Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Republicans decide that while spending money on mental health is bad, it's not nearly as bad as limiting gun rights   ( huffingtonpost.com) divider line
    More: Obvious, mental health professional, Sandy Hook Elementary School, Mental health law, Wayne LaPierre, Kelly Ayotte, Inhofe, assault weapons, NRA  
•       •       •

2362 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Feb 2013 at 3:36 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



116 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-02-12 12:28:48 PM  
Funny how outrage over armed psychos can motivate health initiatives when the alternative is stricter rules on their base of armed psychos.
 
2013-02-12 02:06:16 PM  
In 2008, Congress passed the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act. The bill, passed under the Troubled Asset Relief Program and signed by President George W. Bush, requires health insurance companies to cover mental health services at parity to physical health services.

I had no idea. What else did they pass with that Act?
 
2013-02-12 02:13:07 PM  

Rindred: Funny how outrage over armed psychos can motivate health initiatives when the alternative is stricter rules on their base of armed psychos.


I wonder if gun sales would plummet if conservatives were properly medicated for their paranoia.
 
2013-02-12 02:19:41 PM  
Good

/maybe the dumb bastards can buy themselves some
 
2013-02-12 02:41:14 PM  
As non-consequentialists they should realize that they can be anti mental health and pro-gun. That's the republican way.
 
2013-02-12 02:43:44 PM  
I understand the quandary of losing core constituency at the hands of core constituency.  They must be so conflicted.
 
2013-02-12 02:52:00 PM  
You mean to tell me that they're NOT serious about mental health and are only using it as a red herring because it's convenient? No.... No... Unpossible.
 
2013-02-12 02:53:13 PM  

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: Rindred: Funny how outrage over armed psychos can motivate health initiatives when the alternative is stricter rules on their base of armed psychos.

I wonder if gun sales would plummet if conservatives were properly medicated for their paranoia.


No YOU'RE the paranoid pussies afraid that everyone is going to go crazy and shoot people. They're the sane ones who know there's crazies out there that you have to defend yourself against.

/gun nut logic
 
2013-02-12 02:57:43 PM  
Don't waste the money...
i1079.photobucket.com
...it kinda sucks...
 
2013-02-12 03:19:45 PM  
This is what I was thinking the whole plan was all along. Well either this or they use the gun ban as a bargaining chip to make a deal on the sequester.
 
2013-02-12 03:28:23 PM  
"As a nation, we must learn how to best care for the mentally ill in the hope that we may help to prevent tragedies like Sandy Hook,"

How about we do a better job of caring for the mentally ill because it's the human farking thing to do!
 
2013-02-12 03:30:00 PM  

sammyk: "As a nation, we must learn how to best care for the mentally ill in the hope that we may help to prevent tragedies like Sandy Hook,"

How about we do a better job of caring for the mentally ill because it's the human farking thing to do!


Socialist
 
2013-02-12 03:32:52 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: sammyk: "As a nation, we must learn how to best care for the mentally ill in the hope that we may help to prevent tragedies like Sandy Hook,"

How about we do a better job of caring for the mentally ill because it's the human farking thing to do!

Socialist


No, no. By "better care" they mean, "lock people up who we arbitrarily deem to be dangerous." So, not so much socialism as facism.

Because, if we're honest, the entire problem of voluntary help is that crazy people don't think they need help. I know from personal family experience.
 
2013-02-12 03:34:06 PM  
""I'm a supporter of parity (for mental health care) in insurance coverage, but it doesn't help if you don't have insurance. You need somewhere to go."

that already exists. anyone with severe mental illness can get treatment for it, regardless of income. inpatient or outpatient. every state has it's own name for their program, but they all have a program with community mental health clinics.

i totally support increased funding for mental health care, and especially increased funding for awareness campaigns so that people feel less stigma about getting mental health care (especially awareness that's not linked to mass shootings), i'm just saying that people who need it already have access to it.

also, maybe i wasn't paying much attention, but how would better access to or more funding for mental health care have prevented the sandy hook shooting? was the guy trying to get mental health treatment but unable to?
 
2013-02-12 03:35:08 PM  
/popcorn.gif
 
2013-02-12 03:42:11 PM  

the801: also, maybe i wasn't paying much attention, but how would better access to or more funding for mental health care have prevented the sandy hook shooting? was the guy trying to get mental health treatment but unable to?


A better mental health care infrastructure might have had him getting help years before this happened.
 
2013-02-12 03:45:33 PM  

PhiloeBedoe: Don't waste the money...
[i1079.photobucket.com image 300x310]
...it kinda sucks...


Slade, but with less talent.
 
2013-02-12 03:47:06 PM  

PhiloeBedoe: Don't waste the money...
[i1079.photobucket.com image 300x310]
...it kinda sucks...


It'll also drive ya mad.
 
2013-02-12 03:50:21 PM  

the801: ""I'm a supporter of parity (for mental health care) in insurance coverage, but it doesn't help if you don't have insurance. You need somewhere to go."

that already exists. anyone with severe mental illness can get treatment for it, regardless of income. inpatient or outpatient. every state has it's own name for their program, but they all have a program with community mental health clinics.

i totally support increased funding for mental health care, and especially increased funding for awareness campaigns so that people feel less stigma about getting mental health care (especially awareness that's not linked to mass shootings), i'm just saying that people who need it already have access to it.

also, maybe i wasn't paying much attention, but how would better access to or more funding for mental health care have prevented the sandy hook shooting? was the guy trying to get mental health treatment but unable to?


His mom was trying to commit him.
 
2013-02-12 03:51:53 PM  

justtray: MaudlinMutantMollusk: sammyk: "As a nation, we must learn how to best care for the mentally ill in the hope that we may help to prevent tragedies like Sandy Hook,"

How about we do a better job of caring for the mentally ill because it's the human farking thing to do!

Socialist

No, no. By "better care" they mean, "lock people up who we arbitrarily deem to be dangerous." So, not so much socialism as facism.

Because, if we're honest, the entire problem of voluntary help is that crazy people don't think they need help. I know from personal family experience.


Sometimes they should be locked up. Just not in a criminal sense. I lost 2 dear friends to suicide. Both developed obvious mental health issues that family and friends were helpless to do anything about it. I was very saddened but almost relieved that one of them just shot himself. I was honestly worried about him taking his AK and killing the wife, kids and anyone else that got in his way.
 
2013-02-12 03:52:40 PM  

Nadie_AZ: the801: also, maybe i wasn't paying much attention, but how would better access to or more funding for mental health care have prevented the sandy hook shooting? was the guy trying to get mental health treatment but unable to?

A better mental health care infrastructure might have had him getting help years before this happened.


We don't know that he didn't have access to it.  He came from a well-to-do family.  This wasn't some homeless guy living under a bridge, access to decent mental health care shouldn't have been a problem.
 
2013-02-12 03:54:44 PM  

Ned Stark: the801: ""I'm a supporter of parity (for mental health care) in insurance coverage, but it doesn't help if you don't have insurance. You need somewhere to go."

that already exists. anyone with severe mental illness can get treatment for it, regardless of income. inpatient or outpatient. every state has it's own name for their program, but they all have a program with community mental health clinics.

i totally support increased funding for mental health care, and especially increased funding for awareness campaigns so that people feel less stigma about getting mental health care (especially awareness that's not linked to mass shootings), i'm just saying that people who need it already have access to it.

also, maybe i wasn't paying much attention, but how would better access to or more funding for mental health care have prevented the sandy hook shooting? was the guy trying to get mental health treatment but unable to?

His mom was trying to commit him.


All he wanted was a Pepsi.
 
2013-02-12 03:57:32 PM  
We should just go single payer healthcare and let people keep their guns.
 
2013-02-12 03:58:35 PM  
That would be because they, unlike Obama, actually meant it when they took the oath of office which included a duty to defend and uphold the Constitution, which includes the 2nd Amendment as much as that annoys you.

Let's try your stupid headline with some other rights covered under the Bill of Rights so you can see how stupid you are.

Republicans decide that while spending money on mental health is bad, it's not nearly as bad as limiting free speech

Republicans decide that while spending money on mental health is bad, it's not nearly as bad as limiting freedom of the press

Republicans decide that while spending money on mental health is bad, it's not nearly as bad as limiting fair trial
 
2013-02-12 03:59:23 PM  
"As a nation, we must learn how to best care for the mentally ill in the hope that we may help to prevent tragedies like Sandy Hook,"

Again, this is bullshat. Mental illness is not correlated to higher risk of violence. In fact, the mentally ill are at greater risk of being the victims of violence. Mental illness is being used as a convenient scapegoat for these tragedies, because the deeper issue is a violent culture and sociopolitical problems such as poverty. Poverty, gender (male), alcoholism are all more correlated to violent behavior than mental illness.

It's comforting to think that the only way someone could perpetrate a horrific act like this is due to mental illness. It is untrue, however. Sane people make worse decisions every day. We go to war and kill thousands even when we are at very little risk ourselves, we make economic decisions that destine millions to poverty, and we make such decisions very rationally and purposefully.

Our culture venerates violence, it glorifies it. We love violent depictions of war. We love violent sports. We condone violent solutions to interpersonal problems. Then we turn around and act shocked when something violent happens to us. That is the problem in our society, not mental illness and not guns. If there were no guns, we would still have these violent outbreaks, except with bombs, or poison gas, or swords, or whatever the perpetrator could find.

Mental illness is a problem in our nation. We lead the world in it, because we are such a high stress culture and because we make mental illness and the mentally ill something flawed and bad and dangerous, and something to be avoided, not accepted and provided for. Our homeless population is very much a mental illness problem. Our high suicide rates are very much a mental health problem. We need to change that as a culture.

While we might say "oh, well, at least their hearts are in the right place," with this kind of legislation and drive to mental health care, the problem is that the problem is also one of perception, not just services. And perception drives behavior and action. If we perceive incorrectly, even when ostensibly we are providing care, we may harm the mentally ill. For instance, infringing on a mentally ill person's legal rights might happen more easily when we perceive them as more dangerous. We make excuses about it, however it is still wrong and not supported by  mental illness studies, and I worry that the systems put in place would be more for "our" benefit than theirs.

http://depts.washington.edu/mhreport/facts_violence.php
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1525086/
http://www.cmha.ca/mental_health/violence-and-mental-illness/
http://psychcentral.com/archives/violence.htm
 
2013-02-12 04:00:18 PM  

dittybopper: Nadie_AZ: the801: also, maybe i wasn't paying much attention, but how would better access to or more funding for mental health care have prevented the sandy hook shooting? was the guy trying to get mental health treatment but unable to?

A better mental health care infrastructure might have had him getting help years before this happened.

We don't know that he didn't have access to it.  He came from a well-to-do family.  This wasn't some homeless guy living under a bridge, access to decent mental health care shouldn't have been a problem.


Yet obviously it was. He was visibly dangerous enough his own mother tried to get him forcibly confined to a treatment facility. The system was either too slow or badly underestimated the problem.
 
2013-02-12 04:02:03 PM  

Phil McKraken: We should just go single payer healthcare and let people keep their guns.


^
 
2013-02-12 04:02:20 PM  

justtray: No, no. By "better care" they mean, "lock people up who we arbitrarily deem to be dangerous." So, not so much socialism as facism.

Because, if we're honest, the entire problem of voluntary help is that crazy people don't think they need help. I know from personal family experience.


Also from personal family experience, this.

I am torn on this issue. If we are reactionary (as our legal system is defined) things like Sandy Hook are unpreventable. Until a mentally unstable person does something bad we don't do anything about it.

On the other hand, do I want the government making the decision as to when I'm "crazy" and upending my rights as a citizen?

There isn't really an answer to either that gives me the warm fuzzies.
 
2013-02-12 04:05:29 PM  

natmar_76: In fact, the mentally ill are at greater risk of being the victims of violence.


The answer then is to give them guns.
 
2013-02-12 04:06:41 PM  
The last few years have made it abundantly clear that Republicans should be pumping as much money into mental health as possible. For their own treatment.
 
2013-02-12 04:06:54 PM  
Conservatives are the ones that cut the mental health services in the first place.......just another example on how they are the cause for nearly everything they complain about.
 
2013-02-12 04:08:01 PM  

Sarsin: justtray: No, no. By "better care" they mean, "lock people up who we arbitrarily deem to be dangerous." So, not so much socialism as facism.

Because, if we're honest, the entire problem of voluntary help is that crazy people don't think they need help. I know from personal family experience.

Also from personal family experience, this.

I am torn on this issue. If we are reactionary (as our legal system is defined) things like Sandy Hook are unpreventable. Until a mentally unstable person does something bad we don't do anything about it.

On the other hand, do I want the government making the decision as to when I'm "crazy" and upending my rights as a citizen?

There isn't really an answer to either that gives me the warm fuzzies.


I have a fundamental right to not see a guy who massacred 30 elementary school students in my mirror and am OK wit a degree of infringement on my other rights to prevent that if it approaches a certain probability.
 
2013-02-12 04:08:12 PM  
FTFA: Statistically speaking, Plotnick said, most people with mental health issues are no more dangerous than anyone else.
"People who have mental illnesses are very, very likely to be victims of crime and we know that in terms of violent crime, only about 4 percent of violent crime is committed by people with mental illness," Plotnick said.


Ironic, because that's roughly the same percentage of overall firearm homicides committed with rifles of any kind, yet these same people have no problem obsessing with scary magazine-loading rifles while ignoring urban handgun crime.
 
2013-02-12 04:08:35 PM  

Nadie_AZ: the801: also, maybe i wasn't paying much attention, but how would better access to or more funding for mental health care have prevented the sandy hook shooting? was the guy trying to get mental health treatment but unable to?

A better mental health care infrastructure might have had him getting help years before this happened.


like, involuntarily? if someone seems dangerous to themself or others then anyone can report them to police who can take them involuntarily to a mental hospital for evaluation (i think 48 hours, might vary by state) by psychiatrists. short of that, how would you get someone to go get mental health care who doesn't want to? and if they're not locked up for life, they can't be forced to take their pills if they don't want to. mental health care is available, but only helps people who take advantage of it.

the CT Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services   -   http://www.ct.gov/dmhas/cwp/view.asp?a=2899&q=334082
 - for the Danbury area, about 10 miles from Newtown -  http://www.ct.gov/dmhas/cwp/view.asp?a=2920&q=335398
 
2013-02-12 04:08:50 PM  

randomjsa: That would be because they, unlike Obama, actually meant it when they took the oath of office which included a duty to defend and uphold the Constitution, which includes the 2nd Amendment as much as that annoys you.

Let's try your stupid headline with some other rights covered under the Bill of Rights so you can see how stupid you are.

Republicans decide that while spending money on mental health is bad, it's not nearly as bad as limiting free speech

Republicans decide that while spending money on mental health is bad, it's not nearly as bad as limiting freedom of the press

Republicans decide that while spending money on mental health is bad, it's not nearly as bad as limiting fair trial


Can we have examples with factual sources for each of your claims?
 
2013-02-12 04:10:53 PM  

Granny_Panties: randomjsa: That would be because they, unlike Obama, actually meant it when they took the oath of office which included a duty to defend and uphold the Constitution, which includes the 2nd Amendment as much as that annoys you.

Let's try your stupid headline with some other rights covered under the Bill of Rights so you can see how stupid you are.

Republicans decide that while spending money on mental health is bad, it's not nearly as bad as limiting free speech

Republicans decide that while spending money on mental health is bad, it's not nearly as bad as limiting freedom of the press

Republicans decide that while spending money on mental health is bad, it's not nearly as bad as limiting fair trial

Can we have examples with factual sources for each of your claims?


Those are not claims, those are analogies.
 
2013-02-12 04:12:20 PM  
i.qkme.me

GOP: "Death Panels!"
Everyone Else: "It's ok, it was chicken, and we're hungry"
GOP: "But it had a soul.  And I have a pole.  And it had a hole.  Here, lemme get some Skoal..."
Everyone Else: "What are you doing?"
GOP: (ZIIIIIP) "That chicken ain't gonna f*ck itself, especially not when it's got Kickin' BBQ Sauce all over it."
 
2013-02-12 04:12:46 PM  

Ned Stark: Granny_Panties: randomjsa: That would be because they, unlike Obama, actually meant it when they took the oath of office which included a duty to defend and uphold the Constitution, which includes the 2nd Amendment as much as that annoys you.

Let's try your stupid headline with some other rights covered under the Bill of Rights so you can see how stupid you are.

Republicans decide that while spending money on mental health is bad, it's not nearly as bad as limiting free speech

Republicans decide that while spending money on mental health is bad, it's not nearly as bad as limiting freedom of the press

Republicans decide that while spending money on mental health is bad, it's not nearly as bad as limiting fair trial

Can we have examples with factual sources for each of your claims?

Those are not claims, those are analogies potato.


FTFY
 
2013-02-12 04:13:35 PM  

the801: like, involuntarily? if someone seems dangerous to themself or others then anyone can report them to police who can take them involuntarily to a mental hospital for evaluation (i think 48 hours, might vary by state) by psychiatrists. short of that, how would you get someone to go get mental health care who doesn't want to? and if they're not locked up for life, they can't be forced to take their pills if they don't want to. mental health care is available, but only helps people who take advantage of it.


You are correct sir. I have a family member in this situation that keeps getting punted in and out of jail for various petty crimes. The criminal system gives 0 farks that he is a paranoid schizophrenic and has made statements that would lead us all to believe he would hurt people. The potential for violence got to the point where family members moved just to make sure he didn't know where they lived anymore.
 
2013-02-12 04:15:05 PM  

Ned Stark: Sarsin: justtray: No, no. By "better care" they mean, "lock people up who we arbitrarily deem to be dangerous." So, not so much socialism as facism.

Because, if we're honest, the entire problem of voluntary help is that crazy people don't think they need help. I know from personal family experience.

Also from personal family experience, this.

I am torn on this issue. If we are reactionary (as our legal system is defined) things like Sandy Hook are unpreventable. Until a mentally unstable person does something bad we don't do anything about it.

On the other hand, do I want the government making the decision as to when I'm "crazy" and upending my rights as a citizen?

There isn't really an answer to either that gives me the warm fuzzies.

I have a fundamental right to not see a guy who massacred 30 elementary school students in my mirror and am OK wit a degree of infringement on my other rights to prevent that if it approaches a certain probability.


That is a powerful thing to hand over to law enforcement though. A hundred years ago being gay or an atheist might have got you slapped with a crazy label.
 
2013-02-12 04:18:55 PM  

Ned Stark: dittybopper: Nadie_AZ: the801: also, maybe i wasn't paying much attention, but how would better access to or more funding for mental health care have prevented the sandy hook shooting? was the guy trying to get mental health treatment but unable to?

A better mental health care infrastructure might have had him getting help years before this happened.

We don't know that he didn't have access to it.  He came from a well-to-do family.  This wasn't some homeless guy living under a bridge, access to decent mental health care shouldn't have been a problem.

Yet obviously it was. He was visibly dangerous enough his own mother tried to get him forcibly confined to a treatment facility. The system was either too slow or badly underestimated the problem.


ah, that was the part i missed when i was paying enough attention to the whole thing. either she didn't manage to get him involuntarily admitted for an evaluation period, or it was a big psychiatrist fail. i've had people committed before in state hospitals and it wasn't hard, just a matter of telling a policeman or a nurse at a psych hospital that the person was a danger to themselves and giving some examples of their craziness, but that wasn't in connecticut. it was pretty easy in BC, too.

anyway, i'll stop talking now, cause all i really had to say is that free or affordable mental health care is already available to anyone who needs it.
 
2013-02-12 04:21:51 PM  

randomjsa: Republicans decide that while spending money on mental health is bad, it's not nearly as bad as limiting free speech


Actually Republicans want to harm free speech so that people can use guns more.
 
2013-02-12 04:22:15 PM  

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: I wonder if gun sales would plummet if conservatives were properly medicated for their paranoia.


you mean chemically neutralized facilitating the NWO takeover?
NEVER!!!!!
 
2013-02-12 04:25:38 PM  

randomjsa: That would be because they, unlike Obama, actually meant it when they took the oath of office which included a duty to defend and uphold the Constitution, which includes the 2nd Amendment as much as that annoys you.


So did you make as much of complaint when Republicans "limited the 2nd amendment"? All the things Obama is asking for on gun limitations are things that past presidents supported including Republicans.

Also the SCOTUS says guns CAN be limited by type and who gets access to them. Are you against Heller ruling?
 
2013-02-12 04:27:14 PM  

Sarsin: That is a powerful thing to hand over to law enforcement though. A hundred years ago being gay or an atheist might have got you slapped with a crazy label.


It's not. Medical professionals make the determination not law enforcement. But thanks for making up BS to try to scare people.
 
2013-02-12 04:32:25 PM  

Corvus: randomjsa: Republicans decide that while spending money on mental health is bad, it's not nearly as bad as limiting free speech

Actually Republicans want to harm free speech so that people can use guns more.


What, let my gun do the talking?
 
2013-02-12 04:39:52 PM  

Corvus: Sarsin: That is a powerful thing to hand over to law enforcement though. A hundred years ago being gay or an atheist might have got you slapped with a crazy label.

It's not. Medical professionals make the determination not law enforcement. But thanks for making up BS to try to scare people.


Yeah, there's no possible way that could be abused right?

Oh wait....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_in_the_So vi et_Union
 
2013-02-12 04:41:32 PM  

Nadie_AZ: Corvus: randomjsa: Republicans decide that while spending money on mental health is bad, it's not nearly as bad as limiting free speech

Actually Republicans want to harm free speech so that people can use guns more.

What, let my gun do the talking?


Bullets are speech!
 
2013-02-12 04:44:35 PM  

randomjsa: That would be because they, unlike Obama, actually meant it when they took the oath of office which included a duty to defend and uphold the Constitution


If people were defending the Constitution, we'd have laws that require firearm owners to report to their local militia office.  How can you be called upon your duty to protect your country when you hide your firearms from the government?

And last I checked, most militias include routine training and participation.  How can you be expected to repel a Chinese invasion if you have only the most basic skills at handling a firearm?
 
2013-02-12 04:46:03 PM  

Sarsin: Corvus: Sarsin: That is a powerful thing to hand over to law enforcement though. A hundred years ago being gay or an atheist might have got you slapped with a crazy label.

It's not. Medical professionals make the determination not law enforcement. But thanks for making up BS to try to scare people.

Yeah, there's no possible way that could be abused right?

Oh wait....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_in_the_So vi et_Union


Let's just keep in perspective, if someone is considered too crazy to get a gun, then all that happens is they can't buy a gun.  Now perhaps this is a great injustice for three reasons:

1) They want to hunt.
2) They need it for self defense.
3) They want to shoot for fun.

So I'll tell you what, how about we suggest to our legislators people deemed too crazy cannot own a gun but they can:

1) Buy a bolt action single shot rifle.
2) Buy a taser or other non-lethal firearm such as this one:  http://www.rap4.com/store/paintball/pistols-self-defense-c-1821_1837_ 4 16.html
3) Rent a gun from a gun range.

What do you think?
 
Displayed 50 of 116 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report