Gabby Giffords Gun Violence Initiative

[Gregg]

Gabby Giffords and her husband, Mark Kelly, launched a new initiative aimed at curbing gun violence. I don't agree with every angle of their approach, but found it very refreshing that "address(ing) the issue of the treatment of mentally ill people in the United States" is one of the cornerstones in that initiative.

[Mrs-M]

An artsy collage of words, nothing more. (An empty initiative IMO). Until such a time, someone, a group, takes gun-control (SERIOUSLY), the people of the United States, will continue to be held hostage (and plagued) by acts of murderous gun rampage, and hinging the epidemic on the likes of "mental illness", is an empty argument, fast becoming emptier with each passing day. A smoke-screen. A futile cop-out.

[Gregg]

Wow. I've never heard mental illness called out as a straw man before. In my world if you are capable of shooting multiple other human beings you are, in some form or fashion, mentally ill. Identifying those people and getting them help are important steps in solving a high profile part of the problem. There are apparently some pretty intelligent and influential people who agree with that.

[Blackdog Lin]

Thank you Gregg. I try to stay out of these acrimonious threads, and I admire you Mrs-M for all you do on our little forum, but.....

.....boy! do I disagree with your gun control thoughts. It is not a gun issue; it is a mental health issue. As Gregg said, anyone who shoots multiple humans IS mentally ill. QED.

[ApatheticNoMore]

Guns are not *the cause* as these mass shootings were very rare 30 years ago and there were plenty of guns just like there are today (and overall violent crime was not low back then, but the mass shootings were uncommon). But guns are the means used to commit the crimes.

.....boy! do I disagree with your gun control thoughts. It is not a gun issue; it is a mental health issue. As Gregg said, anyone who shoots multiple humans IS mentally ill. QED

Yea, but that's defining them so after the fact based on their actions. The question is would they even be "mentally ill enough" to be caught earlier than that, did they have enough obvious symptoms that anyone would know them from .. I shouldn't say Adam should I? Sure if one is psychotic (having hallucinations, delusions etc.) people will probably notice the symptoms, are most of the shooters psychotic? I don't get that impression. Sure people with no symptoms can seek out therapy in their own and so on, but clearly some of them even with all the money in the world where the issue isn't "can't afford therapy", were still not so helped.

I'm not even sure what is meant by "mental health care". Is it meant to mean talk therapy/family counseling? It is unlikely to hurt. Anti-psychotics? Some people need these I guess (the psychotic people mentioned above, but these are also massively prescribed for off label usage - they are now prescribed for common depression and so on even though they have major side effects like causing diabetes). Institutionalization?

[gimmethesimplelife]

You know.....I don't doubt that mental illness is part of this problem plaguing the United States. Problem is, it is all too easy for guns to get into less than stable hands, or in the hands of people that have issues with mental illness. Guns are commonplace, they are easily obtained in a good chunk of the United States, and they are (unfortunately as I see it) part of US culture. It is all well and fine to try to do something about mental illness - my kudos on that - but I don't believe such efforts can effectively curb guns from getting into less than stable hands. Honestly, I don't see a solution to this mess.....folks are too attached to their guns and this is too ingrained into the American mentality. Couple this with an economy that doesn't work for many of our young, and resulting anger, easy access to drugs and alcohol and guns and viola.....seems like a recipe for more incidents like the sorry mess in Connecticut last month.

So where do we go from here after these words I have typed above, what is the answer? Sorry to say, I don't know....I don't think there is going to be a quick and easy answer here and whatever is done (or is not done) will cause an uproar. I have made my stance clear so I won't dwell on it, that being said, I don't have much hope on this one. Rob

[gimmethesimplelife]

Just wanted to add though in a more positive vein - I really respect Gabby Giffords! What an inspirational woman and how decent that when she made her first public appearance to vote on some bill in DC, both the Democrats AND the Republicans gave her a standing ovation. What a class act that lady is! Rob

[Square Peg]

Yea, but that's defining them so after the fact based on their actions. The question is would they even be "mentally ill enough" to be caught earlier than that, did they have enough obvious symptoms that anyone would know them from .. I shouldn't say Adam should I? Sure if one is psychotic (having hallucinations, delusions etc.) people will probably notice the symptoms, are most of the shooters psychotic? I don't get that impression. Sure people with no symptoms can seek out therapy in their own and so on, but clearly some of them even with all the money in the world where the issue isn't "can't afford therapy", were still not so helped.

I'm not even sure what is meant by "mental health care". Is it meant to mean talk therapy/family counseling? It is unlikely to hurt. Anti-psychotics? Some people need these I guess (the psychotic people mentioned above, but these are also massively prescribed for off label usage - they are now prescribed for common depression and so on even though they have major side effects like causing diabetes). Institutionalization?

I am a big big fan of stricter gun control and better mental health care, but I definitely see this as an issue as well! How do we define it? I am afraid that it could end up as a witch hunt as well.

[CathyA]

I know this is not going to go over well, but I believe if we are absolutely sure of someone's guilt in matters like this (killing lots of people and being "crazy"), its time to remove them from our planet.
We spend too much money, time, energy on feeding, housing, guarding them. Let them go. They are a cancer and we must remove them. That wouldn't mean we aren't uncivilized, inhumane people. It would mean we see the reality of the situation clearly.

[peggy]

You know, concerning Gabby Giffords, I'm hearing the words but not really feeling it. Not from her, but from the 'pro-gun' among us.
I hear all the 'right' words, concern for mentally ill, etc..., yet, I also hear strong defense for ALLOWING people to carry guns to political rallies. Some here INSIST it's their god given right to carry a LOADED GUN to a town hall or other political rally in order to 'remind' our leaders just who is in charge. Kind of a disconnect, don't you think? And I find the hand wringing of those who defend this ridiculous assertion rather phony. And in my opinion, these who think this practice is hunky dory are the very ones who SHOULDN'T have guns, at all!

Considering the political climate these days, how can anyone defend any one's supposed 'right' to carry a gun to a heated debate? As ANM pointed out above, we don't always know, or it would seem, ever know, ahead of time who is on the edge or not, and only know for certain after the fact.
Now, for the poster child FOR gun control:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWQPZ-taYBs

This is the very reason someone like this SHOULDN'T be allowed to own a gun!