Skip to main content

View Diary: Abbreviated Pundit Round-up: Seriously, how many battles are the GOP preparing to lose? (96 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  OK... I am having a rough time..... (5+ / 0-)

    First, I have a really crazy lady client that I must deal with in groups.

    honestly, she's a fun person and I truly like her....but JESUS....she is NUTS! High-quality stuff.

    Earlier this week, had her in group. She waits for ANY lapse in the conversation to lauch into her rants predicated on huge selusions of persecution. She manages to have conspiracies against her and her family that involve God, Jesus, Satan, the White House, Jimmy Carter AND Hitler, all in 1-2 sentences.

    So she was going off on one of these tireades and it morphed....into the lyrics for "Fool for the city" by Foghat....

    I love my client but I can't handle her  - 60+ years of age and 1 tooth sticking out - reciting classic rock lyrics.... I just can't.

    Also can't handle a Republican named LOONEY who speaks rationally about thundersticks.

    My brain hurts.

    The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

    by xxdr zombiexx on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 04:48:34 AM PST

    •  I have a question, xxdr zombiexx (5+ / 0-)

      As a clinical pro, do you think there's a way to develop regulations to reliably exclude the mentally ill from legal gun ownership, or are we kidding ourselves when we think/talk about "gun control" in that way?

      “Social Security has nothing to do with balancing a budget or erasing or lowering the deficit.” -- Ronald Reagan, 1984 debate with Walter Mondale

      by RJDixon74135 on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 05:10:43 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think we already have 'some' - perhaps someone (7+ / 0-)

        in the know can shed some light on that.

        I have little doubt that screening tools can be enhanced - sort of a national database adding insights into the screening forms over time. (Insights being something like useful information gleaned from exhaustive reviews of these massacre-style incidents.

        But in a way, it is all about language. One of the vehemently anti-gun folks is promoting a scare-mongering and rather offensive tactic of pleading with the government to keep guns "out of the hands of  America's 50000 'paranoid schizophrenics", a rude and generally offensive term that denigrates some amazing sick and usually very poor people. I kinda think that's a recipe for being discounted, at least on this kind of issue.

        that said, I do fully believe a lot of people are hurting and traumatized by these events and Sandy Hook in glaring particularity is hardening resolve to do something.

        I think we can put a lot more pressure on people who want to own guns to secure them as a way to curtail thefts AND accidents. people DO, I think, very often get lackadaisical about gun security and that's why we have so  many accidents.

        We cannot stop these sorts of events wherein a person with some sort of disturbance (or whatever people want to lable it) who intend to do certain things. We could stop one that we'd never know about and still suffer others.

        While the anti-gun people don't like hearing this, guns don't shoot themselves. They just don't. This is how we can have 88 guns per 100 adults in America without having 88 murders per 100 adults. MOST people do not hurt others with their guns.

        So what makes 1 person in 20 million go off? How are we supposed to predict them?

        These events such as Sandy Hook, Colombine, Aurora and even the Brevic massacre in Norway represent the actions of one or two people, who planned their crimes in private, over time.

        I think it is important to remember as we find ways of improving things that gun owner does NOT equal "mass murderer" and that "mentally ill" does not mean "about to kill you".

        then we have the 'emotionally impulsive issue' - the people who shoot their spouses for cheating, for example: a 'crime of passion'. we're they nuts when they shot the wife or the husband or the cheating spouse?

        I'm not comfortable calling them "not guilty by reason of insanity' any more than I would want a drunk let off for a killing "because I was drunk'.

        The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

        by xxdr zombiexx on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 05:29:44 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  thanks for this. I've said since the beginning (6+ / 0-)

          that if we want to do something to actually reduce the level of gun violence and deaths in this country, we ought to first and logically identify the cause of the majority of those deaths.

          While the mass murders are shocking, they are uncommon. The very next day, just as many people were killed with firearms. Probably even some were minors.

          Whatever we do to reduce the incidence of mass shootings, we must understand, will mostly be symbolic. I'm okay with symbolism. I think it can be important in society. But we will probably still see mass shootings nonetheless and overall the number of gun deaths will not be dented as a result.

          Domestic disturbances like the ones that happen everyday in homes across the country are the leading cause of these deaths. And, if we're honest, we'll admit that the gun shooting part is not usually the first sign of abuse. But it's often the last. We have far more gun deaths that look like the one that took Marvin Gaye out than we have of the ones that disabled Congresswoman Gifford or killed those schoolchildren in Connecticut.

          These are the base facts. Maybe someone with too many assault convictions or domestic violence charges ought to be disallowed from owning a gun period. Those are the people most  likely to use a gun irrationally and kill someone.

          •  How many times does a lady take out a restraining (6+ / 0-)

            order on her stalker boyfriend/ex-hubby and end up dead?

            Quite often. It's a PATTERN. Here in Georgia, at least.

            If a judge can rule that somebody has been 'stalking' and a restraining order CAN be granted, that guy should be under extra scrutiny. It would make sense to review their ability to own firearms to ensure the safety of the woman as the restraining orders clearly fail to protect people when their stalker/aggressor has no intentions of following the law.

            But no: American Law Enforcement is far more concerned about me smoking pot in my shop at night.

            The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

            by xxdr zombiexx on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 05:58:28 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  A Domestic Violence conviction (6+ / 0-)

              precludes legal ownership of firearms.

              http://www.atf.gov/...

              •  But prior to the conviction? (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                43north, Calamity Jean, mdmslle

                Guy went smashing through his wife's window a couple years ago and shot her to death. She had sought a divorce and he made threats. Restraining order issued.

                Rest is history.

                Conversely, I knew of a lady in North Georgia who's husband was stalking her after she filed for divorce. She kept a gun for protection.

                He charged her late one night as she got home from work. She ventilated him.  

                It would be nice - unconstitutional perhaps - but desirable to have people who are the focus of a restraining order to have their weapons somehow impounded for the duration of the order.

                Though, of course many of those will just use another gun.

                Where there is a will....

                The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

                by xxdr zombiexx on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 08:09:49 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I agree, and have dealt with D.V. for years (5+ / 0-)

                  You'd hate to be dispatched to a known address.
                  Fuck.  Again?

                  I think it would be reasonable to have all guns put into a bailment situation, while a divorce is pending.
                  A part of the divorce adjudication, I believe both spouses should be interviewed, and suitability for return of firearms established.  While it's fresh and raw.

                  It won't end the "borrow a gun" or buy something on the black market, nor charge through the door with a baseball bat.
                  (Ventilation of the assailant evidently worked.)

                  It might eliminate the worst offenders, and add them to the list of persons denied via the NICS.

            •  exactly. a person prone to violence and with (0+ / 0-)

              impulse control issues is a person who is...prone to violence and has impulse control issues.

              It's completely predictable.

              A guy who can beat me until I need to be hospitalized will also shoot me. This is not a surprise and we've studied domestic violence enough that we understand perpetrators (men and women) and victims very very well. We understand the escalation continuum enough that we even are able to warn women (mostly women, but also men) of warning signs that your partner or mate might be an abusive person.

              It's NEVER a shock when we learn that some husband or wife or boyfriend or girlfriend is now dead. Friends and family (and sometime neighbors) witness escalating violence first hand. these are the folks who should be kept from guns. It wont solve the problem. These abusers will use anything. But we would see gun death go down.

        •  Exactly and very few paranoid schizophrenics (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          xxdr zombiexx, 43north, Calamity Jean

          have violent tendencies. I worry more about accidental or deliberate overdoses of medications or when they refuse to comply with their medication schedules.

          But having worked with schizophrenics and now with my sister in law being one,  I see very few violent tendencies or thoughts that are violent even when she has decompensated somewhat.   We worry more about her taking off and becoming homeless. She is stable now and complying but she has a caseworker and therapist who are both quite good and keep tabs on her and assess her regularly in  addition to her VA psychiatrist.

          My friend  lives with her schizophrenic sister and she gets so upset when people fear her sister who is now a woman over 60 and very sweet and mostly docile.  She says she hates that the media portray the mentally ill as mostly violent when the opposite is often true, especially among women.

          Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

          by wishingwell on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 06:03:29 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  yeah...it costs money to treat people effectively (7+ / 0-)

            Jobs have to be created.

            It's why America hates mental health.

            Americans are happier, it seems, cutting mental health funding.

            They have been cutting it my entire life - I am surprised there's a nickle left for mental illness treatment.

            So yeah, she's doing well because she has plenty of support.

            And this is why I want to encourage people to use the term "person with mental illness" versus 'paranoid schizophrenic'.

            they are still real people with names and lives and problems.

            The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

            by xxdr zombiexx on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 06:20:28 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes, my dh and I have a friend who was (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              xxdr zombiexx, 43north, DSPS owl

              diagnosed about 40 years ago with paranoid schizoprenia. He's explained how hurtful it is to him to be labeled "a paranoid schizophrenic," or worse, "a schizo" as his mother refers to him. His analogy is that we would never label a person who has cancer as "a canceric" or "a canceroid." In the case of a person with cancer, we can all clearly differentiate between the person and a disease the person has. He feels we should be able to do the same wrt a person with a mental illness.

              Good on you, dr zombie, for agreeing to work with a person with schizophrenia. My dh and I have another friend who is a clinical neuropsychologist with two post docs working on schizophrenia. He wouldn't do what you're doing. So, allow me to thank you on her behalf in the likely case that she doesn't.

              “Social Security has nothing to do with balancing a budget or erasing or lowering the deficit.” -- Ronald Reagan, 1984 debate with Walter Mondale

              by RJDixon74135 on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 07:43:27 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Doc usually does what others are unwilling to do (4+ / 0-)

                Back in the 80s, it was workign with teenagers. Nobody wanted to do it, but I was good at it and it was 'job security'.

                Now, a lot of 'professional counselors' want to work with the "worried well": people who are high functioning, employed, pay their bills and aren't about to commit suicide, but they are really anxious. Counselors can meet with them is posh offices and have warm human conversations and pat themselves on the back but they HATE working with genuinely t0 disasterously ill people.

                can't always have that awesome deep conversation with them.

                It's real work.

                The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

                by xxdr zombiexx on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 07:49:01 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

    •  I can ease your sore brain on one count (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mdmslle, Laconic Lib

      Martin Looney is no Republican.  He's a Democrat from New Haven, where they don't elect Republicans.

      "Ears have walls." - Graffiti, Paris 1968

      by houndcat on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 05:21:20 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  "Air pollution, here I come........" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      xxdr zombiexx

      "Michael Moore, who was filming a movie about corporate welfare called 'Capitalism: A Love Story,' sought and received incentives."

      by Bush Bites on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 05:28:44 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I can so relate, about 20 yrs ago, I was a (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      xxdr zombiexx

      behavior therapist in a residential setting for the mentally ill.  Lapses in conversations were difficult as the delusional clients would take that chance to share their delusional conspiracy theories and paranoia.  I was told by my bossy to try to steer the conversation back into more sane territory even if that meant discussing a trivial matter for a while.  But it was very difficult to do. It was not an easy job.  

      Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

      by wishingwell on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 05:59:51 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I enjoy it, for the most part. Group therapy (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wishingwell

        is a real forte of mine.

        All you can do is try to steer the ship back to shore....

        The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

        by xxdr zombiexx on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 06:22:09 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site