On 2/21/18 8:39 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/21/2018 6:27 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 2/21/18 5:01 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

Before the 2nd Amendment advocates jump all over me for this, please
hear me out and give it consideration.

I think AR-15 and other "military like" rifles that resemble assault
rifles should be allowed but only at licensed shooting ranges.Â* They
cannot be removed from the range.Â* Owners should be required to store
the rifles *at* the range when not using them.

I realize other types of guns, cars, trucks, knives, etc. can also be
used in these mass killings in schools but for some reason the people
that do this seem to have a fascination with military type assault
weapons.

It's not a 2nd Amendment thing.Â* It's a mental attitude and
perception thing and it needs to be addressed.Â* As a country, we need
to do something, not just talk about it like a bunch of politicians.


And contrary to Harry's claims,Â* mental health professionals need to
pay closer attention to their patients and not hesitate to report
anyone who
even remotely appears to be a potential threat.Â* The mental health
people at the out-patient facility who treated Cruz reported him to
be of "no danger to himself or others."Â*Â* He then went out with an
AR-15 and killed 17 people, most of them children.






The mental health treatment issues are far more complex than
"reporting" someone who might pose a danger.


Yes Harry.Â* You've said that before.Â* Meanwhile, 17 people were killed a
week ago in a high school after mental health professionals determined
Cruz was not a "danger".

You are sounding like those you complain about. "Nothing can be done".

You've cited the laws in most states (including mine) as to when and how
a "professional" can take action to prevent a potential tragedy. I am
very aware of those laws.Â* I engaged in a heated debate with a mental
health professional a few years ago regarding a person who demonstrated
that he was both a danger to himself and to others, not just in my
opinion but in the opinion of the police who strongly recommended that
he be mentally evaluated. I was trying to get him some help because he
had refused to get any voluntarily for a number of years. Without going
through all the details, the psychotherapist who interviewed him ended
up agreeing with me that the person *was* a potential danger both to
himself and to others but "nothing could be done" as far as getting
state help for him until he actually harmed himself or others.

Stupid.



I don't want to waste my time telling you all the problems that there
are in pulling a "dangerous person" off the streets. Perhaps this
paragraph from Wiki about the Florida regs will enlighten. These are
just the regs for an examination, not for an inpatient treatment program.

"Specific criteria must be met in order to initiate involuntary
examination. Among those criteria are the following elements, that by
themselves, do not qualify an individual as having met or meeting the
criteria:

"Reason to believe that the person has a mental illness; refusal of
voluntary examination; the person is unable to determine whether
examination is necessary. Criteria are not met simply because a person
has mental illness, appears to have mental problems, takes psychiatric
medication, or has an emotional outburst. Criteria are not met simply
because a person refuses voluntary examination. Criteria are not met if
there are family members or friends that will help prevent any potential
and present threat of substantial harm.

"The criteria, as stated in the statute, mentions a substantial
likelihood that without care or treatment the person will cause serious
bodily harm in the near future. ("Substantial" means ample,
considerable, firm or strong.)

"To further clarify this point of substantial likelihood, there must be
evidence of recent behavior to justify the substantial likelihood of
serious bodily harm in the near future. Moments in the past, when an
individual may have considered harming themselves or another, do not
qualify the individual as meeting the criteria. ("Near" means close,
short, or draws near.)"

And then there is the challenge of treatment, for which there is a
shortage of funds, facilities, and providers.

It will take massive efforts to turn this around. It needs to be done.
But...I doubt it will.

On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 21:33:51 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 2/21/18 8:39 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/21/2018 6:27 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 2/21/18 5:01 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

Before the 2nd Amendment advocates jump all over me for this, please
hear me out and give it consideration.

I think AR-15 and other "military like" rifles that resemble assault
rifles should be allowed but only at licensed shooting ranges.Â* They
cannot be removed from the range.Â* Owners should be required to store
the rifles *at* the range when not using them.

I realize other types of guns, cars, trucks, knives, etc. can also be
used in these mass killings in schools but for some reason the people
that do this seem to have a fascination with military type assault
weapons.

It's not a 2nd Amendment thing.Â* It's a mental attitude and
perception thing and it needs to be addressed.Â* As a country, we need
to do something, not just talk about it like a bunch of politicians.


And contrary to Harry's claims,Â* mental health professionals need to
pay closer attention to their patients and not hesitate to report
anyone who
even remotely appears to be a potential threat.Â* The mental health
people at the out-patient facility who treated Cruz reported him to
be of "no danger to himself or others."Â*Â* He then went out with an
AR-15 and killed 17 people, most of them children.






The mental health treatment issues are far more complex than
"reporting" someone who might pose a danger.


Yes Harry.Â* You've said that before.Â* Meanwhile, 17 people were killed a
week ago in a high school after mental health professionals determined
Cruz was not a "danger".

You are sounding like those you complain about. "Nothing can be done".

You've cited the laws in most states (including mine) as to when and how
a "professional" can take action to prevent a potential tragedy. I am
very aware of those laws.Â* I engaged in a heated debate with a mental
health professional a few years ago regarding a person who demonstrated
that he was both a danger to himself and to others, not just in my
opinion but in the opinion of the police who strongly recommended that
he be mentally evaluated. I was trying to get him some help because he
had refused to get any voluntarily for a number of years. Without going
through all the details, the psychotherapist who interviewed him ended
up agreeing with me that the person *was* a potential danger both to
himself and to others but "nothing could be done" as far as getting
state help for him until he actually harmed himself or others.

Stupid.



I don't want to waste my time telling you all the problems that there
are in pulling a "dangerous person" off the streets. Perhaps this
paragraph from Wiki about the Florida regs will enlighten. These are
just the regs for an examination, not for an inpatient treatment program.

"Specific criteria must be met in order to initiate involuntary
examination. Among those criteria are the following elements, that by
themselves, do not qualify an individual as having met or meeting the
criteria:

"Reason to believe that the person has a mental illness; refusal of
voluntary examination; the person is unable to determine whether
examination is necessary. Criteria are not met simply because a person
has mental illness, appears to have mental problems, takes psychiatric
medication, or has an emotional outburst. Criteria are not met simply
because a person refuses voluntary examination. Criteria are not met if
there are family members or friends that will help prevent any potential
and present threat of substantial harm.

"The criteria, as stated in the statute, mentions a substantial
likelihood that without care or treatment the person will cause serious
bodily harm in the near future. ("Substantial" means ample,
considerable, firm or strong.)

"To further clarify this point of substantial likelihood, there must be
evidence of recent behavior to justify the substantial likelihood of
serious bodily harm in the near future. Moments in the past, when an
individual may have considered harming themselves or another, do not
qualify the individual as meeting the criteria. ("Near" means close,
short, or draws near.)"

And then there is the challenge of treatment, for which there is a
shortage of funds, facilities, and providers.

It will take massive efforts to turn this around. It needs to be done.
But...I doubt it will.

I have been trying to say this for years and you always tell me I am
wrong. The other side of it is even if you do get someone "baker
acted" the chances that they can talk their way out the next morning
is better than 50:50 and the more often they get hauled in, the better
they get in getting out.
If a person can act lucid for 20 minutes, off they go.
It is still clear we have more of a mental illness problem than a gun
problem., The shootings are just a symptom of a bigger problem.
What makes a kid want to go kill a bunch of his fellow students?
The same can be said for adults. Why do people think this is a
solution for any problem? Until we answer those questions we will just
be playing Whack a Mole with every way to kill someone.

On 2/21/2018 9:33 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 2/21/18 8:39 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/21/2018 6:27 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 2/21/18 5:01 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

Before the 2nd Amendment advocates jump all over me for this, please
hear me out and give it consideration.

I think AR-15 and other "military like" rifles that resemble assault
rifles should be allowed but only at licensed shooting ranges.Â* They
cannot be removed from the range.Â* Owners should be required to
store the rifles *at* the range when not using them.

I realize other types of guns, cars, trucks, knives, etc. can also
be used in these mass killings in schools but for some reason the
people that do this seem to have a fascination with military type
assault weapons.

It's not a 2nd Amendment thing.Â* It's a mental attitude and
perception thing and it needs to be addressed.Â* As a country, we
need to do something, not just talk about it like a bunch of
politicians.


And contrary to Harry's claims,Â* mental health professionals need to
pay closer attention to their patients and not hesitate to report
anyone who
even remotely appears to be a potential threat.Â* The mental health
people at the out-patient facility who treated Cruz reported him to
be of "no danger to himself or others."Â*Â* He then went out with an
AR-15 and killed 17 people, most of them children.






The mental health treatment issues are far more complex than
"reporting" someone who might pose a danger.


Yes Harry.Â* You've said that before.Â* Meanwhile, 17 people were killed
a week ago in a high school after mental health professionals
determined Cruz was not a "danger".

You are sounding like those you complain about. "Nothing can be done".

You've cited the laws in most states (including mine) as to when and
how a "professional" can take action to prevent a potential tragedy. I
am very aware of those laws.Â* I engaged in a heated debate with a
mental health professional a few years ago regarding a person who
demonstrated that he was both a danger to himself and to others, not
just in my opinion but in the opinion of the police who strongly
recommended that he be mentally evaluated. I was trying to get him
some help because he had refused to get any voluntarily for a number
of years. Without going through all the details, the psychotherapist
who interviewed him ended up agreeing with me that the person *was* a
potential danger both to himself and to others but "nothing could be
done" as far as getting state help for him until he actually harmed
himself or others.

Stupid.



I don't want to waste my time telling you all the problems that there
are in pulling a "dangerous person" off the streets. Perhaps this
paragraph from Wiki about the Florida regs will enlighten. These are
just the regs for an examination, not for an inpatient treatment program.

"Specific criteria must be met in order to initiate involuntary
examination. Among those criteria are the following elements, that by
themselves, do not qualify an individual as having met or meeting the
criteria:

"Reason to believe that the person has a mental illness; refusal of
voluntary examination; the person is unable to determine whether
examination is necessary. Criteria are not met simply because a person
has mental illness, appears to have mental problems, takes psychiatric
medication, or has an emotional outburst. Criteria are not met simply
because a person refuses voluntary examination. Criteria are not met if
there are family members or friends that will help prevent any potential
and present threat of substantial harm.

"The criteria, as stated in the statute, mentions a substantial
likelihood that without care or treatment the person will cause serious
bodily harm in the near future. ("Substantial" means ample,
considerable, firm or strong.)

"To further clarify this point of substantial likelihood, there must be
evidence of recent behavior to justify the substantial likelihood of
serious bodily harm in the near future. Moments in the past, when an
individual may have considered harming themselves or another, do not
qualify the individual as meeting the criteria. ("Near" means close,
short, or draws near.)"

Â*And then there is the challenge of treatment, for which there is a
shortage of funds, facilities, and providers.

It will take massive efforts to turn this around. It needs to be done.
But...I doubt it will.



It can start by changing the regs. John's point was a good one.
"Reporting" is not the same as initiating mandatory treatment.

If you are driving down the road and notice the car in front of you is
weaving back and forth, putting other drivers or pedestrians in danger
and you suspect the driver of the weaving vehicle is drunk as a skunk
do you ignore it and hope he doesn't kill someone or do you call the
police to notify them of the danger?

My frustration is that it often takes a tragedy to occur before anything
can be done. Prevention is far more effective than debates.

Oh, and also, unfortunately I think that *some* in the mental health
profession have a self serving motivation to keep what they do private.
Not saying all ... but it's a business too.