JM I am putting this here becasue I am not sure where else to go. Move, if you feel it is misplaced.

Zitat

---

While virtually the entire nation unites around the reasonable proposition that people with serious mental illnesses should not own assault weapons, one group takes umbrage: mental-health experts. In the wake of incidents such as the one at Newtown, the experts immediately issue press releases claiming that people with mental illness are no more violent than others, leading to the conclusion that people with serious mental illness should not be the target of gun-control efforts.

How can the chasm be so wide? Who is right? The public that believes mental illness is associated with violence, or the experts who claim it is not? The science of violence becomes clear when you look at the totality of violence studies versus any single study. The definitive answer is: It depends on who is mentally ill.

---

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/3...razy-d-j-jaffe#

I agree. The ramifications of this are staggering. We cannot deal with the number of boken people in a direct manner. The PC world has made that a no no.

Zitat

---

The incremental funding is rarely used for the most seriously ill. Witness California: In 2005, California voters passed the Mental Health Services Act, a 1 percent tax on millionaires to provide services for people with “serious mental illness.” As someone with a mentally ill relative, I thank Californians for that. But when the money rolled in, the mental-health system turned their backs on the seriously mentally ill. The California mental-health system diverted money to fund hip-hop car washes, gardens for Hmong, massage chairs for government employees, and public-relations firms to convince the public that all is well. The mental-health experts investigated these reports and found nothing wrong. The state auditor is investigating, and I believe her conclusion will differ.

---

Bureaucracies all seem to function the same. They know how to tailor the appeal for funds on a visible and pressing need. Then they do what they want with the money. So the next appeal for "revenue" can be based on the same effective presentation because the visible need will remain.

Zitat

---

While virtually the entire nation unites around the reasonable proposition that people with serious mental illnesses should not own assault weapons, one group takes umbrage: mental-health experts. In the wake of incidents such as the one at Newtown, the experts immediately issue press releases claiming that people with mental illness are no more violent than others, leading to the conclusion that people with serious mental illness should not be the target of gun-control efforts.

How can the chasm be so wide? Who is right? The public that believes mental illness is associated with violence, or the experts who claim it is not? The science of violence becomes clear when you look at the totality of violence studies versus any single study. The definitive answer is: It depends on who is mentally ill.

---

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/3...razy-d-j-jaffe#



It becomes a moot point when a parent with a mentally ill child, or sister, brother, cousin, has access to the weapons that you own.

Quote: Olivia wrote in post #5

---

Zitat

---

While virtually the entire nation unites around the reasonable proposition that people with serious mental illnesses should not own assault weapons, one group takes umbrage: mental-health experts. In the wake of incidents such as the one at Newtown, the experts immediately issue press releases claiming that people with mental illness are no more violent than others, leading to the conclusion that people with serious mental illness should not be the target of gun-control efforts.

How can the chasm be so wide? Who is right? The public that believes mental illness is associated with violence, or the experts who claim it is not? The science of violence becomes clear when you look at the totality of violence studies versus any single study. The definitive answer is: It depends on who is mentally ill.

---

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/3...razy-d-j-jaffe#



It becomes a moot point when a parent with a mentally ill child, or sister, brother, cousin, has access to the weapons that you own.

---

That's for sure. Problem solvers need to look at the facts correctly if they are to fix the problem.

The next question I'd ask is if she had her guns under lock and key?

At some point the problem becomes akin to having a pitbull with small children. Some swear by their temperament while the news is full of exceptions.

Quote: Justme wrote in post #2

---

Zitat

---

Those of us who wish to improve care for men and women who are most seriously afflicted with mental illness enjoy broad public support. The police are on our side. The parents of persons with serious mental illness are on our side. People with serious mental illness themselves are on our side. The mental-health establishment is not, and that is who politicians listen to.

---

We are a broken nation

---

ABSOLUTELY INDEED.

Though, I'd probably put it:


WE ARE A THOROUGHLY AND DELIBERATELY MASSIVELY BROKEN NATION AND CULTURE.

And that's just for STARTERS.

And, as Erich Fromm wrote several decades ago . . .

in THE SANE SOCIETY:

WHEN A SOCIETY IS INSANE, ONLY THE "INSANE" IN THAT SOCIETY ARE "SANE."

Quote: Justme wrote in post #6

---

Here is where liberals come in with both barrels loaded trashing Reagan. Unfortunately on this issue they have a point

---

[

Zitat

---

That's for sure. Problem solvers need to look at the facts correctly if they are to fix the problem.

The next question I'd ask is if she had her guns under lock and key?

At some point the problem becomes akin to having a pitbull with small children. Some swear by their temperament while the news is full of exceptions.

---

I have looked and followed the Sandy Hook story to try and discover if the guns used were locked up so far I have not seen a bit of information one way or the other.

Quote: The_Nevadan wrote in post #10

---

[

Zitat

---

That's for sure. Problem solvers need to look at the facts correctly if they are to fix the problem.

The next question I'd ask is if she had her guns under lock and key?

At some point the problem becomes akin to having a pitbull with small children. Some swear by their temperament while the news is full of exceptions.

---

I have looked and followed the Sandy Hook story to try and discover if the guns used were locked up so far I have not seen a bit of information one way or the other.

---

And so it is..... the KEY question goes unanswered.

Simple solution, If someone under the care of a Mental Health Professional goes postal . . . hold the Mental Health Professional liable and put 'em in prison for being negligent.

Great idea!!! Magoo you've done it again!!!

Let's expand that to include those judges who let dangerous perps back on the street and into society.

Quote: The_Nevadan wrote in post #10

---

[

Zitat

---

That's for sure. Problem solvers need to look at the facts correctly if they are to fix the problem.

The next question I'd ask is if she had her guns under lock and key?

At some point the problem becomes akin to having a pitbull with small children. Some swear by their temperament while the news is full of exceptions.

---

I have looked and followed the Sandy Hook story to try and discover if the guns used were locked up so far I have not seen a bit of information one way or the other.

---

Which is why the calls for gun control are ridiculous. We don't even know the facts yet.