After shootings, GOP pivots to mental health reform

by
December 7, 2015

Republican leaders are turning to mental health reform in response to a pair of mass shootings in recent days, putting new focus on getting a bill passed despite concerns on both sides of the aisle and the divisiveness of the gun debate.

After mass shootings in Colorado and California, Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) cited the mental health reform bill from Rep. Tim Murphy (R-Pa.) throughout the week when questioned about the Republican response to gun violence.

In an interview with “CBS This Morning” on Thursday, Ryan was pressed about the shootings, with the Speaker responding that many of the shooters are mentally ill and therefore a reform of the mental health system is the right response.

  • Dave N.

    There are more than enough laws on the books to handle these situations, the fact is they are seldom enforced, and most if not all are done after the fact.
    We can make all the laws, rules, instructions, and directives we want and it will make no difference to those who wish to do harm. How many criminal acts have been committed by people who are following the law, criminals don’t care about the law or any other directives the government spews out. Not one of these incidents have the perpetrators been slowed down or effected by the law until after the fact. The laws are in effect to prosecute individuals of crimes and little else. Adding mental health requirements will only effect the common ordinary law abiding citizen and will not effect a willful and unlawful act perpetrated by a criminal.

    • I Seigel

      “There are more than enough laws on the books to handle these situations, the fact is they are seldom enforced”: True, but Congress doesn’t authorize money to enforce them. In fact, budgets keep getting cut.

      “Not one of these incidents have the perpetrators been slowed down or effected by the law until after the fact.”: How can you possibly know this? How can you know that there aren’t plenty of people getting some kind of treatment – in VA hospitals or public institutions – which have prevented them from going over the edge?

      ” Adding mental health requirements will only effect the common ordinary law abiding citizen and will not effect a willful and unlawful act perpetrated by a criminal.”: There is never going to be an all-encompassing, airtight solution to this problem. Does that mean we shouldn’t bring a variety of methods to the table to reduce the killings and help people? Or should be just give up, throw our hands in the air and buy more guns and more powerful guns and ammo?

      • Dave N.

        People being treated by Doctors and various institutions has nothing to do with an individual who willfully and intentionally perpetrates a crime. If murder is their intention we can hope someone finds out and puts a stop to it. The FBI and numerous other institutions have made it plain that nothing other than good luck will prevent lone wolf attacks.
        I do not subscribe to your utopian views that more government and more taxes will solve everything.

        • I Seigel

          And I don’t subscribe to YOUR fantasy hope that “someone finds out and puts a stop to it”. Sounds like you’ve been watching too many science fiction movies, like Minority Report.

          “The FBI and numerous other institutions have made it plain that nothing other than good luck will prevent lone wolf attacks.”: What they’ve SAID is that current intelligence-gathering techniques couldn’t have prevented the San Berdardino attack and other future attacks where the killers weren’t in contact with “handlers” such as ISIS. They were homegrown, self-radicalized terrorists, like Timothy McVeigh was.

          By the way, the statistics show that Americans killed by jihadi terrorists since 9/11 are about the same number as have been killed by religious and political “extremists” (which is really just another word for “terrorists”, don’t you think?)

          • Dave N.

            So in an attempt to read between the lines, what you are saying is you are willing to give up your rights and go with a socialist style of government which leaves you and everyone else free of any responsibility for anyone’s actions in direct exchange for security. Is that where you stand?

          • I Seigel

            C’mon Dave! When are you going to realize that we already live in a partially socialist style of government? You pay taxes – property taxes on your residence? Then you’re paying A SHARE of the costs for building and maintaining sidewalks, or a sewer and waste treatment system, and the roads you drive on and the costs of fire and police protection. You don’t, all by yourself, pay for all that stuff. You pay a share, and everyone else pays a share, and that’s socialism.

            Now, as to your question: If you haven’t noticed, We The People, via the Patriot Act of 2001 (or was it 2002?) voted to give up a little of our freedoms and rights in order to be safer. Is it working out? I don’t know, you tell me. But just because I’ve agreed to be searched before I get on an airplane, or just because I don’t whine about cameras at every intersection, or just because I’m not paranoid about my cellphone being bugged by the NSA, doesn’t mean I feel I’m giving up any responsibility for my own actions or my own security. I expect government is doing its part, based on the laws we’ve passed and the monies that have been appropriated to enforce those laws. Because I don’t have the wherewithal to be checking who’s coming in and out of the country and who might be a threat.

            I really don’t understand how you “read between the lines” like that.

          • Dave N.

            Sorry Seigel, I disagree, we already have too much government in every aspect of our lives. I’m very conservative and a firm believer in the constitution. I’m also a firm believer in personal responsibility, ethical behavior, integrity and do not enjoy all of the intrusions of socialism in my life. Apparently your a supporter of Obama, I view his tenure as the worst in my life time beginning with Ike who is the first president I remember anything about. I suspect you and I will have to agree to disagree, primarily from living two different points of perspective. The arguments you make fit well in a socialist society, but don’t fit within the constitutional parameters this country was established on.

          • I Seigel

            I’m fine with that. Thanks, Dave, for a reasonable discussion without resorting to cheap, meaningless name-calling.

  • I Seigel

    It’s about time!!!

?>

Keep the Fake News Media in check.

Don’t let the MSM censor your news as America becomes Great Again. Over 500,000 Americans receive our daily dose of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness along with Breaking News direct to their inbox—and you can too. Sign up to receive news and views from The 1776Coalition!

We know how important your privacy is and your information is SAFE with us. We’ll never sell
your email address and you can unsubscribe at any time directly from your inbox.
View our full privacy policy.

Facebook Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com
Google Analytics Alternative