Yes, I hope there is someone with a gun to protect me if needed, but I hope more that there's never anyone with a gun that I have to be protected against--like the Ex-Vietnam war sniper that had severe PTSD and had numerous discussions with his VA therapist that he wanted to kill other people including his ex-wife whom I was representing and who threatened to kill me.
This man had 19 guns in his arsenal, several of them assault weapons, a son convicted of attempted murder after using one, and there was and is nothing we could do about it due to the Patient-Doctor privilege, what a particular state saw as a lack of evidence, and due to the fact that the two had been divorced for many years.
Or maybe like the numerous clients I have that can't access mental health care on a regular basis who, after they had some other crisis, and are hospitalized or are in jail, go through the cycle of getting meds, stabilizing, being released into the community, functioning for a while but not getting health care, decompensating, becoming homeless and then starting the whole process over again.
No, I don't want to take away your guns--you may be sane--I have a gun, I hunted, I was trained by the NRA, I served in the military and I have dealt with many situations involving violent people with violent histories. I want a rational discussion that seeks balance with a three pronged approach of adequate security, rationale gun ownership and gun type oversight, and a comprehensive mental health care system.
I don't want to live in either a police state or in a community were the psychologically challenged have easy access to a gun. The simplistic and shallow hallmark portraitures that people post up as their perceived reflection of truth and reality add nothing to the conversation.
The military, my own training, my experience has taught me this truth: if a psychologically disturbed person wants to kill you and wants to do it with a gun, they usually will succeed because the element of surprise trumps the men, women or teachers with the gun in their holster, desk or gun cabinet. But yes, they can minimize the damage.
The argument that they could do it just as easily with a car, knife, bomb etc is almost meritless. My training has also taught me that if that is their choice, they will be more likely to fail than with a gun. That is why most of us don't hunt with bombs, cars, knives or poison. A gun is readily available, easy to use, quick and efficiently lethal--that's why most psychopaths, the suicidal, the criminal, the mentally unstable, the passionately enraged also hunt/kill with a gun. If a deranged mentally ill enraged person runs to their closet to pick something to kill you with, if therein lies a bomb, a knife, a bat, some rat poisoning and a gun--they'll probably pick the gun. That is the reality people. If a few lives are saved a year because persons with a known proclivity to violence or a troubled mental health history are unable to purchase or obtain a gun or because a person with a mental health challenge is able to access mental health care--that is a worthy goal despite the fact that others would still die in gun related violence.
No perfection on this issue can be achieved because any such solution that tries to appease the extremes of either side would invariably be unduly ineffective, too intrusive, too expensive or utterly tyrannical.
Loren M. Lambert © December 29, 2012
This man had 19 guns in his arsenal, several of them assault weapons, a son convicted of attempted murder after using one, and there was and is nothing we could do about it due to the Patient-Doctor privilege, what a particular state saw as a lack of evidence, and due to the fact that the two had been divorced for many years.
Or maybe like the numerous clients I have that can't access mental health care on a regular basis who, after they had some other crisis, and are hospitalized or are in jail, go through the cycle of getting meds, stabilizing, being released into the community, functioning for a while but not getting health care, decompensating, becoming homeless and then starting the whole process over again.
No, I don't want to take away your guns--you may be sane--I have a gun, I hunted, I was trained by the NRA, I served in the military and I have dealt with many situations involving violent people with violent histories. I want a rational discussion that seeks balance with a three pronged approach of adequate security, rationale gun ownership and gun type oversight, and a comprehensive mental health care system.
I don't want to live in either a police state or in a community were the psychologically challenged have easy access to a gun. The simplistic and shallow hallmark portraitures that people post up as their perceived reflection of truth and reality add nothing to the conversation.
The military, my own training, my experience has taught me this truth: if a psychologically disturbed person wants to kill you and wants to do it with a gun, they usually will succeed because the element of surprise trumps the men, women or teachers with the gun in their holster, desk or gun cabinet. But yes, they can minimize the damage.
The argument that they could do it just as easily with a car, knife, bomb etc is almost meritless. My training has also taught me that if that is their choice, they will be more likely to fail than with a gun. That is why most of us don't hunt with bombs, cars, knives or poison. A gun is readily available, easy to use, quick and efficiently lethal--that's why most psychopaths, the suicidal, the criminal, the mentally unstable, the passionately enraged also hunt/kill with a gun. If a deranged mentally ill enraged person runs to their closet to pick something to kill you with, if therein lies a bomb, a knife, a bat, some rat poisoning and a gun--they'll probably pick the gun. That is the reality people. If a few lives are saved a year because persons with a known proclivity to violence or a troubled mental health history are unable to purchase or obtain a gun or because a person with a mental health challenge is able to access mental health care--that is a worthy goal despite the fact that others would still die in gun related violence.
No perfection on this issue can be achieved because any such solution that tries to appease the extremes of either side would invariably be unduly ineffective, too intrusive, too expensive or utterly tyrannical.
Loren M. Lambert © December 29, 2012
No comments:
Post a Comment