Should background checks include identifying the mentally ill

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Because you are AGAIN making the flippant connection that "mentally ill = violent." Or "mentally ill = dangerous."

Negative. Please do a thorough search and quote where I've ever said anything even remotely like that.

No.

There is a multi-dimension range of mental illness and I've never said all were violent. I've never even suggested it. However, there is, without a doubt in my mind a slice of mental illness that can be diagnosed as having violent tendencies. There is another slice where they simply do not know the difference between reality and fantasy. There is another slice who get sexually aroused by the sight of small children. There is a collection of slices which includes these and others that are not fit to own a weapon of any sort because of the danger they pose to society.

So
You can identify them?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Because you are AGAIN making the flippant connection that "mentally ill = violent." Or "mentally ill = dangerous."

Negative. Please do a thorough search and quote where I've ever said anything even remotely like that.
No.
There is a multi-dimension range of mental illness and I've never said all were violent. I've never even suggested it. However, there is, without a doubt in my mind a slice of mental illness that can be diagnosed as having violent tendencies. There is another slice where they simply do not know the difference between reality and fantasy. There is another slice who get sexually aroused by the sight of small children. There is a collection of slices which includes these and others that are not fit to own a weapon of any sort because of the danger they pose to society.

So
You can identify them?

No. I'd leave that to the professionals. I've said so in the past.

As a society, we leave it up to professionals to determine if people are fit for any one of a number of tasks. Why would this be any different?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Because you are AGAIN making the flippant connection that "mentally ill = violent." Or "mentally ill = dangerous."

Negative. Please do a thorough search and quote where I've ever said anything even remotely like that.
No.
There is a multi-dimension range of mental illness and I've never said all were violent. I've never even suggested it. However, there is, without a doubt in my mind a slice of mental illness that can be diagnosed as having violent tendencies. There is another slice where they simply do not know the difference between reality and fantasy. There is another slice who get sexually aroused by the sight of small children. There is a collection of slices which includes these and others that are not fit to own a weapon of any sort because of the danger they pose to society.

So
You can identify them?

No. I'd leave that to the professionals. I've said so in the past.

As a society, we leave it up to professionals to determine if people are fit for any one of a number of tasks. Why would this be any different?

Because the professionals have a very difficult time predicting violent behavior.

There are a few specific conditions that you mention above that are sometimes indicators of future violence, but not always.

For example, a lot of people are sexually aroused by small children. MOST of them realize the consequences of acting on that behavior, don't do anything, and aren't a threat to anyone.
SOME of them follow these impulses to a legal extent with fictional stories and pictures/videos of very young looking 18 year old girls (search through some of the porn out there to see how much "Barely Legal and Very Young Looking" there is).

A FEW go to the extent of finding real child porn, at the risk of legal consequences.
A VERY FEW are unable or unwilling to suppress these urges to the point that they molest children.

So, should there be an "aroused by children" test? Hook people up to a MRI or something, show them pictures of kids and lock up anyone who shows activity in the "sexual arousal" part of the brain?

That's taking it a little farther than you imply, but that's the basic premise of what you suggest.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[quade 4]

On any specific part of mental illness, and let's just use that pedophile as an example, you are correct, there is a spectrum running from "thought never crossed his mind" to "that's all he wants to do and doesn't care what it takes to make it happen."

Again, leave it up to the professionals to determine where the line is crossed into a danger to society, but if you're suggesting that it's impossible to determine who any of these people are at all, that's simply ridiculous.

Once that has been determined, I have ZERO issue with sharing the information, HIPPA or not. You do not let a rabid dog run wild in the streets simply because of some privacy issue. Somebody who has been determined to be a danger is a danger. How else can I put that? If HIPPA stands in the way, then HIPPA needs to be altered to deal with the dangerously mentally ill.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Quote

...Again, leave it up to the professionals to determine where the line is crossed into a danger to society, but if you're suggesting that it's impossible to determine who any of these people are at all, that's simply ridiculous...

The problem with that is how do you make sure the predictions are accurate?
Even the professionals (DFWAJG for one) say that kind of prediction is extremely difficult.
And what happened to the presumtion of innocence until guilt is proven?

There was one you linked a while back, where a guy was talking to an invisible rabbit. Because of that behavior, he had his guns taken away.

He went to court and demonstrated to the judge that he wasn't a danger to the public and got his guns back.
You were somewhat incredulous that a judge would do that.

You seem willing to err on the side of taking away people's rights.
I don't want to see a gun in the hands of a dangerous person, but I want even less to see someone's rights taken away unjustly.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[dmcoco84 5]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Because you are AGAIN making the flippant connection that "mentally ill = violent." Or "mentally ill = dangerous."

Negative. Please do a thorough search and quote where I've ever said anything even remotely like that.
No.
There is a multi-dimension range of mental illness and I've never said all were violent. I've never even suggested it. However, there is, without a doubt in my mind a slice of mental illness that can be diagnosed as having violent tendencies. There is another slice where they simply do not know the difference between reality and fantasy. There is another slice who get sexually aroused by the sight of small children. There is a collection of slices which includes these and others that are not fit to own a weapon of any sort because of the danger they pose to society.

So
You can identify them?

No. I'd leave that to the professionals. I've said so in the past.

As a society, we leave it up to professionals to determine if people are fit for any one of a number of tasks. Why would this be any different?

Like I said to Kallend.... repetitive circle of stupidity.

You sound so ridiculous, Quade.

There are already policies and procedures in place within the (broken) field of psychiatry giving the power of a provider (MD, PHD, LCSW, ect) to report issues.

Aurora is a perfect example of a failure of the system, where the provider did report the problem.

And the guy who kill his mother, a felon who was in psych facility long term, also does not help your case(s); as it is a failure and clear example of the incompetence of government.

You will not win this argument, and nothing you desire will be implemented.

[quade 4]

And you sound like a person who has given up on making the world a better place. How's that working out for you? Just going to crawl into a prepper shelter and wait for "God" to sort it out or is there anything you'd like to do about what is obviously a problem?

So far I haven't heard a single suggestion from you about anything.

Run out of ideas or just not have any to begin with?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

So, should there be an "aroused by children" test? Hook people up to a MRI or something, show them pictures of kids and lock up anyone who shows activity in the "sexual arousal" part of the brain?

sounds costly - we should raise taxes and do it

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

So, should there be an "aroused by children" test? Hook people up to a MRI or something, show them pictures of kids and lock up anyone who shows activity in the "sexual arousal" part of the brain?

sounds costly - we should raise taxes and do it

Well, if it saves just one child......

Why do you hate children?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

And you sound like a person who has given up on making the world a better place. How's that working out for you? Just going to crawl into a prepper shelter and wait for "God" to sort it out or is there anything you'd like to do about what is obviously a problem?

So far I haven't heard a single suggestion from you about anything.

Run out of ideas or just not have any to begin with?

It appears you are the one out of points to make when you say what you did about someone here

Despite humans best efforts, God will always be needed to sort some things out
The utopia you seem to think is out there, just does not, and never will exist.

Now will be turn this around and say I have given up too

Nope

I just try and see the problems as they are.

You just want to address a symptom IMO

You want solutions?

Shrink the entitlement programs. Stop paying women to have babies
Get the damn government further out of our schools

Stop giving people the opportunity to so easily suck off the tit of the gov and make them responsible for themselves

What I list is a more compassionate path because people will become happier as their pride rises.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[dmcoco84 5]

Quote

And you sound like a person who has given up on making the world a better place. How's that working out for you? Just going to crawl into a prepper shelter and wait for "God" to sort it out or is there anything you'd like to do about what is obviously a problem?

So far I haven't heard a single suggestion from you about anything.

Run out of ideas or just not have any to begin with?

This is pretty pathetic...

I can't answer at the moment; slammed busy, but I will asap.

However, to answer your "questions", again I will ask...

Have you read On Combat and/or On Kill?

[Southern_Man 0]

Well, so we were discussing this issue at lunch yesterday [for those who don't know, I work at a Community Mental Health Center]. Nobody spoke up who was in favor of this sort of information being routinely disclosed. The two biggest problems discussion were 1) It provided a disincentive for treatment. 2) The docs were concerned they were going to be asked to determine somebody's potential for violence.

Just added information.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Well, so we were discussing this issue at lunch yesterday [for those who don't know, I work at a Community Mental Health Center]. Nobody spoke up who was in favor of this sort of information being routinely disclosed. The two biggest problems discussion were 1) It provided a disincentive for treatment. 2) The docs were concerned they were going to be asked to determine somebody's potential for violence.

now, now, settle down there....

nobody cares what the people affected think about it

this is about placating a loud and vocal base of people that don't think things through so congress critters can pander for votes at re-election time

oh, and sound bites......lotsa sound bites


if a few people get their rights stripped even though they've never broken any laws.....is that really so bad as long as a couple weirdos get re-elected?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Kennedy 0]

You're forgetting some very important facts. The field of psychiatry/psychology does not exist to protect the public welfare. They study and treat the mentally ill. The courts ARE set up to protect the public good (not sayin they always do, but that is their purpose). So if you want to help the ill get better, or at least understand them, see a shrink; MD or PhD. If you want to consider locking them away or taking away their rights, go see a judge and a few JDs. If you want to know what they might do in the future, go invent the WABAK or a Pre-crime division.

I am not comfortable with some "professional" deciding on their own that you don't have your rights anymore. I find THIS to be very unsettling.

More to the point, have you been able to find any "professionals" who claim they can predict danger or want to be responsible for removing rights or freedom? The only example I can find is the (state variable) short term pysch hold a you know 24, 48, or 72 hour hold for danger to self or others. I fully support that. But tell me, do you know the process for continuing a commitment against the patient's will, or how to go about removing rights? It doesn't begin and end with your "professionals". It involves the courts. As it should.

You know, I've read dozens of your posts on this topic, and I'm still not sure what you want to change. You've thrown out fairly vague generalities. What is it you actually want to change? Be as clear and specific as you can, please.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[quade 4]

Actually, I detailed it fairly specifically awhile back. It would involve a panel of experts, not simply one. You can search for it if you'd like.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

And you sound like a person who has given up on making the world a better place.

A better place for whom? Certainly not for everyone.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Quote

And you sound like a person who has given up on making the world a better place.

A better place for whom? Certainly not for everyone.

But it's for the children. If it saves just one life...

[/idiocy]

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[dmcoco84 5]

Great Post!

"The field of psychiatry/psychology does not exist to protect the public welfare."

Solid foundational fact.

Will be interesting to see how things go down when MDs start leaving the field... and the Federal Government threatening them with incarceration if they try to do so.

Its coming...

Within this Republic; the government does not exist to compel on direct behavior.

[dmcoco84 5]

Quote

Actually, I detailed it fairly specifically awhile back. It would involve a panel of experts, not simply one. You can search for it if you'd like.

Fuck your panel.

We will never have the type of system that you see in England; and what you want, Quade, is the type of government control and oversight of that in Europe, which is unconstitutional.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Fuck your panel.

I'm not a fan of gratuitous swearing, etc.

But you really made me laugh out loud with that. I could just hear the delivery...

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,100]

> The field of psychiatry/psychology does not exist to protect the public welfare.

It in part does, just as doctors exist in part to protect the public welfare. Quarantines, for example, do not protect a patient - they protect society at large. In the case of psychiatry the standard is a reasonable likelihood that they will injure themselves (that's protecting the patient) or others (that's protecting society.)

>I am not comfortable with some "professional" deciding on their own that you don't
>have your rights anymore.

Any cop who pulls you over can decide that right now.

>More to the point, have you been able to find any "professionals" who claim they
>can predict danger . . . .

Of course. Pilots deciding whether to fly through a storm. Cops deciding whether to arrest a drunk. An AFF-I deciding whether a student is too clueless to continue in skydiving.

Does that mean that a pilot can tell you "I will guarantee you that if we fly through that storm it will tear our wings off?" Nope. But he can predict that there is a likelihood that there will be a problem - and wisely decides to take a different path.

>or want to be responsible for removing rights or freedom?

I don't know of any professionals who WANT to do that. I know of some excellent ones who do it when they need to.

> But tell me, do you know the process for continuing a commitment against the
> patient's will

Sure. Get drunk and crash your car; you will find yourself detained against your will and you can observe the process in action. We have an entire legal system erected to allow the government to do that (and to preventing government abuse of that power.) So far we have not put the effort into setting up a similar system for people who are a psychiatric risk; we've been too lazy.

[quade 4]

Too lazy and also too cheap.

The mental health crisis in America is also fueled by idiots who think short term when it comes to spending.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[champu 1]

Quote

Sure. Get drunk and crash your car; you will find yourself detained against your will and you can observe the process in action. We have an entire legal system erected to allow the government to do that (and to preventing government abuse of that power.) So far we have not put the effort into setting up a similar system for people who are a psychiatric risk; we've been too lazy.

What I'm seeing in this thread is the assertion that there exists a test of mental illness that would serve as an analog to a BAC test in your analogy. If that were the case, then deciding that "being mentally ill with a gun" was just as illegal and enforceable as "driving while drunk" would be trivial.

But adjust your analogy just a little to the case of driving under the influence of marajuana in the states that have legalized recreational use, and the issue starts to emerge. What happens when quantitative tests to determine if a person is currently impaired have a much worse false-positive rate than a BAC test?

Maybe improvements could be found for such tests of mental illness to bring it up to a "BAC level" of agreeableness if, to use your words, we get less lazy about it, or maybe we'll never get there. Either way it is rather irritating when people smugly chastise those who focus on the real and immediate problems we would need to address before agreeing to implement any such test for having "given up."

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

More to the point, have you been able to find any "professionals" who claim they can predict danger

Yes. As my wife has stated on here, the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. Thus, if an adult has not committed acts of violence in the past, that person is unlikely to commit acts of violence in the future. If an adult has a history of violence, then that person is more likely to be violent in the future.

It's not 100 percent but it's the best we've got. The rules are set up that until a person commits an act of violence, it is assumed that he or she will not.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[dmcoco84 5]

Quote

> The field of psychiatry/psychology does not exist to protect the public welfare.

It in part does, just as doctors exist in part to protect the public welfare. Quarantines, for example, do not protect a patient - they protect society at large. In the case of psychiatry the standard is a reasonable likelihood that they will injure themselves (that's protecting the patient) or others (that's protecting society.)

>I am not comfortable with some "professional" deciding on their own that you don't
>have your rights anymore.

Any cop who pulls you over can decide that right now.

>More to the point, have you been able to find any "professionals" who claim they
>can predict danger . . . .

Of course. Pilots deciding whether to fly through a storm. Cops deciding whether to arrest a drunk. An AFF-I deciding whether a student is too clueless to continue in skydiving.

Does that mean that a pilot can tell you "I will guarantee you that if we fly through that storm it will tear our wings off?" Nope. But he can predict that there is a likelihood that there will be a problem - and wisely decides to take a different path.

You like to continue arguing a point, around, the points that I make regarding foundational principles.... of Limited Government.

You and many others need to take my post: DEFINED: LIMITED GOVERNMENT... read that, and than fit every issue you have within those principles.

Like your arguments above... this is progressive type critical thinking to subvert the structure of the Republic; trying to allow the Federal Government to do things it has no right to be involved in.

If you start with Limited Government, nothing you state makes sense.