BIGREDIOWAN Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 My personal opinion on this matter falls somewhere along the line of what Colo mentioned above. I think we need to take a long hard look at mental health care in this country to start with. It's really in a sad state of affairs and needs to be addressed. I'm not for taking guns away, but I don't think anyone really thinks that is THE answer to this problem. I am for more/deeper background checks with weapons and think it's something that needs to be re-occuring say annually or semi-annually in reference to ownership of weapons. So in essence, you agree entirely with the Democratic gun control platform, then. Sure, if it makes you feel better, then yes. I don't know what you're fishing for, but I'm a registered Independent. So I can agree with both sides on things and disagree with both sides on things. I do not agree with an assault weapons ban, which is what the democrats want though so I certainly don't agree with all of it. 1 Link to comment
RedDenver Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 My personal opinion on this matter falls somewhere along the line of what Colo mentioned above. I think we need to take a long hard look at mental health care in this country to start with. It's really in a sad state of affairs and needs to be addressed. I'm not for taking guns away, but I don't think anyone really thinks that is THE answer to this problem. I am for more/deeper background checks with weapons and think it's something that needs to be re-occuring say annually or semi-annually in reference to ownership of weapons. So in essence, you agree entirely with the Democratic gun control platform, then. Sure, if it makes you feel better, then yes. I don't know what you're fishing for, but I'm a registered Independent. So I can agree with both sides on things and disagree with both sides on things. The great thing about America is you can do that regardless of party affiliation! 1 Link to comment
BIGREDIOWAN Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 My personal opinion on this matter falls somewhere along the line of what Colo mentioned above. I think we need to take a long hard look at mental health care in this country to start with. It's really in a sad state of affairs and needs to be addressed. I'm not for taking guns away, but I don't think anyone really thinks that is THE answer to this problem. I am for more/deeper background checks with weapons and think it's something that needs to be re-occuring say annually or semi-annually in reference to ownership of weapons. So in essence, you agree entirely with the Democratic gun control platform, then. Sure, if it makes you feel better, then yes. I don't know what you're fishing for, but I'm a registered Independent. So I can agree with both sides on things and disagree with both sides on things. The great thing about America is you can do that regardless of party affiliation! Yeah, I get that, but it felt like he was trying to paint me as a republican and paint me in a corner so to speak. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but I'm basing that opinion off of prior discussions. Folks in here like to jump on anything to make in an argument/debate. JMO 1 Link to comment
zoogs Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 I think what Landlord was trying to do was point out that of the things that might cause you to align with the Republican Party, gun policy does not seem to be one of them. That seems accurate! If you're an independent I think it stands to reason that you'll favor one party or another in different areas. It's always illuminating to talk about what areas those are. Link to comment
RedDenver Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 My personal opinion on this matter falls somewhere along the line of what Colo mentioned above. I think we need to take a long hard look at mental health care in this country to start with. It's really in a sad state of affairs and needs to be addressed. I'm not for taking guns away, but I don't think anyone really thinks that is THE answer to this problem. I am for more/deeper background checks with weapons and think it's something that needs to be re-occuring say annually or semi-annually in reference to ownership of weapons. So in essence, you agree entirely with the Democratic gun control platform, then. Sure, if it makes you feel better, then yes. I don't know what you're fishing for, but I'm a registered Independent. So I can agree with both sides on things and disagree with both sides on things. The great thing about America is you can do that regardless of party affiliation! Yeah, I get that, but it felt like he was trying to paint me as a republican and paint me in a corner so to speak. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but I'm basing that opinion off of prior discussions. Folks in here like to jump on anything to make in an argument/debate. JMO I quoted you, but it's really something that a lot of registered Democrats and Republicans should embrace. 1 Link to comment
Enhance Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 I mentioned this in the gun control thread awhile back, but I'd be for borrowing some of how the UK handles gun control. Specifically, IIRC, they require two references for every gun permit in order to gauge the mental state and personality of the person purchasing a permit. Some of their laws wouldn't fly here because of our Constitution though, in particular that self defense is not a sufficient enough reason to own a gun. 1 Link to comment
BIGREDIOWAN Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 I think what Landlord was trying to do was point out that of the things that might cause you to align with the Republican Party, gun policy does not seem to be one of them. That seems accurate! If you're an independent I think it stands to reason that you'll favor one party or another in different areas. It's always illuminating to talk about what areas those are. Fair enough, I have several things I disagree with the democratic party on and several things I disagree with the republican party on. I agree with RedDenver as well. 1 Link to comment
Landlord Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 Wasn't trying to pigeonhole you BRB - I was just pleasantly surprised, as I would not expect someone who likely leans right and is also a police officer to be on that same page. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 Wasn't trying to pigeonhole you BRB - I was just pleasantly surprised, as I would not expect someone who likely leans right and is also a police officer to be on that same page. I'm not a police officer. Link to comment
Landlord Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 BRI* I haven't slept in a while lol Link to comment
BIGREDIOWAN Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 Wasn't trying to pigeonhole you BRB - I was just pleasantly surprised, as I would not expect someone who likely leans right and is also a police officer to be on that same page. No problem, my fault for misunderstanding there, I apologize for that. I get to see our mental health system from a front row seat which is where I'm speaking from. It's really sad to see, folks need help and don't get it, not that ALL of the folks that get guns and go shoot up a place necessarily suffer from a mental disorder, but you could say a large number of them do. Our training in dealing with mentally ill folks has really picked up over the years because we're the ones called to deal with those folks and are picking up the slack of the mental healthcare system. That can cause a poor outcome from time-to-time unfortunately. If they don't do something with the mental healthcare system my view is they have no choice, but to do a more intensive background screening process, but you could do both of those things and it wouldn't hurt anything IMO. Link to comment
ColoNoCoHusker Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 ... No problem, my fault for misunderstanding there, I apologize for that. I get to see our mental health system from a front row seat which is where I'm speaking from. It's really sad to see, folks need help and don't get it, not that ALL of the folks that get guns and go shoot up a place necessarily suffer from a mental disorder, but you could say a large number of them do. Our training in dealing with mentally ill folks has really picked up over the years because we're the ones called to deal with those folks and are picking up the slack of the mental healthcare system. That can cause a poor outcome from time-to-time unfortunately. If they don't do something with the mental healthcare system my view is they have no choice, but to do a more intensive background screening process, but you could do both of those things and it wouldn't hurt anything IMO. Mental illness is a 1 step forward, 2 steps back situation. The police chief for my area removed Officer training for dealing with the mentally impaired. His reasoning was there was no reason to treat them differently than any other criminal (literal wording). This is a very well-off area which makes this more sad. Additionally, there are few in-patient treatment centers remaining that are dedicated to dealing with mental illness. The biggest out here that remains is 1st a drug rehab & 2nd a mental illness facility. That sends the wrong message. There is so much that we can do to improve mental healthcare and also (unrelated or not) address preventable cases of gun violence yet nothing is done... Link to comment
BIGREDIOWAN Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 ... No problem, my fault for misunderstanding there, I apologize for that. I get to see our mental health system from a front row seat which is where I'm speaking from. It's really sad to see, folks need help and don't get it, not that ALL of the folks that get guns and go shoot up a place necessarily suffer from a mental disorder, but you could say a large number of them do. Our training in dealing with mentally ill folks has really picked up over the years because we're the ones called to deal with those folks and are picking up the slack of the mental healthcare system. That can cause a poor outcome from time-to-time unfortunately. If they don't do something with the mental healthcare system my view is they have no choice, but to do a more intensive background screening process, but you could do both of those things and it wouldn't hurt anything IMO. Mental illness is a 1 step forward, 2 steps back situation. The police chief for my area removed Officer training for dealing with the mentally impaired. His reasoning was there was no reason to treat them differently than any other criminal (literal wording). This is a very well-off area which makes this more sad. Additionally, there are few in-patient treatment centers remaining that are dedicated to dealing with mental illness. The biggest out here that remains is 1st a drug rehab & 2nd a mental illness facility. That sends the wrong message. There is so much that we can do to improve mental healthcare and also (unrelated or not) address preventable cases of gun violence yet nothing is done... That is an incredibly short-sited move on that Chief's part. Apparently he/she doesn't have an administration in place that is willing/able to caution him/her in making such a bone-headed decision. I've had advanced training as a supervisor in mental health training. It's incredibly important and I've used that training more times than I can count to bring a peaceful resolution to situations. I agree it's only one part, this is a complicated topic that has many moving parts to it. Identifying each part is important and then figuring out a plan of attack on each to help the situation is the first step to helping with this situation. Link to comment
ColoNoCoHusker Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 ... No problem, my fault for misunderstanding there, I apologize for that. I get to see our mental health system from a front row seat which is where I'm speaking from. It's really sad to see, folks need help and don't get it, not that ALL of the folks that get guns and go shoot up a place necessarily suffer from a mental disorder, but you could say a large number of them do. Our training in dealing with mentally ill folks has really picked up over the years because we're the ones called to deal with those folks and are picking up the slack of the mental healthcare system. That can cause a poor outcome from time-to-time unfortunately. If they don't do something with the mental healthcare system my view is they have no choice, but to do a more intensive background screening process, but you could do both of those things and it wouldn't hurt anything IMO. Mental illness is a 1 step forward, 2 steps back situation. The police chief for my area removed Officer training for dealing with the mentally impaired. His reasoning was there was no reason to treat them differently than any other criminal (literal wording). This is a very well-off area which makes this more sad. Additionally, there are few in-patient treatment centers remaining that are dedicated to dealing with mental illness. The biggest out here that remains is 1st a drug rehab & 2nd a mental illness facility. That sends the wrong message. There is so much that we can do to improve mental healthcare and also (unrelated or not) address preventable cases of gun violence yet nothing is done... That is an incredibly short-sited move on that Chief's part. Apparently he/she doesn't have an administration in place that is willing/able to caution him/her in making such a bone-headed decision. I've had advanced training as a supervisor in mental health training. It's incredibly important and I've used that training more times than I can count to bring a peaceful resolution to situations. I agree it's only one part, this is a complicated topic that has many moving parts to it. Identifying each part is important and then figuring out a plan of attack on each to help the situation is the first step to helping with this situation. The Commanders, Lt's, & Sgt's unanimously advised against it & fought it internally. I hate to say it, but the guy has some very bigoted notions and is OK putting his people in harm's way in this situation. In neighborhood watch meetings, this police chief explicitly advises block captains to use racial profiling as a primary measure for when to call-in suspicious activity. He is very politically savvy and well-spoken so he is able traction within the community on a lot of bad decisions... How this guy decreased domestic violence incidents is astoundingly unethical... Anywhoo Link to comment
BIGREDIOWAN Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 ... No problem, my fault for misunderstanding there, I apologize for that. I get to see our mental health system from a front row seat which is where I'm speaking from. It's really sad to see, folks need help and don't get it, not that ALL of the folks that get guns and go shoot up a place necessarily suffer from a mental disorder, but you could say a large number of them do. Our training in dealing with mentally ill folks has really picked up over the years because we're the ones called to deal with those folks and are picking up the slack of the mental healthcare system. That can cause a poor outcome from time-to-time unfortunately. If they don't do something with the mental healthcare system my view is they have no choice, but to do a more intensive background screening process, but you could do both of those things and it wouldn't hurt anything IMO. Mental illness is a 1 step forward, 2 steps back situation. The police chief for my area removed Officer training for dealing with the mentally impaired. His reasoning was there was no reason to treat them differently than any other criminal (literal wording). This is a very well-off area which makes this more sad. Additionally, there are few in-patient treatment centers remaining that are dedicated to dealing with mental illness. The biggest out here that remains is 1st a drug rehab & 2nd a mental illness facility. That sends the wrong message. There is so much that we can do to improve mental healthcare and also (unrelated or not) address preventable cases of gun violence yet nothing is done... That is an incredibly short-sited move on that Chief's part. Apparently he/she doesn't have an administration in place that is willing/able to caution him/her in making such a bone-headed decision. I've had advanced training as a supervisor in mental health training. It's incredibly important and I've used that training more times than I can count to bring a peaceful resolution to situations. I agree it's only one part, this is a complicated topic that has many moving parts to it. Identifying each part is important and then figuring out a plan of attack on each to help the situation is the first step to helping with this situation. The Commanders, Lt's, & Sgt's unanimously advised against it & fought it internally. I hate to say it, but the guy has some very bigoted notions and is OK putting his people in harm's way in this situation. In neighborhood watch meetings, this police chief explicitly advises block captains to use racial profiling as a primary measure for when to call-in suspicious activity. He is very politically savvy and well-spoken so he is able traction within the community on a lot of bad decisions... How this guy decreased domestic violence incidents is astoundingly unethical... Anywhoo They have "No confidence" votes for a reason, might be time for the department to make that move! Sheesh 1 Link to comment
Recommended Posts