Shots fired…

[Kishkumen]

Thanks. I don’t think anyone was hurt. No clue as to motive for the shooting.

I am very relieved no one was hurt!

[msnobody]

Glad you’re okay.I think for the most part, there is a mental health problem in our country that results in gun violence in many cases. Not sure how to fix it though.

About a year ago, I was at work when threats came in from a patient. I knew it was serious when our police officers brought out automatic weapons. The guy shot himself when law enforcement zeroed in on him at a nearby motel.

[Chap]

. . . I think for the most part, there is a mental health problem in our country that results in gun violence in many cases. . .

Hmm. How about I fix that for you:

I think for the most part, there is a gun problem in our country that means that mental health problems result in fatal shootings in many cases.

Don't you think that's the right way round?

[Res Ipsa]

...I think for the most part, there is a mental health problem in our country that results in gun violence in many cases. . .

Hmm. How about I fix that for you:

I think for the most part, there is a gun problem in our country that means that mental health problems result in fatal shootings in many cases.

Don't you think that's the right way round?

The USA's approach to both guns and mental health is so abysmal that I'm not sure which way is the best way to put it. More and more I see these issues through the lens of harm reduction. As there is no constitutional right to abysmal mental health care, I think it makes sense to attack the mental health aspect of the gun violence problem, which which will have societal benefits that extend far beyond firearm injury and death.

[msnobody]

. . . I think for the most part, there is a mental health problem in our country that results in gun violence in many cases. . .

Hmm. How about I fix that for you:

I think for the most part, there is a gun problem in our country that means that mental health problems result in fatal shootings in many cases.

Don't you think that's the right way round?

No, I don’t.

[IWMP]

Naw, it was more weird than anything else. Our bookkeeper was in the lobby when it happened, and she seemed more incredulous than anything else. She hopped back on an elevator and brought another woman who was in the lobby up to our secured floor. The other woman seemed a little shell shocked.

It was nice to have a couple of beers with a friend to restore a sense of normalcy.

No vest needed. It was just a thang.

The other woman seemed a little shell shocked.

Poor choice of words there.

Or a great choice of words

[IWMP]

. . . I think for the most part, there is a mental health problem in our country that results in gun violence in many cases. . .

Hmm. How about I fix that for you:

I think for the most part, there is a gun problem in our country that means that mental health problems result in fatal shootings in many cases.

Don't you think that's the right way round?

Maybe...

There's a mental health problem and a gun problem that coincide to result in shootings?

[IWMP]

So glad I don't have to worry about guns.

[Chap]

There's a mental health problem and a gun problem that coincide to result in shootings?

Yup. But we know it is possible to do something by means of legislation to greatly lessen the chances that a person known to be mentally ill, or violent, or both can get access to high-capacity rapid-firing weapons. Lots of countries (apart from the USA) find that not to be a problem.

Significantly improving the mental health of a nation is a much, much more complex and difficult affair.

So is it not pretty obvious which of the two aspects of this problem offer the better prospect of (to turn a common expression round) "less bangs for your buck" (i.e. a significant reduction in shooting deaths for a reasonable investment of time and money?

[Res Ipsa]

There's a mental health problem and a gun problem that coincide to result in shootings?

Yup. But we know it is possible to do something by means of legislation to greatly lessen the chances that a person known to be mentally ill, or violent, or both can get access to high-capacity rapid-firing weapons. Lots of countries (apart from the USA) find that not to be a problem.

Significantly improving the mental health of a nation is a much, much more complex and difficult affair.

So is it not pretty obvious which of the two aspects of this problem offer the better prospect of (to turn a common expression round) "less bangs for your buck" (i.e. a significant reduction in shooting deaths for a reasonable investment of time and money?

From a practical standpoint, I don't think passing the legislation you describe is as easy as it might appear. There is a sizeable percentage of American voters who will strenuously resist any attempt to restrict ownership of firearms. Some have substantial resources that they are willing to throw at any such attempt. Because our Supreme Court, in its infinite wisdom, has declared the second amendment to grant individual rights, any law restricting those rights has to run a constitutional gauntlet to stay enacted. And the person whose firearms rights are being restricted has a constitutional right to due process that can either bog down the process or create opportunities for the individual to evade the restriction while due process is being given. And, on top of that, there are so many of the damn things in circulation, it is easy for a person under such restrictions to obtain weapons illegally unless other restrictions are placed on their freedom.

On the other hand, I agree that improving mental health care is a much more complex task. But it will also have positive spillover effects that I think should be counted in the "bang" (or reduction in bang).

I don't know the answer, but after watching millions and millions of dollars go down the drain trying to attack the gun violence problem by restricting gun ownership, I'd like to see serious pursuit of other approaches.