Time for President to take up issue of Knives

[MrFun]

The "likely to become violent" is the problem. It's interesting to me that generally conservative people who have qualms about the government having the power to restrict gun ownership, commerce and manufacture, aren't even more concerned with the notion of government having some power to engage in "civil commitment" without a crime being committed or due process being observed. We've already had that history of abuse to some extent.

Yep. DD, Plato, and other conservatives here are normally for smaller government. What's up with this, then?

"Nothing can possibly go wrong for imprisoning/institutionalizing people for hypothetical crimes they might or might not commit," said no one ever.

[MichaeltheGreat]

I think it's harder to throw a knife accurately enough to kill someone from a distance, than it is to aim a gun and kill someone from a distance.

You just need to get them into an enclosed space.

[MrFun]

You just need to get them into an enclosed space.

True. If the Roman republic had had knife control/regulation, Julius Caesar may never have gotten killed.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Here's a hypothetical for your civil commitment:

Juvenile arrest record (sealed so it takes time to get the case files, if still around)
Army service in Vietnam
Deserted
Bad Conduct Discharge
1.5 years in-patient treatment at VA mental facilities.
Diagnosed as Manic-Depressive (Bipolar now, but not back then)
Later diagnosed as PTSD
Familiarity with, proficiency with and interest in knives and firearms
Periods of social withdrawal and homelessness
Two misdemeanor arrests (vagrancy)

So, what's your vote?

[MrFun]

Here's a hypothetical for your civil commitment:

Juvenile arrest record (sealed so it takes time to get the case files, if still around)
Army service in Vietnam
Deserted
Bad Conduct Discharge
1.5 years in-patient treatment at VA mental facilities.
Diagnosed as Manic-Depressive (Bipolar now, but not back then)
Later diagnosed as PTSD
Familiarity with, proficiency with and interest in knives and firearms
Periods of social withdrawal and homelessness
Two misdemeanor arrests (vagrancy)

So, what's your vote?

Is this yourself? I remember bits and parts of some of your background over the years, from past posts you've made about your life experiences; like that you've been homeless at one time in your life.

Anyway, if that person's past treatment he had received could be proven to be effective so that he's safer now as a free person than he was in the past, I'd say he does not need to be confined. If that person shows that he is more mentally stable than before, he shouldn't have to be confined.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Not me. I'm not quite that old, lol. Not quite homeless, either, but extended "camping" when I was a teen and first moved out, until I made enough $ to rent a place.

Lithium prescribed for Bipolar was completely ineffective. Remember, also, the efficacy of treatments for mental illness is always debatable and subject to change, particularly if ongoing medication is part of the treatment and the patient forgets or simply decides not to take his meds.

[DinoDoc]

One most also remember that people suffering from mental health issues are far more likely to be the victims of violence, as opposed to perpetrators.

What does work? Professor Stephen P. Segal’s recent study of murder rates and mental-treatment policy, “Civil Commitment Law, Mental Health Services, and U.S. Homicide Rates,” examined state-by-state murder rates and mental-health services and found that “less access to psychiatric inpatient-beds and more poorly rated mental health systems were associated with increases in the homicide rates of 1.08 and 0.26 per 100,000, respectively.” There was an even greater difference in the homicide rate between states with different involuntary civil commitment (ICC) laws. “Broader ICC criteria were associated with 1.42 less homicides per 100,000.” In short, states where involuntary commitment was easy had roughly a third less murders than states where it was very hard to civilly commit a mentally ill person.

The reason that more mental-health services and more relaxed involuntary-commitment standards make such a difference in murder rates is very simple: Mentally ill persons are disproportionately involved in violent crimes, including murder. As of 2002, about 26,000 inmates in state prisons across the United States who were convicted of murder were also mentally ill. A detailed examination of Indiana prison inmates convicted of murder found that 18 percent were diagnosed with “schizophrenia or other psychotic disorder, major depression, mania, or bipolar disorder.” Many of the random mass murders that have so plagued not only the United States but many other industrialized societies in the last few years were committed by persons with clear evidence of severe mental illness, usually schizophrenia.

If we are serious about reducing these relatively rare (less than 1 percent of U.S. murders are incidents of mass murder) but terrifying tragedies, we need to be looking at the root cause: untreated or inadequately treated mental illness.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/335808/preventing-mass-murder-tragedies-what-works-what-doesn-t-clayton-e-cramer#

[MichaeltheGreat]

So, the only two factors that differentiate a state are its murder rates and its civil commitment laws? Perhaps you could show how changes in civil commitment laws, isolated from all other factors, reduced murder rates within a given state? Otherwise, all you may have is some paranoid bunker mentality white bread states with low murder rates and "throw away the key" civil commitment laws, which had lower murder rates to begin with, compared to some more "lawless" states which actually respect human liberty.

And how many people are you prepared to lock up and for how long (and with what funding) for each murder that you think you will avoid?

[DinoDoc]

And how many people are you prepared to lock up and for how long (and with what funding) for each murder that you think you will avoid?

This has a more concrete foundation of evidence of preventing the type of horrific tragedies that occured at Newtown than any of the proposals floated by the President or other gun ban advocates.

To quote the President: If it saves one child's life, we have the duty to try!

[self biased]

Congrats on completely missing the point, Plato!

I don't think increased gun control is a particularly effective solution for school massacres either, but posts like this are so obtuse that they damage your position, instead of helping it.

BAN ASSAULT TROLLS!

[Guynemer]

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...yton-e-cramer#

I don't dispute that article at all. I'm not saying that the mental ill aren't more likely to be perpetrators of violent crime; I'm saying they are even more likely to be victims as opposed to perpetrators. Just something that we need to consider when addressing the issue of involuntary commitment.

[DinoDoc]

I don't dispute that article at all. I'm not saying that the mental ill aren't more likely to be perpetrators of violent crime; I'm saying they are even more likely to be victims as opposed to perpetrators. Just something that we need to consider when addressing the issue of involuntary commitment.

Why aren't you interested in saving the lives of children?

[kentonio]

Yes, but not in the same way you are. I have no real issue with background checks. I do have an issue with concentrating on the millions of legal gun owners who have never committed a crime versus concentrating on getting treatment for mentally unstable people who are likely to become violent.

This is such a dishonest argument. Let's say that a hundred of those 'millions of legal gun owners who have never committed a crime' go out tomorrow and each shoot up a school. Then you would simply say that they are now 'mentally unstable'. You folks have built yourself a great no-lose argument, you must be very proud.

[DaShi]

Congrats on completely missing the point, Plato!

I don't think increased gun control is a particularly effective solution for school massacres either, but posts like this are so obtuse that they damage your position, instead of helping it.

It, however, may help reduce the numerous other incidents of gun violence that take the lives of so many Americans each year.

[DaShi]

Why aren't you interested in saving the lives of children?

As a conservative, you are more likely to engage in domestic terrorism.