One issue I have with the Second Amendment crowd

  • Thread starter Thread starter RCIAGraduate
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

RCIAGraduate

Guest
How would you respond to this criticism?

They mention mental health but I don’t see any specific policy proposals to appropriate billions to mental health services and social support. For example, why not argue for more funding for SAMHA or revamping and expanding the Community Mental Health Services Act (perhaps deinstitutionalization failed because there was a lack of development of a continuum of community care). Additionally, our schools could need some capacity-building in special needs services and intervention support like wraparound care or social supports like mentoring. Okay I will admit I am projecting a bit in wishing some programs I like would be massively scaled up.

It just seems harsh to p(name removed by moderator)oint mental health which can come across as scapegoating those suffering from mental illness but doing nothing (or not much) about it. Many mental health victims and survivors have poor levels of social support and could use help.

The Second Amendment people have an opportunity to promote help to perhaps millions on the margins, so many people are left out “in the cold” without the help or support they need.

This post isn’t so much about the pros and cons of the Second Amendment issue but rather a lack of in-depth discussion about alternatives. I want the Second Amendment folks to shownus (the public or wishy-washy voters like me), another way.

PS: I don’t want this to become a thread where people start coming together to bash the Second Amendment or gang up on gun owners but rather a calm and civil discussion about the topic on hand. I know my rhetoric may come across as coming in “bad faith” but supporters of the Second Amendment, I would like your response, especially in relation to the concepts of social justice.
 
Last edited:
Oh, absolutely.

This perfectly describes the idiocy of the 2 party American political system - You can’t fully implement your strategies because doing so would be gasp bipartisan, which wouldnt be conservative/progressive enough to get reelected in your respective party
 
Last edited:
My kids asked me what will change. I observed that President Trump ordered that flags be lowered to half staff. I think that’s about all we can expect.
 
Last edited:
I’m not entirely sure what you mean by Second Amendment People, but why do you think that a person is incapable of supporting the second amendment and mental health services at the same time.

BTW I agree the US is in a severe mental health crisis.
 
They need to increase their emphasis, action, not just words. Like I know the NRA was in a tough spot but it would be nice if they presented alternatives like expanding school-based wraparound care for special needs students. Honestly, I’m probably grumpy becausemy dreams for societal policy aren’t being implemented are likely aren’t realistic or tenable.

I will give them credit on promoting school resource officers and considering guards at schools but where is the advocacy for more school counselors and psychologists as well as other supports and resources. I know people have been giving the NRA a hard time, but I will critique them in that (but credit them with the school resource officer idea though some teachers probably balked at the prospect if armed educators in the widespread sense).
 
Last edited:
Get rid of the “gun fire zone” signs …

Check to see which psychotropic drugs that the shooters are taking.
 
I also agree that I don’t see any reasons why someone cannot be pro- 2nd amendment and pro-mental health services. I am definitely for both and I would so that the vast majority of gun owners I know are also very much for mental health services.

I also agree that it is unjust to continually blame mental health and continue to not really do much about it, however there isn’t a whole lot that random gun owner can do to overhaul the American mental health service system.

HOWEVER, that has also been a tendency of late to blame every heinous action on mental health, when some people just have a depraved heart and have embraced evil. I am not talking about any particular case but some people who shoot up places aren’t mental health, they are just evil and depraved people.
 
For politicians to identify mental health as the cause of mass shootings and then refuse to put forth any policy to address that need (which you identified yourself) is disgraceful. They are being disingenuous. They have the power to act.
 
The vast majority of gun owners I know would agree with you That it needs fixed RCIAgrad, in fact I would go so far as saying i believe all the gun owners that I know would. While there are very excellent mental health care workers/doctors in this country, I agree the system as a whole is seriously lacking. In Michigan, and I am sure a lot of other states as well, the prison system has pretty much become the defacto mental institutions.

Pro 2nd Amendment citizens, just as those on the other side, really have no power to affect change-other than to make ourselves heard to our state and federal elected officials. They are the ones that control funding and set the laws innthe books.

Edit: I don’t think that any kind of improved psychiatric system has to be nessarly a gov’t ssystem or bureaucracy. I think the private sector should be involved with some gov’t oversight. We can do a lot with private health organizations, while closing of the state hospitals put more people with mental health issues in Michigan in the prison system, I don’t think we need to go back to the state system because that was not that great either. Help the private doctors/therapist help our citizens by funding for those that can’t afford it. Not universal health care but those that really need the help should get it. Tough subject, on one hand I want the gov’t to be smaller and spend less of our money but on the other hand I want to help those that need our help
 
Last edited:
RCIAGraduate said:
How would you respond to this criticism?

They mention mental health but I don’t see any specific policy proposals to appropriate billions to mental health services and social support. For example, why not argue for more funding for SAMHA or revamping and expanding the Community Mental Health Services Act
Click to expand...
Why just target firearms owners to support massive new appropriations in the field of psychiatry?

If an idea is a good and effective one, shouldn’t every citizen support it?

Not everyone believes in the efficacy of psychiatry, and some of those folks who do have faith in psychiatry have a problem with the federal government subsidizing it to the tune of billions.
 
bassmansteiny said:
Not universal health care but those that really need the help should get it. Tough subject, on one hand I want the gov’t to be smaller and spend less of our money but on the other hand I want to help those that need our help
Click to expand...
I to an extent agree with you, I don’t know if Medicare for All is viable or even sustainable considering how the current program seems to be snowballing itself but there are those who need some sort of safety net or recourse whether it is provided publicly or privately.

I know this is probably better for another thread (and health care has been discussed ad nauseum) but I wonder if it would just be simpler if we accepted an expanded Medicare/Medicaid program in exchange for a higher payroll tax, that way there is a baseline for universal coverage.

Meanwhile, in the field of mental health, I don’t even know if seeing a counselor once a week would even count it, I feel like those struggling with mental health issues need more support, I like peer supports such as warmlines and support groups to name two. I also believe there could be better access to community-based care as well.
 
I will admit I’m projecting a bit on what I wish society could implement based on my wishes, drawing up proposals and plans to tackle mental health may be more complex than throw money at “x” program.

Meanwhile, I hope my post isn’t construed into having others use this as an excuse to vote for worse choices. Honestly, I just like pontificating about grand plans and discussing them.
 
Last edited:
RCIAGraduate said:
They mention mental health but I don’t see any specific policy proposals to appropriate billions to mental health services and social support.
Click to expand...
Where have you been the past 10 yrs, significant money has been poured into Medicaid etc.

Specific to stopping violence, I don’t think the science is there yet to effectively identify and treat people as outpatients. We have to wait for an incident before we then segregate them from people to mitigate further harm.
 
We may be spending a lot of Medicaid but I understand that many continue to go without coverage (could Medicaid for All work feasibly?), additionally the program is not without flaws particularly a dearth of providers which inhibits access to care (more support for Community Health Centers and Free Clinics help?).

In respect to psychiatry, I understand Anti-Social Personality and Conduct Disorders are considered official diagnoses, could an expansion in trauma-informed care and supports such as 24/7 crisis intervention services, in-home and outpatient counseling, day treatment programs, (name removed by moderator)atient treatment as well as practical supports like mentoring, respite and relief care for caregivers, transportation, specialized case management, mentors for caregivers and youth, parent training and peer support help make a dent in such issues.

Here are some possible (though expensive) models to replicate from.

https://www.ocfs.ny.gov/main/b2h/

http://wraparoundmke.com/

Please excuse my naivete and idealism, it’s just I see so many possible models in appealing programs yet they’re not scaled up to my liking. I understand money doesn’t grow on trees but it’s nice to think about the possibilities if these models were widely expanded.
 
Your programs look interesting, but they don’t really speak to the OP, where we have a problem flagging these people for any treatment what so ever.

The kids that do these shooting aren’t coming from mental care facilities, they have been flagged for rule breaking etc but we aren’t diagnosing a bigger threat until it’s too late. Our challenge is more in effective and timely diagnosis.
 
I think the real problem is no one has political will to challenge Hollywood and video game industry for the graphic violence.

There are even sickening video games called “School Shooter” and “Super Columbine Massacre RPG!”

The shooter of Sandy Hook owned a shoot shooting video game.


Far too many shooting video games desensitize people from killing. If a child has a slight, undiagnosed mental illness, such video games can turn them into a mass killer.

You can watch a video or audio interview with Patrick Coffin here regarding the negative effects video games and personal devices (tablets / smartphones) have on kids.


Super Columbine Massacre RPG! - Wikipedia!
 
Last edited:
phil19034 said:
Far too many shooting video games desensitize people from killing. If a child has a slight, undiagnosed mental illness, such video games can turn them into a mass killer.
Click to expand...
I recall that the US Military changed their target practice from using bulls eyes to targets shaped like people to help with this issue, and it worked for them
 
Discounting the possibility that you are a troll, did you actually read the Wikipedia article for Super Columbine RPG and not grasp that it was designed as a satire of the media’s role in sensationalizing shooters? Just because the name and premise is fairly shocking doesn’t mean it was made by a violent psychopath or that it is an unironic celebration of mass homicide.

And you also apparently didn’t read that Kotaku article (which, FYI, is a website that specifically discusses video game related news), considering it details that the writer could find no evidence that a commercially released independent game called “School Shooter” even exists. The closest thing that could be the game the investigators described would be School Shooting: North American Tour 2012, a notorious mod (a user modification of some aspect of a game) for Half-Life 2 that received much negative media attention, prompting a major mod hosting website to remove it. But the investigators claimed the game was something unrelated; a “very basic”, standalone game in which the player controls a killer who attacks a school. But to this day, no one has found any evidence that such a commercially released game exists.

The claim that violent video games desensitize individuals to violence is flimsy for multiple reasons.

First of all, a well-developed brain should be able to distinguish between fantasy and reality in a way that precludes associating murder in a game with murder in real life. Anyone who cannot distinguish between the two is either possessing of a pre-existing mental condition, or is of much too young an age to be playing violent games. Games have a ratings system (“E” for everyone, “T” for teenagers, and “M” for mature) to inform parents and guardians whether the content of a game is inappropriate for their children; but many parents are irresponsible and neglectful or ignorant of these ratings.

Second, games are not the first form of media to contain graphic violence or depictions of mass killings. The Holy Bible itself is filled with gratuitous violence, sex, torture, and homicide, and television and movies have contained violence for nearly a century before violent games appeared. What is important is how a work uses violence.
An excellent example is in Grand Theft Auto V. The GTA franchise has been widely criticised for the way it depicts the lower class, minorities, and the ability it offers players to kill police officers and commit crimes. Yet despite this, many players who otherwise were killing police left and right, stated that they became very uncomfortable during the scene in which the player character is directed to torture a captive for information. The scene was intended to provide commentary on the US government’s use of torture that is widely seen as ineffective, but many felt it was a step too far. But why did players become cagey when torturing a captive when they have been killing and robbing throughout the entire game?
[1/2]
 
Last edited:
In my opinion, the reason is humanization. In violent media, there are countless faceless bad guys that the hero mows down with impunity, without any identity or backstory. They serve an important role, as otherwise fiction would be fairly dull without action to attract the viewer’s attention. But the cardinal rule is always to never humanize them. When a bad guy is given a face or a sympathetic backstory, then killing him is seen as barbaric. And the last thing we want the hero to be seen as is a barbarian. In children’s entertainment, this is taken a step further, and henchmen are often stated to be non-sentient or robotic, to avoid the effect the deaths of sentient beings would have on young minds.

Another way violence is made more palatable or acceptable is by making it look ridiculous. A prime example is the film RoboCop. The director Paul Verhoeven used violence to satirize the ultraviolent media of the 1980s. He accomplished this by ramping up the level and prevalence of violence and blood in the film to excessive proportions. Past a certain point, violence, gore, and blood is no longer seen as horrifying or dramatic and is now seen as hilarious. A similar scene in a more comedic film is the “Black Knight”, from Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
But these are films that have been seen by millions of people around the world, and those millions of people are typically quick to denounce acts of serious violence in the real world, because real violence is many times worse than fictional violence. In fact, many films which contain scenes with gore of some kind often use special effects which are less believable, because the production team discovered that the more realistic effects were so grotesque and horrific that they made everyone vomit in horror and disgust.

Finally, the argument that video games are “murder simulators” is considered ridiculous by any gamer who is either in the military or deals with violence or firearms in their real lives. This just in: games tend to stretch the truth. Playing Counterstrike won’t teach me how to load and maintain a firearm, or teach me tactical skills that would be of use in a real fight between terrorists and counter-terrorists. DOOM won’t teach me how to fight off demons (it’s highly unlikely they could be defeated by a mere shotgun or a chainsaw, that’s for certain). GTA won’t teach me how to commit crimes such as robbery or drug trafficking without getting caught by the cops. The reason all of these games can’t “train kids for murder” is because they’re fiction.
[2/2]
 
Last edited:
MonteRCMS said:
Check to see which psychotropic drugs that the shooters are taking.
Click to expand...
It seems to be a recurrent theme that the shooters aren’t taking anything because they’ve either refused care or haven’t received any or have fallen through cracks in the system.
MonteRCMS said:
Get rid of the “gun fire zone” signs …
Click to expand...
…by putting armed officers who will shoot when necessary (Florida, I’m looking at you) inside the schools. Stop advertising gun free zones, for starters. Look at what we did with aircraft in the wake of 9/11.
Augustinian said:
Why just target firearms owners to support massive new appropriations in the field of psychiatry?
Click to expand...
I own guns. If you want to tax people, you need to tax everyone.

Funnily enough, this reminds me of the conversation in another thread about how pro-lifers should be for mandated maternity leave, and so many saying that you can’t do that because it’s politicizing the issue and makes it unfair for those who stay at home or who don’t have kids.

Interesting.
RCIAGraduate said:
I don’t know if Medicare for All is viable or even sustainable considering how the current program seems to be snowballing itself but there are those who need some sort of safety net or recourse whether it is provided publicly or privately.
Click to expand...
There’s a huge difference in socialized medicine and the current exchange system of mandated insurance. There’s a massive difference in how the VA and TRICARE work (the closest things we have to socialized medicine in this country - Medicare and Medicaid are close, but these two are closer) and how the exchanges work.

Socialized medicine is a one-payor system - the government. That’s what we have in the military. It’s not what exists in the exchange system with competing insurers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top