Dr. Pomade

Excellent, but specifically who in the family?

Anything more than a dusting and the residents of this city lose their minds and find the nearest ditch to drive directly into. "OMFG WHAT IS THIS WHITE STUFF FUCK ABORT MISSION HARD LEFT TURN NOW DO IT NOW GO"

Yeah, my second soapbox point is that mental health professionals should be empowered - explicitly, by legislature - to have more authority to force those at risk to receive treatment (or to face restriction, such as involuntary commitment). This (as I've said elsewhere) is a delicate subject, however. Question for everyone: who is the most at risk for being the victim of violence that is associated with mental illness?

LISTEN YOU JERK I WILL BE SORRY AND YOU WILL ACCEPT IT

P.S. Louisville too - not even close to where the storm is supposed to be, based on that map. /obsessive nit-picking

I knew this is why you posted in this thread.

Sorry, I should have said that I wasn't responding directly to you, or trying to take you to task for anything. I was just using what you said for a platform for my soapbox.

Cincinnati and Indianapolis (and perhaps St. Louis) aren't noted to be in the covered area, but are listed as cities in the path of the storm? Also, Columbus left off the list. Of course, no respect for the 614. :fa:

Brian should say at this point that you're arguing semantics.

I keep hearing people reference him having an autism-spectrum disorder. (Asperger's disorder is an autism-spectrum disorder.) Yet, autism-spectrum disorders are, to my knowledge, almost never regarded as a significant or relevant risk factor for violence. Certainly not in the way, say, psychopathy is, or threat/control-override symptoms of schizophrenia are, and some of the other "heavy hitters" in the risk assessment genre. What this highlights, I believe, is a general misunderstanding of autism-spectrum disorders specifically amongst the population, and mental illness in general. This, of course, is not the population's fault. However, it is illustrative of a systemic problem, which is that the population-at-large tends to know relatively little about mental illness, especially relative to, say, medical illness. For instance, if I say: This guy has high blood pressure. This other guy has diabetes. And this third guy has ulcers. Most everyone would have some idea what I'm talking about. And no one would assume any of those conditions would be associated with an increased risk of violence (because they don't). However, if I said: This guy has a panic disorder. This other guy a dysthymic disorder. And this third guy has a childhood disintergrative disorder. Almost no one would really know what each of those things are, and I'm willing to bet that a bunch of people would assume that each of those disorders is increased with an increased risk of harm toward others (when none of them do). This illustrates, big-picture, the stigma associated with mental illness. We're far behind the times, and it's past due to devote the resources necessary to educate the masses about mental illness.

So, either no one has guns, or everyone gets them. I can dig it.

But, to play devil's advocate, what could really happen? I get what you're saying in the theoretical, but let's just say it played out negatively - what's the worst that could happen?

P.P.S. I'm always the entertainment, regardless of topic.

P.S. I'm just the entertainment until JP or someone else that wants to debate gun control shows up.

Okay, new hypothetical: You have the power to choose who has firearms and who doesn't. Who, if anyone, gets firearms, and who doesn't? And please expatiate (i.e., discuss your rationale).

Yes, government included. No guns, no exploding weapons, none of that, however you define it. All that is left is knives, spears, slings, catapults - basically whatever we had before gunpower was invented.

Hypothetical question: If you had the power to instaneously eradicate every firearm on the planet, would you?

It's JP, you dyslexic 2nd Amendment hugger.

JP, my advice would be to either make a thread in the Kitchen to debate the gun stuff, or just not say anything at all. Gun control is one of those few topics that makes CR go absolutely fucking bananas.

I think those are cool. I'm not sure what that pattern/finish is called - and it's the red/black "checked" base of the helmet that I'm talking about - but I think it's awesome. I've noticed it on Oregon's helmets - and I think Notre Dame has used it as well?

I live close to where Cemetery Road and 270 connect, and I am completely blanking on there being either an Applebee's or a Meijer anywhere close to there. Are you sure you aren't thinking of Hilliard-Rome Road and 70? If you go west on Cemetery from the 270 interchange, there is a Max N Erma's there, and there is a lot of parking in that lot (and in an adjacent lot, which I think is a COTA Park-n-Ride area). If you go east on Cemetery from the 270 interchange, you get into Mill Run, which has several restaurants, though you have to get through a few lights and there isn't an abundance of parking - so I'd consider it to be a hassle for a convoy.

The short answer is yes, though I'm quick to acknowledge (a) this is a fairly touchy subject, and there's a ton of stuff to consider, the vast majority of which I won't come close to addressing in this post and (b) I have my own biases - professional and personal - that lead me to immediately lean toward mental health professionals being more, rather than less, empowered. A related topic, and something that may not be known to some here, is that there is existing law that helps to limit those with psychiatric illness having access to firearms. Specifically, in Ohio, anyone that has been involuntarily committed to a psychiatric facility is not allowed to possess a firearm. (Same thing applies to those that have been convicted of a felony offense.) Firearms possession amongst the mentally ill is something that I've researched in the past. In fact, I co-authored an article on the subject in 2001. The title of the article was, appropriately enough, Firearms risk management in psychiatric care. (For the interested reader, the article can be found in the journal Psychiatric Services, Volume 52, pages 1057-1061.) In brief, I would offer that substantially more resources, energy, time, and attention should be paid to the issue of firearms possession amongst those with mental illness. Further, I would submit that, perhaps more importantly, more resources should be devoted to the prediction of violence and risk management strategies in the community. At present, mental health professionals are relatively limited in their ability to quell "dangerousness" and force an unwilling patient to submit to treatment. Of course, there are good, sound reasons for this. After all, none of us want our civil liberties squashed. However, there likely is, in my opinion, some "gray area" here, in which mental health professionals can be more empowered to neutralize perceived risk of harm to others and enforce treatment without compromising too much, or all, pertinent civil liberties. Currently, mental health professionals are able to detain someone involuntarily only when a fairly circumscribed set of criteria are met (e.g., the individual poses an imminent risk of harm) and they are able to force treatment only when it is either medically necessary to neutralize an imminent risk or when it is court-ordered. The problem is when you have an individual who isn't "imminently" dangerous or court-ordered to receive treatment - and therefore beyond legal recourse - yet they present with a substantial amount of risk factors that serve to place them at increased, and arguably an unacceptable, level of risk to the community.

Brian, my apologies for the inflammatory comments. I'm in agreement with your moderation of the thread, even if that's at the expense of censoring some of what I've said. (And I realize that that it doesn't really matter if I agree or not, but I figured it wouldn't hurt to let you know that I think you're doing the right thing and a good job.) Back on topic: another issue that will likely arise in the near future is the notion of empowering the mental health community with the authority to enforce more restricted treatments. Gun control and school safety will, of course, be at the forefront of the discussions, but I envision mental health awareness and treatment become a "hot button" topic as well.

I'd like to see the statistics, but at this point I'm willing to wager at least a small amount of money that you are as likely to be killed in a school shooting as you are to be killed in a airplane crash, let alone an act of terrorism involving an airplane. If so, then the statistics would dictate that classrooms be afforded as much, if not more, security than airplanes. (Note: I realize you and I are having a discussion that is, most likely, purely academic.)

Not to be flippant, but I would guess a fair amount of people think this way already. After all, the law says you have to obtain schooling.