This is a topic of self defense so I figure it belongs here.
So much is being said about treatment in the form of more meds.
But what about the rest of us that aren't ill?
What about our rights to being safe and secure?

http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/35205674/after-2-brutal-attacks-some-call-for-greater-efforts-to-ensure-the-mentally-ill-get-treatment

They could try adding Prozac to our drinking water. Eventually, Trumpcare will fix all this.

It is a tough issue. Something happens and people demand action without realizing sometimes there isn't an easy answer. Same with the homeless. Only way is to restrict rights more.

It is a tough issue. Something happens and people demand action without realizing sometimes there isn't an easy answer. Same with the homeless. Only way is to restrict rights more.

Why is restricting rights of everyone, or everyone of a certain group, the only way?

We live in a country founded on the principle of the individual.  Rights, duties, and opportunities -- all centered around the individual, not groups of individuals.

So, we can use the exact same standards used to assess the trustworthiness of sane gun owners:

Felony convictions
Arrests for violence
Addictions or habitual use of illegal or certain drugs
Domestic Abuse
Crimes involving firearms
Allegiance to groups aiming to overthrow the government
and so on

If those are the criteria for determining if you or I can own and use a firearm, they should be the same for anyone else.  If there is evidence that being mentally ill increases the risk of violence -- with a gun or not -- then that needs to be the reason, not simply a historical point in time in which one may have sought counseling or was voluntarily admitted to drug rehab and is no longer addicted.

As I've stated, the rate of violence is the same between the two groups, so there needs to be an INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENT of each person from whom we intend to remove any Constitutional rights.

Why is restricting rights of everyone, or everyone of a certain group, the only way?

We live in a country founded on the principle of the individual.  Rights, duties, and opportunities -- all centered around the individual, not groups of individuals.

So, we can use the exact same standards used to assess the trustworthiness of sane gun owners:

Felony convictions
Arrests for violence
Addictions or habitual use of illegal or certain drugs
Domestic Abuse
Crimes involving firearms
Allegiance to groups aiming to overthrow the government
and so on

If those are the criteria for determining if you or I can own and use a firearm, they should be the same for anyone else.  If there is evidence that being mentally ill increases the risk of violence -- with a gun or not -- then that needs to be the reason, not simply a historical point in time in which one may have sought counseling or was voluntarily admitted to drug rehab and is no longer addicted.

As I've stated, the rate of violence is the same between the two groups, so there needs to be an INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENT of each person from whom we intend to remove any Constitutional rights.

Because there is no foolproof way of ensuring the mentally ill aren't violent. Either you put more of them away in a controlled facility, thereby restricting rights, or you don't and risk that they may become violent. You can try to reduce risks by screening out certain individuals from being free but you will inevitably miss some. I would describe it as being a spectrum. You decrease the risk but at the cost of freedom and rights. I am not suggesting reduced rights is the solution either, just acknowledging the opposing desires.

That is until we develop mind control or medicine that makes everyone non violent.

I agree that individual assessment needs to be done. Restriction of rights is not something that should be done by blanket policy.

Politicians like Green want to tout mental illness as a cause of violent acts but I've never heard them address evil as a cause.   Maybe because you can't over medicate evil, he doesn't believe it exists.
BTW does the new application for a driver's license ask you about a history of mental illness or taking certain meds?   I don't think so but will find out in 2 years when I need to reapply.

Politicians like Green want to tout mental illness as a cause of violent acts but I've never heard them address evil as a cause.   Maybe because you can't over medicate evil, he doesn't believe it exists.
BTW does the new application for a driver's license ask you about a history of mental illness or taking certain meds?   I don't think so but will find out in 2 years when I need to reapply.

that's because they dismantle any type of faith or religion that tries to establish a framework for morals and righteousness so that they can further advance other issues that run counter to faith principles. i.e. gender issues, same sex marriage etc.
there is no evil because you can't control it or offer any type of tangible fix for it - prescribe drugs etc. you can't sell meds to combat evil but you can to treat mental illness

Politicians like Green want to tout mental illness as a cause of violent acts but I've never heard them address evil as a cause.   Maybe because you can't over medicate evil, he doesn't believe it exists.
BTW does the new application for a driver's license ask you about a history of mental illness or taking certain meds?   I don't think so but will find out in 2 years when I need to reapply.

My youngest recently got his license...the new application did not ask any of that.  Also, if you're wondering, "YES!" or "OK" are still not an acceptable answer for sex. They really need to change it to "Gender".

Because there is no foolproof way of ensuring the mentally ill aren't violent. Either you put more of them away in a controlled facility, thereby restricting rights, or you don't and risk that they may become violent. You can try to reduce risks by screening out certain individuals from being free but you will inevitably miss some. I would describe it as being a spectrum. You decrease the risk but at the cost of freedom and rights. I am not suggesting reduced rights is the solution either, just acknowledging the opposing desires.

That is until we develop mind control or medicine that makes everyone non violent.

I agree that individual assessment needs to be done. Restriction of rights is not something that should be done by blanket policy.

There is no FOOLPROOF way of ensuring the mentally stable aren't violent.

Check  mate.

There is no FOOLPROOF way of ensuring the mentally stable aren't violent.

Check  mate.

Yeah, that is what I was saying
 Checkmate who? The police department?

The drugs are much better than they used to be? And I'm sure the drug industry is excited about the idea of tapping that municipal money and injecting anyone who has a problem with bribing politicians.

Ever wonder why there are so many more crazy people walking around? It's not sick individuals, but rather how healthy people adapt to a sick society. Airwaves are full of propaganda, greed is worshipped and the wealth gap has become a chasm as we blame the less fortunate who got screwed by the system while lavishing praise on the architects of this crisis.

 It's a complete and total failure of the liberal class and no amount of marching for science is going to make people forget that the Corporate State is running people's lives into the ground. If you think people are getting nuts now just wait. Without the political will to change Hawaii's one party corrupt establishment we have a long way to fall yet.

Without the political will to change Hawaii's one party corrupt establishment we have a long way to fall yet.

Unfortunately what some of us see as a "fall" is precisely the utopian dream of the Progressives: total dependence upon the government, of nearly all the people, for the necessities of life (food, shelter, clothing, jobs, medical care, protection from criminal victimization, etc.). And Hawaii's politicians are "on it"... and doing a helluva good job.