Do you think psychiatric care is inadequate in the US?

neurorn6 · Dec 17, 2012

Once upon a time I start my career working in a state mental instituation. In fact, I was working there in the late 70's when it became popular to "deinstitutionalize" these patients. The hospital was clean, our patients wore clean clothes (their own), their had clean beds, good food (we ate the same), dental care, medical care (even specialized), there were birthday parties, holiday parties, religious events, they went shopping, they could work and get paid if they were capable. They went to the barber, the beauty salon, and oh yes, they recieved medications and help from trained personnel for their mental illness.

They weren't sleeping on the streets, eating out of garbage bins, covered with bugs, made fun of, they were treated with respect and care. So you tell me, how did closing our mental hospital help our society? Closing these doors helped no one. Yes, there are horror stories, but not as many as you may think. Sometimes, we must rethink a position and return to an orginal idea to help those in need.

A 72 hour hold in a hospital does nothing. Too many times, these individuals are released, just to return without getting the help they need.

Guest343211 · Dec 17, 2012

*** Not to mention that what the media calls "assault weapons" are not fundamentaly different in function than hundreds of firearms not labled "assault weapons". What ends up happening is that certain firearms get "banned" (well not really, at no time during the last federal "assault weapons" ban were the "banned" weapons unavailable for sale at the local gun shop, same for high capasity magazines, hough he cost of them did go up) based on purely cosmetic grounds.

But you know it will go down on the side of mega gun control. Little kids, pretty close to babies, were killed, and people will react with what they think is action that will make a difference. The only difference that will be made is that good, responsible people will lose yet another freedom. It's moving in that direction. The NRA knows this. This is why they closed down their site, at least in part. My fear is that something more sinister is going on here. What to do about it???? I can only pray, and try to pray. People are not wise as to how the world and politics works nowadays. Sadly they don't really care, so they are not involved enough. One person posted twitter responses on line where people were harping about news coverage of this disgusting tragedy interfering with their ability to watch Ellen. Come on.

Beyond that, most will be reactionary. Now the dissections, once again, of the second amendment will begin. Re-constructionists will speak about how the 2nd amendment no longer applies in the same way, and people will, once again, not heed the words of George Washington about government, and how to help ensure it does exert undue control and power over its people. Many don't even know what his position was on that. He was not simply talking about the British. He was talking about government, any kind of government in general when he wrote:

[h=1]"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action."[/h]

But what people will swear is responsible action will supplant true responsibility. True responsibility relies upon individual freedom, and the ability of people to maintain such freedom, apart from administrative dominance.

People believe whatever the media puts out. They are not seeing that the core of our society is incredibly corrupt and it is now all about moving away from a truly free system for its people. I will go as far as to say that the America dream, which is more than about making a decent living and life for yourself and family--but is about true freedom in all regards of decent human existence, is pretty much over.

The government "must" do something, they will chant. And with every step of compelling and coalescing to government controls, more freedom will be lost. Healthy, responsible, moral people are not the ones acting out in evil ways. Gun laws will restrict the liberties and autonomy of free, moral, responsible people. Those that are not moral and responsible will subvert any laws. They could care less about law. So who gets penalized? The responsible people. Who is made less free and autonomous? The responsible, moral people. Who loses their ability to protect or defend themselves and their families? Who losses the ability to protect themselves even from the dangers of nature? Not everyone lives in settings where they are not hindered by wild animals, such as bears or even gators. And should food become more scarce, as it may, sometime in the future, what people lose the right to obtain food on their own for survival? We forget these things, because we have become so dependent upon others and the systems, shaped and controlled to a great extent, by local and federal government. We won't always be able to dial 1800pizzapie should we be hungry and there is no food in the house. But we foolishly think it will always be as it has been, and this is not the future that stares us and our children in the face. People actually believe that those that think in such terms are somehow unstable. That is what is most pitiful here. We have never been truly hungry, nor have we had to protect ourselves against the withdrawal of normative behaviors for the sake of survival. We actually think we never have to experience this. And it strikes me as odd that many will not seriously consider the possibility that such changes could, indeed, occur. It's no different than t he person that thinks they don't need smoke detectors, since their houses will never catch fire. Anyone that has had any experience with any of Scout organizations will know the first lesson that is taught. "Always be prepared." But we are not a prepared people. Things will stay as they are. Funds will come from somewhere. We believe we have somehow evolved past being subjected to hunger, poverty, illness, crime, and corruption that those who lived through the Great Depression knew. We are no longer a people that learns from history, and it is hard to learn from that in which we are truly unschooled and unlearned.

The whole story regarding what transpired last Friday makes very little sense, and it's quite screwy. Short of divine intervention, we will never know what really transpired with regard to this unspeakable tragedy.

Disarming free, responsible Americans is not the answer, but it will be presented as such, and people will lay down and let it happen. We have moved away from self-sufficiency and moved into dependence on massive government and control. No government is free from the potential for evil domination--no human power is. That is why there must always be checks and balances. Washington and other founders knew this reality. Most Americans will not really get what we have given up until its too late.

And of course, anyone that speaks to address individual liberties and autonomy in such a fashion will be labeled as nuts, or religious wackos, paranoids, or whatever.

Massive taxation, increasing loss of free speech, and loss of the ability to defend or provide for ourselves--all these indicate major destruction of the existence of a truly free people.

Friday's events are sad day for many reasons. Frankly, I have been sick over the death of these children and people such that I am literally sick to my stomach. But I am also sick b/c I know what's going to come out of this, and it is not good for a free people. Saddest part is people will believe the Bandaid solutions, and they will let the loss of freedom happen.

Just one person's perspective.

As for 72 hour holds. . .this person didn't even get to that point. Things just don't add up here.

jadelpn, LPN, EMT-B · Dec 18, 2012

I saw on the news last evening that the person who did the shooting in CT was diagnosed as a person having Aspergers. Which is far, far different that being mentally ill.

I have been in the field for quite some time on a number of levels, and I can say that I am not 100% in favor of deinstutionalizing severly mentally ill people. On a case by case basis. Unfortunetely, when it became apparent that the institutions were filled with people who's families put them there for "nervous breakdowns" the path to deinstitutionalizing began.

Autism, on the other hand, is organic in nature, and therefore, is difficult and each person is affected differently. It,I believe, requires a "village raising a child" aspect that takes a lot of years of multi-level teaching depending on the severity.

The bottom line for me is a political debate that just touches about every "hot spot" of issues. Assault firearms accessible in a home. In a home with children. In a home with a child who is not "typical". Little services for a family who has a child who is not in control, is escalating, and a system that dumps as quick as it can with little follow up.

I am heartbroken at the thought of the families who lost their precious babies. I am so sorry that this devastation that has no words has to have people take pause and think about gun control, mental illness, Autism....and this brings to light what part of the system is broken--at the expense of other people's children. Constitutional rights vs. what one would honorably know to be true--meaning that unless one is in the military, a police officer, or some other agent--I personally do not believe one needs to have assault weapons in their home when the home has children in it.

May God bless all involved in this horrific incident.

PMFB-RN, RN · Dec 18, 2012

meaning that unless one is in the military, a police officer, or some other agent--I personally do not believe one needs to have assault weapons in their home when the home has children in it.

*** It would be helpful if there was some standardized definition so we could know what is being talked about. The term "assault weapon" was made up by the media and has no agreed definition. I don't really know what it means, but so far as I can tell it means "ugly gun" or "scary looking gun". The term "assault rifle" does have a definition but since hardly any firearms in cilivian hands would meet that definition the media started using "assualt weapons".

What is usually refered to by the (illinformed) media when the speak of "assault weapons" is usually something like the AR-15 or one of it's many clones like this:

Bushmaster - XM-15 Rifles

I understand they are ugly and appear to be the same (1950's technology) firearms we are used to see in the hands of our military. The fact is that in function they don't differ much, if at all from other firearms not usually refered to as "assault weapons" like this:

RugerÂ® Mini-14Â® Ranch Rifle Autoloading Rifle Models

What happens when there are bans on "assault weapons" like we had from 1994-2004 is that guns get banned for cosmetic reasons, meanwhile firearms with the same function remained widely available and not covered under the ban. In fact at no time during the 1994-2004 "assault weapons" ban were the banned firearms not immediatly available in nearly any sporting goods store or gun shop. Their price did go up however.

We already know that if a certain firearm is banned almost nobody is going to turn theirs in (we have examples of this from the state of California) and the authorities going door to door and taking them is not polliticaly or practably possible.

It's fine to share an opinion that certain people should not posess certain things, but it's not offering a realistic solution or partial solution.

wish_me_luck, BSN, RN · Dec 18, 2012

I think all people except mentally ill should be allowed hand guns, rifles for hunters that have a license and passed a background check only--those are the only people who need them, and other assault rifles and such if you are in the military and need it as part of the job or police force/SWAT team. Impose fines for people who are found to be irresponsible with fire arms, such as leaving them where mentally ill, children, etc. can gain access, especially if they know how to load a gun and shoot. I will admit though, I have a mental illness, my dad has a gun/I know where it is, but I don't know how to load or shoot a gun nor do I have a desire to know how. I want people to realize that some people with mental illness do not have a desire to do anything with a gun, even with access.

Long Term Care Columnist / Guide · Dec 18, 2012

I disagree. Not all people with a mental health diagnosis need to be banned from having firearms. If you really were to push that point, even people with occasional depression would be forbidden to own guns.......and if not, where do you draw the line?

I have a .38 and know how to use it, clean it, and store it responsibly. I also have a mental illness that's considered serious by the people who decide these things. Still, I'd hate for the State to decide arbitrarily that I'm a danger to society and confiscate my gun on the basis of my diagnosis. :down: But that's just me.

wish_me_luck, BSN, RN · Dec 19, 2012

Sorry, Viva. I think I might think that just because I have no interest in firearms...maybe those who have been compliant with treat for a minimum of a year? I don't know. I just don't have any interest in firearms, so I don't care if I don't have those privileges to obtain one.

jadelpn, LPN, EMT-B · Dec 19, 2012

My point is this. Any parent who has guns in their home need to take responsibility for them. That means securing them so that there is NO conceivable way another person can get to them, especially not one's kids, young adult kids, young adult kids who have questionable mental health or cognitive issues. And the elephant in the room-- this mother had NOT properly secured her weapons, at least one of which was a large multi-magazine machine gun (which I would define as an assault weapon)with a kid in the house, and this kid happend to have functional concerns. So unfortunetely, or not, depending on one's personal beliefs, there has to be some sort of control. And to be 100% truthful, I am really not sure why a suburban Mom in CT would need a large capacity weapon. (or why many would). People staying true to their rights to bear arms, but at what cost to the other percentage of people who are not responsible in this right? People's babies were massacred with a weapon that should have never seen the light of day by the one carrying it. There has got to be some stronger regulations.

PMFB-RN, RN · Dec 19, 2012

at least one of which was a large multi-magazine machine gun .

*** Machine gun? In no report I have seen was a machine gun mentioned or reported. Please give us a sourse for your claim.

Guest343211 · Dec 19, 2012

*** Machine gun? In no report I have seen was a machine gun mentioned or reported. Please give us a sourse for your claim.

Lol. Machine gun?

This reply is to the qoute that precedes the above quote.

This is a perfectly legal rifle. It's how you modify it that makes it legal or not. Restricting these will not stop violence. This has been proven. People are being reactionary?

Btw, if I want to go hunting in Alaska or Maine, a hand gun probably is not gonna work, depending upon what I am hunting. If I am camping in a number of areas, a hand gun is probably not gonna slow down a threatening bear that much, if at all. This is ALL about an AGENDA, which is to progressively limit rights that many elsewhere in the world do not have. People need to see what's going on here.

Such bans have not and will not stop or limit violence and death related To such violence.

Remember Oklahoma City bombing?

Dude used fertilizer, didn't he?

Gonna ban fertilizer?

jadelpn, LPN, EMT-B · Dec 19, 2012

Connecticut shooter used heavy-duty weapons registered to his mother to kill her and 25 others - NY Daily News

My apologies on the lack of knowledge on my part. A weapon that was capable of a 30 round magazine. Which I dunno, sounds to me like a significant weapon.

Just because it is legal, doesn't mean it is something one should run out and purchase when one has kids in the house. I said regulations and not banning, although what exactly does one use a gun capable of this destruction for??? Unless one is in the military. And even then, there's rules regarding proper storage and security.

Ah, yes, and the fertilizer issue....people who have less than honorable and perhaps evil intentions are everywhere. However, there's lots who don't have access to someone else's weaponry.

Music in My Heart · Dec 19, 2012

*** It would be helpful if there was some standardized definition so we could know what is being talked about. The term "assault weapon" was made up by the media and has no agreed definition. I don't really know what it means, but so far as I can tell it means "ugly gun" or "scary looking gun". The term "assault rifle" does have a definition but since hardly any firearms in cilivian hands would meet that definition the media started using "assualt weapons".
What is usually refered to by the (illinformed) media when the speak of "assault weapons" is usually something like the AR-15 or one of it's many clones like this:
Bushmaster - XM-15 Rifles
I understand they are ugly and appear to be the same (1950's technology) firearms we are used to see in the hands of our military. The fact is that in function they don't differ much, if at all from other firearms not usually refered to as "assault weapons" like this:
RugerÂ® Mini-14Â® Ranch Rifle Autoloading Rifle Models
What happens when there are bans on "assault weapons" like we had from 1994-2004 is that guns get banned for cosmetic reasons, meanwhile firearms with the same function remained widely available and not covered under the ban. In fact at no time during the 1994-2004 "assault weapons" ban were the banned firearms not immediatly available in nearly any sporting goods store or gun shop. Their price did go up however.
We already know that if a certain firearm is banned almost nobody is going to turn theirs in (we have examples of this from the state of California) and the authorities going door to door and taking them is not polliticaly or practably possible.
It's fine to share an opinion that certain people should not posess certain things, but it's not offering a realistic solution or partial solution.

Here, I'll give you a quick defnitition:

Gas-operated, magazine-fed or belt-fed, semi-automatic...

Get rid of those three elements and you'll have eliminated the weapons of primary concern, including the mini-14, as well as many handguns.

Go a step further and limit capacity to 5 rounds...

As far as people having to keep their weapons hidden, that means very little opportunity to practice with it and therefore much less skill and accuracy.

Restrictions on weapons is not the whole solution nor will it prevent such atrocities but I don't see that it can be rationally argued that it wouldn't reduce their number and severity.

Let's try it and see...