Mental Health Crisis for Today's Youth

[falafel]

After we get rid of Roe, let's get rid of Heller next. When you say "This will absolutely not be fixed by highly politicized and emotional political response", that is pure bullshit. Your people have been using that tactic for decades to overturn Roe, and they are now on the cusp of victory, however tragic. Apparently highly politicized, emotional responses work. Effective gun control isn't going to happen in a year or even five, but that doesn't mean we give up and make no effort to push back the pendulum.

Cool, just another 50 years and Heller will be gone!

[Jeff Lebowski]

After we get rid of Roe, let's get rid of Heller next. When you say "This will absolutely not be fixed by highly politicized and emotional political response", that is pure bullshit. Your people have been using that tactic for decades to overturn Roe, and they are now on the cusp of victory, however tragic. Apparently highly politicized, emotional responses work. Effective gun control isn't going to happen in a year or even five, but that doesn't mean we give up and make no effort to push back the pendulum.

Fascinating to see people switch sides of the table from the abortion debate to the gun debate.

[USUC]

After we get rid of Roe, let's get rid of Heller next. When you say "This will absolutely not be fixed by highly politicized and emotional political response", that is pure bullshit. Your people have been using that tactic for decades to overturn Roe, and they are now on the cusp of victory, however tragic. Apparently highly politicized, emotional responses work. Effective gun control isn't going to happen in a year or even five, but that doesn't mean we give up and make no effort to push back the pendulum.

My people? I don't think I have ever stated my stance on abortion or Roe v Wade here before. But if you insinuating that I am a conservative, let me set the record straight that I am not.

But on the merits of your statement here, let me push back on something. First off, Roe has not yet been overturned. It most likely will, and it may well be overturned exactly the way Alito's early draft, but as of right now Roe is still in place. And I disagree that the highly politicized and emotional political response changed anything in the abortion debate. People's opinions of abortion have remained consistent for decades. No amount of hysteria from pro-lifers changed that. What has changed this is 50 years of efforts by conservatives and the Fed Society to finally get enough conservatives on the court to revisit Roe. Before Trump, liberals have been in the majority of the supreme court for close to a century. This was the culmination of years and years of defeats and slow incremental progress. But no hyper partisan pro lifer ever changed the opinion of a pro choicer. If nothing else it just politized and radicalized the other side more.

Look, I realize that my viewpoint of politics isn't popular on an overwhelming centrist to center left site. But I try to be as philosophically consistent as I can (although every human is a hypocrite). I am prone to do-nothingism and I believe that do-somethingism almost always results in unintended consequences worse than doing nothing and almost always infringes on people's civil liberties. I am a big believer in process and averse to the ends justifying the means. My take is that these types of mass shootings are a social contagion and we should attack the problem looking at it from that prism.

[Jeff Lebowski]

My people? I don't think I have ever stated my stance on abortion or Roe v Wade here before. But if you insinuating that I am a conservative, let me set the record straight that I am not.

But on the merits of your statement here, let me push back on something. First off, Roe has not yet been overturned. It most likely will, and it may well be overturned exactly the way Alito's early draft, but as of right now Roe is still in place. And I disagree that the highly politicized and emotional political response changed anything in the abortion debate. People's opinions of abortion have remained consistent for decades. No amount of hysteria from pro-lifers changed that. What has changed this is 50 years of efforts by conservatives and the Fed Society to finally get enough conservatives on the court to revisit Roe. Before Trump, liberals have been in the majority of the supreme court for close to a century. This was the culmination of years and years of defeats and slow incremental progress. But no hyper partisan pro lifer ever changed the opinion of a pro choicer. If nothing else it just politized and radicalized the other side more.

Look, I realize that my viewpoint of politics isn't popular on an overwhelming centrist to center left site. But I try to be as philosophically consistent as I can (although every human is a hypocrite). I am prone to do-nothingism and I believe that do-somethingism almost always results in unintended consequences worse than doing nothing and almost always infringes on people's civil liberties. I am a big believer in process and averse to the ends justifying the means. My take is that these types of mass shootings are a social contagion and we should attack the problem looking at it from that prism.

For the record, I really value your political observations. You are a very thoughtful poster.

[USUC]

[QUOTE=Applejack;n2250555]

The bolded portion of your comment says that you are angry at democrats (progressives) for not focusing on mental health. That is a wacky thing to be mad about after the umpteenth mass shooting at a school. By a guy that had no history of mental illness.

And who is talking about "bankrupting companies due to political vendettas?" All I am arguing is that we remove the barriers to suing the gun industry for liability; it's not hard. Every other company deals with liability for negligence; were you upset that the tobacco companies went bankrupt? how about the pharmaceutical companies that pushed opioids that they knew were addictive on middle america? Tort law is a GOOD THING! It keeps companies in line.

And to your question of why the manufacture of arms is different than the manufacture of other tools, one answer is that only one type of manufacturer is shielded from civil liability....(wait for it)......the gun people! Why? Because they have an uber-powerful lobby which has half of the senate in their pocket.

This individual had no mental health issues? Have you not read the multiple stories out today about his troubled behavior over the past few years? Are we defining mental health issues differently?

Again, I don't have much to say on tort law. I don't know enough about it to have a strong take. In my mind, it does seem weird to lump in the gun industry with tobacco or pharmaceutical companies. Both of those companies deliberately mislead their customers about the product. I don't see how a gun manufacturer can be held liable for a product that an individual misused. Again, can a car manufacturer be held liable for the Christmas parade massacre a few years back? It seems dangerous to bring politically motivated lawsuits to try to enact a policy change that they can't do otherwise. I suspect this is why the law was initially put in place.

And just another little pet peeve. You talk as if the gun lobby is the reason that America loves its guns and that it controls the GOP as opposed to the fact that there are a lot of people who love guns and love the second amendment and vote accordingly.

[Jeff Lebowski]

[QUOTE=USUC;n2250575]

This individual had no mental health issues? Have you not read the multiple stories out today about his troubled behavior over the past few years? Are we defining mental health issues differently?

I think the point is that he was not diagnosed or being treated for mental health issues in a way that would have shown up on any official records, had a mental health background check been done.

[USUC]

[QUOTE=Jeff Lebowski;n2250578]

I think the point is that he was not diagnosed or being treated for mental health issues in a way that would have shown up on any official records, had a mental health background check been done.

I suspect this may be part of the problem in this case, but I have no idea the accuracy in the stories coming out right now. I should probably wait and see before making too many assumptions. The WaPo story today stated that the police had been at his house several times in the past year (although it could have been the result of his mother's behavior) and that he had been in fist fights and made disturbing comments to peers. He was clearly at risk given his environment and his behavior probably should have raised red flags.

Also, I hear that in Texas (maybe everywhere) that juvenile criminal records are expunged when they turn 18. Is this true? If he had a record of violence and it was expunged, that is kind of a problem. But I can't imagine that actually happens.

[falafel]

Again, I don't have much to say on tort law. I don't know enough about it to have a strong take. In my mind, it does seem weird to lump in the gun industry with tobacco or pharmaceutical companies. Both of those companies deliberately mislead their customers about the product. I don't see how a gun manufacturer can be held liable for a product that an individual misused. Again, can a car manufacturer be held liable for the Christmas parade massacre a few years back? It seems dangerous to bring politically motivated lawsuits to try to enact a policy change that they can't do otherwise. I suspect this is why the law was initially put in place.

Generally speaking, all companies and individuals are subject to being held responsible for their negligence or intentional acts. Very few people are exempt or partially shielded from tort law, and that is usually because we consider those individuals or companies or services to be so important that we don't want to jeopardize them by exposing them to liability for doing their jobs. Government generally is exempt (but sometimes they voluntarily allow themselves to be liable up to a certain amount). Doctors are sometimes given a cap on liability.

Why are gun manufacturers so integral or important to our society that they are shielded from tort liability? If they are subject to the same liability as other companies (say car manufacturers, who I would argue are more important to society and the country than gun makers), they will adapt and find ways to make sure their products are as safe as possible and are not used in negligent or dangerous ways (to the extent that is possible).

[falafel]

Also, I hear that in Texas (maybe everywhere) that juvenile criminal records are expunged when they turn 18. Is this true? If he had a record of violence and it was expunged, that is kind of a problem. But I can't imagine that actually happens.

Probably just sealed. It wouldn't be gone, it just wouldn't be public information. Although it could probably be expunged, depending on the crime, if a person asked the court to expunge it later.

[Non Sequitur]

For the record, I really value your political observations. You are a very thoughtful poster.

I would second that. USUC is a smart and thoughtful poster, which is why it pains me when I read posts about gun control that echo the idea that nothing can be done to reduce the proliferation of guns because there are already too many guns among us. It seems a timid stance.

[USUC]

Probably just sealed. It wouldn't be gone, it just wouldn't be public information. Although it could probably be expunged, depending on the crime, if a person asked the court to expunge it later.

Would this sealed record show up in a background check after his 18th birthday?

[falafel]

Would this sealed record show up in a background check after his 18th birthday?

Nope. But law enforcement would (theoretically) have access to it.

[USUC]

I would second that. USUC is a smart and thoughtful poster, which is why it pains me when I read posts about gun control that echo the idea that nothing can be done to reduce the proliferation of guns because there are already too many guns among us. It seems a timid stance.

Thank you both. I have frustrated many people by my generally do nothing stance in politics. I've had a lot of spirited political conversations with my friends and family. It's funny you say it's a timid stance, because my dad would often say the same thing. Although he was on the opposite political spectrum as you.

Oddly enough, I wish I was more do-nothing in my own life because I too often try to affect outcomes that are uncontrollable.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I would second that. USUC is a smart and thoughtful poster, which is why it pains me when I read posts about gun control that echo the idea that nothing can be done to reduce the proliferation of guns because there are already too many guns among us. It seems a timid stance.

Maybe it is a rational stance.