Should churches change security in wake of recent events?

[cabanafrau]

I don’t think ppl w/ mental illness should have a gun at all; however, talk about violating rights. Then you would essentially have a database of mentally ill ppl. Not sure if you ever met a person with paranoid schizophrenia, but it’s hard enough to get them to agree to seek treatment much less to agree to be added to a database of mentally ill ppl.

What kind of mental illness? Unlike people, they're not all created the same. Should OCD be considered the same as paranoid schizophrenia? How about a woman who suffered a three-month bout of PPD after the birth of her third child eight years ago?

Insurance companies use credit scores as a piece of the equation in setting car insurance rates. Do we really think that a database about mental illness won't be ripe for misuse in the future?

 

[LSUmiss]

Which gets determined by the courts. I think you missed my point. What you think is reasonable, *I* might not. What I think is reasonable, *you* might not. That's all I'm saying.

I agree. But what is reasonable in the law the court usually defines as based on what most ppl would consider reasonable or normal or would expect. So, I was saying we cannot have a reasonable conversation if ppl are not willing to budge at all. I think you could argue that refusing to consider any compromise or anything the other side has to say about any issue is unreasonable.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Second, you can't force mental health care on someone who doesn't want it, especially if his pathology is not a diagnosable condition.

This is true on many levels not even just talking about guns.

Over the weekend we found out that my husband's step-brother by marriage has basically been having a mental breakdown. He's been drinking so much to deal with his issues and his anxiety has skyrocketed into being a debilitating issue where he's taking FMLA time plus he's had multiple times where it's taken 2 people to hold him down on a couch with a blanket trying to calm his nerves, he's not eating well, and using the alcohol to help and he's just spiraling.

Yesterday (Sunday) they finally convinced him to go to the ER (though they had actively been trying since Saturday) so he physically-health wise could be looked at and then they could work on getting him mentally looked at. He was admitted immediately to the ICU with a BAL of .50. I only just found out about this a few hours ago. Lord only knows if it's been higher than that at some point and he's still not actually medically ok at this point. For months his family and friends have been trying to talk with him, been trying to help him but he refused time and time again both for help and to admit he actually was at the point of needing more help than he could handle on his own.

 

[cabanafrau]

I agree. But what is reasonable in the law the court usually defines as based on what most ppl would consider reasonable or normal or would expect. So, I was saying we cannot have a reasonable conversation if ppl are not willing to budge at all. I think you could argue that refusing to consider any compromise or anything the other side has to say about any issue is unreasonable.

Actually reasonableness arguments happen in courtrooms every day with varying results. Often it boils down to the most vociferous attorney or the end of a judge's patience.

 

[Domo]

It is true that rifles and pistols are not the only things on earth that can inflict lethal damage with ease. Explosives, chemical and biological attacks, arson... all should be illegal. Of course, rifles have mitigating circumstances - the practice of target shooting and hunting, for instance. But they are little reason for unfettered access. There is a common ground to be had. Where certain checks and balances are in place in order to minimise the number and ferocity of hand-held/shouldered/mounted attack weapons. Background checks. Limited magazine sizes. Rate of fire checks. Mental illness checks. Registras. They can be a nuisance but as a gun owner myself, I am happy to oblige just that little bit of my time for others to feel safe. I'm not asking for every American to surrender their weapon. I'm just politely putting it out there - couldn't we do more?

 

[LSUmiss]

What kind of mental illness? Unlike people, they're not all created the same. Should OCD be considered the same as paranoid schizophrenia? How about a woman who suffered a three-month bout of PPD after the birth of her third child eight years ago?

Insurance companies use credit scores as a piece of the equation in setting car insurance rates. Do we really think that a database about mental illness won't be ripe for misuse in the future?

Absolutely! I agree 100%! I just didn’t type all that! And, as a mh professional, I do NOT want that liability of determining who needs to be reported. It’s usually not that simple. It’s hard enough to determine sometimes if someone is a danger to themselves or others & needs to be hospitalized!

And, like a pp just said many do not have mental illness anyway. From what I’ve seen, many, at best, have personality “disorders” that many professionals agree are impossible or practically impossible to successfully treat. But, of course, not everyone with these personality issues is going to do something like this. Most won’t.

Also, I have had many clients who I thought were capable of terrible things, but it was just a gut feeling. You can’t lock someone up for a gut feeling. If they’re saying the right things, they will continue to go undetected or there is nothing anyone can do. The only reliable predictor of future behavior is past behavior. So that’s why a lot of times, it’s the first act the person committed.

Now, a whole other can of worms, but I do believe that society & parenting are breeding more ppl with these issues that will be capable of these crimes. And, that’s a professional opinion based on my encounters with adult & juvenile offenders & working in youth mental health. So, I think both arguements are valid. It is the ppl not the guns &, perhaps, culturally there is something we need to examine that makes us more prone to this violence than other countries? But, it’s also the guns that make these acts of violence so prolific. So, IMO, the best thing we can do is limit access & the amount of damage one person can do.

 

[LSUmiss]

Actually reasonableness arguments happen in courtrooms every day with varying results. Often it boils down to the most vociferous attorney or the end of a judge's patience.

Ha! I agree.

 

[LYSE]

I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I don’t think you have the right to bear any kind of arm & there are obviously ppl who agree on that interpretation or machine guns would not be banned. But, if you are someone who believes they should not be banned & we need even less regulation than we currently have, then it is doubtful that we can have a meaningful conversation b/c I don’t see how you can consider any compromise.

Yes that's fine, I'm open to ideas that might actually work, If your wondering what I wouldn't oppose it would be helping the NICS system be more effective but of course this needs to be done carefully.I would be open to other ideas but have seen none that would actually work so far.

But anyway agree to disagree and write your representatives and support your organizations ...I sure do

Shifting the tools to *less efficient means of killing*. That's an important difference. And plenty of rights in this country come with conditions - I can't hide behind free speech if I yell fire in a movie theatre or destroy someone's career with lies. I can't hide behind free assembly if I participate in a riot, or even if I'm just loitering with friends on private property. There is no reason why the right to bear arms shouldn't also be subject to restrictions aimed at upholding public safety.

The thing it is shifts the tools used while not reducing the death numbers and in some cases increasing them, earlier I posted two australian studies and the one in the UK is worse but I don't remember the study title right now.

No you can't hide behind the 1a yelling fire because that's a call to action or your other examples are of course also true..however the 2a doesn't give you the right to shoot up a church no one is arguing that.

 

[CdnCarrie]

I thought it was West Virginia to be honest.

As to your question..regulations on a national level are difficult and you do have to understand that there are choices given to states to decide for themselves for a reason.

In your case of requiring licenses..as I said that's in direct violation of my state's constitution. It is my right in my state. On a federal level you would have to look at it from that type of angle. But you also have to look at it logistically and financially too. I'm not trying to get into a debate at the moment about this in particular aspect but consider marijuana--federal laws are different than state laws.

I do think some of us non-Americans forget a point you keep making - that the individual states wield more power than the federal government. In a country like Canada it's the opposite. Our federal government holds much more power than the individual provinces do.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

It is true that rifles and pistols are not the only things on earth that can inflict lethal damage with ease. Explosives, chemical and biological attacks, arson... all should be illegal. Of course, rifles have mitigating circumstances - the practice of target shooting and hunting, for instance. But they are little reason for unfettered access. There is a common ground to be had. Where certain checks and balances are in place in order to minimise the number and ferocity of hand-held/shouldered/mounted attack weapons. Background checks. Limited magazine sizes. Rate of fire checks. Mental illness checks. Registras. They can be a nuisance but as a gun owner myself, I am happy to oblige just that little bit of my time for others to feel safe. I'm not asking for every American to surrender their weapon. I'm just politely putting it out there - couldn't we do more?

As with most things of course you can do more. But the U.S. has had a complicated history in regards to who controls facets of one's everyday lives. In part that is why states have the right to make certain decisions for their own citizens rather than the federal government making all the decisions for all states.

I know multiple people who refuse to wear their seatbelt even though it's the law to do so for no other reason than they want that choice to be their own.

You're going to find that most people are ok with control but the question is how much control.

 

[AppleDumpling]

As a rule of thumb people who suffer from mental disorders such as OCD, anxiety, depression, etc. don't necessarily fall into either of the two legal designations outlined above, even if they are not receiving treatment.

Incompetence and incapacity are serious legal designations because they strip an individual of some liberties, something that cannot and should not be done without due process.

While I'm in favor of stricter gun legislation, I also recognize that mental health issues are a significant factor which cannot be overlooked when discussing violent crime.

The Sandy Hook killer apparently had a history of mental issues but was never formally diagnosed. Sadly though, whether or not he was able to legally obtain guns didn't matter. The weapons he used were all registered to his mother. The mother, by most accounts, likely knew her son was a very disturbed young man, yet chose to keep guns in her home that her son could easily access. She was probably in denial and wanted to protect her child. Unfortunately, she became his first victim.

As others have said, hard to keep tabs on the mentally ill and where do we draw the line? If a person is declared mentally incapable of owning a gun, does that then extend to their immediate family?

 

[LSUmiss]

As with most things of course you can do more. But the U.S. has had a complicated history in regards to who controls facets of one's everyday lives. In part that is why states have the right to make certain decisions for their own citizens rather than the federal government making all the decisions for all states.

I know multiple people who refuse to wear their seatbelt even though it's the law to do so for no other reason than they want that choice to be their own.

You're going to find that most people are ok with control but the question is how much control.

I know ppl like that too with the seatbelts. I just find this illogical. You put your life in danger to just show you won’t be controlled. Sorry, but that’s insane!

 

[mummabear]

I know multiple people who refuse to wear their seatbelt even though it's the law to do so for no other reason than they want that choice to be their own.

They sound like super intelligent people...

 

[Gumbo4x4]

I believe the right to bear arms does NOT extend to an individual owning guns, yet realize the supreme court does not agree with me.
And the constitution is not infallible - you can make amendments.
Negros were valued at 3/5 of a person for representation purposes for example.

Why has Congress prohibited the CDC from studying gun violence? What is Congress afraid of them finding?
The statistics on US gun deaths are staggering when compared to other industrial nations - murders, suicides.

I own handguns - and would gladly participate in a registry, or give them up. There are more guns in the US than people - the government is inept - do you really think they will be able to make a concentrated attempt to come get our guns? lol
We cannot fix issues yet somehow want to make mental health a priority - ok - so then what - you have mental issues? No guns?
I have a friend who has served three tours in the middle east and has PTSD - he should be NO WHERE near weapons - yet owns a ton. Who is going to say the soldier who defended us isn't allowed his protection. Not a politician. So for everyone who says better mental health is the solution - please explain how you think that would work.

Of course it's an individual right. Who exactly were they referring to when they said "the people" if not the individual citizens of this country?

Now, you are quite correct that amendments aren't necessarily forever. But, I think "the people" is a pretty clear definition.

 

[Domo]

As with most things of course you can do more. But the U.S. has had a complicated history in regards to who controls facets of one's everyday lives. In part that is why states have the right to make certain decisions for their own citizens rather than the federal government making all the decisions for all states.

I know multiple people who refuse to wear their seatbelt even though it's the law to do so for no other reason than they want that choice to be their own.

You're going to find that most people are ok with control but the question is how much control.

As I said before, I guess baby steps are the way to go. I don't know where to draw the line. America has more guns per citizen than any other country; the things are ingrained in her culture. It would take an almighty push to make a meaningful change. But maybe, just maybe, a tiny step? Perhaps tighter mental health screening? Or a ban on drum mags? I honestly don't know.

 

[mnrose]

You intentionally misquoted me, removing the words " there are emerging reports that"
So your post is "fake news."

Emerging reports? From whom? Which legitimate source? I asked before and got a statement from you that it was CBS. When I asked for a specific reference, you linked an article which DOES NOT EVEN MENTION the word Muslim or Islam, much less claim that there were "emerging" (or indeed ANY) reports that he was converted. Sorry, you are posting FAKE news, having apparently bought into one of the many fake "news" stories which emerged before the blood was dry in that church. And, you refuse to own up to it. Why are you spreading these "emerging" reports? Where do these "emerging" reports come from, besides someone's sick imagination. And, you posting this sort of garbage further spreads the garbage. Not letting you off the hook on this one. ALL reports today are that this man's religion had NOTHING to do with this event. There is, quite simply, no evidence (not "emerging" or otherwise) that he was a Muslim.

 

[LYSE]

OH, I can't believe I forgot to point this out earlier....

You guy know we had "the assault weapons ban of 1994" Right? It stuck around for 10 years and didn't do much of anything..columbine happened during that period

https://publicintelligence.net/nij-assault-weapons-ban-study/

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I know ppl like that too with the seatbelts. I just find this illogical. You put your life in danger to just show you won’t be controlled. Sorry, but that’s insane!

They sound like super intelligent people...

_____________
Agreed. I personally make my choice not to be in the vehicle with those who I know have that personal philosophy

If a box of tissues can become a deadly weapon in a car in an accident you bet your butt I don't want to be in a car where a person becomes a deadly weapon (at least by choice-seatbelts do have their own limitations for safety).

 

[LSUmiss]

Emerging reports? From whom? Which legitimate source? I asked before and got a statement from you that it was CBS. When I asked for a specific reference, you linked an article which DOES NOT EVEN MENTION the word Muslim or Islam, much less claim that there were "emerging" (or indeed ANY) reports that he was converted. Sorry, you are posting FAKE news, having apparently bought into one of the many fake "news" stories which emerged before the blood was dry in that church. And, you refuse to own up to it. Why are you spreading these "emerging" reports? Where do these "emerging" reports come from, besides someone's sick imagination. And, you posting this sort of garbage further spreads the garbage. Not letting you off the hook on this one. ALL reports today are that this man's religion had NOTHING to do with this event. There is, quite simply, no evidence (not "emerging" or otherwise) that he was a Muslim.

I literally just heard on the BBC who was just playing a tape of the press conference from the sheriff there that said it was a domestic issue & NOT related to any religion issue. His former MIL was a member of that church (although she wasn’t present yesterday).

 

[LSUmiss]

OH, I can't believe I forgot to point this out earlier....

You guy know we had "the assault weapons ban of 1994" Right? It stuck around for 10 years and didn't do much of anything..columbine happened during that period

https://publicintelligence.net/nij-assault-weapons-ban-study/

Yeah I was going to bring that up earlier but didn’t feel like opening up that can of worms. I disagree. I think we can never know if it helped b/c you can’t know what didn’t happen. But, Columbine was a big deal b/c it was rare. These things aren’t rare anymore.