Should this woman ever be allowed to purchase a gun

[lawrocket 3]

http://shine.yahoo.com/book-club/-brain-on-fire---a-writer-possessed.html

Quote

she suddenly began experiencing delusions and behaving erratically. Within a few weeks, she became increasingly abusive, moody, and paranoid.

Is there anyone out there who will say that she was a nutter, and could become a nutter again. That she could again snap and therefore should be sequestered from society? She suffered from a mental illness that is treatable, but who says whether she will comply with treatment?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[CarpeDiem3 0]

Heck no. Once you've gone nuts, you can never be trusted again. She should not be allowed to have access to guns. Ever!

[normiss 906]

Clearly no from that, but I'm not sure any of that information would be required in the business end of a gun purchase.
Yet.

[matthewcline 0]

I don't see the connection to a gun in the story, why are you making this an issue?

She had a medical issue, the Dr. found it and treated it.

Matt

An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

[billvon 3,132]

I'd say it's up to her doctor (backed up by a court) to make that determination.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Yes she should be allowed to buy a gun. She has to defend herself from arab immigrants.

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

Yes she should be allowed to buy a gun. She has to defend herself from arab immigrants.

Except for the one who saved her life.

Fascinating story this woman has. Too bad it's been turned into a Dorkzone gun thread populated by the rest of you douchebags.

[lawrocket 3]

Hey - that's an insult to douchebags.

Bill made an interesting point. My question for Bill is his: Would you require the government to prove that she is a danger or require her to prove that she is not a danger? What would you suggest to be the burden of proof?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[quade 4]

Quote

Hey - that's an insult to douchebags.

Bill made an interesting point. My question for Bill is his: Would you require the government to prove that she is a danger or require her to prove that she is not a danger? What would you suggest to be the burden of proof?

Hasn't she already proven she's a danger?

If so, then isn't the burden to prove she's no longer a danger hers as well?

I'm not exactly certain how she'd go about doing that though. How would a person go about proving they aren't crazy?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

Yes she should be allowed to buy a gun. She has to defend herself from arab immigrants.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Hasn't she already proven she's a danger?

"She's a danger?" Versus "She was a danger?" Might not mean much to you but to me it means plenty.

Quote

then doesn't the burden to prove she's no longer a danger hers as well?

I disagree. Paul - prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you are not a danger. You can't. Prove you'll never get in a car wreck. Prove you'll never have a seizure. Prove you won't get a brain tumor and go cuckoo.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[quade 4]

It's almost like you completely ignored the last sentence in my post. Oh yeah, because you did.

Anyway . . .

So then why should it be the government's responsibility to prove her sane? Why should the rest of us pick up the tab to prove she's not crazy?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

It's almost like you completely ignored the last sentence in my post. Oh yeah, because you did.

eh, you ignored the part where he address the question to Bill, not you (who has long proven a lack of objectivity on the subject). Consider it even.

Quote

So then why should it be the government's responsibility to prove her sane? Why should the rest of us pick up the tab to prove she's not crazy?

If the government (we the people) wish to deprive a citizen of her rights, it should bear the burden of cost and proof to do so. And it has to prove her insane, not sane.

Her acute problems had a identified cause that was dealt with. If it were a matter of "we have no idea why she's ok now, we just tried a bunch of shit and it went into remission," that would be a different situation. Drivers who have seizures lose their license until they can show they won't have them again.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

It's almost like you completely ignored the last sentence in my post. Oh yeah, because you did.

You are right. I totally missed it. Sorry.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[quade 4]

Quote

Drivers who have seizures lose their license until they can show they won't have them again.

Which kind of sounds like the burden of proof is on the person having the seizures. So, why do you flip that around and say it's the government's responsibility here?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Drivers who have seizures lose their license until they can show they won't have them again.

Which kind of sounds like the burden of proof is on the person having the seizures. So, why do you flip that around and say it's the government's responsibility here?

wow...way to dodge the post via selectively citing!

But to answer: 1) driving is not a right.
2) you ran away from the part of unknown cause.

You know both of these. Man up already.

[billvon 3,132]

>Would you require the government to prove that she is a danger or require her to
>prove that she is not a danger? What would you suggest to be the burden of proof?

It would depend on the scenario I imagine. A patient who (as in this case) was not responsible for her actions? She is assumed incompetent and must prove competence. A patient who is simply suspected of being so - i.e. an older guy accused of being senile and incompetent, but has not been observed by a doctor to be unable to function? Then the presumption would be that he is competent.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

It would depend on the scenario I imagine

This would present a grave danger. I think it has to be consistent regardless of the scenario. Otherwise the procedure would be arbitrary depending on subjective belief of which pattern the scenario fits.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,132]

>This would present a grave danger. I think it has to be consistent regardless of the scenario.

??? Why? Are arrests the same no matter what the infraction? Should a man who shoots at a cop (and misses) be handled the same way as a man who is found hunting out of season? I mean, you could claim "treating them differently would allow for a cop's subjective belief on gun control!" But it sees to work out OK.

There has to be some intelligence applied, I think.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Should a man who shoots at a cop (and misses) be handled the same way as a man who is found hunting out of season?

Yes. Due process requires the same treatment under the same procedures.

I think even alleged terrorists should be treated the same way - give them access to courts, etc.

What I meant by "subjective belief" is that the government would seek to make every case one in which the burden of proof is placed on the individual. If a person commits a crime, it is that person's responsibility to prove affirmatively that the person was insane. I get that. Had this woman been charged then she could have certainly used it.

Considering that this woman did not, apparently, ever have an arrest: does this make any difference to you in the procedural burden?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Channman 2]

I think she should have to go through medical test and follow up on an annual bases to prove she is mentally stable and that brain function is fully restored and she is 100% recovered from this disease. Much like the FAA requires a pilot to prove health after heart surgery with on-going medical requirements annually to maintain said medical.

So I think she should be able to own a gun down the road, if not maybe we should consider taking the keys to her car as well.

[billvon 3,132]

> Due process requires the same treatment under the same procedures.

?? No, it doesn't. The person who shot at the cop will likely be arrested and held in prison, because shooting at cops means he probably represents a threat. The person hunting out of season will likely not be arrested; he will likely be given a citation and told to come to court.

They both have exactly the same rights (i.e. to have their case tried in a court) but the actions taken are quite different (i.e. imprisonment vs being given a citation.)

>What I meant by "subjective belief" is that the government would seek to make
>every case one in which the burden of proof is placed on the individual.

Of course. But the government doesn't make such calls. In the case of the guy shooting at police, the cops there make the call (later backed up by the district attorney, the courts etc) In the case of the woman who is insane, the doctor makes the call (later backed up by the district attorney, the courts etc.)

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

> Due process requires the same treatment under the same procedures.

?? No, it doesn't. The person who shot at the cop will likely be arrested and held in prison, because shooting at cops means he probably represents a threat. The person hunting out of season will likely not be arrested; he will likely be given a citation and told to come to court.

They both have exactly the same rights (i.e. to have their case tried in a court) but the actions taken are quite different (i.e. imprisonment vs being given a citation.)

I see your point now. Agreed.

But this gal never even got cited.

Quote

In the case of the woman who is insane, the doctor makes the call (later backed up by the district attorney, the courts etc.)

It doesn't even sound like a doctor ever made THAT call. Much less a doctor would say now she's a threat.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[normiss 906]

Unless the state one wants to purchase in has a mental health question on a purchase form....something I haven't yet seen....what would prevent her from buying a gun?

I'm almost afraid to think how this could change in the future once the government holds ALL of our medical information.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Except for the one who saved her life.

Please....like an arab immigrant could do something good...