0
quade

Remember the thread awhile back about schizophrenic gun owners?

Recommended Posts

Quote

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?



As a family member I would probably take the gun. However, if I were a cop I think I would need more of a reason other than the fact that he's hearing ET.

Is he waiving the gun around? Pointing it at others? Finger on the trigger? Is he responding to commands?

If he's not looking at me funny I wouldn't feel as threatend. If he is looking at me with that glare of intent I would probably have the guy drop the gun while I talk to him and guage his current mental state. If needed, take the guy in. But I think the real issue is with the system and the courts, not with someone temporaliy disarming someone with reasonable cause.

Also, if the law did take away the gun, there's should be a streamlined process to return the gun pending a psych review, assuming he's found to not be a threat. He should not have to battle the courts/system for years to have his right reinstated when there was never an official pysch review that determined he was a threat to anyone.

It is not as black and white as you make it out (mental issues = should not have guns). There is a gray area (like with your question).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

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?



likely nothing. Maybe something. As I've frequently said, the cost of freedom is that we can't prevent every bad thing from happening.

Quote


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



And to me it is rather unAmerican to punish people on mere suspicion, and without process.

Quote


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?"



Let's do a better scenario, one more appropriate for the thread, esp since you STILL haven't given us some definition around what qualifies or who decides it is appropriate to initiate your Orwellian process.

Your uncle comes over and talks about aliens and being abducted. He has a 1911 at home. At the end, he says they're just misunderstood. Then he goes home. What to you do?

Your scenario is bullshit - no one is worrying about what to do when someone is crazily waving around a gun. They're worried about Big Brothers like you making snap judgments about people who act funny and punishing them for it in the name of public safety.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Isn't it interesting that the same people who screamed that their rights were being taken away by the Patriot Act are the same one willing to take away the rights of others just because they find them scary or "think" they might harm them?



dunno...I object to both instances of skirting process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paul - anyone sitting one my couch with a round chambered is a threat. That time when I pulled a gun out of the hand of my non-schizophrenic father's hand in a hotel room? I had no reason to have him in the can before that. And I had no reason to be in the same geographic location after that.

Why are you resorting to hypothetical situations where a threat is obvious because some affirmative act has been done by the individual demonstrating a threat? No. I have no problem with calling the police on that person, any more than on my father.

You KNOW that's not the situation I'm talking about. You would abrogate the rights of the schizophrenic who hears a choir in his head and do it summarily. Or the schizophrenic who hears voices that say, "Don't hurt anybody. Peace and love, brother!"

Your situation is one where it doesn't matter if the person is schizophrenic or not, I can honestly and reasonably feel a threat.

So let me counter with this one. A schizophrenic has a history of hearing auditory hallucinations that tell him to go to bed. He is 47 years old, makes money by repairing and restoring antique firearms. He has no criminal history, and is often seen at a local park with his dog with coffee. Everybody knows there's something wrong with him because he frequently mutters "I don't want to sleep" but is otherwise normal. He makes additional money walking dogs and dog-sitting.

So, paul, what should be done in this situation? This guy is schizophrenic and has frequent access to guns. He makes his living on them. He's considered by most to be the OPPOSITE of a threat. Byut, Paul, he has schizophrenia.

Happy is, of course, the other extreme. But why would you want to take away this guy's livelihood when he has never demonstrated any threat? It doesn't mean he won't ever be a threat any more than my father, never a threat before, demonstrated a threat.

It's fortunate that the 4th Amendment bars the sort of prophylaxis that you advocate. Police can act only on probable cause that a crime has been committed OR that a person is an IMMEDIATE threat.

I think it's a shame that you and so many others think that there are people out there who do not deserve rights. And it's predicated on an inaccurate stereotype of schizophrenics, who are victims of an illness that they had no choice in suffering.

Due process? Fourth Amendment? Bah. The Fourth Amendment isn't needed to protect you and me, Paul. It's needed to protect people like them.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

And which additional regulations would they be?



You have proposed mental health screenings. You have proposed registration.

Of course these were DRUG out of you over the span of several years. There are others, but BOTH of the above are additional regulations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Technically Cho was not committed



On December 13, 2005, Cho had been declared mentally ill by a Virginia special justice Paul Barnett. Cho "presented an imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness"....

Cho was found "mentally ill and in need of hospitalization" he was detained at Carilion St. Albans Behavioral Health Center in Radford, Virginia

"Court: Cho ruled 'an imminent danger'". CNN. April 18, 2007. Retrieved April 19, 2007.

CGA of 1968 states:
It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise
dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or
having reasonable cause to believe that such person -
(4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been
committed to any mental institution;


The Judge ruled him "mentally ill and in need of hospitalization"
He was committed, although the Dr decided an outpatient process was preferred.

Fact is that VA law screwed up. They failed to report him, and they failed to follow up on why he never went back for outpatient treatment. But he WAS found to be "mentally deficient" and WAS committed.... A Dr decided on a different treatment.

But both would have made him a prohibited person.... IF it was reported by the State.

Quote

I thought only felonies led to a bar on buying firearms.



Negative.... Please read the CGA of 1968 with the the Lautenberg Amendment:

Quote

d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise
dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or
having reasonable cause to believe that such person -
(1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court
of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one
year;

(2) is a fugitive from justice;
(3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled
substance
(as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances
Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
(4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been
committed to any mental institution;
(5) who, being an alien -
(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been
admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as
that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));
(6) who (!2) has been discharged from the Armed Forces under
dishonorable conditions
;
(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has
renounced his citizenship;
(8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from
harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such
person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging
in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in
reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except
that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that -
(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received
actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to
participate; and
(B)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a
credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner
or child; or
(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted
use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate
partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause
bodily injury; or
(9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of
domestic violence
.



  • A misdemeanor that could lead to a prison term of longer than one year would remove your right.


  • Being addicted to a controlled substance.
  • (Loughner)

  • Judged mentally defective
  • (Cho)

  • Dishonorable Discharge


  • Restraining Order


  • Misdemeanor crime of domestic violence


  • 18 USC 922(x) generally prohibits persons under 18 from possessing handguns or handgun ammunition and you must be 21 to buy a handgun. (Harris and Klebold)

    National Firearms Act 1934 made Harris and Klebold's sawed off shotguns illegal and made their 99 explosive devices illegal as well.

    Harris and Klebold got their weapons through several straw purchases.... A Straw purchase was made illegal by the GCA 1968 as well.

    The point being that in almost every case there are laws that made the actor illegal to own or purchase a firearm. And that even stricter laws like a handgun only every 30 days did not stop Cho.

    Quote

    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.



    People with violent histories AND history of mental illness should be prevented from buying a firearm. BUT there should be a process to allow them to get the right back. I know several people that got into a fight with a brother and now due to the the "Domestic Violence" charge they got when their fist fight was called into the police are now prohibited from EVER owning a firearm.... That just does not really make sense.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Quote

    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?



    Interesting question....

    If your uncle was doing that and you could get to a gun.... Would you be justified in killing him yourself right then?

    Would a cop be justified in killing him?

    Or would his actions have to actually constitute a more immediate threat to justify lethal action?

    And this example is a lot more accurate to what you are suggesting:

    Your uncle comes over and talks about aliens and being abducted. He has a 1911 at home. At the end, he says they're just misunderstood. Then he goes home. What to you do?

    Because in the case of a person that MIGHT have a mental issue and IS NOT currently presenting any kind of threat, you seem ready to take away his rights on an IDEA that he might present a threat SOMEDAY.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Quote

    Speaking the language of conservatives for you guys... I would hate to be misunderstood.. yet again.



    You are speaking what you THINK is the language of conservatives... That could be a major part of the problem. You don't really grasp what that language is....

    Myself, I prefer facts without insults...... It is clear you do not.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Quote

    Quote

    And which additional regulations would they be?



    You have proposed mental health screenings. You have proposed registration.

    Of course these were DRUG out of you over the span of several years. There are others, but BOTH of the above are additional regulations.



    Nope. The regulations are already in place. Those are just suggestions for effective enforcement of current regulations.
    ...

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

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Quote

    Quote

    Speaking the language of conservatives for you guys... I would hate to be misunderstood.. yet again.



    You are speaking what you THINK is the language of conservatives... That could be a major part of the problem. You don't really grasp what that language is....

    Myself, I prefer facts without insults...... It is clear you do not.



    Yet there you are being snarky and insulting just as much as you can..... ole Mr Kettle.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Quote

    Those are just suggestions for effective enforcement of current regulations.



    You have proposed infringing on innocent citizens rights.

    Registration and prior to ownership screenings would be a new regulation for all but a very few areas... So yes, you do propose new regulations.

    For example in there are no FEDERAL regulations about either.

    Just admit it... sheesh.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Quoting Kallend, responding to everyone.

    Quote

    The regulations are already in place. Those are just suggestions for effective enforcement of current regulations.


    Yep. The rules and regulations are in place. It's the enforcement that sucks.

    People can come up with all kinds of situations and blame it on anything and everything completely missing the point that the problem was caused by the failure of the "system" and the people who are responsible for using it.

    No system will work if the people using it fail to use it.

    No system is perfect even if those people DO use it.

    So great. So, say Cho got banned before the incident. Are you going to ensure that he doesn't ever get a weapon in his hands again? Whachyagonna do? Lock him up for life to prevent that possibility?

    I didn't think so.

    So, Whachyagonna now? Ban ALL weapons? How are you gonna ensure that no weapons are available for loonies or crooks or anyone?
    My reality and yours are quite different.
    I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
    Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Quote

    >A single doctor should not have the power to unilaterally deny a patient their
    >constitutional rights.

    They should indeed, but only on a temporary basis. A court should make the final determination.

    A police officer can unilaterally deny your rights by arresting you on suspicion of murder. They then must make a case (and prove it) or release you.



    I don't want that kind of power. When a patient is clearly a danger to himself or to others, I present he case to a judge. The patient has a representative. Both sides are heard. The judge makes a decision. It's called due process. It's what we all deserve.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    >When a patient is clearly a danger to himself or to others, I present he
    >case to a judge.

    Hmm. I would hope that if you had a patient that told you "I'm going home to kill myself, mind if I check out?" you would hold them for a psychiatric eval - even if it's against their will.

    Here in California, this is covered in section 5150 of the California Welfare and Institutions Code. People can be detained for up to 72 hours if they are incapacitated (i.e. so drunk they can't walk) or are a threat to themselves or others (i.e. suicidal or violent.) Doctors, paramedics and police can make the decision to detain them.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Of course, Bill. Want to hold the patient longer? Got to get a judge.

    But this is the poibnt of these threads - when a person presents a clear and immediate danger, then that person can be held and due process provided.

    The part that I object to is that people who are NOT deemed to be any immediate threat are subsumed in these discussions. Weirdness is enough to take from people.

    The power that DFWAJG holds is frightening. With the stroke of a pen she can keep people held involuntarily. Her power is shared by other physicians, law enforcement. It can be weided arbitrarily. By changing the standards arbitrarily to make the standards themselves meet arbitrary notions we have created a system that is ripe for abuse.

    It's why I'm neither Democrat nor Republican. Both use the same methods for taking rights. They just pick on different people. Ragheads aren't worthy of rights one side. Nutters aren't worthy on the other.


    My wife is hotter than your wife.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    reply]

    I don't want that kind of power. When a patient is clearly a danger to himself or to others, I present he case to a judge. The patient has a representative. Both sides are heard. The judge makes a decision. It's called due process. It's what we all deserve.



    I wonder what it takes to become a judge. Aren't they just elected from off the street.

    Then there is the problem that many just can't afford a good legal defense. While someone with lot's of bucks can get off easily. Such is the legal system in our country....We've all seen bad things happen because of that....

    We had a relative who was found incompetent and sent to a home to live out her remaining years. First their was a nut house they sent her to, then another home she had to stay in. Her husband had been colonel in the Air Force, prior to his death. He had a huge retirement and many investments. This lady had once been a successful realtor. She had more money than she knew what to do with.

    Her kids wanted her money, and they got it easy enough. All they had to do was to have dear old Mom declared nuts.

    She did have a drinking problem. She did probably appear more than a little crazy, when she was going through detox. But she wasn't nuts. Maybe she was too ravelled to put together a legal defense. At any rate she was put away....She died a couple years later, alone. Her kids were too busy to even show up.

    So much for justice in America....Are judges now going to decide who can own a gun?

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Reply to this topic...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

    0