Gravitymaster 0 #26 July 4, 2011 Quote>Just so I'm clear, you have issues with mentally ill people having SUV's? I am. Someone who is mentally ill - and cannot tell right from wrong, or threatens others with violence - should not have access to any deadly weapons, whether they are SUV's or handguns. Suppose they have a perfect driving record. Never even a parking ticket? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,427 #27 July 4, 2011 >Suppose they have a perfect driving record. Never even a parking ticket? Yes. If they are mentally ill and cannot tell right from wrong, or threaten others with violence, they should lose their license. Fortunately there is a legal mechanism in place that allows such determinations to be made; google Baker Act in Florida for an example. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DFWAJG 4 #28 July 4, 2011 QuoteQuoteI'll ask you for the 3rd time, do you think someone mentally ill should have their drivers license taken away to prevent them from crashing an SUV into a crowd of people? If not, do you support them crashing it into a Shopping Mall and then running down hundreds of innocent people? It COULD happen. I don't know about other states, but in CA certain mental disorders will prevent someone from having a driver's license. Only if it prevents them from driving safely. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DFWAJG 4 #29 July 4, 2011 Quade, People with Anti-Social Personality Disorder, considered a characterological disorder, are more likely to commit violent crimes, including those with guns, than someone who has a severe mental disorder. Not all that are mentally ill are violent. And most do not commit crimes. And, you are more likely to commit a violent crime if you are depressed, than if you are schizophrenic. The mentally ill have rights protected by our constitution. I have no problem supporting their rights. Dr. DFWAJG, psychiatrist Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #30 July 4, 2011 QuoteQuade, People with Anti-Social Personality Disorder, considered a characterological disorder, are more likely to commit violent crimes, including those with guns, than someone who has a severe mental disorder. Not all that are mentally ill are violent. And most do not commit crimes. And, you are more likely to commit a violent crime if you are depressed, than if you are schizophrenic. The mentally ill have rights protected by our constitution. I have no problem supporting their rights. Dr. DFWAJG, psychiatrist So, Dr., you have no problem with a person that is unable to tell the difference between reality and fantasy owning a gun? Seriously?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #31 July 4, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuade, People with Anti-Social Personality Disorder, considered a characterological disorder, are more likely to commit violent crimes, including those with guns, than someone who has a severe mental disorder. Not all that are mentally ill are violent. And most do not commit crimes. And, you are more likely to commit a violent crime if you are depressed, than if you are schizophrenic. The mentally ill have rights protected by our constitution. I have no problem supporting their rights. Dr. DFWAJG, psychiatrist So, Dr., you have no problem with a person that is unable to tell the difference between reality and fantasy owning a gun? Seriously? How many times does it have to be pointed out to you that mentally ill does not equate to violent? You have now even had a pschiatrist tell you you are wrong. I'd be curious to hear what a pschiatrist thinks of someone who refuses to acknowledge they are wrong even when faced with overwhelming evidence. Your Gunophobia is distorting your grip reality. I'm glad you don't own a gun. Well, I guess this is somewhat of an improvement. Didn't you claim in the past that a gun was capable of jumping off a table on it's own and killing someone? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #32 July 4, 2011 Quote People with Anti-Social Personality Disorder, ...tend to be "that guy" in the pickup truck. This is a fun game. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #33 July 4, 2011 A person who drinks alcohol and/or uses drugs has distorted their grip on reality. Do you think they should have their 2nd Amendment rights taken away even if they have never shown any violent tendencies nor broken any laws? Most pot smokers I have met are not prone to violence even when the situation warrants it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 140 #34 July 4, 2011 QuoteCan somebody explain to me how it makes sense to allow mentally ill people to own guns? define 'mentally ill' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #35 July 4, 2011 Quote>Suppose they have a perfect driving record. Never even a parking ticket? Yes. If they are mentally ill and cannot tell right from wrong, or threaten others with violence, they should lose their license. Fortunately there is a legal mechanism in place that allows such determinations to be made; google Baker Act in Florida for an example. I think you might be misunderstanding the Baker Act. It is based on the belief that a person might pose a danger to themselves or others. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?StatuteYear=2010&AppMode=Display_Results&Mode=Search%2520Statutes&Submenu=2&Tab=statutes&Search_String=baker+act As far as I can tell, just acting weird, doesn't meet the threshold. A person who drinks alcohol could be said to pose a risk of bodily injury to themselves and others. Do you support pre-emptively removing their 2nd Amendment Rights even if they have never had a DUI and never exhibited violent tendencies? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #36 July 4, 2011 QuoteYes. If they are mentally ill and cannot tell right from wrong, or threaten others with violence, they should lose their license. Fortunately there is a legal mechanism in place that allows such determinations to be made; google Baker Act in Florida for an example. So if someone calls the authorities and says another person is crazy, you're in favor of the state being able to lock people up based upon that allegation. Nice! The Baker Act only allows detention for three days (maybe it's five). And unless there is something very dramatic going on, the system will release the individual. In a free country we don't go around locking people up against their will, who have yet to commit any crime. Talking to bears isn't a crime. I prefer it that way. So, who would you like to have detained this week? What if someone turned YOU in for involuntary psychiatric evaluation? Would you be okay with that? What if you didn't cooperate with the psychiatrists - should they be able to hold you forever? In the instant case, a judge ruled that the man was okay to have his guns. Absent anything else, I have to believe that the judge had more facts than we do here, and he knew what was best. So unless you or quade can come up with something to show why the judge's decision was incorrect, then your complaints mean nothing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DFWAJG 4 #37 July 4, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuade, People with Anti-Social Personality Disorder, considered a characterological disorder, are more likely to commit violent crimes, including those with guns, than someone who has a severe mental disorder. Not all that are mentally ill are violent. And most do not commit crimes. And, you are more likely to commit a violent crime if you are depressed, than if you are schizophrenic. The mentally ill have rights protected by our constitution. I have no problem supporting their rights. Dr. DFWAJG, psychiatrist So, Dr., you have no problem with a person that is unable to tell the difference between reality and fantasy owning a gun? Seriously? You, sir, have NO understanding of mental illness. How many people have you met who have had a serious mental illness such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder? I've met thousands. Perhaps you should have an understanding of the DSM-IV and those that have these illnesses before you start taking away their rights. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #38 July 4, 2011 QuoteJust so I'm clear, you have no issues with guns in the hands of mentally ill people. Is that correct? Mentally ill alone? I do not. There is that Constitution thing, first of all. As I have written, there is a problem for which there is no solution because the Constitution protects even the mentally ill. Yes, there are plenty out there who will complain about the treatment of "enemy combatants" at Gitmo but complain that mentally ill are running around in the streets and aren't being put in jail or in hospitals against their will. And even though there is a Bill of Rights (that has no exception for the mentally ill) people believe that they should not have the protections of: - Second Amendment - Fourth Amendment - Fifth Amendment - Sixth Amendment - Seventh Amendment Here's the problem, Paul - a diagnosis of mental illness is NOT a predictor of future violence. What you are proposing is no different from a KKK member saying that being black predisposes to violence and therefore all guns should be taken from black people. The only difference is that stigmatizing the mentally ill is somehow okay. I take GREAT issue with violating human rights of anybody, Paul. Human rights. Yes, human rights. It becomes an issue where guns are so hated that human rights are considered to be secondary that a psychiatric diagnosis is considered to put a person beneath the protections of the Constitution. Note - a short time ago homosexuality was considered a mental illness in the DSM. Would you have supported taking away guns from all homosexuals? Paul - I'm sure that within the DSM-IV there is a diagnosis which will apply to you. Everybody here, on the right day and before the right person, can be found to have a mental illness. I am pretty disturbed by the disdain you have for the rights of people. Especially the ill. Even the FAA is coming to its senses. Pilots being treated for depression were having their licenses suspended or revoked. This meant that pilots being untreated for depression were flying. The veritable law of unintended consequences. By your stereotyping and continuing to apply social stigma to the illness, you are telling everyone with depression, anxiety, etc., that if they want to continue to be free, they just shut up. It's a fine society, isn't it, where the ill have a choice to go untreated or to be considered subhuman in the view of the law or society. I believe it to be despicable to treat people like criminals who have committed no crime. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DFWAJG 4 #39 July 4, 2011 Quote>Just so I'm clear, you have issues with mentally ill people having SUV's? I am. Someone who is mentally ill - and cannot tell right from wrong, or threatens others with violence - should not have access to any deadly weapons, whether they are SUV's or handguns. That's different from what Quade is saying. You are talking about someone who is violent. Yes, violent people should not have access to deadly weapons, whether or not they are mentally ill. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #40 July 4, 2011 QuoteSo, Dr., you have no problem with a person that is unable to tell the difference between reality and fantasy owning a gun? I don't, Paul. Example - a person who believes that a person with mental is not dealing with the concept of reality. By your thinking, you are applying stereotype and stigma to what objective evidence (that is, peer reviewed study after study) suggests shows no correlation. You are not dealing with what the reality of mental illness. Your thinking is the result of "Policy by Stigma." Stigma and reality may have some areas where they meet. But policy by stigma was thankfully absolved by such things as Brown v. Board of Education. I fear for the fate of Gabrielle Giffords, a person with known mental functional limitations, if your proposed view of society passes. I hope she can avoid a life of involuntary imprisonment in mental institutions because, well, she has brain damage. (Note - she, like the mentally ill, did not choose to be stricken.) Paul - you don't know the difference between fantasy and reality when it comes to mental illness. Ergo, you should view yourself as the target of your wrath. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #41 July 4, 2011 Quote Quote >Just so I'm clear, you have issues with mentally ill people having SUV's? I am. Someone who is mentally ill - and cannot tell right from wrong, or threatens others with violence - should not have access to any deadly weapons, whether they are SUV's or handguns. That's different from what Quade is saying. You are talking about someone who is violent. Yes, violent people should not have access to deadly weapons, whether or not they are mentally ill. OOOPS there goes the military and police forces across the nation... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #42 July 4, 2011 Jeanne, for the first time you're being an asshole and making a damned good point. The ONLY people that folks think shoul dhave weapons are the military and the police. Now, the military has to deal with Posse Comitatus, but the police have plenty of mentally ill and sociopaths in their ranks. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #43 July 4, 2011 Quote Jeanne, for the first time you're being an asshole and making a damned good point. The ONLY people that folks think shoul dhave weapons are the military and the police. Now, the military has to deal with Posse Comitatus, but the police have plenty of mentally ill and sociopaths in their ranks. I was just thinking about all those drunk and disorderly picked up by SP or MP or AP( old name I know) at the local bars just off base. The various staff judge advocates offices and equivalents in the other services stay pretty busy dealing with all the violence by service members on one another or their families. Then of course... wh have hundreds of videos of would be Rodney King stomping heros from across the land. We live in a violent society.... sorry but it sounds like Dr Kratchet wants millions of new patients Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dmcoco84 4 #44 July 4, 2011 QuoteSo, Dr., you have no problem with a person that is unable to tell the difference between reality and fantasy owning a gun? QuoteI am. Someone who is mentally ill - and cannot tell right from wrong, or threatens others with violence - should not have access to any deadly weapons, whether they are SUV's or handguns. Do you guys hate firefighters? He can fight fires... but he can't own a firearm? Shaking Head Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ECVZZ 0 #45 July 4, 2011 Quote Do you guys hate firefighters? He can fight fires... but he can't own a firearm? Anyone who would choose to don bunker gear in 120º ambient, and of their own accord enter a multi level inferno has to be a bit "touched". Regardless, I think you should be able to own firearms. How else can you shoot the liberals? G. Jones "I've never been quarantined. But the more I look around, the more I think it might not be a bad idea." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dmcoco84 4 #46 July 4, 2011 QuoteHow else can you shoot the liberals? Not funny. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #47 July 4, 2011 QuoteQuoteJust so I'm clear, you have no issues with guns in the hands of mentally ill people. Is that correct? Mentally ill alone? I do not. There is that Constitution thing, first of all... Bravo! (Cheering and clapping) Great speech, lawrocket. Thank you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #48 July 4, 2011 QuoteQuoteHow else can you shoot the liberals? Not funny. Certainly not. We liberals tend to have much healthier diets and exercise more, so we're skinnier. Put another way, we're not the fat shits, so we're harder to hit. So no more violence jokes about skinny people. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #49 July 4, 2011 How can anyone believe that people like Jared Loughner has a right to own guns? Could anyone who believe that the mentally ill, such as Loughner, has a right to own firearms stand before Mark Kelly and state such? Could you stand before the parents/loved ones of those murdered and injured during Loughner's rampage and support gun ownership for the mentally ill? If so, then you are part of the problem. What about the rights of the 9 year old girl whose life was ended by Loughner? Did her right to be secure come second to Loughner's right to own a firearm? I don't think that this should be made into a 2nd amendment issue, but a public safety issue."...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #50 July 4, 2011 QuoteHow else can you shoot the liberals? Could you say that to Gabby Giffords and Mark Kelly?"...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
