Should background checks include identifying the mentally ill

[toolbox 0]

I can see your point,and I respect it.
I feel for those with mental and emotional problems and actually know several people who have issues.
I've seen bipolar people go from calm and rational to manic,batshit crazy in the flick of a switch.
I would not want to be working next to someone who was prone to such changes in behavior and sure as hell do not think they should have firearms.
The risk of hiding known severe mood swings,delusional and possible violent behavior is too great to the rest of society.

[davjohns 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I believe mental illness should be reported and be screened for on background checks.

I don't. And that's where you and I differ.

So then, screening against "evil" or "body thetans" are probably also off your list; yes?

So, pass the audit with the psychometer and you get a concealed carry license?

Welcome back, Mr. Hubbard.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[quade 4]

Quote

So, pass the audit with the psychometer and you get a concealed carry license?

My point was that if a person subscribes to the concept that people such as Lanza or Dorner or whatever flavor of the week mass killer aren't "mentally ill" but instead "evil" then I think that's a sort of "magical thinking." Whatever is going on in the heads of people like the killers' isn't "evil"; it's a brain that isn't functioning correctly. It's not possessed by demons or thetans. It's not working right.

Now, lawrocket and coco want to quibble over the legal definition of insane, but whatever you want to call it, the killers' brains are not working normally. Normal people do not go on shooting sprees. They just don't. Something has to be screwed up in their heads for them to believe that is the solution to whatever problem they might have.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[davjohns 1]

Quote

Quote

So, pass the audit with the psychometer and you get a concealed carry license?

My point was that if a person subscribes to the concept that people such as Lanza or Dorner or whatever flavor of the week mass killer aren't "mentally ill" but instead "evil" then I think that's a sort of "magical thinking." Whatever is going on in the heads of people like the killers' isn't "evil"; it's a brain that isn't functioning correctly. It's not possessed by demons or thetans. It's not working right.

Now, lawrocket and coco want to quibble over the legal definition of insane, but whatever you want to call it, the killers' brains are not working normally. Normal people do not go on shooting sprees. They just don't. Something has to be screwed up in their heads for them to believe that is the solution to whatever problem they might have.

Well...I think you may be going into new territory there.

If extreme evil is a mental condition, is extreme good a mental condition? I mean really; who gives up their life for someone they don't know? Why would anyone like Mother Teresa spend their life doing for others? Mental defect?

I know that sounds sarcastic, but I don't mean for it to be. If these folks just decided they wanted to kill others for a lark, is that a mental defect? How about the ordinarily self-centered? Insider traders hurt others for personal benefit. The majority of criminal behavior is outside what society deems 'normal'. Should we view this as a mental disease? If so, how do we prosecute them?

I see your point. Their behavior is show complete disregard for others. But is that necessarily a mental impairment? If so, where do we draw THAT line? Speeding? Mugging? Assault? Rape? Murder? Multiple murders? Where on the criminal behavior continuum does it indicate mental defect?

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[quade 4]

Quote

I see your point. Their behavior is show complete disregard for others. But is that necessarily a mental impairment?

I would think it's pretty easy in the case of these killers since it's not simply disregard for human life (manslaughter), but the plotting and intentional mass murder (1st degree).

These aren't simply bad errors in judgement; these are willful acts of brains that aren't working correctly. A mental illness.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[davjohns 1]

Quote

Quote

I see your point. Their behavior is show complete disregard for others. But is that necessarily a mental impairment?

I would think it's pretty easy in the case of these killers since it's not simply disregard for human life (manslaughter), but the plotting and intentional mass murder (1st degree).

These aren't simply bad errors in judgement; these are willful acts of brains that aren't working correctly. A mental illness.

As food for thought, I'll give you a famous riddle:

A woman is at her mother's funeral when she meets a man she has never seen before. She falls instantly and hopelessly in love. Afterwards, she can not find him. She searches everywhere for weeks without luck. Then, she kills her sister. Why?


Most people can not work this out. They have a moral inhibitor that prevents the pure logic that this riddle requires. The answer is that the man is likely to attend the funeral of another family member. Whatever his association was with the mother will likely lead to his attending the funeral of the sister. Most of us would never make this connection because murdering your sybling so you could meet someone is just too repulsive. But, it is purely logical once you remove the morals / emotions.

Criminals and criminal investigators tend to answer this question pretty easily. For some reason, I've found that computer programmers do well also.

So, someone who kills children to relieve bordeom (or whatever messed up reason they do it) will be placed in the category of mentally impaired. Who else? Where do we draw the line? How about suicide bombers? They think what they are doing is perfectly logical. Soldiers? We kill lots of people merely because we are told to. We are only allowed to question it in specific circumstances. What about drug cartels that kill people who threaten their profit margins? Assassins?

It seems there is some difference between the classic definition of insanity and extreme criminal behavior. One lacks all reason as we know it. The other merely leaves out the moral inhibitions that guide most of us. Perhaps the point is moot in regards to firearms ownership, but I see a difference.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

So then, screening against "evil" or "body thetans" are probably also off your list; yes?

Yes.

Of course, your proposals are little different from hooking up every gun license applicant to an e meter and seeing how they do.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,142]

Quote

Have you not read all my post?
I believe mental illness should be reported and be screened for on background checks.

Great. So do I, and it can be done without violating the Constitution.

...

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

[kallend 2,142]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Plenty deny that the issue of mentally ill having access to guns is not easily solved due to Constitutional constraints and therefore seem to simply disregard the document.

The Supreme Court has held that "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited."

Try reading SCOTUS decisions sometime, it will make you a better lawyer.

Yes. And the SCOTUS has also held that the mentally ill's rights are no different from yours or mine. So I'd suggest you look at the other side of the equation.

I'm perfectly happy to be screened for mental health prior to buying a gun. In fact, I should be - as should all gun buyers.

SCOTUS has held that it is OK for restrictions to be placed on rights that are not unlimited. This is just such a restriction.

There are lots of limits on rights: for example, The 1st amendment doesn't give you the right to lie under oath.

In his majority Heller opinion, Scalia listed gun restrictions that the courts have long upheld as constitutional, including "prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons," prohibitions on "the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons' " and "longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

...

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

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Have you not read all my post?
I believe mental illness should be reported and be screened for on background checks.

Great. So do I, and it can be done without violating the Constitution.

How?

"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

Quote

Quote

Plenty deny that the issue of mentally ill having access to guns is not easily solved due to Constitutional constraints and therefore seem to simply disregard the document.

The Supreme Court has held that "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited."

Try reading SCOTUS decisions sometime, it will make you a better lawyer.

Yes. And the SCOTUS has also held that the mentally ill's rights are no different from yours or mine. So I'd suggest you look at the other side of the equation.

I'm perfectly happy to be screened for mental health prior to buying a gun. In fact, I should be - as should all gun buyers.

SCOTUS has held that it is OK for restrictions to be placed on rights that are not unlimited. This is just such a restriction.

There are lots of limits on rights: for example, The 1st amendment doesn't give you the right to lie under oath.

In his majority Heller opinion, Scalia listed gun restrictions that the courts have long upheld as constitutional, including "prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons," prohibitions on "the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons' " and "longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

Actually you are just linking mental health info being known and your gun ban agenda

However, they are two totally different issues

One is the rights written in the 2nd amendment
and the other relates to
a right to privacy

I am not taking a stand here but your over simplification is obvious

"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 2,142]

Quote

You once again convienently mention the 22 children killed by the evil mass murderer but failed to bring to light 1,825 children who die every year here in the US at the hands of their own parents..

That is a silly argument.

More people die of heart disease each year than of cancer. But don't use that as an argument to ignore cancer.

More people die in car crashes each year than in plane crashes. But we don't use that as an argument to ignore aircraft safety.

Walking and chewing gum at the same time IS possible.

...

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

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

You once again convienently mention the 22 children killed by the evil mass murderer but failed to bring to light 1,825 children who die every year here in the US at the hands of their own parents..

That is a silly argument.

More people die of heart disease each year than of cancer. But don't use that as an argument to ignore cancer.

More people die in car crashes each year than in plane crashes. But we don't use that as an argument to ignore aircraft safety.

Walking and chewing gum at the same time IS possible.

Sorry
he is correct
it shows the hypocrisy of the anti gunners

If this is all put into the proper context and perspectives

"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 2,142]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Plenty deny that the issue of mentally ill having access to guns is not easily solved due to Constitutional constraints and therefore seem to simply disregard the document.

The Supreme Court has held that "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited."

Try reading SCOTUS decisions sometime, it will make you a better lawyer.

Yes. And the SCOTUS has also held that the mentally ill's rights are no different from yours or mine. So I'd suggest you look at the other side of the equation.

I'm perfectly happy to be screened for mental health prior to buying a gun. In fact, I should be - as should all gun buyers.

SCOTUS has held that it is OK for restrictions to be placed on rights that are not unlimited. This is just such a restriction.

There are lots of limits on rights: for example, The 1st amendment doesn't give you the right to lie under oath.

In his majority Heller opinion, Scalia listed gun restrictions that the courts have long upheld as constitutional, including "prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons," prohibitions on "the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons' " and "longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

Actually you are just linking mental health info being known and your gun ban agenda

I have never advocated a gun ban except for felons and the mentally ill. I haven't even advocated an assault weapons ban or ban on high capacity magazines.

Apparently restrictions on felons and the mentally ill affects you in some way or you wouldn't keep bringing it up.

...

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

[kallend 2,142]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You once again convienently mention the 22 children killed by the evil mass murderer but failed to bring to light 1,825 children who die every year here in the US at the hands of their own parents..

That is a silly argument.

More people die of heart disease each year than of cancer. But don't use that as an argument to ignore cancer.

More people die in car crashes each year than in plane crashes. But we don't use that as an argument to ignore aircraft safety.

Walking and chewing gum at the same time IS possible.

Sorry
he is correct
it shows the hypocrisy of the anti gunners

If this is all put into the proper context and perspectives

Nonsense. Even you can do better than that. I bet you can even walk and chew gum at the same time.

...

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

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Quote

Quote

I see your point. Their behavior is show complete disregard for others. But is that necessarily a mental impairment?

I would think it's pretty easy in the case of these killers since it's not simply disregard for human life (manslaughter), but the plotting and intentional mass murder (1st degree).

These aren't simply bad errors in judgement; these are willful acts of brains that aren't working correctly. A mental illness.

Wow. Just because they intentionally kill another person, their brain isn't working correctly?

Does that apply to soldiers too?

It's eerily reminiscent of the Soviet Union, where any activity against the state was considered a "mental illness" because no sane person would act against the state.
And a lot of people were locked up in mental hospitals for it.

You're out in the LA area, how about Richard Ramirez, the Night Stalker?

He enjoyed hurting people.
I've read a bit about him and what he said and did after his conviction.
He is, as far as I can tell, perfectly sane. He is in "full control of his faculties", knows right frm wrong, understands that what he did hurt other people and still enjoyed it.

He fits my definition of "evil." Not "possessed by the devil", just a bad person.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[OHCHUTE 0]

What failed America was;

Parents- not acting wisely
Police- not knowing how to act as they were never informed

From CHO, Lochner, Lanza, people knew these guys had issues. What is a parent to do: call the police and tell them their kid is nuts? If so, what will be police response. How will they work to ensure public safety.

For Lanza, Ms Lanza should not even have had guns in the house with her son as nuts a he was.
For Lochner (AZ), his parents knew he was out acting strange but never contacted police.

This is where the gaps are. How does society bridge those gaps.

What would be wrong with police tailing the guy for a few days. Hell we spend trillions tailing Taliban! WTF we can't even watch a guy for a few days to see if he is buying guns or not.

Police enforcement is the problem, but their hands are tied: parents never make the call. Plus cops don't do anything when they are called.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I have never advocated a gun ban except for felons and the mentally ill.

It's a bit odd.

Felons - described as such by their actions only. Makes a lot of sense in an 'innocent until proven guilty' society

Mentally Ill - described as such by a subjective assessment or by actions. If only by assessment, then it's an issue of subjectivity. If by their actions, then it seems that we should assess of those actions define felony behavior is demonstrated. Then simply deny the felon the right.

If someone demonstrates they are a felon by committing a felony act. Then it doesn't really matter why (insane or just evil or just stupid). They should be categorized a felon.


I don't think there's a real way to head the problem off 'before it happens'. Our system of law is based on what people have already done. Actions matter. Trying to define it by words, thoughts, general condition, etc really does lead down to denying serious rights from those that aren't a threat.

...
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

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

He fits my definition of "evil." Not "possessed by the devil", just a bad person.

are you really letting him pull you into that idiotic semantics tangent?

the subjectivity is so full of crap, it's just a blind dead end from the get go

Brought to you by those that make dumb statements like "I just don't UNDERSTAND why someone would do something like that" Those that confuse the application of insanity and evil and legality are the same people that are incapable admitting that acceptance, advocacy, tolerance and understanding are not equivalent concepts.

...
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

[toolbox 0]

>walking and chewing gum at the same time is possible.

It's possible for you to walk and chew gum at the same time?
Have you tried to walk and chew gum at the same time?
If not,how do you know you can for sure?
I have personaly walked while chewing gum,rode both motorcycles and bicycles while chewing gum,drove cars and boats while chewing gum,done both AFF and Tandems and shot handcam while chewing gum.
About the only things I do not do while chewing gum is eat food or talk.
Let us know how walking and chewing gum works out for you if you try it, just because it's possible for you to walk and chew gum,it is not yet proven until you try and succeed.

[toolbox 0]

>If this is all put into the proper context and perspectives

Thank you very much.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>walking and chewing gum at the same time is possible.

It's possible for you to walk and chew gum at the same time?
Have you tried to walk and chew gum at the same time?
If not,how do you know you can for sure?
I have personaly walked while chewing gum,rode both motorcycles and bicycles while chewing gum,drove cars and boats while chewing gum,done both AFF and Tandems and shot handcam while chewing gum.
About the only things I do not do while chewing gum is eat food or talk.
Let us know how walking and chewing gum works out for you if you try it, just because it's possible for you to walk and chew gum,it is not yet proven until you try and succeed.

I ignored the comment

It was kalleds

Ask him

"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

Quote

He fits my definition of "evil." Not "possessed by the devil", just a bad person.

are you really letting him pull you into that idiotic semantics tangent?

the subjectivity is so full of crap, it's just a blind dead end from the get go

So, you believe that no matter how mentally ill a person is, they should be allowed access to guns?

Really?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[toolbox 0]

sorry dude.
I meant that reply for Kallend.
I'm trying to drink coffee,deal with a cat making repeated savage attacks on my feet and lower legs,and make replies at the same time.
I'm not chewing gum though,so I guess this is a piss poor excuse

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

He fits my definition of "evil." Not "possessed by the devil", just a bad person.

are you really letting him pull you into that idiotic semantics tangent?

the subjectivity is so full of crap, it's just a blind dead end from the get go

So, you believe that no matter how mentally ill a person is, they should be allowed access to guns?

Really?

The problem with this issue is subjectivity

We KNOW that the bar would be set so low that only those making those decisions would have guns

Along with their own family and friends

I agree with lawrocket

We go here ONLY with proper court actions

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