Go Back   CityProfile.com Forum - Local City and State Discussion Forums > General Discussion > National Politics / Debate
Click Here to Login

Reply
Old 09-08-2011, 01:19 AM  
Senior Member
 
Jake7's Avatar

Honolulu, Hawaii
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,294 | Kudos: +135
Images: 45
That darn Constitution. Always gettin' in the way, eh?
__________________

__________________
Discover Scentsy at Lucky Lucy Scentsy Products - an independent Scentsy consultant!


https://luckylucy.scentsy.us/Scentsy/Buy
Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2011, 06:19 AM  
Senior Member

Greenville, SC
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,141 | Kudos: +188
Nevada: Worst Record in the Nation for Treating Mentally Ill - MarketWatch

ARLINGTON, Va., Sep 07, 2011 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- In the search for explanations of the Carson City shooting rampage that so far has left five dead and six wounded, Nevada's neglect of those with severe mental illness deserves consideration. Eduardo Sencion, the 32-year-old gunman who committed suicide after opening fire in an IHOP, reportedly suffered from schizophrenia. Whether he was currently in treatment for the condition is not yet known.

Nevada's ratio of jailing people with severe mental illness to hospitalizing them is the worst in the nation: The state imprisons nearly 10 times as many mentally ill individuals as it hospitalizes ("More Mentally Ill Persons Are in Jails and Prisons Than Hospitals," Treatment Advocacy Center and National Sheriff's Association, May 2010). The average ratio nationally is 3.2 to 1.

Nevada's state hospital bed count also is the worst in the nation: The state had 5.1 beds per 100,000 people in 2005 ("The Shortage of Public Hospital Beds for Mentally Ill Persons," Treatment Advocacy Center, 2008). The national average was 17.

Next to the worst on both scores is Arizona, where Jared Lee Loughner shot 19 people, killing six, in January.

Nevada is also one of only six states that do not have a civil commitment law authorizing court-ordered outpatient treatment (often called "assisted outpatient treatment" or "AOT") for people with untreated severe mental illness who meet strict legal criteria. A bill to make AOT available in Nevada was introduced by Assemblyman Lynn Stewart (R-Henderson) earlier this year. It died in committee.

"Every time one of these tragic events occurs, there's an outcry about how it might have been prevented," said Jim Pavle, executive director of the Treatment Advocacy Center, a national nonprofit that advocates for improved involuntary treatment laws. "Regardless of the specifics in this tragedy, we know that treatment for mental illness works, and Nevada is just about the worst state in the nation for people in psychiatric crisis to get help. As long as this remains the case, tragedy in the future is inevitable."

SOURCE: Treatment Advocacy Center


Apparently this guy had a history of mental health issues.....



CARSON CITY, Nev. (AP) — .............................South Lake Tahoe police said the department took Sencion into protective custody during a mental health commitment in April 2000 and that he fought with officers. He was not charged.

The Lake Tahoe News first reported the incident.

No court order was involved, Lt. David Stevenson told The Associated Press. He said officers have the authority under state law to take individuals into protective custody if they determine the person poses a danger to themselves or others.

No weapon was involved in the incident, said Stevenson, who declined to release any other details because the Carson City shooting investigation remains active.

..........
Read more: http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/S...#ixzz1XMKPWnml
__________________

Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2011, 11:02 AM  
mohel
 
blucher's Avatar

Keizer, OR
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,383 | Kudos: +123
Images: 99
Quote:
Apparently this guy had a history of mental health issues.....
Big time. It's the disturbed, deranged and the delusional I'd like to see screened out of the gun market and a nationwide data base used to do it.
__________________
I'll believe corporations are persons when Texas executes one.: LBJ's Ghost
Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2011, 11:03 AM  
mohel
 
blucher's Avatar

Keizer, OR
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,383 | Kudos: +123
Images: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by jake7 View Post
that darn constitution. Always gettin' in the way, eh?
well regulated militia?
__________________
I'll believe corporations are persons when Texas executes one.: LBJ's Ghost
Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2011, 02:54 PM  
Senior Member

Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,892 | Kudos: +92
I once told a friend that I would purchase a "NO GUNS IN THIS HOUSE" sign for him if he would place it at his doorway. He thought it might make him vulnerable.
Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2011, 12:26 AM  
Senior Member

Kent, Ohio
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,237 | Kudos: +67
Quote:
Originally Posted by blucher View Post
good trend but I doubt the recession will help it. 25% less drops the US to around 11 per hundred thousand. Japan managed .07.
Such is the fallacy of looking only at FIREARM deaths. Go look at violent crime in general, regardless of whether a firearm was involved. Yeah, it's harder to die from a gunshot in a nation where there are no guns, but it's harder to die from a baseball bat to the head in a nation where a large percentage of the population is armed.


Quote:
Originally Posted by blucher View Post
well regulated militia?
Quote:
Originally Posted by US Code, Title 10
? 311. MILITIA: COMPOSITION AND CLASSES
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are?
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
This current definition isn't a drastic alteration of the original term. The militia is, and has always been, the group of people who would be holding the guns during a zombie apocalypse. The strong, able-bodied people holding the line, protecting the weak - the very young, the very old, the wounded and crippled. Back then, that was the men-folk. In this day and age, it's basically anyone. The group described by "militia" is much more similar to the group described by "citizen" than it is to the group described by "Guardsman", or "Soldier", or "Law Enforcement Officer" The militia consists of We The People, not specially appointed individuals charged with protecting the peace.

When we look at the Second Amendment with this in mind, the real purpose of the Second Amendment is not to protect gun owners, but to state that an armed populace is essential to the security of a free nation.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2011, 11:37 AM  
mohel
 
blucher's Avatar

Keizer, OR
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,383 | Kudos: +123
Images: 99
Quote:
Such is the fallacy of looking only at FIREARM deaths. Go look at violent crime in general, regardless of whether a firearm was involved. Yeah, it's harder to die from a gunshot in a nation where there are no guns, but it's harder to die from a baseball bat to the head in a nation where a large percentage of the population is armed.
The harder task is to severely injure or kill an uncooperative victim without a gun. A firearm can make granny a badass within the confines of the average room. Give her a bat or knife and odds are the most likely to be hurt is granny.

The nut in Nevada walking into an Ihop with a bat would surely do some damage but would have immediately been overpowered. If we're going to be a heavily armed nation we need tight guidelines on who gets the guns.

I do not agree any armed person constitutes militia. Rabble yes but no more. A militia is also an organized entity.
__________________
I'll believe corporations are persons when Texas executes one.: LBJ's Ghost
Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2011, 01:56 PM  
Senior Member

Kent, Ohio
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,237 | Kudos: +67
Quote:
Originally Posted by blucher View Post
The harder task is to severely injure or kill an uncooperative victim without a gun. A firearm can make granny a badass within the confines of the average room. Give her a bat or knife and odds are the most likely to be hurt is granny.
True. Very, very true.

Perhaps you could clarify something, though - Are you somehow suggesting that only homicides should count? Are you suggesting that grievous assaults that don't kill should be considered sufficiently less offensive that they should be ignored when figuring the effects of gun laws?

A firearm can be used to commit a violent crime; a firearm can be used to prevent a violent crime. When contemplating any changes to firearm laws, a law is only effective if it reduces (or has no effect on) incidences of the former and increases (or has no effect on) incidences of the later. If a law stops one homicide, but causes three felonious assaults, is it effective? How about 1 and 10? 1 and 50? If a law stops one murder, but puts 1000 people in the hospital with injuries ranging from minor to crippling, is that law effective?

Quote:
The nut in Nevada walking into an Ihop with a bat would surely do some damage but would have immediately been overpowered. If we're going to be a heavily armed nation we need tight guidelines on who gets the guns.
If the law causes a law-abiding citizen to put down his gun, and he is killed in a violent crime he could have stopped had he been armed, his death MUST be counted against that law.
Quote:

I do not agree any armed person constitutes militia.
I quoted US law on the definition of militia. The militia does not consist of "any armed person" but by those persons who can be expected to defend the nation. Your opinion is in conflict with that law, and is in conflict with the definition of militia as used in the second amendment, which you quoted earlier. You're free to push to have the law changed, of course.

I will say that my own opinion is in conflict with the law as well. I take issue with the upper age limit and the gender discrimination. But, until someone tries to restrict the second amendment protections to only the members of the militia as defined in US code, there is no cause for action to have that definition amended.

Quote:

Rabble yes but no more. A militia is also an organized entity.
The militia is essential to the security of a free state.

Are you saying that the average citizen isn't part of an organized system of defense? Are you saying that if you witnessed an attack in front of your home, you would be unable to react - in any way - to stop that attack? That your actions are completely irrelevant to the security of the individual or property under attack?

I don't know your real name. I don't know where you live. If we passed eachother on the street, I wouldn't know it was you. I know practically nothing about you. But, I can speak with quite a bit of confidence and predict your actions in response to observing the event I just described. I believe that if you were in that situation, you would call 911, report what was happening, where it was happening, and stay on the line until the 911 operator dismissed you, or you felt yourself in danger. There is organization. The militia IS organized. We are all trained and capable of participating in the defense of others.

When it comes to firearms, there is a similar level of organization. The law outlines legal and illegal uses of firearms. It states how civilians may react. These laws have been radically updated in the past few decades, in accordance with the will of the people. The point is that WE ARE ORGANIZED. Our organizational principals are the laws on firearm possession and use.

No, most armed, law-abiding civilians are not ready to storm a beach, walk a beat, serve a no-knock warrant on a crack house, stand a sentry post, defend a convoy, or perform any of the roles expected of a soldier or cop or armed guard. That doesn't imply "disorganized". The role of the armed citizen is not a replacement of professional police or military response. The role of the armed citizen is to defend himself against victimization, and in doing so, make "victimizer" a more hazardous, less profitable, and thus less desirable occupation. I believe that virtually all armed, law-abiding citizens are capable of fulfilling this role.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2011, 02:55 PM  
mohel
 
blucher's Avatar

Keizer, OR
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,383 | Kudos: +123
Images: 99
Quote:
Perhaps you could clarify something, though - Are you somehow suggesting that only homicides should count? Are you suggesting that grievous assaults that don't kill should be considered sufficiently less offensive that they should be ignored when figuring the effects of gun laws?
If the law causes a law-abiding citizen to put down his gun, and he is killed in a violent crime he could have stopped had he been armed, his death MUST be counted against that law.

Quote:
Are you saying that the average citizen isn't part of an organized system of defense? Are you saying that if you witnessed an attack in front of your home, you would be unable to react - in any way - to stop that attack? That your actions are completely irrelevant to the security of the individual or property under attack?
I don't know your real name. I don't know where you live. If we passed eachother on the street, I wouldn't know it was you. I know practically nothing about you. But, I can speak with quite a bit of confidence and predict your actions in response to observing the event I just described. I believe that if you were in that situation, you would call 911, report what was happening, where it was happening, and stay on the line until the 911 operator dismissed you, or you felt yourself in danger. There is organization. The militia IS organized. We are all trained and capable of participating in the defense of others.

Quote:
Perhaps you could clarify something, though - Are you somehow suggesting that only homicides should count? Are you suggesting that grievous assaults that don't kill should be considered sufficiently less offensive that they should be ignored when figuring the effects of gun laws?
&

Quote:
If the law causes a law-abiding citizen to put down his gun, and he is killed in a violent crime he could have stopped had he been armed, his death MUST be counted against that law.
A death to gun violence should count regardless of who the person is. I address just homicides because to include more would be to cloud the issue. (I leave that to the NRA). I believe childproof lock boxes and trigger locks are simple parenting responsibilities but if ignored charge the parents with negligence. Bobby shouldn't be shooting his sister with daddy's gun.

If the law causes a law-abiding citizen to put down his gun, and he is killed in a violent crime he could have stopped had he been armed, his death MUST be counted against that law.

Counted certainly but if we disarmed the schizophrenic from Carson City and he in turn was killed by violence that sure doesn't call for arming nutters because it ignores equal protection under the law. If you can't (or are unable) to safely operate a motor vehicle we don't license you.

Quote:
Are you saying that the average citizen isn't part of an organized system of defense?
Against what?
Organized by who?

The Guard and the Military are organized. I'm unaware of any other approved bodies the government or the citizenry recognizes as such.

Quote:
Are you saying that if you witnessed an attack in front of your home, you would be unable to react - in any way - to stop that attack? That your actions are completely irrelevant to the security of the individual or property under attack?
I'm confused about what you're saying. As a citizen I both report and testify when necessary but I don't see this as any part of the question.

Quote:
I don't know your real name. I don't know where you live. If we passed eachother on the street, I wouldn't know it was you. I know practically nothing about you. But, I can speak with quite a bit of confidence and predict your actions in response to observing the event I just described. I believe that if you were in that situation, you would call 911, report what was happening, where it was happening, and stay on the line until the 911 operator dismissed you, or you felt yourself in danger. There is organization. The militia IS organized. We are all trained and capable of participating in the defense of others.
We're all capable of being concerned citizens & good neighbors but I lack the training necessary to operate a cell phone if that's your criteria for trained militia.

In war such groups are called "irregulars" and relegated to either the role of shock troops or guarding supply lines. Think Libya without NATO.

Quote:
No, most armed, law-abiding civilians are not ready to storm a beach, walk a beat, serve a no-knock warrant on a crack house, stand a sentry post, defend a convoy, or perform any of the roles expected of a soldier or cop or armed guard. That doesn't imply "disorganized". The role of the armed citizen is not a replacement of professional police or military response. The role of the armed citizen is to defend himself against victimization, and in doing so, make "victimizer" a more hazardous, less profitable, and thus less desirable occupation. I believe that virtually all armed, law-abiding citizens are capable of fulfilling this role.
I see where you're going now but you're defining a single citizen's responsibilities, not a group under any name. The Beretta Forum was begun by a cop and is heavily populated by those in law enforcement. They were not pleased by citizen involvement at any level past calling 911. I listened to their reasons (based on bad experiences) and I was impressed. That said I'm calling 911 "after" I've used my guns to assure my and/or other's well being. (cops are lazy about gun practice, I'm not)
__________________
I'll believe corporations are persons when Texas executes one.: LBJ's Ghost
Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2011, 05:16 PM  
Senior Member

Kent, Ohio
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,237 | Kudos: +67
The statistics you posted were of firearm deaths - not even homicides in general, certainly not violent crimes in general. Great, woot, some nations have incredibly low rates of firearm deaths. If the cause for such low rates is a lack of firearms in that country, and the average person in that country faces a significantly higher risk of becoming the victim of a violent crime, emulating their methods doesn't seem like a good idea.

Just out of curiosity, did the statistics you posted include righteous shootings, where the "victim" of the firearm death was themselves in the process of committing a violent crime? I couldn't figure out whether they were included or not.

You said:
Quote:
I see where you're going now but you're defining a single citizen's responsibilities, not a group under any name.
My response:
Quote:
I see where you're going now but you're defining a single citizen's responsibilities, not a group under any name.
In practice, "citizen" and "militiaman" are synonymous. The group I'm referring to is the group of citizens.
__________________

__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   CityProfile.com Forum - Local City and State Discussion Forums > General Discussion > National Politics / Debate
Bookmark this Page!

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes


Suggested Threads

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.