Colbert: Stop ignoring gun violence (new definition of insanity)

It would appear this matter has already been addressed prior to my arrival here. As pointed out, there is no outright guarantee that a patient is allowed to see their files.

Therefore we are back to square one of the discussion. Under your proposed system, how exactly would anyone go about challenging the ruling of a mental health professional, much less emerge victorious in a court of law? Patients are not allowed to see their own medical files, and the notes contained within. They will be given no notice of what they have been accused of, and be rendered incapable of facing and cross-examining their accusers.

 

I completely agree with Colbert's argument, except the entire point of his argument isn't that he is pro gun control. He clearly states, "Some say the answer is stricter gun laws. Others say the answer is mental health care, that we need better treatment or just keep the guns out of the hands of the insane. Maybe it's both. I honestly don't know." He then goes on to make his point about the lack of change that is going on. I think that it is a bit close minded to only look at gun control from one perspective. There are many problems connected to gun control. There are also many potential solutions, but we are not going to find one if we don't try something.

 

It is up to the DR. to determine if you are a risk or threat to yourself or others,not how they are to do the harm.I know you can see your own medical files but I don't know about mental records.I think when doing a background check mental history should be known but only if they are a treat or not,no more information then that is needed.I know there are other people don't believe this but I do,and I am not a anti by far.

 

Easy, we change that as there is no reason a patient should be denied access to said material.

 

Empowering shrinks to unilaterally deny individuals their Constitutionally protected rights will likely cause people who should be going to a shrink to refrain from doing so.

Counterproductive.

 

*sigh* Dude! For the millionth time....... CRIMINALS DO NOT FOLLOW LAWS!

The true definition of insanity is having an epidemic of gun violence occurring in gun free zones and trying to solve it by making everywhere a gun free zone. These massacres aren't happening at shooting ranges or gun shows. Why could that be? If more guns = more deaths, then shouldn't those places be the most dangerous? And yet they're not. Because everyone is armed there. Not just the bad guy. Put your feelings on hold for a second and really stop to process this logically.

 

Ridicule. The last resort of the proud hoplophobe. It's okay to just say that you're scared of guns. No one will judge you for it. They'll actually find your honesty endearing. Because no one else has the courage to be that sincere and vulnerable. They all want to hide behind bravado.

 

Forest fires? Wow, you really, really don't know your own country.

Snowtown murders, 1992-1999, unknown number of dead, 12 bodies found, this was a serial killer but is there is a difference between killing all at once and one at a time over several years?
Childers Palace, 2000, 15 dead, arson, hostel lit on fire
Lin Family, 2009, 5 dead, bludgeoned to death
Quakers Hill Nursing Home, 2011, arson, 11 dead
Cairns, 2014, 8 children killed, all stabbings

Theres also Monash University shootings, 2002, 2 dead, 5 wounded, and theres Hectorville, 2011, shooting, 3 dead, 3 injured. Not enough dead in either to count as a technical mass killing but why discount it simply because the shooter was a bad shot? This is the type of incident that people are afraid of and that the AUS gun ban was supposed to stop. Gun Ban FAIL.

And who knows how many more incidents there are that didn't make the international news but are buried in the AUS news archives.

 

Yes, I know. And if the ability to obtain a weapon or ammunition for said weapon were better controlled/policed, there would be fewer gun deaths due to the absence of said weapons.

No, they're relatively safe because there are observers there all the time making sure that only unloaded weapons are brought in (maybe not every show) or keeping an eye on customers. Even then, there are accidents.

BTW - you've offered more solution other than "arm everybody" and "start shooting if you feel threatened", two policies that would only lead to more deaths, as they already have. Tighter controls = fewer gun deaths.

 

Not to mention the actual numbers of people killed in the 14 or so years after Port Arthur is almost exactly the same as the numbers of people killed in mass killings in the 14 years before Port Arthur.

The only thing that changed was the method the killers use, and arson is a far more effective and indiscriminate killer than a firearm.

Their gun grab did absolutely nothing, except increase overall violent crime.

 

That's why we have the laws we have now - a judge decides if someone is "mentally defective".
In the US, we get to keep our rights until removed by due process; due process involves a court.

 

Or unless you say something someone disagrees with.

 

*sigh* Dude! For the millionth time.......THAT DOES NOT MEAN WE SHOULD MAKE IT EASY FOR THEM


Gun free zones have NOTHING to do with shootings.

As for guns shows
Correlation does not equal causation

 

Counting bush fires as "mass murders" again are we?

Tell me - if someone starts a bush fire in the USA is it counted as a "mass murder" in the stats?

There is a vast difference between someone walking down a main street shooting people at random and some guy starting a fire so he could rescue people and look a hero

But you are also confusing numbers of victims with numbers of incidents. Now are you including in your "before 1996" incidents like the Russell Street bombings or guy who drove his Mack Truck into the hotel?

 

Who is "we"?

 

Please tell us your idea of "controlled guns" that would guarantee that there would be fewer deaths, without infringing on 2A rights.

 

There is no difference between killing people with fire and killing people with guns, other than the fact that being killed with a gun is preferable.

Arson is far more of an effective killer than guns, fire doesn't run out of ammo.

 

This is not the case in the state of California, however.

Indeed it does not. Veterans do not have to be seen by either a judge, or a qualified medical examiner to be noted as mentally incompetent, and have their second amendment rights terminated.

 

And you honestly believe that the medical association would stand idly by, and simply accept the emasculation of their authority over patients, by allowing a law to be implemented that removes their right to privacy over their medical notes pertaining to patients?

Even if by some chance this would come to pass, you are still supporting a position that allows for unfair denial of constitutional rights, and requiring the victim to take their accuser to a court of law to have them overturned, all at their own expense. There are many who cannot afford such a course of action, who would be left with no option but to simply accept that their constitutional rights have been severed for no reason.

Such a proposal would do nothing to encourage trust of mental health professionals. It would simply make an already complicated problem worse by encouraging those in need of help to not seek it for fear of greater stigmatization.

 

There is a vast difference because death is not the intent with a bush fire

But we have still reduced the number of people killed in mass slayings - the denial is simply a knee jerk to try and hide the fact that England Australia and Finland and at least half a dozen other countries have tightened gun laws to reduce mass shootings - the result

America has more mass shootings per year than the rest of the world (minus active war zones) combined

http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2015/06/20/america-gun-laws_n_7624088.html?ir=Australia
It sure does not look like guns have made you safer

 

I've always wondered why terrorists don't just set coordinated forest fires in a drought stricken area. Easy to do and hard to catch.

 

Because people can and do put them out - dunno

But some weird pyromaniac starting a fire is not the same as a twisted idiot walking through a town shooting everyone. Neither is there any evidence anywhere of a substitution effect. If denied guns people do not turn around and use cars.

There has to be a reason why your rate of mass shootings is not only higher than elsewhere but MASSIVELY higher

 

Many in our government are trying to wipe out our culture and our borders. We are no longer a melting pot. Our immigrants are trying to make America like where they came from its not working. We don't live on an island. We need to shut our borders down and learn to get along. Guns are tools, they aren't the problem.

 

Illegal immigration is another problem in and of itself

If you want to stop culture creep then make it easier for short term stay but harder for long term stay so people come, work for a short time AND THEN GO BACK

The problem never is keeping them from coming into the country but making it so they do not want to leave where they are living now

 

You are really stuck, you've been disproven and discredited on this subject repeatedly.

What about the Monash University shootings, 2002, 2 dead, 5 wounded, and the Hectorville, 2011, shooting, 3 dead, 3 injured.

Your gun ban was supposed to completely stop those cases of a deranged person walking around in public shooting people randomly. How many times have you told this forum that there have been no mass shootings since the gun ban?

And you are still on that "forest fire" lie? LOL