Jump to content

Cincinnati Shooter - Omar Santa-Perez was crazy. How do you fix this?


2smartby1/2

Recommended Posts

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/09/07/cincinnati-shooter-had-troubled-past-including-arrests-and-rambling-lawsuits-against-msnbc-reports.html

 

The shooter has been identified, and as we start to go through his history, the hard question comes up again and again. How do you weed out the crazies?

 

He was a US Citizen and purchased the handgun legally. He was going crazy. He was fired from a previous job (2014) and would not leave. When the police got there, he was laying on the ground smoking a cigar and giving rambling answers about the war and the economy.

 

He sued MSNBC twice because he thought they were spying on him. The judge in the case called him "borderline delusional".

 

How do you balance 2A rights vs keeping guns out of the hands of "potential" nut jobs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the *actual* crazies, you ENFORCE the requirement that people who have been legally adjudicated as mentally unfit to the extent that they are legally not allowed to own firearms are reported to NICS.

 

If a state isn't making those reports, cut off their education funding. See how long it takes after that for them to start complying.

 

That aside, there will always be bad people who choose to do bad things, and that's not going to change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't.

 

You accept that things like this will happen, you admit that the fault lies with the shooter, and you move on.

Same as if he'd attacked a school bus with a machete or home made bomb...

I like Glock23's answer - how about we enforce the law?

 

But.. are crazies entitled to other rights? Can we treat the 2A differently that say the 1st or 14th Amendments.

Tough choices...

There have always been evil people throughout history and no amount of passed laws will stop them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IF Ohio doesn't have a "red flag" law on the books to disarm potential 'dangers to themselves and others' now, look for it to be introduced rather soon.

 

This will be used by the anti's and the undecided fence-sitters as a "common sense'" defense law against gun crime.......and then will be expanded to be a way to disarm anyone and everyone.

 

JMHO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. Drastically curtailing freedoms for a little security will turn the country into a totalitarian police state and would simply transfer some of those free-society risks from the criminals to the government.

 

Actually, it would likely just add the government as competition to the criminals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't.

You accept that things like this will happen, you admit that the fault lies with the shooter, and you move on.

This. Your not going to be able to stop every murder with a piece of paper.

 

The issue that can be fixed is the social issue. We've moved from a civic society to an individualist society which we've tried to mirror in our welfare programs with disastrous results.

 

If someone is not mentally fit enough to own a gun they need help beyond blocking gun ownership. Hollywood and early mental health malpractice demonized long term mental Healthcare facilities but it really is the best option for a lot of people.

 

Unfortunately insurance and pharmaceutical companies make the most profit on minimal facilitation and maximum pills. Couple that with the government, and by extension taxpayers on the hook for the mental health of those without a support system and there's even more motivation to cut those costs with little regards to societal impact. So we have to accept a higher death rate then we have in the past, but not because of guns.

 

Even stupider then the notion that gun control works is the notion that taking a person incapable of functioning in society will all the sudden function if we give them free stuff instead of human help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Franklin. That said, in Franklin's time the community generally kept the mentally ill from having access to firearms. The government didn't have to do it. Fewer people, smaller communities, everyone in the area knew each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But.. are crazies entitled to other rights?

You remove their 2nd amendment rights when you adjudicate them insane and commit them to a mental hospital, like they used to up until around the late 1950s.

 

Should be a sound mind clause for serving in a militia.

 

Here is a chart for some thought of why we have such issues with crazies today than we did several decades ago.

 

post-4657-0-05007200-1536428495_thumb.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like what they did in Kennesaw County in Georgia. My parents are liberals and lived there so it's debatable if they fell into the consciencious objector category or the mental illness category.

Kennesaw is noted for its unique firearms legislation in response to Morton Grove, Illinois' law mandating gun prohibition. In 1982 the city passed an ordinance [sec 34-21]:[21]

 

(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.

 

(B) Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

But.. are crazies entitled to other rights?

You remove their 2nd amendment rights when you adjudicate them insane and commit them to a mental hospital, like they used to up until around the late 1950s.

 

Should be a sound mind clause for serving in a militia.

 

Here is a chart for some thought of why we have such issues with crazies today than we did several decades ago.

 

attachicon.gifinstitutionalizaion in US.png

 

Don't disagree - but adjudicating them insane and committing them to a mental hospital could be a slippery slope in the hands of socialist liberals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

But.. are crazies entitled to other rights?

 

You remove their 2nd amendment rights when you adjudicate them insane and commit them to a mental hospital, like they used to up until around the late 1950s.

Should be a sound mind clause for serving in a militia.

Here is a chart for some thought of why we have such issues with crazies today than we did several decades ago.attachicon.gifinstitutionalizaion in US.png

Don't disagree - but adjudicating them insane and committing them to a mental hospital could be a slippery slope in the hands of socialist liberals.
You assume it needs to be involantary. Those that need help are begging for long term care.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/10/gunman-3-hostages-reported-dead-at-california-veterans-home.html If you remember this case it was someone that killed over being thrown out of a long term mental health care facility.

 

I realize it was a Hollywood and TV trope to be involuntarily commited and subjected to medical malpractice, but these days with insurance companies and medicaid cutting corners its impossible to get volantary long term care unless you have a lot of money.

 

You could run a very beneficial program of involantary commitment via an alternative to jail and volantary commitment replacing outpatient. Just screening the homeless population for long term volantary inpatient care would clean up and make a lot of cities safer.

 

Unfortunately this requires government funding and Healthcare reform that actually benefits people instead of increasing profits for the insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and the Healthcare industry.

 

Very telling is the fact that these industries and their employees are the biggest backers of gun control. The last state gun control hearing I went to had multiple testimonies from both medical and mental health industries calling to ban guns knowing that addressing the underlying causes of gun violence would either take funding away or make their industries less profitable.

 

I'm not saying this would save all lives, or even the lives in this case, but you can't deny the benefits. Especially when weighed against the civil liberty violations of everyone when gun control does nothing to save lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you've ever dealt with someone who is mentally ill, you will realize that you simply have to turn off your rational mind. There is no way to explain what they do or why. It's actually very sad. If I ever got crazy like that, I just want to die. Problem is...you don't know when it's happening to you. To you it seems totally normal.

 

I think SOME of these people could be stopped with the laws we currently have...if we'd diligently enforce them. As we've seen again and again...usually the mechanisms that exist are not fully utilized. What are the reasons? Laziness? Lack of emphasis? People 'not wanting to get involved'? Paperwork lost in the shuffle? Resources consumed by more pressing issues? Probably all of the above and more.

I must say I'm pretty proud of the responses here. Yes, it is an issue of freedom. In a free society, there are inherent risks. There are risks that you could be harmed by another person. The option is to put us all in cages. I think the risks of being free are well worth it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have friends with mental illness that are high functioning people due to the stability of living with their parents and doing the same routine week after week. Their things in their life are taken care of and they can hold down jobs with some frequency.

 

There are people I've lost touch with over the years that didn't have that same stability and devolved further into the void. Metal illness untreated turns into mental disability. I have a classmate I sometimes see at trivia night and when he's off his meds you would think he was mentally disabled, not schizophrenic.

 

What remains of the mental health system knows this. We throw some pocket change, a bus pass, and an ever changing regiment of pills at these people and expect them to navigate a kafkaesque healthcare system to get treatment. Then when it fails we throw them in jail with other mentally ill or abusive criminals and expect them to be rehabilitated. As they cycle in and out they get worse and worse, often more violent and agitated.

 

That Obama thing about "easier to get a gun then a book" is false, but I would argue it's easier to get a gun then proper mental health treatment on medicaid or even regular insurance. I'm not saying buying a gun needs to be harder. I'm saying that empathetically. The rediculous hoops we jump through to own a gun pale in comparison to getting mental health treatment. You often times lose all the work you put into getting guns when you go down the road of treatment so it's one more barrier that prevents people with guns from seeking out treatment.

 

Someone should have the option to volantarily walk into a facility, have a bed to sleep on, maybe even a small room, and have a staff available to help or keep tabs on them when they check out to make sure they don't get lost or are a danger. I guarantee we spend more on the alternatives mainly because they're profitable for everyone else but the person that needs it. It's not going to save all lives, but it would save a lot more then gun control ever has.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I'm not assuming admission to a mental facility should be strictly involuntary...

But - these are theses the people deciding what is sane?... https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/articles/199707/why-shrinks-have-problems

 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/embracing-the-dark-side/201106/psychologists-and-their-mental-illnesses

 

Are they possibly more of a risk than their patients?

In a "permissive society", like what we now live in, what is "sane"...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I'm not assuming admission to a mental facility should be strictly involuntary...

But - these are theses the people deciding what is sane?... https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/articles/199707/why-shrinks-have-problems

 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/embracing-the-dark-side/201106/psychologists-and-their-mental-illnesses

 

Are they possibly more of a risk than their patients?

In a "permissive society", like what we now live in, what is "sane"...?

This is absolutely true and it's also why outpatient sucks so much for treating severe mental illness. What typically happens is a patient is hospitalized for 24 hours, a psychiatrist makes a diagnosis and persrcribes pills. Then followup apointments are made with counselers/therapists/psycologists.

 

My wife has a masters in psychology and is the most normal person I've met with this degree. My mom is a licensed therapist and is far from normal. Most people that go into the field are the can't help themselves so they help others types. Or worse, know they are completely screwed up in the head and want to figure out why. Lots of ex hard drug users that occasionally relapse.

 

Psychiatrists on the other hand are MD's with all the competiveness, residency, long course of study, hard sciences, etc. involved in getting a medical license. While I'm sure there's a rare case of a psychopath becoming a psychiatrist it's not the norm like the other side of the business.

 

You have both at a mental hospital, but the psychiatrists have oversight of the psychologists/therapists/counselers. The big mistake is most of the hard brain disorders that cause random acts of violence towards strangers requires psychiatric treatment.

 

It's impossible to counsel a schizophrenic in a traditional "talk about your feelings" kind of a way, but that's what's done. Psychiatrists are expensive so healthcare providers and insurance companies skimp on them. The more we learn the more we find out that the hard mental illnesses have very physiological symptoms so they can only be treated by medical doctors.

 

Again, this is known but the healthcare and insurance industry rarely does the right thing. Worse, they contribute funding and industry testimonials to gun grabbing lobbies and congressional hearings. Just like politicians, when it comes to fixing society and doing their jobs they just lean on gun grabbing instead. Very telling is that Shannon Watts was a VP of communication Wellpoint health insurance before changing to a career in gun grabbing. And her husband John Watts works for a company who's mission statement is cutting costs with a network of Healthcare providers for such issues as traumatic brain injury.

 

Big pharma is another industry that profits while its side effects allegedly can result in mass shootings. So it puts them diametrically opposed to the gun lobby because they each blame each other for shootings and in the case of defense contracts and medicaid both fight for federal funds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My wife has a masters in psychology and is the most normal person I've met with this degree. My mom is a licensed therapist and is far from normal. Most people that go into the field are the can't help themselves so they help others types. Or worse, know they are completely screwed up in the head and want to figure out why.

This is so true! It became obvious to me and many of my friends in college that the psychology majors were very often bat[guano] crazy, it became a running joke. I think most of it is they are trying to understand their own mental illness so they major in the subject.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

My wife has a masters in psychology and is the most normal person I've met with this degree. My mom is a licensed therapist and is far from normal. Most people that go into the field are the can't help themselves so they help others types. Or worse, know they are completely screwed up in the head and want to figure out why.

This is so true! It became obvious to me and many of my friends in college that the psychology majors were very often bat[guano] crazy, it became a running joke. I think most of it is they are trying to understand their own mental illness so they major in the subject.

 

 

It is situations like this that are the reason for the old adage about "watching the watchers".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't.

 

You accept that things like this will happen, you admit that the fault lies with the shooter, and you move on.

 

Exactly.

 

I'm going to give you 310 million blue marbles...I may swap some out randomly with red marbles from time to time...I may make a few temporarily red from time to time. Some long time blue marbles may switch to red, back to blue...or stay red.

 

The red will represent the people who are murderous and/or mentally unstable.

 

Have fun finding them and keeping track of them once you do find one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

No, I'm not assuming admission to a mental facility should be strictly involuntary...

But - these are theses the people deciding what is sane?... https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/articles/199707/why-shrinks-have-problems

 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/embracing-the-dark-side/201106/psychologists-and-their-mental-illnesses

 

Are they possibly more of a risk than their patients?

In a "permissive society", like what we now live in, what is "sane"...?

This is absolutely true and it's also why outpatient sucks so much for treating severe mental illness. What typically happens is a patient is hospitalized for 24 hours, a psychiatrist makes a diagnosis and persrcribes pills. Then followup apointments are made with counselers/therapists/psycologists.

 

My wife has a masters in psychology and is the most normal person I've met with this degree. My mom is a licensed therapist and is far from normal. Most people that go into the field are the can't help themselves so they help others types. Or worse, know they are completely screwed up in the head and want to figure out why. Lots of ex hard drug users that occasionally relapse.

 

Psychiatrists on the other hand are MD's with all the competiveness, residency, long course of study, hard sciences, etc. involved in getting a medical license. While I'm sure there's a rare case of a psychopath becoming a psychiatrist it's not the norm like the other side of the business.

 

You have both at a mental hospital, but the psychiatrists have oversight of the psychologists/therapists/counselers. The big mistake is most of the hard brain disorders that cause random acts of violence towards strangers requires psychiatric treatment.

 

It's impossible to counsel a schizophrenic in a traditional "talk about your feelings" kind of a way, but that's what's done. Psychiatrists are expensive so healthcare providers and insurance companies skimp on them. The more we learn the more we find out that the hard mental illnesses have very physiological symptoms so they can only be treated by medical doctors.

 

Again, this is known but the healthcare and insurance industry rarely does the right thing. Worse, they contribute funding and industry testimonials to gun grabbing lobbies and congressional hearings. Just like politicians, when it comes to fixing society and doing their jobs they just lean on gun grabbing instead. Very telling is that Shannon Watts was a VP of communication Wellpoint health insurance before changing to a career in gun grabbing. And her husband John Watts works for a company who's mission statement is cutting costs with a network of Healthcare providers for such issues as traumatic brain injury.

 

Big pharma is another industry that profits while its side effects allegedly can result in mass shootings. So it puts them diametrically opposed to the gun lobby because they each blame each other for shootings and in the case of defense contracts and medicaid both fight for federal funds.

 

I certainly don't disagree that counseling for mentally ill patients has merit, nor that it should not be available.

But, as someone devoted to Constitutional principles, who should be responsible for the dollars for treatment?

Consider these:

In 1796 Representative William Giles of Virginia condemned a relief measure for fire victims, stating "the purpose and the right of Congress is to attend to not what generosity and humanity require but instead what their duty requires."

 

President Franklin Pierce vetoed a bill intended to help the mentally ill, in a brief to the Senate, "I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for making the Federal Government the great almoner of public charity and to approve such spending would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive of the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded."

 

President Grover Cleveland (a Democrat, of all things!!!!) vetoed many congressional spending bills, during his two terms as president in the late 1800s. His often-given veto message was, "I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution."

 

Article 1 defines the role of Congress. Section 8 lists powers delegated to Congress. There is no Article 5 amendment authorizing Congress to spend money for business bailouts, prescription drugs, education, Social Security and thousands of other spending measures in today's present federal budget; which is why the country's budget is outrageous and tanked. The more junk Congress can come up with under the guise of "helping the little people" the more money and power they accumulate - far from what was originally intended. Enter the "Welfare Clause" which is the "loophole". However, shouldn't the clause be constrained to the powers enumerated unto the Congress?

 

My thought - The states should be funding any and all of the social programs - not the Fed. But, how much do we pour into social programs that don't work (i.e. The War on Poverty) until we give those up and move on to something more feasible that might produce desired results? All most of those social programs do is allow members of Government to skim off their share of the dollars for their own benefit; whether state or federal.

 

Am I wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You don't.

 

You accept that things like this will happen, you admit that the fault lies with the shooter, and you move on.

 

Exactly.

 

I'm going to give you 310 million blue marbles...I may swap some out randomly with red marbles from time to time...I may make a few temporarily red from time to time. Some long time blue marbles may switch to red, back to blue...or stay red.

 

The red will represent the people who are murderous and/or mentally unstable.

 

Have fun finding them and keeping track of them once you do find one.

 

I'm not sure if Red and Blue would have been my color choices for this example.

Just sayin'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My thought - The states should be funding any and all of the social programs - not the Fed. But, how much do we pour into social programs that don't work (i.e. The War on Poverty) until we give those up and move on to something more feasible that might produce desired results? All most of those social programs do is allow members of Government to skim off their share of the dollars for their own benefit; whether state or federal.

 

Am I wrong?

You hit the nail on the head of why they don't work. In this country we run our social programs like capitalists and our capitalism like socialists (the actual bad type, not the fantasy idealist type).

 

Romneycare/Obamacare was the most egregious example of this. The pharmaceutical industry, Healthcare industry and insurance industry collude to kill way more people then guns and they were able to pad profits with our tax dollars.

 

People would have a lot more stomach for social programs if they were run by the people for people. Instead they are run for profit by politicians, corporations, and "non profits" that pay corporate executive salaries at the cost of taxpayers.

 

I'm just saying if we are paying (and we definitely are) we might as well get something in return for our money. The cost to society both financial and social of revolving them in and out of prison and is higher.

 

Or if they have no money we could neuter them and send them to a remote island awash in crack and let it sort itself out. But considering some conservatives flip out over Plan B and most liberals deride welfare standards below giant screen cable TV's and a diet of pop and cheetos as inhumane I don't think that's going to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Or if they have no money we could neuter them and send them to a remote island awash in crack and let it sort itself out. But considering some conservatives flip out over Plan B and most liberals deride welfare standards below giant screen cable TV's and a diet of pop and cheetos as inhumane I don't think that's going to happen.

 

LOL!!

That would fit into "provide for the general welfare"...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...