Remember the thread awhile back about schizophrenic gun owners?

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

OK, those may be worthwhile discussions to have but the original post and linked article did not address any of those points. This guy had previously been committed and shouldn't have been allowed to have a gun.

"In 2000, Sencion was taken into protective custody by local police as part of a mental health commitment, the AP reported. He’d also been hospitalized for psychological troubles as an adult."

I wonder what happened that he fell through the cracks. Is there really, currently in existence, a viable universal process for banning the possession of weapons in these cases or is it only a jurisdictional process where every city, county and state is different? I think not and that's a problem.

Do all MH professionals even know what to do and how to do it in these cases? Are they bound by any rules or regulations to proceed in a certain manner?

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

I made that exact point earlier today in a different thread. Do try to keep up, dear boy.

As if we should ALL be sitting on the edge of our seats frantically searching for Kallend inanities throughout the entire site.
How arrogant can one get?
*shaking head icon*

If YOU paid attention before hitting "Post Reply", you'd know that he was participating in that thread too. If you think it's arrogance to expect some cognitive abilities and recall extending for about an hour in a discussion forum, that's just sad.

...

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

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Quote

This guy had previously been committed and shouldn't have been allowed to have a gun.

Neither should have Cho been allowed (He had been committed).

Neither should have Loughner (Arrest for drug paraphernalia, five incidents with police for disruption, drug use)

Neither should have Harris and Klebold (They were charged with mischief, breaking and entering, trespassing, and theft in 1988. Both were underage, Harris had court-ordered anger management )

And if you look at the stats for gun crime... Most of the people that Kill or shoot someone (already illegal) have prior convictions that prevent them from possessing a gun.

These are all just failures of the Govt to do what it said it is going to do.... New laws and regulations are not needed... We just need to actually use the ones we have.

Technically Cho was not committed, he was referred to outpatient treatment, which is what led to the confusion. He should have been barred though.

I admit to not knowing that much about those other cases, are any of those felonies? I thought only felonies led to a bar on buying firearms.

My personal stance regarding mental illness is that we would be better off baring people from buying guns who have violent misdemeanors rather than focusing on mental illness, as it is much more predictive.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Quote

OK, those may be worthwhile discussions to have but the original post and linked article did not address any of those points. This guy had previously been committed and shouldn't have been allowed to have a gun.

"In 2000, Sencion was taken into protective custody by local police as part of a mental health commitment, the AP reported. He’d also been hospitalized for psychological troubles as an adult."

I wonder what happened that he fell through the cracks. Is there really, currently in existence, a viable universal process for banning the possession of weapons in these cases or is it only a jurisdictional process where every city, county and state is different? I think not and that's a problem.

Do all MH professionals even know what to do and how to do it in these cases? Are they bound by any rules or regulations to proceed in a certain manner?

It is done differently in different states. Here in Virginia a magistrate has to sign a temporary detaining order and a hearing must be held within, I believe, 48 hours. It is the magistrate or judge that then must report them for placement on the "ineligible to buy firearms" registry. The MH professional does not do that part.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I made that exact point earlier today in a different thread. Do try to keep up, dear boy.

As if we should ALL be sitting on the edge of our seats frantically searching for Kallend inanities throughout the entire site.
How arrogant can one get?
*shaking head icon*

If YOU paid attention before hitting "Post Reply", you'd know that he was participating in that thread too. If you think it's arrogance to expect some cognitive abilities and recall extending for about an hour in a discussion forum, that's just sad.

Nope, sorry John. I don't sit on the edge of my seat frantically searching for Kallend inanities throughout the entire site. You think it's sad that I don't? 'Nuff said, eh?

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

It is done differently in different states. Here in Virginia a magistrate has to sign a temporary detaining order and a hearing must be held within, I believe, 48 hours. It is the magistrate or judge that then must report them for placement on the "ineligible to buy firearms" registry. The MH professional does not do that part.

Thanks. Virginia process makes sense to me on the face of it.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I made that exact point earlier today in a different thread. Do try to keep up, dear boy.

As if we should ALL be sitting on the edge of our seats frantically searching for Kallend inanities throughout the entire site.
How arrogant can one get?
*shaking head icon*

If YOU paid attention before hitting "Post Reply", you'd know that he was participating in that thread too. If you think it's arrogance to expect some cognitive abilities and recall extending for about an hour in a discussion forum, that's just sad.

Nope, sorry John. I don't sit on the edge of my seat frantically searching for Kallend inanities throughout the entire site. You think it's sad that I don't? 'Nuff said, eh?

You clearly don't bother to read what's right in front of you either.

No searching of the entire site was necessary, just recall from 29 minutes previously in a thread in which he had been posting.

If you have trouble recalling what you read 29 minutes ago that is sad but help is available, POPS.

And maybe you'd like to explain to the gun enthusiasts why you think "There is no reason a sane, law abiding adult should be prevented from owning a firearm." is an inanity (to use your own description of the statement).

...

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

[lawrocket 3]

Paul - did the guy have a history of violence? If so, then he was a known threat.

The issue - and I'll reiterate - is that the stripping of a person's rights due to stereotype of an illness and without factual support is what we all object to.

Schizophrenics shoot fewer people each year than, let's say, African Americans.

Now, change the argument to, "African Americans are threats. Therefore, we should take guns from them." No due process. Just take them.

I see no difference, Paul. It's a stereotype and it's unfair.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[quade 4]

Nonsense.

Your argument might as well be that no child under six has ever killed anyone with a nuclear weapon, therefore children under six MUST be allowed access to nuclear weapons.

Your arguments are simply silly.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

no child under six has ever killed anyone with a nuclear weapon, therefore children under six MUST be allowed access to nuclear weapons.

your argument is interesting - are they atheistic children with a fully filled out out vaccination history?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Quote

It is done differently in different states. Here in Virginia a magistrate has to sign a temporary detaining order and a hearing must be held within, I believe, 48 hours. It is the magistrate or judge that then must report them for placement on the "ineligible to buy firearms" registry. The MH professional does not do that part.

Thanks. Virginia process makes sense to me on the face of it.

The Virginia process has (understandably) been changed a lot since the Cho incident. There are tighter reporting requirements and much more tracking of mandatory outpatient treatment, as well as more money and support for people transitioning from institutions (psych units and jails mostly) back into the community. People can still get lost in the cracks, as they can in any system.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[billvon 3,120]

>Your argument might as well be that no child under six has ever killed anyone with
>a nuclear weapon, therefore children under six MUST be allowed access to nuclear
>weapons.

I don't think we need a law that says children under six must be allowed access to nuclear weapons. (And more importantly, we don't need a law that says children under six CANNOT have access to nuclear weapons.)

[steve1 5]

I think a lot of people hear the word mental illness, and immediately....they think danger, watch out, this person is dangerous! I'd bet half the people on this forum could have been diagnosed with one form of mental illness or another, sometime in their life. That doesn't necassarily mean, that they are, or were, a threat to anyone.

Sure there are some dangerous, crazy, damn, people in the world, but usually they also have a track record of violence in their past.

Someone already mentioned, that a person's past, is a huge predictor of what they may do in the future. By all means, if a person has a long history of violence, put their rear in jail, and take their guns away.... Often times this past record, get's overlooked, or the present laws simply aren't enforced. I don't think we need more laws that punish the wrong people....

I know a few folks who have committed felonies. They served time in prison, and have been told they can not own a gun....yet they do. Some of their friends are even cops. They all know what is going on yet nothing is done....

I went to a training recently by an FBI investigator. He told a story of a woman who was brutally beaten to death, with a tire iron. There was blood thirty feet away from the body. She had been hit maybe fifty times....or more.

The guy who killed her, said it never should have happened. That he loved this woman....Sure he was crazier than a bed bug.....He also had a rap sheet as long as your arm....Why the hell wasn't he locked up a long time ago for violence. The courts kept giving him one more chance. Finally he killed someone in a very brutal manner.

I think we need to enforce the damn laws we have now....I don't think we need more laws that only punish honest gun owners...

[lawrocket 3]

I disagree.

You are pointing to a case of an allegedly schizophrenic person shooting people as evidence to support your belief that schizophrenics should not have access to weapons.

I applied that logic to different classes of people. Let's apply it to the poor. To blacks. To immigrants. You name it! How about applying it to Army Majors? Muslims? Psychiatrists? College Professors?

Oh, no. Schizophrenics - they should be singled out. People who are ILL. In most cases it's no choice of their own.

A recent study suggests that schizophrenics are at a higher risk of violent behavior when they abuse alcohol and drugs. However, it pointed out that they are no more risky than any other person who abuses alcohol or drugs. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090810221407.htm

It's a stereotype, Paul. Yes, people with schizophrenia do act violently. Just like people without it.

Mentally ill are apparently the remaining group of people wherein it is acceptable, if not admirable, to paint stigma and negative stereotype as a reason to deny them the rights of other Americans.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[quade 4]

Quote

Mentally ill are apparently the remaining group of people wherein it is acceptable, if not admirable, to paint stigma and negative stereotype as a reason to deny them the rights of other Americans.

Nonsense. We also think lawyers should be locked up.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 3,120]

>I applied that logic to different classes of people. Let's apply it to the poor. To blacks.
>To immigrants. You name it! How about applying it to Army Majors? Muslims?
>Psychiatrists? College Professors?

If any of them had a provable record of trying to kill themselves or others because their brains have serious malfunctions - then yes, that might make sense.

Schizophrenia is a disease that affects the brain. In some cases, that malfunction is so severe that the person cannot tell reality from imagination, and thus may decide that killing Saddam Hussein is a very good idea. After all, it was sanctioned by the US. And the next time Saddam Hussein comes to deliver his pizza, then he might do just that. Someone with that serious a malfunction cannot safely exercise some of their rights (using a gun, driving etc.)

Not all people who have schizophrenia have such a serious case. Indeed, the inability to tell reality from imagination to that degree is pretty rare (fortunately.)

>It's a stereotype, Paul. Yes, people with schizophrenia do act violently. Just like people
>without it.

That's like saying "yes, Down syndrome people are sometimes not so smart. Just like people without it." And yes, you could come up with an example of a non-trisomy person who is dumber than a high functioning person with trisomy 21. But it's still a pretty silly comparison to make.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

That's like saying "yes, Down syndrome people are sometimes not so smart. Just like people without it."

Actually, it's more along the lines of referring to a person with cerebral palsy as a retard. Or someone with Tourette's as an idiot.

It may be often be assumed that a person who cannot get a cognizant sentence out of his or her mouth is of lesser intellectual functioning. Meanwhile, of course, this is often not the case.

The scientific literature is obviously not conclusive. However, it seems to demonstrate that schizophrenics are no more likely than the general population to commit violent crimes. Sure, their reasons for doing it are unreasonable, i.e., blowing someone away because he is an alien informant. The non-schizophrenic has more valid reasons, i.e., that punk dissed me yesterday, or all-I-wanted-was-her-damned-purse-and-the-bitch-gave-me-a-hard-time.

Let the prospective criminal be free until he/she commits a criminal act. But the schizophrenic? Nope.

Why treat someone who has committed no crime like a criminal because that person is schizophrenic?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[quade 4]

Quote

Why treat someone who has committed no crime like a criminal because that person is schizophrenic?

Nobody is suggesting they be restricted in all cases, but what I keep hearing you saying is that they shouldn't be restricted in any cases.

That's simply ridiculous.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Why treat someone who has committed no crime like a criminal because that person is schizophrenic?

Nobody is suggesting they be restricted in all cases, but what I keep hearing you saying is that they shouldn't be restricted in any cases.

That's simply ridiculous.

well, you didn't come forth with a reply when we asked what it would take to kick off your "temporary" disarmament. And it's pretty clear that Amazon is on the side of ALL.

What people are telling you is that you need to establish the finding in advance of such measures, not the mere suspicion of issues.

[quade 4]

Quote

What people are telling you is that you need to establish the finding in advance of such measures, not the mere suspicion of issues.

And what happens between the time of suspicion and finding?

Do you separate the person from the population so they can't do any harm like they do with criminals? Or, is it just more prudent to separate the person from their ability to cause massive damage by temporarily taking away their guns?

To me it seems irresponsible to continue to allow them to have access to weapons.

I can nearly guarantee you wouldn't allow it in your own home.

Imagine Uncle Bob comes to visit one day. He plops down on your sofa and you two start talking about UFOs. He thinks he's been abducted and now he's hearing voices. He whips out his 1911. Puts a magazine in and chambers a round. He says the aliens told him that strange people want to make sure he never tells his story to anybody because then the CIA will be after him. He starts looking at you kind of funny. He says, "You know, I probably shouldn't have told you this." He says, "You know, the aliens aren't so bad really. They're really just misunderstood folks like me. You understand me . . . don't you?"

Soooo . . . what happens here? Do you keep talking to Uncle Bob and wait for him to pull the trigger to prove he's nuts or do you maybe suggest he puts the gun down?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[lawrocket 3]

[Quote]Do you separate the person from the population so they can't do any harm like they do with criminals? Or, is it just more prudent to separate the person from their ability to cause massive damage by temporarily taking away their guns?

So what you are saying is that you'd rather violate their rights to procedural due process, substantive due process, their Fourth Amendment rights and their Second Amendment rights than violate their rights to procedural due process, substantive due process, their Fourth Amendment rights and their Sixth Amendment rights.

See, Paul, to me it's not the Second versus the Sixth Amendment. It's the due process rights. It's the Fourth Amedment. The Fourteenth.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Why treat someone who has committed no crime like a criminal because that person is schizophrenic?

Nobody is suggesting they be restricted in all cases, but what I keep hearing you saying is that they shouldn't be restricted in any cases.

That's simply ridiculous.

well, you didn't come forth with a reply when we asked what it would take to kick off your "temporary" disarmament. And it's pretty clear that Amazon is on the side of ALL.

What people are telling you is that you need to establish the finding in advance of such measures, not the mere suspicion of issues.

ANOTHER complet misrepresentation from the mind ofSeaweed boy... color me SOOOOOOOOOOO not surprised

When someone acts out... and is violent.. like some of the little mass murderers you love so much have done..... they usually have a nice long history... Most of them are in severe need of help and I want them subjected to the full force of THE LAW and make damn sure they get that help AND onto the appropriate lists to prevent them from moving on from abusing pets and school mates....to acquiring weapons and to shooting a congresswoman and a bunch of people around her or a whole bunch of people at a college..... and on and on and on... you seem to have a problem with that and want to mollycoddle people who end up making all responsible gun owners look bad and making it harder and harder to own weapons or buy them.

[billvon 3,120]

Enough with the PA's. Your one warning.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Enough with the PA's. Your one warning.

Gee, where ya' been?

[quade 4]

Answer the question.

Uncle Bob is sitting on your couch. He's got a round chambered. The aliens are speaking to him in his head and he's looking at you funny.

Tick-tock. Tick-tock.

Do you let Uncle Bob shoot you first to prove he's nuts or do you try to get him to put the gun down and take it away from him before he can?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver