. Not much could have been done for him except maybe if he had moved out of a gambling mecca like Reno, NV.

[rubicon]

IMHO this topic is complicated and politicizing it doesn't help. There is a town in Europe forget the town name and country wherein a nun dedicated her life to people with mental health issues and was successful in soliciting the help of townsfolk who took in and cared for them. If a person was having an episode they would be hospitalized stabilized and return to their home I suspect being treated as a normal human being has as much a positive effect on them as does the health care they receive.

In this European society they are not stigmitized. They have rights but with rights comes responsibility and if they are unable to recognize that responsibility than there is a procedure in place there to deal with it.

In America do gooders had good intentions but a poor plan and freed people who needed care but could not even recognize their needs or a place to treat them. So without insight these patients walk the streets. Some believe the cure is worse than the disease and in some manner they are correct. However isn't that true of the guy who takes a prescription for blood pressure or any other ailment....the so called side effects

Do gooders again made laws that prevented family members who who cared enough to stand by the side of their sons, daughters parents from securing help for them

All this talk about gun control evaluations for licenses, etc is a distraction.

America is suppose to be the land of problem solvers who can do great things. However, when it comes to our approach and thinking about mental health we are in the Dark Ages and that includes many psychiatric professionals.

if you don't agree tell me how you react to this comparison.

If a person is having a hear attack the medical people zap with an electrical charge to regain balance.

If a mental patient is having an episode medical people zap them with electricity to regain balance. Same procedure different organ

Are they the same to you?

[bowlik]

Perhaps there should be mental evaluations for buying alcholic beverages. Perhaps we should have mental evaluations for voting? Perhaps if you don't agree with me, you might need a mental evaluation. If you don't believe in climate change, should you be evaluated?

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by bowlik

Perhaps there should be mental evaluations for buying alcholic beverages. Perhaps we should have mental evaluations for voting? Perhaps if you don't agree with me, you might need a mental evaluation. If you don't believe in climate change, should you be evaluated?

I believe some political systems have come to this. Think of the opposite though where Roman Emperors might execute someone who told them their horse should not be a Roman Senator. In hindsight, some of these Roman and Byzantine emperors were very mentally ill, but no one could tell them if they valued having their head still connected to their body after they told them this. http://listverse.com/2010/10/14/top-...insane-rulers/

[zcaveman]

Assuming that we had such a test and the person in question passed the test, how do we know that the person has not deteriorated over time and not is no longer sane? Do we need checkups?

When a person is found guilty of murder and sentenced to death, he was pronounced sane. After 15 years on death row and living in a secluded environment, he is now declared mentally incompetent and is no longer eligible for the death sentence.

Is that fair to the family of the victim that he killed? And probably in a horrific fashion.

Z

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by zcaveman

Assuming that we had such a test and the person in question passed the test, how do we know that the person has not deteriorated over time and not is no longer sane? Do we need checkups?

When a person is found guilty of murder and sentenced to death, he was pronounced sane. After 15 years on death row and living in a secluded environment, he is now declared mentally incompetent and is no longer eligible for the death sentence.

Is that fair to the family of the victim that he killed? And probably in a horrific fashion.

Z

That's a very good question zcaveman. Should we kill people who become insane due to their life in prison for heinous crimes they committed when in full control of their faculties? I do believe that a person should know that they are being punished for what they did and if they are too far gone to even know that.... I would be very sceptical though of lawyers making this claim as well as the psychiatrists in their employ.

You know I have great respect and drive to get victims involved in the criminal justice system, so they should have quite a lot of say in this. Of course, no two victim families are alike. Some are very quick to turn the cheek, while others might take the law in their own hands if given any chance.

[senior citizen]

For most of these recent killers, their psychiatrists knew exactly what was wrong with them. They also knew what prescribed meds they were on and what the "side effects" might be. The doctors should warn the powers that be.

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by senior citizen

For most of these recent killers, their psychiatrists knew exactly what was wrong with them. They also knew what prescribed meds they were on and what the "side effects" might be. The doctors should warn the powers that be.

We will probably all get a real education on psychiatry and the law with the upcoming Aurora Theater shooter trial this October 2014. Accused Colorado theater shooter's trial date set for fall - CNN.com

The jury selection will be open to the public to view, too. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...public-n128961

To me James Holmes looked like he carefully planned this attack, knew what he was doing was evil, but did it anyway. Some of his ideas are nuts but his actions and the planning around them show he had the intention necessary for all these murder charges to stick.

We will probably find out more about what the psychiatrists/psychologists knew about James Holmes before the shootings when the trial comes up. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/james-ho...fore-shooting/

[senior citizen]

.............

[Villages PL]

Originally Posted by Golfingnut

I am concerned about what is happening far to often now, killing in mass by mentally ill Americans that in too many cases bought the weapon in the last few days. Not a conspiracy theory that MAY happen someday in the far fetched future.

Don't more people die in car accidents every year? Yet no one is calling for a mental stability test to drive a car.