Letter to the editor: Mental health laws must change | TribLIVE.com
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Mental health laws must change

How sanctimoniously disingenuous are those politically correct gun-control dogmatists who believe this one issue is the end-all and be-all to mass casualty shootings, failing to recognize the primordial cause. Most sensible individuals can see through their puerile thought.

Foremost, the mental heath laws demand change. Several years ago the New England Journal of Medicine ran a comprehensive three-part series outlining the brokenness of the system with suggestions for substantive changes.

Doctors and nurses working in mental health provide one example after another authenticating the system’s brokenness. I once had a mental health nurse tell me, “I could have a delusional patient wielding a knife in the middle of a waiting room but until they plunged it into someone, I couldn’t get them (psychiatrically) committed.” Obviously this is a hyperbolic comment. However, the grounding of this statement comes from utter frustration with obsolete, impotent jurisprudence of the past 50 years.

Mental health laws must be changed, enacting fresh new legislation protecting society from delusional individuals harboring thoughts of homicide and suicide, possibility following through on their delusions. This includes legal proceedings to confiscate the patient’s gun(s).

The individuals shrieking for gun control are like people who claim they scuba dived in the Great Barrier Reef, while they have only soaked in a shallow blue kiddie pool. Talk about ridiculous. Nonetheless, many in the media blindly follow them, confusing the kiddie pool with the Great Barrier Reef. I’ve never seen a shark in a little blue kiddie pool. Have you?

The Rev. James Holland

West Deer


TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.