Mass murder in California

You're about 75% wrong there, but the problem is that the "system" hasn't been a system since insurers started capping the number of psychiatric treatments a patient could receive, reducing "treatment" to just doling out pills without any monitoring of side effects or long-term sequelae.

Now that they can no longer shove a psych patient out of the therapist's office after 6-12 sessions, that may change.

I'm all for fully funding community mental health agencies and expanding outreach services. What I'm not for is using the mental health profession as a quasi-secret service force whose purpose is to disarm the populace.

And of course, what most people don't realize is that they have, at some point in their lives, been given a mental health diagnosis. If you went to the doctor and complained of headaches and upset stomach brought on by stress from going through a divorce, you were probably given an official dx of Anxiety Disorder NOS or Depressive Disorder NOS or Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety & Depression.

In Garamet World, is that enough to disqualify you from private firearm ownership? Don't hold your breath waiting for her to answer.

I'm just going to say it straight out. This guy was rich and the amount of visits is not an issue here. He could have got a million visits. The fact is that you cannot reason with a crazy man. This is just the risk we run if we are going to live in a free society. How many people died in car wrecks on the same day with no headline? This is all politically motivated media coverage. I am not going to ague that it is not a horrible thing, but look at the big picture. 7 ants got stomped out of 7+ billion.

You're an idiot who clearly has no coherent knowledge of the mental health system. That, or your information from The Romulan has gotten garbled in the translation.

Managed healthcare doesn't "cap" the number of psychiatric visits. What managed care did was introduce the accountability EP talks about into the equation. You have no idea how many professionals can't provide a coherent explanation for why someone who has been in therapy for the past 10 years still needs to be seen twice a week to learn "coping skills" for anxiety. Or why 15 hours of psychological testing is needed to figure out how to counsel someone who's depressed because their spouse is having an affair. What managed care did was require professionals to explain the rationale for their services and provide a justification for what they're asking the insurance company to pay for.

The days of laying on Dr. FeelGood's couch for 10 years and embarking on that journey of self-discovery on somebody else's dime are over.

(A) I made no mention of "managed healthcare"
(B) If you could be civil, we might have a decent discussion of the rest, but we both know better, don't we?

Its the cash cow. No "mental Health" professional is going to admit some bastard is fucked in the head and needs to be put down or locked away. Instead it more visits and more cash. They want to keep that shit going forever like a chiropractor. It lacks factual results with a real timeline for the decision process.
Fuck all that shit. What someone needs is a motorcycle and a couple friends to drink beer and talk things over with.

Same as you.


Truth is we either consider all guilty and take away everything from everyone until they prove they won't intentionally hurt anyone else, or we learn ways to defendourselves instead of running around with our heads cut off.

Which is what California is already doing so I've been wondering why California didn't catch this guy on the mental health no gun buy lists it maintains?

She will never have the guts to admit it because it will mess up her trolling here but in her world just being alive qualifies you to not being allowed to own a gun.

Who can be civil toward you for an extended conversation? Sincerely, you've been obnoxious to every single poster who has ever attempted it. Granted, I say that with full acknowledgement of my own history of obnoxious trolling; the difference between us is that for me, it's optional. I don't think you're capable of anything else.

Editor/writer Marc Altman once called me misogynist in Sci Fi Universe.

Never saw it that way. Just because I didn't like having women prominent in Star Trek.

I think terms like that are thrown around too easily. Just because you do not want a particular group of people participating in something does not mean you hate them. Exclusionary perhaps but hardly hate.

Well looks like the old Dayton is back.......

Yes, because self-medicating with alcohol is such a wonderful idea.

There was a woman on CNN yesterday suggesting that some sort of "temporary firearms restraining order" should be created, so worried parties could have someone's guns taken away "temporarily" (she emphasized) while they get evaluated by a mental health professional.

I dunno - it's one of those things that sounds reasonable on the surface, but I see lots of possibilities for abuse there.
And nobody trusts any legislator who ever says anything will be temporary.

Of course it will be abused.

And of course they never explain how they would have "temporarily" taken this guys guns given that they didn't know he had them in the first place.

I agree with the slightly edited version present.

Although Diacanu presented the most reasonable response to this already...

You use a word in there, "want," suggesting that a particular group of people gets to participate in something at your pleasure. You have no (explicit) reason for this belief. Perhaps you don't hate women, but the arbitrary exclusion of them because it makes you feel funny inside is pretty much the definition of misogyny.

Nope. A person could come up with a plehora of "reasons" to have a person's guns "temporarily removed" and the next thingyou know those guns are melted down and said person is now unable to ever own another gun.

Summing up, Gunforge has reverted once more to "THEY'RE GONNA TAKE AWAY OUR GUNZ!!!11!!"

So the right to keep & bear arms is now subject to whether your neighbor thinks you're mentally stable? You would be forced to submit to a psychiatric evaluation conducted by some girl 2 years out of grad school to determine your fitness to exercise a constitutional right?

Fuck gun-grabbers.

Outline for another of your fantasies? I think Philip K. Dick may have beaten you to it by a few decades...

You would be more respectable if you had the courage of your convictions.

Let's turn this around and say that a psychiatric eval is required before you're allowed to exercise free speech. After all, we all recognize that free speech has limits (you can't yell fire in a crowded theater), and inflammatory words can certainly incite people to violence & rioting. Free speech is dangerous. Those who engage in it should be subject to a mental fitness exam and then properly licensed.

Why don't you "like having women prominent in Star Trek?"

People keep saying this. It isn't true; google Brandenburg vs. Ohio, 1969.

If only there was a lawyer present! He'd know.

If you'd bothered to read my entire post, you'd have answered your own question. Of course you *can* yell fire in a crowded theater, but when you're prosecuted, freedom of speech won't be a defense.

He obviously grew up with TOS, where except for Uhura, female crewmembers spent their time fetching cups of coffee for Kirk.

I'm sure he hated Major Kira.

Absolutely it will. The whole point of the 69 revision is to specifiy and in turn limit the limits on free speech.

No, that isn't enough. That correction was true even of the original Holmes theory.