quade 4
Some With Histories of Mental Illness Petition to Get Their Gun Rights Back
By
quade, in Speakers Corner
Recommended Posts
QuoteI believe you're incorrect and psychopathy is, in fact, a form of mental illness.
This lumps all criminals in with the mentally ill.
I like what freethefly posted. From a clinical standpoint, psychopathy is not considered something that is treatable. There are some studies out there where it is suggested forms of aggressive and intense therapy can be useful. The problem with the psychopath/antisocial is that they use therapy the learn how to be better psychopaths. The true psychopath has the internal desire to get what he/she wants.
This is why there is a penal system and mental health system. The armed robber - does he know right from wrong? Yes. Do his actions make him mentally ill?
As freethefly posted - there's room for interpretation and differences in opinion from a philosophical standpoint. AND - it shows how the public perception of mentally ill v. criminal is so blurred when legally and medically there is a world of difference.
Nevertheless, I think that "psychopathy" was left out of the DSM-IV for a reason. I have authority on the issue to which I can point in support of my beliefs. (I've had court cases to point to in support of my statements). Again - I like that freethefly pointed out that there is some controversy. Nevertheless, the DSM-IV (which is the diagnostic criteria) doesn't have it.
What are your reasons - and what is your authority - for your belief that psychotpathy is a form of mental illness?
My wife is hotter than your wife.
quade 4
QuoteQuoteI believe you're incorrect and psychopathy is, in fact, a form of mental illness.
This lumps all criminals in with the mentally ill.
No sir, your concept of set theory is not correct.
Some psychopaths are criminals.
Some criminals are psychopaths.
Not all are members of both groups.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
QuoteAnd again, I stated that this would be one of several tests and indicators.
Psychopathy is probably the one thing that is the best indicator of future danger. Psychopaths are paroled all the time but, by their nature, they derive pleasure from the destruction of others.
The problem is that psychopaths aren't crazy. They know right from wrong but don't care. Most psychopaths can be identified by a "rap sheet." Still, we don't take weapons from a psychopath until they act like a psychopath. Being a psychopath is not a crime. Acting like a psychopath is.
That's how our criminal system is set up - we dont investigate people to see whether they've committed or will commit crimes (exception - undercover, etc.) Usually we have a crime and it gets investigated to see who committed it. Then the person is given due process.
I think that the mentally ill deserve the same treatment. And if a person is mentally ill, I think that there should be a demonstrable nexus between the mental illness and a propensity for violence.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
QuoteSome psychopaths are criminals.
Some criminals are psychopaths.
Well, yes. I agree with that.
Far more psychopaths, however, are criminals than the general population and the mentally ill. being a psychopath is a better predictor than schizophrenic or manic/depressive.
Part of the problem is that there are too many mentally ill in prisons and psychopaths in psychiatric hospitals. It'd be nice to find a way to differentiate this at trial court. The problem is the expense and time in doing this.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
QuotePlease explain how you would "close the cracks".
What in the world is a question like that? It's especially off-the-mark coming from a book-educated person.
Has common sense gone completely to pot these days?
Just for your benefit, John, I'll state the obvious...
There IS no closing all the cracks no matter what you can come up with. You want a pie-in-the-sky world and it just ain't a-gonna happen. You want utopia and it ain't a-gonna happen. You want a world without weapons and it ain't a-gonna happen.
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
kallend 2,148
QuoteQuotePlease explain how you would "close the cracks".
What in the world is a question like that? It's especially off-the-mark coming from a book-educated person.
Has common sense gone completely to pot these days?
Just for your benefit, John, I'll state the obvious...
There IS no closing all the cracks no matter what you can come up with. You want a pie-in-the-sky world and it just ain't a-gonna happen. You want utopia and it ain't a-gonna happen. You want a world without weapons and it ain't a-gonna happen.
STRAWMAN. No-one called for a world without weapons or even a ban on handguns. Just closing the cracks YOU identified that Cho and Loughner crawled through on the way to their massacres of innocent people.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
It's going to be interesting to see how long this no-end argument is going to go.
It simply boils down to:
Constitutional rights support vs screw the rights, I'm scared
Take away ALL the rights you want that you think will make you safe....guess what? You STILL aren't as "safe" as you think you are. You're howling at the wind.
You want "safe"? Stay in your house!
Or, go to Germany where some think it's much safer.
Wait...even that's not safe enough for you.
Meanwhile, the rest of us will continue to enjoy what little "rights" our goobermint still permits us.
It simply boils down to:
Constitutional rights support vs screw the rights, I'm scared
Take away ALL the rights you want that you think will make you safe....guess what? You STILL aren't as "safe" as you think you are. You're howling at the wind.
You want "safe"? Stay in your house!
Or, go to Germany where some think it's much safer.
Wait...even that's not safe enough for you.
Meanwhile, the rest of us will continue to enjoy what little "rights" our goobermint still permits us.
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
Quote
Just for your benefit, John, I'll state the obvious...
There IS no closing all the cracks no matter what you can come up with. You want a pie-in-the-sky world and it just ain't a-gonna happen. You want utopia and it ain't a-gonna happen. You want a world without weapons and it ain't a-gonna happen.
QuoteSTRAWMAN. No-one called for a world without weapons or even a ban on handguns.
Good stuff, John. You, too, can state the obvious. Congrats.
QuoteJust closing the cracks YOU identified that Cho and Loughner crawled through on the way to their massacres of innocent people.
I missed it where you "closed the cracks" to which I alluded. Could you repeat or direct to the pertinent post?
I thought not.
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
QuoteMeanwhile, the rest of us will continue to enjoy what little "rights" our goobermint still permits us.
What I fear most is people becoming the driving force in this country who think in a manner such as how you portray your beliefs.
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
rushmc 23
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteHow 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?
You appear to have asked a question to which an answer isn't required since it makes little sense.
You posted that most people dont want to arm the mentally unstable
Ok
I do not see anyone here arguing against that position
You must have had a reason or a point to get across when you posted that
What is it?
Take a breath to clear your mind and carefully reread the sentence you wrote and I originally quoted from you at the top of this post.
What you've asked is how we as a society should establish the minimum level of mental instability to be allowed to own a gun.
If you do not understand why I commented the way I did after this explanation, I can't help you.
I noticed the mistake
But after all these years I am very sure you knew what I meant
But you would rather play children's games
Ok
I get it
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
rushmc 23
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote
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 about you give the strawman a break. No-one has suggested seizing or imprisoning anyone on account of their mental illness.
How many innocent people would you like to be shot dead so that a "kook" can buy a gun with no inconvenience?
Yet again another example of someone wanting complete security even though a right may be sacrificed. And that security would not be realized anyway.
Sorry John, I dont buy it.
You bitched differently about the Patriot Act I recall
There's a big difference between being inconvenienced and being shot dead. Cho's victims had rights too, until he killed them.
Oh
So when it comes to rights defined in the Constitution it is a matter of degree or something?
You get to decide which rights are more important?
Sorry John
Fail again
You want a gun ban
We all know it
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
rushmc 23
QuoteQuoteQuotePlease explain how you would "close the cracks".
What in the world is a question like that? It's especially off-the-mark coming from a book-educated person.
Has common sense gone completely to pot these days?
Just for your benefit, John, I'll state the obvious...
There IS no closing all the cracks no matter what you can come up with. You want a pie-in-the-sky world and it just ain't a-gonna happen. You want utopia and it ain't a-gonna happen. You want a world without weapons and it ain't a-gonna happen.
STRAWMAN. No-one called for a world without weapons or even a ban on handguns. Just closing the cracks YOU identified that Cho and Loughner crawled through on the way to their massacres of innocent people.
So here we are again
How would you have stopped them without stepping on their rights?
Answer is, you would not and can not.
Now demonstrated is your desire to ban guns and, avoid the debate at all costs
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
rushmc 23
QuoteQuoteMeanwhile, the rest of us will continue to enjoy what little "rights" our goobermint still permits us.
What I fear most is people becoming the driving force in this country who think in a manner such as how you portray your beliefs.
The linked story is very similar to Johns solutions IMO
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/16/portland-draining-reservoir-after-man-urinates-in-it/
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
kallend 2,148
QuoteQuoteMeanwhile, the rest of us will continue to enjoy what little "rights" our goobermint still permits us.
What I fear most is people becoming the driving force in this country who think in a manner such as how you portray your beliefs.
I didn't write that. You "replied" to the wrong person. Confused?
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteQuotePlease 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.
So you agree with me now. (Using psychiatric professional was suggested by me some years ago).
Maybe you can find a post from me saying that there shouldn't be any evaluations, so you can make your post true.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteQuotePlease explain how you would "close the cracks".
What in the world is a question like that? It's especially off-the-mark coming from a book-educated person.
Has common sense gone completely to pot these days?
Just for your benefit, John, I'll state the obvious...
There IS no closing all the cracks no matter what you can come up with. You want a pie-in-the-sky world and it just ain't a-gonna happen. You want utopia and it ain't a-gonna happen. You want a world without weapons and it ain't a-gonna happen.
STRAWMAN. No-one called for a world without weapons or even a ban on handguns. Just closing the cracks YOU identified that Cho and Loughner crawled through on the way to their massacres of innocent people.
Where was Loughner's psych eval (beside your summation of his Youtube vids, that is)? If Cho was a danger, why was he released?
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
QuoteQuoteQuoteMeanwhile, the rest of us will continue to enjoy what little "rights" our goobermint still permits us.
What I fear most is people becoming the driving force in this country who think in a manner such as how you portray your beliefs.
I didn't write that. You "replied" to the wrong person. Confused?
Holy edumacation, Batman!
No shit! Guess who DID say it, eh?
You can't tell a highlight from a hole in the ground?
I replied to YOU John. You managed to notice that I was talking to you but you had no clue as to what was written. Meh, typical.
So, to give you a helpful hint...
Rights still permitted by our goobermint.....your bent way of thinking coming into power?
Not good and, IMO, quite to be feared.
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
kallend 2,148
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuotePlease explain how you would "close the cracks".
What in the world is a question like that? It's especially off-the-mark coming from a book-educated person.
Has common sense gone completely to pot these days?
Just for your benefit, John, I'll state the obvious...
There IS no closing all the cracks no matter what you can come up with. You want a pie-in-the-sky world and it just ain't a-gonna happen. You want utopia and it ain't a-gonna happen. You want a world without weapons and it ain't a-gonna happen.
STRAWMAN. No-one called for a world without weapons or even a ban on handguns. Just closing the cracks YOU identified that Cho and Loughner crawled through on the way to their massacres of innocent people.
So here we are again
How would you have stopped them without stepping on their rights?
Answer is, you would not and can not.
Now demonstrated is your desire to ban guns and, avoid the debate at all costs
Please provide a link to ANY post of mine where I expressed a desire to ban all guns. You can't, and you know it. It's the same strawman you use over and over again.
According to the SCOTUS, rights are NOT unlimited and prohibitions on the mentally ill ARE constitutional.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kallend 2,148
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuotePlease explain how you would "close the cracks".
What in the world is a question like that? It's especially off-the-mark coming from a book-educated person.
Has common sense gone completely to pot these days?
Just for your benefit, John, I'll state the obvious...
There IS no closing all the cracks no matter what you can come up with. You want a pie-in-the-sky world and it just ain't a-gonna happen. You want utopia and it ain't a-gonna happen. You want a world without weapons and it ain't a-gonna happen.
STRAWMAN. No-one called for a world without weapons or even a ban on handguns. Just closing the cracks YOU identified that Cho and Loughner crawled through on the way to their massacres of innocent people.
Where was Loughner's psych eval (beside your summation of his Youtube vids, that is)? If Cho was a danger, why was he released?
IF? IF? The guy killed dozens of innocent people.
despite your LIP SERVICE about caring about the victims, you have never made one useful suggestion about how people like Cho and Loughner can be prevented from going on killing sprees. All you ever do is criticize the suggestions of others.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kallend 2,148
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteMeanwhile, the rest of us will continue to enjoy what little "rights" our goobermint still permits us.
What I fear most is people becoming the driving force in this country who think in a manner such as how you portray your beliefs.
I didn't write that. You "replied" to the wrong person. Confused?
Holy edumacation, Batman!
No shit! Guess who DID say it, eh?
You can't tell a highlight from a hole in the ground?
I replied to YOU John. You managed to notice that I was talking to you but you had no clue as to what was written. Meh, typical.
So, to give you a helpful hint...
Rights still permitted by our goobermint.....your bent way of thinking coming into power?
Not good and, IMO, quite to be feared.
So the concept of "in reply to" is indeed confusing to you. OK. Did you borrow mnealtx's dictionary or take lessons from rushmc?
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites