Scarp: A comprehensive approach from our politial leaders, for a change

11 comments:

• Richard Mueller posted at 6:17 pm on Thu, Jan 24, 2013.

  Posts: 18

  Rich Crandall never did anything that wasn't in his own self interest.

  Mark, what you can't quite get your arms around is the simple fact that guns don't kill anyone - the individual who possess the gun does the killing - the gun is simply the tool.

  How do you account for the dramatic increase in school attacks in China? Just 2 days prior to the tragedy in CT 20 young school children were killed at their school in China - by a madman wielding two long knives.

  Address mental illness, not even being mentioned. Assault looking weapons aren't your enemy - compared to the annual death toll in Chicago how many semi-automatic rife deaths annually are there Mark?

  You haven't done you homework on violent crime in the UK or Australia where they collected all the citizens guns... or closer to Arizona, Mexico where they have very strict gun control laws.

  Stop the knee jerk reactions and lets start to focus on the real problem with violence in America, look at the video games our kids play and the movies we let our children watch.

  If our unborn don't deserve life, what message does that send to our youth? We live in a Culture of Death and all you can do is yap about inanimate objects killing people??

  • Link

   

• Bluepoet posted at 9:27 am on Wed, Jan 23, 2013.

  Posts: 484

  Oops, meant 100%, not 1000%! [beam]

  • Link

   

• Bluepoet posted at 9:27 am on Wed, Jan 23, 2013.

  Posts: 484

  Az,
  Of course, none of these measures will be 1000%. I don't think any rational mind could even expect that. I do have a big agreement with Mr. Scarp that the debate is thin, and often wanders off into the weeds of obscurity--which makes even stop gaps difficult to establish.

  As for the rights of the mentally ill- yes, they have all the rights, right up to the point of being committed, by a competent professional. And, they should be evaluated by more than a few other professionals, to see that their rights are not unduly infringed upon. We certainly don't want to see wholesale lobotomies returning. On the other hand, we need to get dangerous people off the streets, and those who are a danger because of mental illness should not be left to fend for themselves, or be put in profit prisons, or opt out to "suicide by cop"...

  • Link

   

• DonMey posted at 12:22 pm on Tue, Jan 22, 2013.

  Posts: 265

  There's actually a Democrat on AZCentral who I argued this topic with; she claims that mentally ill are deserving of the exact same rights as everyone else, no exceptions. In fact, she argued that "young males" were more dangerous than the mentally ill, and they should have their gun rights revoked long before anyone who is deemed "mentally ill".

  Interestingly, she also claimed the Obama's desire to override HIPPA laws for more comprehensive background check was a non-issue, as healthcare professionals are already required to report on the dangers of their patients. I didn't bother to ask if she felt Holmes' doctor was therefore responsible, since she witnessed threats and did nothing...in fact, she ignored them entirely until a colleague was threatened. Seeing herself in those shoes, she stopped treating him and reported him to the police...who then also did nothing.

  • Link

   

• Arizona Willie posted at 11:41 am on Tue, Jan 22, 2013.

  Posts: 1988

  Bluepoet: even if it were possible to have a data base of people who had mental problems, that wouldn't stop them from stealing weapons or buying them on the street from people who don't care what the gun is used for -- as long as it isn't used to shoot them.

  That being said, there should be a database of people with mental problems available to law enforcement and gun dealers. It wouldn't stop all sales to mentally ill people, but it would stop some, possibly most.

  Nothing is perfect and to not do something simply because it didn't solve the problem 100% is foolish. Better to do something even if it only solves half the problem. That would be 50% fewer shootings by the mentally ill.

  • Link

   

• Bluepoet posted at 9:26 am on Tue, Jan 22, 2013.

  Posts: 484

  I like the mention of having more Guidance counselors on campus. That could potentially be a major help, in red-flagging students with anger/mental issues, depending upon what qualifications these counselors would be requred to have.

  I'm in favor of limited access points to schools, as well as Security that assures people are there for a reason, and are escorted, if visiting.

  It still doesn't address legal issues, like who gets to put the label of "mentally ill" on someone, for the purpose of limiting or eliminating selling weapons to them. On the face of it, I would think that would fall to someone with a psychology degree, and who would not be constrained by a doctor's confidentiality umbrella.
  That's where the real problems lie, in this whole thing, precisely because it's where the real "solutions" lie, too.

  • Link

   

• downtownresident posted at 9:03 pm on Sun, Jan 20, 2013.

  Posts: 818

  samkat ,
  Logic must not be your strong suit.[sad]

  • Link

   

• samkat posted at 5:47 pm on Sun, Jan 20, 2013.

  Posts: 1175

  Willie: Do you also propose having anyone applying for a driver's license to have mental evaluation also? After all, every driver has the potential to become a killer.

  • Link

   

• Deddzone posted at 3:13 pm on Sun, Jan 20, 2013.

  Posts: 138

  Remember when drunk driving was killing people and very little was done about it? Recall how long it took to rein in the tobacco industry?

  The gun lobby is NOW facing the same thing and none of this will happen over night. Give it time and their will be stricter laws on guns.

  • Link

   

• Arizona Willie posted at 10:31 am on Sun, Jan 20, 2013.

  Posts: 1988

  Just how is this supposed to prevent the mentally ill from getting weapons?

  It is illegal for any mental health personnel to report an individual UNLESS they are positive he is an IMMEDIATE threat to harm himself or others.

  There is no data base of people who have sought, or been referred to, mental health practitioners.

  Unless a person applying for a gun permit was required to undergo a psychiatric evaluation before being allowed to purchase a weapon, there is no way to begin to try to keep them away from weapons.

  And that would do NOTHING to keep them from breaking in and stealing a weapon or buying one on the street.

  All this hand wringing over guns is nothing but barking at the moon.

  • Link

   

• downtownresident posted at 9:55 am on Sun, Jan 20, 2013.

  Posts: 818

  That's quite the pair you've got there.
  An unethical politician who chairs committees that give money to his side job of double dipping state funds and a gay sheriff who used his position to threaten a former lover.
  That's a great example for our children!!!
  Let's see, 300 charter schools in AZ and Rich can only find money for 300 SRO's.
  This can't pass the smell test.

  • Link