• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

DC Navy Yard Shootings

TownieDeac said:
Jesus, I'm not sure where to begin with all the stupid in this post.

We still need to be tolerant and accepting of people with mental health problems. That's not politically correct, that's basic human decency. Mental illness is still an enormous taboo in this country. An analogy I heard recently is, which would you rather tell your friends/family: "I had a hard time getting out of bed this morning because I hurt my back" or "I had a hard time getting out of bed this morning because of my depression"?

Mental health is absolutely a facet of physical health, and it's something that most people, clearly 2&2 included, are grossly misinformed, undereducated, or simply ignorant about.

There is a level of nuance between saying "dude is a nut" about someone, and expressing genuine concern for their well-being, and alerting proper authorities if you think someone poses a real threat to others because of a mental health problem.

Like most things, this starts at home. For a long time, we didn't have a good medical grasp on mental health problems (to a large extent we still don't), and we'd dismiss depression as people being sad or hysterical, and anxiety attacks as fainting. People tend to think that nowadays because SSRIs and benzodiazepines (for anxiety and depression) and amphetamines (for ADD/ADHD) are overprescribed that the national issue of mental health is overblown; it has become a real boy-who-cried-wolf for people with very real mental health problems.

Then, there are people like 2&2, who clearly think we still need to be marginalizing those with mental health problems, treating them as subhuman. Mental health is a spectrum; it can change over time, develop overnight, be affected by events in life, and be treated and managed.
Click to expand...

You missed my point completely, it has nothing to do with marginalizing anyone. It has to do with the fact that most most mentally ill people would not self-report themselves as mentally ill (either because of their illness or otherwise). So in order to start the treatment, someone else has to do it for them. Which is increasingly harder when there is no baseline "normal" behavior from which the other person can measure. Is someone mentally ill or just "unique" or eccentric? How does the layman make that call, especially with the fear or being labeled an intollerant bigot (currently the worst of our societal sins) for a variety of reasons if they get it wrong?
 
There is clearly a misunderstanding somewhere in your brain about this 2&2, so let me be unequivocal. As perhaps the bloodiest of all bleeding heart liberals on this board, you will NOT be labeled intolerant or a bigot if you genuinely attempt to give a person with mental health problems help.
 
iodeac said:
When I was in grad school, our stats professor taught using a data set from a study comparing responses to someone who reported either a back injury or a nervous breakdown, and I think almost every metric cast the back injury response in a much more positive light than the nervous breakdown. It's sad how much of a stigma there is regarding mental illnesses in society, and there are probably lots of people who never even speak up about needing help because of reactions from their friends or family that they anticipate.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The stigma exists on the side of people with mental health problems, and is often a barrier to getting them the kinds of help they need. It's not, as 2&2 suggests, a problem of stigmatizing those who would try to help people in need.
 
TownieDeac said:
There is clearly a misunderstanding somewhere in your brain about this 2&2, so let me be unequivocal. As perhaps the bloodiest of all bleeding heart liberals on this board, you will NOT be labeled intolerant or a bigot if you genuinely attempt to give a person with mental health problems help.
Click to expand...

Seriously? Have you ever sat through a contested incompetency proceeding? In almost every one I've ever seen, there is at least one person (often in addition to the afflicted person) who does not want to see him/her get treatement. And they come up with every name and every excuse under the sun as to why the person attempting to initiate treatment has an alterior motive against him.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Seriously? Have you ever sat through a contested incompetency proceeding? In almost every one I've ever seen, there is at least one person (often in addition to the afflicted person) who does not want to see him/her get treatement. And they come up with every name and every excuse under the sun as to why the person attempting to initiate treatment has an alterior motive against him.
Click to expand...

This is a fair exception to my rule. Obviously there are circumstances where people will not want treatment. I think everything else I said before that still stands. Plus, let's take the risk of someone calling you intolerant or a bigot if it means getting someone the help they need or drawing attention to a troubled individual.

The general sentiment I was trying to impart from the beginning is more important to me than continuing to quibble with 2&2. We need a more frank, open, and educated discussion about mental health in this country.
 
Liquid Karma said:
If you roll with a concealed carry, I have a hard time believing you are a "gentle" guy.
Click to expand...

I have a CHL, own guns, voted for Obama twice (and Gore and Clinton), hate stupid wars, want to help (most) mentally ill people, want to keep (all) mentally ill people from killing other people more, don't think people need to own machine guns, think Ted Nugent is an idiot, think people who believe banning all guns is going to magically solve any problem are also idiots, and dislike people who look for excuses in lieu of accepting some personal responsibility...

and I consider myself a reasonably gentle guy.

The problem with this (and many) debates is that the only voices that get heard are those from the extremes.
 
Here is an excellent podcast from Radiolab that explores the concepts of blame and culpability. Seemed pertinent to the direction this thread is heading.
 
OK....OK....I take back the comment about concealed carry. I was wrong on that front.
 
In the 'Oh, shit, somebody done fucked up' dept.


Multiple sources in the Capitol Police department have told the BBC that its highly trained and heavily armed four-man Containment and Emergency Response Team (Cert) was near the Navy Yard when the initial report of an active shooter came in about 8:20 local time. The officers, wearing full tactical gear and armed with HK-416 assault weapons, arrived outside Building 197 a few minutes later, an official with knowledge of the incident told the BBC.

According to a Capitol Police source, an officer with the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD), Washington DC's main municipal force, told the Capitol Cert officers they were the only police on the site equipped with long guns and requested their help stopping the gunman. When the Capitol Police team radioed their superiors, they were told by a watch commander to leave the scene, the BBC was told.

Capitol Police Officer Jim Konczos, who leads the officers' union, said the Cert police train for what are known as active shooter situations and are expert marksmen. "Odds are it might have had a different outcome," he said of Monday's shooting and the decision to order the Cert unit to stand down. "It probably could have been neutralised."


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/24153252
 
CHillDeac said:
In the 'Oh, shit, somebody done fucked up' dept.


Multiple sources in the Capitol Police department have told the BBC that its highly trained and heavily armed four-man Containment and Emergency Response Team (Cert) was near the Navy Yard when the initial report of an active shooter came in about 8:20 local time. The officers, wearing full tactical gear and armed with HK-416 assault weapons, arrived outside Building 197 a few minutes later, an official with knowledge of the incident told the BBC.

According to a Capitol Police source, an officer with the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD), Washington DC's main municipal force, told the Capitol Cert officers they were the only police on the site equipped with long guns and requested their help stopping the gunman. When the Capitol Police team radioed their superiors, they were told by a watch commander to leave the scene, the BBC was told.

Capitol Police Officer Jim Konczos, who leads the officers' union, said the Cert police train for what are known as active shooter situations and are expert marksmen. "Odds are it might have had a different outcome," he said of Monday's shooting and the decision to order the Cert unit to stand down. "It probably could have been neutralised."


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/24153252
Click to expand...

I call BS on the last quote. All reports I've read is that the shooter was dead within 10 minutes of the first call, and most (if not all) of his victims were shot before police responded.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top