billvon 3,116 #201 July 10, 2011 >We can, and do, just that. I missed reading in the Bill of Rights where either of those >things are covered. Got a cite? Sure: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #202 July 10, 2011 QuoteQuotePeople With Mental Illness More Often Crime Victims Aaron Levin Comparing national criminal-justice figures with those for an urban sample of mentally ill persons shows that they are more likely to be victims of violent crime than is the general population. More than one-fourth of persons with severe mental illness are victims of violent crime in the course of a year, a rate 11 times higher than that of the general population, according to a study by researchers at Northwestern University. They estimated that nearly 3 million severely mentally ill people are crime victims each year in the United States. This is the first such study to include a large, random sample of community-living, mentally ill persons and to use the same measures of victimization used by the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, said lead author Linda Teplin, Ph.D., Owen L. Coon Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at the Feinberg School of Medicine of Northwestern University, in the August Archives of General Psychiatry. Victimization rates vary with the type of violent crime, said the researchers. People with mental illness were eight times more likely to be robbed, 15 times more likely to be assaulted, and 23 times more likely to be raped than was the general population. Theft of property from persons, rare in the general population at 0.2 percent, happens to 21 percent of mentally ill persons, or 140 times as often. Even theft of minor items from victims can increase their anxiety and worsen psychiatric symptoms, the researchers said. “The direction of causality is the reverse of common belief: persons who are seriously mentally ill are far more likely to be the victims of violence than its initiators,” said Leon Eisenberg, M.D., professor emeritus of social medicine and health policy at Harvard Medical School, in an accompanying editorial. “The evidence produced by Linda Teplin et al. settles the matter beyond question.” http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/content/40/17/16.full So can we put you down for denying the mentally ill the ability to defend themselves? Your post is about the way things really are. This is contrary to the accepted stigma and stereotype. Political propoganda cannot defend itself against stuff like this. Ergo, it should be ignored. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #203 July 10, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuotePeople With Mental Illness More Often Crime Victims Aaron Levin Comparing national criminal-justice figures with those for an urban sample of mentally ill persons shows that they are more likely to be victims of violent crime than is the general population. More than one-fourth of persons with severe mental illness are victims of violent crime in the course of a year, a rate 11 times higher than that of the general population, according to a study by researchers at Northwestern University. They estimated that nearly 3 million severely mentally ill people are crime victims each year in the United States. This is the first such study to include a large, random sample of community-living, mentally ill persons and to use the same measures of victimization used by the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, said lead author Linda Teplin, Ph.D., Owen L. Coon Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at the Feinberg School of Medicine of Northwestern University, in the August Archives of General Psychiatry. Victimization rates vary with the type of violent crime, said the researchers. People with mental illness were eight times more likely to be robbed, 15 times more likely to be assaulted, and 23 times more likely to be raped than was the general population. Theft of property from persons, rare in the general population at 0.2 percent, happens to 21 percent of mentally ill persons, or 140 times as often. Even theft of minor items from victims can increase their anxiety and worsen psychiatric symptoms, the researchers said. “The direction of causality is the reverse of common belief: persons who are seriously mentally ill are far more likely to be the victims of violence than its initiators,” said Leon Eisenberg, M.D., professor emeritus of social medicine and health policy at Harvard Medical School, in an accompanying editorial. “The evidence produced by Linda Teplin et al. settles the matter beyond question.” http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/content/40/17/16.full So can we put you down for denying the mentally ill the ability to defend themselves? Your post is about the way things really are. This is contrary to the accepted stigma and stereotype. Political propoganda cannot defend itself against stuff like this. Ergo, it should be ignored. I knew it would be ignored because it didn't fit the template. After all, it's not about the truth, it's all about not being wrong. Ego blinds so many from the truth. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #204 July 10, 2011 Quote Quote Quote .... Right - because we have to wait until they commit a crime. (1)Do we take away a person's right to a gun because he has a misdemeanor drunk in public? (2)Or a DUI? (3)Sure, thayt person has demonstrated a lack of responsibility, but guns have nothing to do with it. .... (1) Thanks God, we do here. (2) Thanks God, we do here. (3) I really would love to know what kind of *shyster* you are. It's not first time, I have my doubts. Alone that lack of responsibility surely is enough to refuse *someone's* right to own weapons. I'm pretty sure, all of the above 3 pts are saving many, many lives of MY fellow citizens. I don't knowe...I'm asking... Does you country have a Bill of Rights, or some similar instrument, that specifically says something along the lines of citizens having "a right to bear arms...."? You mean like your 2nd Amendment? No. That's not included in our basic rights. I'm pretty sure you knew that, right? And now to your next question/conclusion .... ? dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyPiggie 0 #205 July 10, 2011 QuoteNot inconsistant at all. Right are limited for a number of people for a number of very good reasons. Felons can't own guns and that's a pretty darn good reason. Color of skin and sex of the individual aren't good reasons. If a person is not mentally able to tell the difference between reality and fantasy, that's an extremely good reason not to let them have access to guns. So the mentally ill are no different from felons? That's very nice of you... NOT! Yep, you're making excuses to carve out exceptions to rights for groups of people that haven't done anything to hurt anyone. That's not what freedom is all about. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyPiggie 0 #206 July 10, 2011 Quote>Either you're in favor of rights for all, or not. Which is it? ?? I am sure that even you are not in favor of rights for criminals. The mentally ill are not criminals. Are you in favor of treating them like they are, by denying them rights? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyPiggie 0 #207 July 10, 2011 QuoteI said, "This entire process needs to be cleaned up." A prime example was in the first few paragraphs of the article I quoted and linked in the very first post in this thread. There really wasn't a process there at all. The guy stood in front of a judge and presented no medical evidence or testimony from a psychiatrist; he didn't even have a note. Essentially the judge asked him, "You ok?" and the guy said, "Yes" and he got his guns back. That's irresponsible. Perhaps you missed the part where it said that the county attorney was there at the hearing also. If the subject had a record of violence, it was his job to present that info to the judge. Apparently there wasn't any history of violence, and that's why the judge restored the rights. You seem to be making assumptions that something irresponsible took place, without knowing all the facts. That's not the way to carry out justice. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #208 July 10, 2011 Gee SkyPiggie, I wonder what our resident NRA expert, JohnRich, would have to say about keeping guns out of the hands of loonies. In the past he's supported the position of the NRA has that it's a good thing, yet for some reason there seems to be a few people here that disagree with the NRA's position. Odd that he'd be pretty quiet on this subject while you, SkyPiggie, seem to have quite a bit to say about it.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #209 July 10, 2011 You confuse the issue, paul. Over and over because you are so set in your thinking that you won't even acknowledge the facts and studies put forth because you have your own stereotypes and stigmas that you apply. You equate "loony" with "violent loony." Trust me - there is a HUGE difference. THose loonies who have a history of demonstrated violence? Nobody argues that they should be allowed to keep or own firearms. Loonies who have no demonstrated history of violence? The position indicated by all those who disagree with you is that IF they are to have their rights taken from them, it should not be done until the government proves that the person is a danger and the "loony" has the right to fight it. You are persistent in comparing "loony" with "criminal" and "violent." They are mutually exclusive. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #210 July 10, 2011 No, sir, it is you that is focused on the term violent. I've not used it. What I have repeated said, and do so once more in the hopes that maybe this time you will see it although I highly doubt it since you've not done so up to this point, is what I'm concerned with is responsibility and the person knowing reality from fantasy. Most five-year-olds aren't violent, but it's irresponsible to leave them alone with a loaded gun. They simply do not know reality from fantasy, nor I might add do they completely understand the concept of death or the consequences of their actions. THAT is the reason. I've said it before and you conveniently ignore it in your lawyerly like ways, but that doesn't change it.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dmcoco84 5 #211 July 10, 2011 Do you feel that a person who has visual hallucinations, and/or "hears voices"... cannot distiguition that those occurances, are not normal, and are problematic? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #212 July 10, 2011 QuoteDo you feel that a person who has visual hallucinations, and/or "hears voices"... cannot distiguition that those occurances, are not normal, and are problematic? In some but not all cases, yes. To say that ALL people with hallucinations can tell the difference is just as silly as saying none of them can. I'd leave it up at a panel of experts to conclude which. Again, going back to the original article linked, that certainly didn't seem to be the case where the person who saw bears and heard voices simply stood in front of a court judge and essentially just said he was fine.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #213 July 10, 2011 QuoteDo you feel that a person who has visual hallucinations, and/or "hears voices"... cannot distiguition that those occurances, are not normal, and are problematic? DUDE.... you are talking about 75% of the Tea Baggers... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dmcoco84 5 #214 July 11, 2011 Quote Quote Do you feel that a person who has visual hallucinations, and/or "hears voices"... cannot distiguition that those occurances, are not normal, and are problematic? DUDE.... you are talking about 75% of the Tea Baggers... Shaking Head You're a trip. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #215 July 11, 2011 >The mentally ill are not criminals. Agreed. >Are you in favor of treating them like they are, by denying them rights? No, they should be treated like mentally ill and (potentially) denied rights for that reason. Children are denied rights. Doesn't mean we "treat them like criminals." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #216 July 11, 2011 Do you think all Christians and people of other Faiths should have their gun rights taken away? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyPiggie 0 #217 July 11, 2011 QuoteGee SkyPiggie, I wonder what our resident NRA expert, JohnRich, would have to say about keeping guns out of the hands of loonies. In the past he's supported the position of the NRA has that it's a good thing, yet for some reason there seems to be a few people here that disagree with the NRA's position. Odd that he'd be pretty quiet on this subject while you, SkyPiggie, seem to have quite a bit to say about it. I've explained this situation to you before, but you seem to block-out and ignore anything that doesn't suit you. Suit yourself. John is taking care of skydiving and shooting gear from a fun-filled weekend, and he'll probably be back on the computer tomorrow. I, on the other hand, usually only use the computer on weekends. And of course, none of this personal computer usage info has anything at all to do with the subject at hand, so I don't know why you obsess about it. Would you like to restore my Bonfire access rights now? You took those away based upon a wrong hunch and a whim, just like you're proposing here to take away rights from the mentally ill. Maybe that's a hint of the way you would run things if you were king. And it ain't a pretty sight. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyPiggie 0 #218 July 11, 2011 Quote> The mentally ill are not criminals. Agreed. > Are you in favor of treating them like they are, by denying them rights? No, they should be treated like mentally ill and (potentially) denied rights for that reason. Denying then their rights IS treating them like criminals. While you're at it, are there any other groups of people to whom you would like to deny rights? Like maybe Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, communists, and persons of foreign blood? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #219 July 11, 2011 QuoteDo you think all Christians and people of other Faiths should have their gun rights taken away? Do you think faith is limited to religion?Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #220 July 11, 2011 >Denying then their rights IS treating them like criminals. No, it's treating them like mentally ill. Just like children aren't allowed to vote. Doesn't mean we're treating them like criminals, it means we're treating them like children. >While you're at it, are there any other groups of people to whom you would like to >deny rights? Like maybe Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, >communists, and persons of foreign blood? Nope. Criminals, children and the insane are an adequate list. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #221 July 11, 2011 QuoteQuoteDo you think all Christians and people of other Faiths should have their gun rights taken away? Do you think faith is limited to religion? Nope. And before you get started let me say that I respect a persons right to believe whatever they want. It's a very personal thing and I don't judge people based on their beliefs or non-beliefs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #222 July 11, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteDo you think all Christians and people of other Faiths should have their gun rights taken away? Do you think faith is limited to religion? Nope. And before you get started let me say that I respect a persons right to believe whatever they want. It's a very personal thing and I don't judge people based on their beliefs or non-beliefs. Hey maybe the guy in the OP... was worshipping the bear!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #223 July 11, 2011 QuoteCriminals, children and the insane are an adequate list. Why do you hate skydivers and want to take their guns away? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #224 July 11, 2011 >Why do you hate skydivers . . . That's Obama, silly girl. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #225 July 11, 2011 QuoteDo you think all Christians and people of other Faiths should have their gun rights taken away? I would have thought by now anyone paying attention would know better than to ask me an absolutist question. I guess I can put you down in the set of folks that don't pay attention.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
