Schizophrenic gun owner goes on killing spree

[quade 3]

Quote

Therefore, denying him gun purchases AFTER he was diagnosed would have changed nothing - he already had the guns.

Negative. Denying him access to guns after being diagnosed would have absolutely prevented the shooting.

Nice try though.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[quade 3]

Suggest all you want to.

Denying guns to the mentally ill is absolutely Constitutional. Ask any member of the Supreme Court.

What you personally believe is irrelevant.

Quote

The definition of insanity: "Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."

While that is a great little bon mot, no; it's not. Certainly not according to the Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary or Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law.

Here; http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/insanity

I would expect a mental health care professional to be a bit more precise in using the terminology of his own field.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Marinus 0]

Quote

And I'm in favor of the right of gun ownership by a person unless it's proven that person is not or will not be responsible with that ownership.

And said proof often consists of one or more corpses. But then again, there's a large stock of Americans, and we won't run out of you any time soon, so well, who am I to care about it.

Quote

It's what differentiates a "right" from a "privilege."

I know, and I'm indeed of the opinion that gun ownership, like a drivers licence, should be a privilege not a right.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Paul,
I suggest you take a course on constitutional law. I also suggest you contact your local NAMI chapter, to help you discover the plight of the mentally ill. You seriously have a poor understanding of it means to be mentally ill, yet you repeatedly speak against them and want to take away their constitutional rights. I have, in response to your many ridiculous posts, challenged you to do this. Yet, you choose to remain an ignoramus with your preconceived notions of what you know nothing.

yeah, I've not even bothered to engage this time. It's funny, however, seeing the moderator chastise someone else in this thread for inappropriate postings when he originated it with more of the same inflammatory lies from before.

(also been too busy with a new job that he insists doesn't exist in America)

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

CARS don't kill people either. But we restrict them and we license them, and companies get sued over them, and laws are made to make them better and manufacturers are forced through civil courts and recalls to improve them, and we decide who can drive them and who cannot. So the CAR did not kill anyone, but it is still the target of "How do we fix this?" and rightly so.

But the gun is protected in the constitution so it is 'out of bounds'

clearly you've never tried to buy a gun, or maybe never a car? In California, it's vastly easier to buy a car or motorcycle with more horsepower than you have any business driving.

[quade 3]

Quote

. . . with more of the same inflammatory lies from before.

Oh really?

I dare you to find a lie in my original post here.

Please. Quote it verbatim.

If you can't, then perhaps it's you who have just told one.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[quade 3]

Quote

From the Lancet, Paul, if you dare yourself to be educated.

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(11)60950-1/fulltext

I'm supposed to be impressed some gun nut psychiatrist got published?

In the article he admits there is opposition to his opinion and he correctly identifies the Gun Control Act of 1968, which has yet to be shown as unconstitutional in this regard, gives the authority to remove guns from the mentally incompetent.

So, I'm fairly certain your "opinion" matches his . . . except you think it's also unconstitutional . . . which it isn't.

Ok, one extremist pro-gun guy agreeing with another extremist pro-gun guy . . . what a shock!

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Marinus 0]

I quote:

Quote

According to Columbia University psychiatrist Paul Appelbaum, less than 3—5% of American crimes involve people with mental illness, and the percentages of these crimes that involve guns are actually lower than the national average—particularly when alcohol and drugs are taken out of the mix.

Great psychiatrist that doesn't know that mental illness and substance (ab)use go hand in hand. Self medication anyone? Sure, if you take that out of the mix, you take a good lot of the trigger happy head cases along with it too.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

From the Lancet, Paul, if you dare yourself to be educated.

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(11)60950-1/fulltext

I'm supposed to be impressed some gun nut psychiatrist got published?

In the article he admits there is opposition to his opinion and he correctly identifies the Gun Control Act of 1968, which has yet to be shown as unconstitutional in this regard, gives the authority to remove guns from the mentally incompetent.

So, I'm fairly certain your "opinion" matches his . . . except you think it's also unconstitutional . . . which it isn't.

Ok, one extremist pro-gun guy agreeing with another extremist pro-gun guy . . . what a shock!

When compared to the extremist gun control nuts who post on this site agreeing with each other?

Another "shock" I suppose?

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

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

What do you think should have been done differently to prevent this shooting?

It is a fact that without him having access to guns this shooting wouldn't have taken place.
You can argue about other details or hypotheticals, but that's a fact and you can't deny it's true.

It's also a fact that the guns were purchased by him BEFORE he became schizophrenic, and were legally owned. Therefore, denying him gun purchases AFTER he was diagnosed would have changed nothing - he already had the guns.

So, let's try again. What do you think should have been done differently to prevent this shooting? Try not to avoid the question this time. I know it's a tough one, but if you've got a solution, you should be willing to share it.

Just an idea, JR:

This man should have been moved into your close neighborhood. Including all his weapons and you knowing he's just a *bit* handicapped.

If my memory serves me right, you are a father of several kids - how much would you appreciate that idea, old fellow?



..... he already had the guns.

What sh*t is that? Nobody courageous enough to remove those deadly toys from his hands? Before he's enjoying himself playing with it?

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[DesertAttorney 0]

Quote

Just an idea, JR:

This man should have been moved into your close neighborhood. Including all his weapons and you knowing he's just a *bit* handicapped.

If my memory serves me right, you are a father of several kids - how much would you appreciate that idea, old fellow?



..... he already had the guns.

What sh*t is that? Nobody courageous enough to remove those deadly toys from his hands? Before he's enjoying himself playing with it?

If he was declared mentally ill, the system is already supposed to take his weapons.

You advocating a Stasi-like organization that keeps tabs on the mental health and firearm inventories of everyone? No thx.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

What do you think should have been done differently to prevent this shooting?

It is a fact that without him having access to guns this shooting wouldn't have taken place.
You can argue about other details or hypotheticals, but that's a fact and you can't deny it's true.

It's also a fact that the guns were purchased by him BEFORE he became schizophrenic, and were legally owned. Therefore, denying him gun purchases AFTER he was diagnosed would have changed nothing - he already had the guns.

So, let's try again. What do you think should have been done differently to prevent this shooting? Try not to avoid the question this time. I know it's a tough one, but if you've got a solution, you should be willing to share it.

Just an idea, JR:

This man should have been moved into your close neighborhood. Including all his weapons and you knowing he's just a *bit* handicapped.

If my memory serves me right, you are a father of several kids - how much would you appreciate that idea, old fellow?



..... he already had the guns.

What sh*t is that? Nobody courageous enough to remove those deadly toys from his hands? Before he's enjoying himself playing with it?

So, explain to me what your solution to this problem is?

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

[billvon 2,395]

>What do you think should have been done differently to prevent this shooting?

From the article: "At some point, he gave his mother the keys to his gun safe, telling her he was getting sick."

At that point his mother could have gone to his doctor and said "I'm worried, doctor - he told me that he was worried he would misuse his guns and harm someone." Doctor then evaluates him and makes a determination whether or not he is sane enough to own guns. If not, his guns are confiscated temporarily by the police while they go before a judge and determine whether or not he is competent to manage his own affairs.

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

....
You advocating a Stasi-like organization that keeps tabs on the mental health and firearm inventories of everyone? No thx.

You still living in the stone age?

What I do advocate or not: None of your biz.

You truly believe *tabs* are out since Stasi's out? In your country?



BTW:

You sound like a freshly released little doggie here. Weird.

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

....
You advocating a Stasi-like organization that keeps tabs on the mental health and firearm inventories of everyone? No thx.

You still living in the stone age?

What I do advocate or not: None of your biz.

You truly believe *tabs* are out since Stasi's out? In your country?



BTW:

You sound like a freshly released little doggie here. Weird.

None of his biz?????

You make coments and then ask everyone to ignore the person behind the curtin??



Funny shit

Thanks

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

[DFWAJG 4]

I'm supposed to be impressed some gun nut psychiatrist got published?

Paul Applebaum is the bomb in psychiatry. It just goes to show you how ignorant you are when it comes to mental illness. You have no knowledge of what mental illness is. You choose to remain ignorant of these disorders, yet are the first to spout off about how dangerous those that suffer from these illnesses are. Rather than try to take away the rights of the mentally ill (aka, put a band-aid on the situation), you should look into the lack of care they receive in the community, educate yourself and others about it, and propose a solution. But you won't. Because you are caught up in the stigma of mental illness. And you choose to remain ignorant.

[firemedic 7]

Quote

Quote

Quote

....
You advocating a Stasi-like organization that keeps tabs on the mental health and firearm inventories of everyone? No thx.

You still living in the stone age?

What I do advocate or not: None of your biz.

You truly believe *tabs* are out since Stasi's out? In your country?



BTW:

You sound like a freshly released little doggie here. Weird.

None of his biz?????

You make coments and then ask everyone to ignore the person behind the curtin??



Funny shit

Thanks

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=of8f7Kj1yiE

[GobbleGobble 0]

Quote

So, then, you're in favor of the mentally ill having access to guns?

I think you need to realize that's an extremist position even the NRA is against.

Mental illness generally means someone cannot legally own firearms. This has been true for quite some time...

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

Quote

Quote

So, then, you're in favor of the mentally ill having access to guns?

I think you need to realize that's an extremist position even the NRA is against.

Mental illness generally means someone cannot legally own firearms. This has been true for quite some time...

No. Mental Incompetence means someone can't own firearms.
Big difference.
The lack of understanding of that is what DFWAG and Lawrocket are trying to get across.

"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

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Great psychiatrist that doesn't know that mental illness and substance (ab)use go hand in hand

Interestingly enough, those without mental illness experience a similar peak in violence with alcohol and/or drugs. In other words, a person with mental illness is less likely than a person without mental illness to commit an act of violence. Furthermore, a mentally ill person's likelihood of committing an act of violence increases at the same rate as a sane person when alcohol or drugs are implicated.

Quote

if you take that out of the mix, you take a good lot of the trigger happy head cases along with it too.

Again, just like the people without mental illness. So why are the mentally ill (less of a threat) being picked on and treated as more of a threat?

Aside: are you suggesting that anybody who drinks alcohol or does a drug is mentally ill or unfit for gun ownership?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I'm supposed to be impressed some gun nut psychiatrist got published?

Paul - You lost the point of both DFWAJG and the author. The point that both are making is outside of guns. I’ll tell you this – she is far from a Second Amendment fan. But what she does have a problem with is the characterization of schizophrenics and the mentally ill. She has said in this forums that there is one key predictors to propensity for future violence: (1) past history of violence. Other than that, a person’s future actions are guesswork.

She takes GREAT issue with the mischaracterization of the mentally ill. And particularly the fact that mentally ill are so easily victimized. Furthermore, the mentally ill can be treated. And if they are coo coo for cocoa puffs, they can be hospitalized and treated until they are normal. Note – it is more like a remission of cancer. It’s no guarantee it won’t come back and should be monitored.

The mentally ill are being used as an adjunct for gun control. And it’s being done through a mischaracterization of what mental illness is. Meanwhile, lost in the talk of nutters is the case of the 2-4 percent of the population who are sociopaths. People who have no empathy for others and no remorse for what they do. The sane ones who either kill many (see Seal Beach) or kill just one (check out the homicide rate). No, they are allowed to have guns until they fuck up. The mentally ill? Oh, no! Far too risky! The article DFWAJG cited goes to your part of the argument – that mental illness is not what the public thinks it is, the risks are not what the public has been led to believe it is, and that incidents like in the original post are put out there in a way that inflames the wrong topic.

You are doing the equivalent of banning geriatric drivers because of the spectacular farmers’ market incident while accepting the carnage that is the other 99% of vehicle deaths.

What I haven’t heard your response to, though, is that under the law the shooter in the original post should have had his guns removed. He had been committed, and therefore whatever guns he had should have been taken. They weren’t. So what you are complaining of is actually a failure of the laws we already have in place from being enforced. ENFORCEMENT of the laws is a problem.

What is your response to the lack of enforcement of the laws? Do we actually need stricter laws or do we merely need to get off of our asses with the laws we already have?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

>What do you think should have been done differently to prevent this shooting?

From the article: "At some point, he gave his mother the keys to his gun safe, telling her he was getting sick."

At that point his mother could have gone to his doctor and said "I'm worried, doctor - he told me that he was worried he would misuse his guns and harm someone." Doctor then evaluates him and makes a determination whether or not he is sane enough to own guns. If not, his guns are confiscated temporarily by the police while they go before a judge and determine whether or not he is competent to manage his own affairs.

Absolutely. of course, he was committed more than once. At that time, the law would have commanded the guns to be taken.

It's why the emphasis is placed in the article that he "purchased" the weapons legally. what the article cleverly omitted (because omitting it can inflame passions appropriately) is that while he purchased the guns legally, once he was committed that first time he did not POSSESS the weapons legally. Nor did he use the weapons legally.

The whole argument is designed to prevent purchase of guns. Not to take guns out of the hands of those who would be reasonably expected to use them in a harmful way but to keep guns out of the hands of anybody except law enforcement.

So your discussion is actually mooted by the facts of what happened.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[mnealtx 0]

Yup...it's not about the guns, it's about the CONTROL.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Marinus 0]

Quote

Aside: are you suggesting that anybody who drinks alcohol or does a drug is mentally ill or unfit for gun ownership?

I don't really like where this is going. I'm not sure if you intended to twist my words, but if you did I don't really appreciate that. But everyone who thinks it's a good idea to handle any combination of guns and ammunition while being stoned or drunk is unfit to handle guns. People who do understand some activities shouldn't be combined are better fit. whether they're mentally ill or not.

I think the mentally ill are generally less fit to handle guns, because you know, their central computer malfunctions. That doesn't mean that everyone with a mental illness is unfit to handle a gun. Some illnesses make someone by their very nature unfit. Mania for instance should never ever being combined with fire-arms. On the other hand, someone that's pathologically obsessive-compulsive might be your safest bet when giving away guns.

You claim that mental ill people are as/less violent than normies, but I would want to see some source to go with that.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Aside: are you suggesting that anybody who drinks alcohol or does a drug is mentally ill or unfit for gun ownership?

I don't really like where this is going. I'm not sure if you intended to twist my words, but if you did I don't really appreciate that. But everyone who thinks it's a good idea to handle any combination of guns and ammunition while being stoned or drunk is unfit to handle guns. People who do understand some activities shouldn't be combined are better fit. whether they're mentally ill or not.

Quote

You're uncomfortable having it done to you, but within the same paragraph do it yourself!

Quote

You claim that mental ill people are as/less violent than normies, but I would want to see some source to go with that.

huh - she provided it in the last 24 hours!

• Quote

Share this post

---

Link to post

Share on other sites