Some With Histories of Mental Illness Petition to Get Their Gun Rights Back

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I'm getting a good chuckle and a better understanding of American paranoia every time you guys mention Cho and Loughner and use them to cry about arbitrarily taking away rights.

You do realize.....uh, let me rephrase...

It's obvious that Cho/Loughner fell through the cracks. Yes, maybe they should have been tagged as a problem prior to their acts.

Just because they weren't, you now have scared whiners crying for the abolition of rights across the board.

Typical reaction of American fear-mongers.

Please explain how you would "close the cracks".

And then you can explain how you would.

Maybe you will do it first?

I refer you to post #178 of this thread, which also illustrates popsjumper's strawman.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I'm getting a good chuckle and a better understanding of American paranoia every time you guys mention Cho and Loughner and use them to cry about arbitrarily taking away rights.

You do realize.....uh, let me rephrase...

It's obvious that Cho/Loughner fell through the cracks. Yes, maybe they should have been tagged as a problem prior to their acts.

Just because they weren't, you now have scared whiners crying for the abolition of rights across the board.

Typical reaction of American fear-mongers.

Please explain how you would "close the cracks".

And then you can explain how you would.

Maybe you will do it first?

I refer you to post #178 of this thread, which also illustrates popsjumper's strawman.

No, I will not. I would really like to read your speicif version of how you would stop this.

Me? I agree with lawrocket. There is a cost to freedom. It seems you would give up freedoms/rights to make you some how feel safer.

So I ask again

How would you fill those cracks?

It is possible to do and still uphold the second amendment to the Consititutjion?

Well?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I'm getting a good chuckle and a better understanding of American paranoia every time you guys mention Cho and Loughner and use them to cry about arbitrarily taking away rights.

You do realize.....uh, let me rephrase...

It's obvious that Cho/Loughner fell through the cracks. Yes, maybe they should have been tagged as a problem prior to their acts.

Just because they weren't, you now have scared whiners crying for the abolition of rights across the board.

Typical reaction of American fear-mongers.

Please explain how you would "close the cracks".

And then you can explain how you would.

Maybe you will do it first?

I refer you to post #178 of this thread, which also illustrates popsjumper's strawman.

No, I will not.

Your ignorance must be blissful.

PS it was popsjumper that wrote "It's obvious that Cho/Loughner fell through the cracks." so why don't you ask him?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Please explain how you would "close the cracks".

Using the assessment of psychiatric professionals to determine status instead of physics professors watching Youtube would be a start.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[freethefly 6]

Quote

It's obvious that Cho/Loughner fell through the cracks. Yes, maybe they should have been tagged as a problem prior to their acts.

Just because they weren't, you now have scared whiners crying for the abolition of rights across the board.

Cho and Loughner are the more high-profile cases that garnered national attention. They are the extreme cases of what goes/can go wrong.
There are more cases that got little attention by the media. One can do an internet search and find pages of instances of those who have been diagnosed to be highly unstable in possession of a firearm acting in a dangerous manner. All to often they end up shot dead by the police.
It's not just about protecting the public, but the mentally ill as well. It's sad for the families as well as for the police when precautions could had been taken.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I'm getting a good chuckle and a better understanding of American paranoia every time you guys mention Cho and Loughner and use them to cry about arbitrarily taking away rights.

You do realize.....uh, let me rephrase...

It's obvious that Cho/Loughner fell through the cracks. Yes, maybe they should have been tagged as a problem prior to their acts.

Just because they weren't, you now have scared whiners crying for the abolition of rights across the board.

Typical reaction of American fear-mongers.

Please explain how you would "close the cracks".

And then you can explain how you would.

Maybe you will do it first?

I refer you to post #178 of this thread, which also illustrates popsjumper's strawman.

No, I will not.

Your ignorance must be blissful.

PS it was popsjumper that wrote "It's obvious that Cho/Loughner fell through the cracks." so why don't you ask him?

I am asking you

You are very good at telling others they do not understand, they lack reading skills and other PA's. So step out and tell us all how YOU would fix it?

We all agree they fell threw the cracks.
How would you prevent this from happening?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[ChrisL 2]

Quote

Just because they weren't, you now have scared whiners crying for the abolition of rights across the board.

Typical reaction of American fear-mongers.

I'm the one that brought them up, but not as any kind of example as to
why rights should be revoked. Just the opposite in fact.

I'm an advocate of the 2nd amendment and do not support preemptive removal of rights.
I used them as an example of a failure in the system to identify
dangerously irrational people, not as an example why why we should taker peoples rights away.

I also used my own experience as an example of a failure of the system
on the other extreme where my own rights were revoked for no good reason and I had a long and expensive road to have them restored.

__

My mighty steed

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Quote

Please explain how you would "close the cracks".

Using the assessment of psychiatric professionals to determine status instead of physics professors watching Youtube would be a start.

It's been posted before in this thread, but the truth is that psychiatric professionals have very poor ability to predict which of their patients have a possibility of violence. Prior history of violent acts is really the only reliable indicator. I would rather have gun rights restricted because of misdemeandor violent acts then based on psychiatric admissions. I simply believe it is a more relevant criteria and also has more procedural safeguards.

I am not trained to do these sorts of assessments but I do work at a community mental health center. I would say with great certainty that because I have knowledge of the system I could succeed in having just about anybody I wanted admitted to the hospital against his/her will. Not that I would, but I have assisted in having people committed and know what to say and do.

It's somewhat amusing to me to hear people who do not work in and/or have limited or no experience with psychiatric admissions and the system who somehow believe that "trained professionals" have some sort of magical power to say who is and isn't likely to become violent. It is a limited system filled with flawed people.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[freethefly 6]

Quote

There is a cost to freedom.

So, you would be fine with your loved ones being shot and killed by a person who has been diagnosed to be mentally unstable? After all, there is a cost for "freedom!" To hell with another person's right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as long as those diagnosed to be unstable can run the streets with firearms. Right? Should concern for the "general welfare" of the people be struck from the constitution in favor of those diagnosed to being unstable?

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

There is a cost to freedom.

So, you would be fine with your loved ones being shot and killed by a person who has been diagnosed to be mentally unstable? After all, there is a cost for "freedom!" To hell with another person's right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as long as those diagnosed to be unstable can run the streets with firearms. Right? Should concern for the "general welfare" of the people be struck from the constitution in favor of those diagnosed to being unstable?

Congrats on your successful completion of the kallend school of debate.

However, your rant makes you sound unstable - now where did I put that NICS contact number....?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

So it was correct in your opinion and that of "one person" to wait until mass mayhem had been committed.

From a rights standpoint - yep. As much as it pains me, there is no choice to make. Let's check out Cho. The guy had already been identified as a problem and as a risk.



Letterman must report that he has had a restraining order issued against him. In New Mexico by a woman who sought to restrain him from sending her psychic messages. Look it up. It's there.

For her to do anything about a mentally ill person with no history of violence would be for her to act in an arbitrary and capricious way.

That's the thing about a professional - just because they CAN commit somebody DOES NOT MEAN THEY SHOULD.

It's a fascinating thing, John. I'd like you to answer this - how many people who are not ACTUAL threats should be seized in order to ensure that there is full coverage. Me? I'm the guy who has said I'd rather see 100 criminals go free than 1 innocent person imprisoned. The same holds true for kooks

How many people would be acceptable to you? The WHOLESALE abrogation of rights in order to ensure an orderly society? It's a pretty Machiavellian idea.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[quade 4]

Stay classy. Your second paragraph in particular is not.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

It's obvious that Cho/Loughner fell through the cracks. Yes, maybe they should have been tagged as a problem prior to their acts.

Just because they weren't, you now have scared whiners crying for the abolition of rights across the board.

Cho and Loughner are the more high-profile cases that garnered national attention. They are the extreme cases of what goes/can go wrong.
There are more cases that got little attention by the media. One can do an internet search and find pages of instances of those who have been diagnosed to be highly unstable in possession of a firearm acting in a dangerous manner. All to often they end up shot dead by the police.
It's not just about protecting the public, but the mentally ill as well. It's sad for the families as well as for the police when precautions could had been taken.

It's sad for the individuals for whom precautions are taken when the individual doesn't want it. How sad is it for the person who finds out he or she has HIV when precautions could have been taken? The government could find out EVERY PERSON WITH HIV and their sexual partners and institutionalize every one of them.

HIV killed 40,000 Americans every year in the mid 1990's. You are again argument for wholesale abrogation of rights on the basis of health and safety. Of course, HIV would require a more extreme treatment, seeing as how it kills more people than the mentally ill. But since guns are not used to kill people, and HIV is so politicized, taking steps to protect the public from HIV by informing them of people who are known risks has been blocked in the name of privacy.

I personally am GLAD that those wiht HIV have the right to live their lives to the extent that they can without being subject to yielding to the whims of society that would seek to throw people infected with HIV in a cell until they died.

Of ALL people who could understand that "public health risk" would mean a target right on your forehead I figured it would be you. I'm seeing you as the equivalent of the black voters who tipped the table in favor of Proposition 8. People who know what discrimination is all about discriminating.

The target could EASILY be on you, bro. And if that target WAS turned on you I think you'd be saying that it's bulldhit. I'm sure you'd say that you have the right to be free of searches, seizures and arrest. You could rightly say, "I haven't killed anybody."

Again, I am stunned and saddened.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[freethefly 6]

Quote

Of ALL people who could understand that "public health risk" would mean a target right on your forehead I figured it would be you.

I have no problem with a person who has a mental illness possessing a firearm. I have a problem with the person who has demonstrated that they are highly unstable having a firearm. I have stated this earlier.
I feel the same about those with HIV infecting others on purpose. I mostly date women who are HIV+. I have been with women who are HIV-, but I do inform them of my status and precaution is used. Not because it is the law (which it should be), but because it is the right thing to do. If a person demonstrates the intention to physically harm another person, whether by means of HIV, a firearm, knife, or any means possible, then yes, their rights need to be and should be revoked.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

I have no problem with a person who has a mental illness possessing a firearm. I have a problem with the person who has demonstrated that they are highly unstable having a firearm. I have stated this earlier.

Can you define highly unstable? Can you tell me what diagnostic criteria or test you would use for this?

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[lawrocket 3]

I've gone too far here, folks.

Taking a break.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[freethefly 6]

Quote

Quote

I have no problem with a person who has a mental illness possessing a firearm. I have a problem with the person who has demonstrated that they are highly unstable having a firearm. I have stated this earlier.

Can you define highly unstable? Can you tell me what diagnostic criteria or test you would use for this?

From my personal experience of being suicidal in 1995 - highly unstable. I'm not a mental health professional, yet I have experience in the system. When I was committed for observation, I did see a number of people who should not even have a plastic butter knife.
As for criteria? Again, I'm not a mental health professional, but I would think what a person may say, post online, behavior in public... I believe these and other guidelines are already in place, just not being used to weed out the very few who are dangerous to themselves, their family, and the public.
No need for more laws. Just use what is already in place.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

There is a cost to freedom.

So, you would be fine with your loved ones being shot and killed by a person who has been diagnosed to be mentally unstable? After all, there is a cost for "freedom!" To hell with another person's right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as long as those diagnosed to be unstable can run the streets with firearms. Right? Should concern for the "general welfare" of the people be struck from the constitution in favor of those diagnosed to being unstable?

How would you pick who is metally unstable enough to own a firearm?

BTY, your rant and assumptions are funny

I agree with Mikes post as well

As for your general welfare comment, how would this remove a right that is spelled out in the Constitution?

I look forward to your solutions and answers

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Of ALL people who could understand that "public health risk" would mean a target right on your forehead I figured it would be you.

I have no problem with a person who has a mental illness possessing a firearm. I have a problem with the person who has demonstrated that they are highly unstable having a firearm. I have stated this earlier.
I feel the same about those with HIV infecting others on purpose. I mostly date women who are HIV+. I have been with women who are HIV-, but I do inform them of my status and precaution is used. Not because it is the law (which it should be), but because it is the right thing to do. If a person demonstrates the intention to physically harm another person, whether by means of HIV, a firearm, knife, or any means possible, then yes, their rights need to be and should be revoked.

So, where in my post (that you replied to earlier) did I say anthing that disagrees with you here in this post??????

There is a cost to freedom. Somethimes that cost is very high. But the alternative, IMO is much, much worse.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[quade 4]

Quote

How would you pick who is metally unstable enough to own a firearm?

I think most people don't want to arm the mentally unstable.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

How would you pick who is metally unstable enough to own a firearm?

I think most people don't want to arm the mentally unstable.

Agreed

So your point is?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

How would you pick who is metally unstable enough to own a firearm?

I think most people don't want to arm the mentally unstable.

That's not an answer, that's a statement entirely unrelated to the question.

Care to try again?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[freethefly 6]

Quote

There is a cost to freedom.

If the cost is innocent lives within our own borders, then the cost is far to high if only to protect the rights of the very few. There are laws in place to prevent the deaths/injury of people by those who should not have guns. Those laws need to be followed, not ignored.

Again, I am not saying that solely because a person has a mental illness that they should be denied their rights. I am saying that those who demonstrate by the criteria in place should have their firearms removed until they are no longer a danger to them self and/or others (I am basing this from my own personal experience.)
http://www.psyweb.com/DSM_IV/jsp/dsm_iv.jsp

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I have no problem with a person who has a mental illness possessing a firearm. I have a problem with the person who has demonstrated that they are highly unstable having a firearm. I have stated this earlier.

Can you define highly unstable? Can you tell me what diagnostic criteria or test you would use for this?

From my personal experience of being suicidal in 1995 - highly unstable. I'm not a mental health professional, yet I have experience in the system. When I was committed for observation, I did see a number of people who should not even have a plastic butter knife.
As for criteria? Again, I'm not a mental health professional, but I would think what a person may say, post online, behavior in public... I believe these and other guidelines are already in place, just not being used to weed out the very few who are dangerous to themselves, their family, and the public.
No need for more laws. Just use what is already in place.

Well, it is not just a question for you but for all the people who are suggesting restricting gun rights based on expert testimony and testing. There are tests we could use, like the HAM-D or MADRS for Depression or the PANSS score for schizophrenia, etc. There are a couple problems with these. First, these scales give you a snapshot in time--they tell you what severity of current symptoms are. They do not tell you what they will be in a month, or six months, or six years. So, we may or may not be permanently disabling somebody's constituional rights for a temporary condition. Psychological condition is subject to a lot of ups and downs and misdiagnosis. People have temporary setbacks, sometimes they recover completely, sometimes they do not. Second, they are not designed to be predictive for violence. So it would be problematic to deny somebody's constitutional rights using an instrument which is not answering the question which is being asked--is this person capable of handling firearms safely.

The MMPI might be the most widely accepted instrument which could? be used as a scale across mental illnesses. Widely accepted is sort of a misnomer, as its appropriateness, reliability, and accuracy are highly disputed and some clinicians will not use it at all. It does proport to be able to diagnose personality traits leading to antisocial behavior, however. That's a little simplified but I don't feel like writing a book. Even for those willing to use it suggest it be used in combination with other psychological tests, interviews, etc. It would also need to be administered by a certified clinical psychologist. Not sure what mechanism we are going to use to pay for all that testing. FWIW, clinical interviews are even less likely to result in any sort of accurate prediction of future violence, although they can be a valuable addition to test batteries.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

There is a cost to freedom.

If the cost is innocent lives within our own borders, then the cost is far to high if only to protect the rights of the very few. There are laws in place to prevent the deaths/injury of people by those who should not have guns. Those laws need to be followed, not ignored.

Again, I am not saying that solely because a person has a mental illness that they should be denied their rights. I am saying that those who demonstrate by the criteria in place should have their firearms removed until they are no longer a danger to them self and/or others (I am basing this from my own personal experience.)
http://www.psyweb.com/DSM_IV/jsp/dsm_iv.jsp

Ok
So I am not sure why you jumped my ass a few posts ago

But in reply, what is the limit in cost as far as you are concerned?

Yes one life is a high cost. But how or where would you draw a line to stop all possible incidents?

If you say that anyone who is suspect does not have the right to own anymore then what about that cost?

The end game is not much different between you and I. However, getting there is the issue. Getting there within the limits and grants of our Constitution. Kallend will not give his answer again because his solution is a defacto gun ban and he knows it. He will not admit it anymore and that is why he will not give a straight answer regarding this topic here.

What you seem to advocate to save maybe a single life has a cost much much too high IMO. And in the end it would not be possible anyway. Gun ban or not

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln