0
quade

Schizophrenic gun owner goes on killing spree

Recommended Posts

Quote

Quote

Quote

Send them off and segregate the elements in one location where they can't harm the REAL Americans. I'm sure that the likes of Solzhenitsyn would have a fundamental understanding of what you're talking about.

Yes, the mentally ill are the unmentionables. The undesirables. Separate them. Segregate them. And Jeanne will volunteer to use her own set of orbitoclasts...



OHHHH so you dont REALLLLY want to help them after all....



If your definition of "help" is shipping them off, segregating them, and letting some panel decide whether or not they have rights, then no, I really don't want to give anyone that kind of help. I prefer lawrocket's method of defending their rights, and allowing the medical field to treat them.

If you like the idea of having some panel depriving people of their rights because they scare you, because they are not like you, and becasue they are an easy target, then you are a good little Citizen and approved for all Traveller meetings. Have you returned your norsefire enrollment package yet?



Be careful, Amazon will start putting on a bad impersonation of the Stasi...

Ooooh the Germans are mad at me, I’m so scared. Oooooh, the Germans! Uh oh, the Germans are coming to get me! Oh no, don’t let the Germans come after me. Oh, no the Germans are coming after me. No! They’re so big and strong. Oh, protect me from the Germans, the Germans!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Send them off and segregate the elements in one location where they can't harm the REAL Americans. I'm sure that the likes of Solzhenitsyn would have a fundamental understanding of what you're talking about.

Yes, the mentally ill are the unmentionables. The undesirables. Separate them. Segregate them. And Jeanne will volunteer to use her own set of orbitoclasts...



OHHHH so you dont REALLLLY want to help them after all....



If your definition of "help" is shipping them off, segregating them, and letting some panel decide whether or not they have rights, then no, I really don't want to give anyone that kind of help. I prefer lawrocket's method of defending their rights, and allowing the medical field to treat them.

If you like the idea of having some panel depriving people of their rights because they scare you, because they are not like you, and becasue they are an easy target, then you are a good little Citizen and approved for all Traveller meetings. Have you returned your norsefire enrollment package yet?



Hey I was just trying to drum up some business for Jerry's family... one stop shopping for fairly obvious nutters who want their gun rights at any cost.. to them or to their families.. or the citizens around them at risk because a nutters rights are far more important than any and all else in certain peoples minds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Send them off and segregate the elements in one location where they can't harm the REAL Americans. I'm sure that the likes of Solzhenitsyn would have a fundamental understanding of what you're talking about.

Yes, the mentally ill are the unmentionables. The undesirables. Separate them. Segregate them. And Jeanne will volunteer to use her own set of orbitoclasts...



OHHHH so you dont REALLLLY want to help them after all....



If your definition of "help" is shipping them off, segregating them, and letting some panel decide whether or not they have rights, then no, I really don't want to give anyone that kind of help. I prefer lawrocket's method of defending their rights, and allowing the medical field to treat them.

If you like the idea of having some panel depriving people of their rights because they scare you, because they are not like you, and becasue they are an easy target, then you are a good little Citizen and approved for all Traveller meetings. Have you returned your norsefire enrollment package yet?



Be careful, Amazon will start putting on a bad impersonation of the Stasi...

Ooooh the Germans are mad at me, I’m so scared. Oooooh, the Germans! Uh oh, the Germans are coming to get me! Oh no, don’t let the Germans come after me. Oh, no the Germans are coming after me. No! They’re so big and strong. Oh, protect me from the Germans, the Germans!



When it waddles like a fascist.... and quacks like a fascist.. I guess its really a what???????

Those of you in the FRINGE RIGHT WING in this country.... are making ALLL the RIGHT moves to take us there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Send them off and segregate the elements in one location where they can't harm the REAL Americans. I'm sure that the likes of Solzhenitsyn would have a fundamental understanding of what you're talking about.

Yes, the mentally ill are the unmentionables. The undesirables. Separate them. Segregate them. And Jeanne will volunteer to use her own set of orbitoclasts...



OHHHH so you dont REALLLLY want to help them after all....



If your definition of "help" is shipping them off, segregating them, and letting some panel decide whether or not they have rights, then no, I really don't want to give anyone that kind of help. I prefer lawrocket's method of defending their rights, and allowing the medical field to treat them.

If you like the idea of having some panel depriving people of their rights because they scare you, because they are not like you, and becasue they are an easy target, then you are a good little Citizen and approved for all Traveller meetings. Have you returned your norsefire enrollment package yet?



Be careful, Amazon will start putting on a bad impersonation of the Stasi...

Ooooh the Germans are mad at me, I’m so scared. Oooooh, the Germans! Uh oh, the Germans are coming to get me! Oh no, don’t let the Germans come after me. Oh, no the Germans are coming after me. No! They’re so big and strong. Oh, protect me from the Germans, the Germans!



When it waddles like a fascist.... and quacks like a fascist.. I guess its really a what???????

Those of you in the FRINGE RIGHT WING in this country.... are making ALLL the RIGHT moves to take us there.



You do not know what Fascism is. You've never lived it, you cannot fathom what it is like. (nor have I, thank God.)

You really ought to drop the hyperdramatic word choices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

When it waddles like a fascist.... and quacks like a fascist.. I guess its really a what???????



Didn't fascists have the idea of a strong central government that either kicked out, segregated or killed those whom they deemed unfit for society in the belief that doing so would preserve the sanctity and security of their nations?

Meanwhile, a psychiatrist and a lawyer are arguing against institutionalization, control by psychiatrists and prevention of the need for court and administrative remedies. Your proposals would be GREAT for both my wife's and my business.

I know, I know, how dare we see the mentally ill as actual people? If we viewed them as just "nutters" it would make it so much easier for us to capitulate to stomping them down.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote



....


You do not know what Fascism is. You've never lived it, you cannot fathom what it is like. (nor have I, thank God.)
....




Bwhahahaha ... you do not know .....

but telling others ..... :D:D:D:D

Stupidity is international.

Did you ever read the BS you post here?


I also do not know what being fed into a woodchipper (or being crucified, living in a military dictatorship, living in Soviet Russia, or in Pre 1989 East Germany or Present Day North Korea) is like, but I can also say that Amazon does not also...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

He was a known schizophrenic, yet still had access to guns. He says saw "demons" and voices in his head told him to kill.

This is exactly the scenario I've been talking about in other threads. I'm curious how some people are going to defend this.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nationnow/2011/11/carson-city-ihop-gunman-saw-demons.html



He purchased (or otherwise acquired) firearms before he was disqualified to buy/own/possess. He was later determined to be unfit for possession of firearms. At that point he was required to give up ownership and possession and not acquire any in the future. He failed to comply. Do you want law enforcement to search the residence of every patient once they are committed or adjudicated? If not, what would you change to prevent this from happening again?
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

He was a known schizophrenic, yet still had access to guns. He says saw "demons" and voices in his head told him to kill.

This is exactly the scenario I've been talking about in other threads. I'm curious how some people are going to defend this.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nationnow/2011/11/carson-city-ihop-gunman-saw-demons.html



He purchased (or otherwise acquired) firearms before he was disqualified to buy/own/possess. He was later determined to be unfit for possession of firearms. At that point he was required to give up ownership and possession and not acquire any in the future. He failed to comply. Do you want law enforcement to search the residence of every patient once they are committed or adjudicated? If not, what would you change to prevent this from happening again?



HOLY CRAP!

Don't introduce logic to the SC!! The Lefties will demonize you and distort your message!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote



....


You do not know what Fascism is. You've never lived it, you cannot fathom what it is like. (nor have I, thank God.)
....




Bwhahahaha ... you do not know .....

but telling others ..... :D:D:D:D

Stupidity is international.

Did you ever read the BS you post here?


I also do not know what being fed into a woodchipper (or being crucified, living in a military dictatorship, living in Soviet Russia, or in Pre 1989 East Germany or Present Day North Korea) is like, but I can also say that Amazon does not also...


I guess those months I spent in Chile 30 some odd years ago dont count.... but go ahead and keep those ASSumptions rolling on down.. you seem so good at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The truth is that if this person had received proper care and a stable living situation, it is very likely those people he shot would be alive today.



This is a good bet.

But, but those here like quade and kallend would remove rights from everyone else just because of and single incident
....which happens to support an agenda as well
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

When budgets were bigger, schitzophrenics who were deemed too ill to live on their own, but not bad enough to have to go to a secure facility were often placed in group homes.



Back in the day, schizophrenics and mentally ill were simply placed in custody and remained in custody indefinitely. Then the SCOTUS decided O’Connor v. Donaldson in 1975 and determined that a state cannot constitutionally confine, without more, a non-dangerous individual who is capable of surviving safely in freedom by themselves or with the help of willing and responsible family members or friends. That means that the government cannot force a person to remain is the person is not a present threat. They can only force a person for treatment if that person is mentally ill and an immediate threat. The decision was unanimous, as was the Foucha case, which held that holding a person "against his will in a mental institution is improper absent a determination in civil commitment proceedings of current mental illness and dangerousness."

The point? The government cannot imprison a mentally ill person for being mentally ill. Once the mentally ill person is treated, the government cannot force the person to stay.

Quote

In these homes, their meds were closely monitored, as well as logs kept on their day to day behavior. This was done by semi-professionals, who in turn were supervised by mental health professionals. But as the money dried up, so did many of these places. It was a pretty good system. Now...many end up homeless or trying to live on their own with only limited supervision and most importantly: Less monitoring of the medications.



It was a good system, so long as the presumption that they had individual rights was taken away. These homes and other places are available, but the mentally ill have the choice not to use them.

Quote

The truth is, the majority of the mentally ill can be made safe to interact with society



That’s the problem. “They can be made safe.” But they also have a choice in the matter.

Quote

One end of the spectrum is a secure hospital. The other end is the affected person living on their own or with a family member.



Yep. Which is what the Constitution mandates. In many ways it sucks but in other ways it’s a source of pride that even the mentally ill have right.

Quote

Schitzophrenics REALLY believe they are seeing and hearing things that ARE real for them, when they are not real. And they don't understand why others do not hear or see these things. You can try logic with them for hours (many are quite intelligent) but you are wasting your time.



Weird. Had you ever considered telling them, “Those are the voices again?” They understand that they are the voices. But it seems that too many people try to convince them they aren’t hearing what they are hearing. They are people, and an acknowledgment of what they are hearing and an explanation of what it is can do wonders.

Quote

The only sure treatment in most cases are the meds, but if they become unsupervised on their meds, problems can happen.



Ever see what can happen when a person is prescribed Coumadin but is unsupervised and doesn’t make sure that his/her INR is monitored? Death. But do we keep everybody confined to a hospital with a blood clot? How about anybody with access to medications that can be deadly if sold on the black market? How many people die from abusing vicodin? Do we keep people on pain pills confined because of the risk that they’ll sell the meds on the outside and get people killed? This kills a rather large number of people.

To limit their rights would be considered an outrage.

Quote

Blaming it on guns is the easy way out. Lots of perfectly sane people have picked up a gun and shot people. Because of the Constitution, only a judge could certify someone mentally unstable enough to remove gun rights, and probably only on an individual basis. Believe it or not, even the mentally challenged have rights. Drawing the line on who is 'crazy' enough to have their Constitutional right to bear arms suspended would be a tough call.



Well said.

Quote

The truth is that if this person had received proper care and a stable living situation, it is very likely those people he shot would be alive today.



I agree. The problem, as I see it, is the lack of anybody wanting to point out the prospective threat to the authorities. Maybe if the result wasn't so draconian, people would be more willing to get people help versus ruining their futures.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


So the judge should be impeached

but I am sure you want to use this as a blanket comment to remove guns from all

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


So what was the point you wished to make here to lawrocket?

This article is meaty, but also quite rambling. It jumps in and out of subjects with no need, and the phrasings and at times deliberate vagueness shows a clear agenda by the writers. It does raise lots of interesting questions.

But if you're implying the headliner case was a clear one of a wacko getting his guns back despite obvious evidence, it wasn't presented in this article. (It's also quite a game - the mental aspect was introduced in the opening, and not elaborated on until the closing paragraphs 5 pages later)

You could (and should have) opened an entire thread on this article. Issues like
1) should felons get their rights back? IMO, no. No voting, no guns. Doubly so for the violent ones
2) should misdomeanors be treated like felonies in terms of loss of rights. Again, IMO, no. If the crime doesn't even warrant a year in jail, then it doesn't warrant loss of rights either.
3) should judges have full, partial, or no discretion in ruling on a rights restoration? The hardest one - but the article correctly points out a perspective that some judges will never grant the motion, just as most sheriffs in CA will never issue a CCW. Objective criteria tend to be more suitable.
4) does having the legal right to purchase a gun actually make much of a difference in repeat crime by felons? The authors hide behind the issue of data being difficult to obtain. But they were perfectly happy to cherry pick incidents to support their assertion. But we already know that ex cons tend to commit lots of crime and most of them do it with guns they did not purchase with a NICS check.

beyond those questions, you see examples of process breakdown. Generally the solution to these is to improve the process while maintaining the rights of Americans - ie, there is a presumption they have their rights until there is conclusive evidence that they should not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is a pretty good article, John. Of course, I’m wondering why you are directing it at me. As much as anything, it seems as though this is talking about exactly the sort of things DFWAJG and I (as well as a few others) have mentioned. I’ll go back through them.
No. 1 – the best predictor of future violence is past violence. It looks like this article is focused almost ENTIRELY on people with a past history of violence getting their gun rights restored. What this has to do with disarming an anorexic because she has a mental illness is unknown. The article did not describe any “nutter” with a gun. The article did describe a series of persons with a history of violence who got their gun rights restored and not about someone with a diagnosis of mental illness who should have had guns taken away.
No. 2 – The article correctly identifies the tension that I have discussed between a “right” and public safety. From the article: “Two Democratic legislators sought to impose a lifetime firearms ban on violent felons, although they concluded that for their bills to have any chance of passing, they would also have to set up a process that held out a hope of eventual restoration.”
This is not just something for hopes of passing, but also a matter of the Constitution. Because it is a right, the right to a gun cannot be summarily ended and generally there will be a “hope” of getting those rights restored. It is the presence of a system for restoration that is important in due process considerations.
No. 3 – the article discusses the taking of gun rights. In this article, the way that the gun rights are taken are things that I can support. Somebody commits an affirmative act that is viewed as inconsistent with gun ownership and that person gets sentenced and loses his/her gun rights. This is WHOLLY different from what I’ve taken issue with in the past – where a person is considered weird or a nutter or even have some mental illness and therefore should have their guns summarily removed even though the individual has never acted violently or threatened violence.
EVERY case stated in this article had a prior act of violence (or even a nonviolent felony). If you think I’ll have a problem with that, you have misjudged me.
No. 4 – the article discusses the various systems in place, including those of the federal government and those of various states. Each of these has their own nuances. Some give judges broad discretion and others give judges no discretion. Neither is right nor wrong, in my opinion. Nevertheless, each provides some hope of restoration of rights. As also stated in the article by one person (and a phrase I’ve repeated), all rights bestowed are given equal dignity.
No. 5 – The adversarial nature or lack thereof. It was mentioned that some of these states have systems in place whereupon the petition is put forth with no opposition. I myself have little problem with a system that would require some kind of report to be issued in terms of the restoration of gun rights. I think it would be wise to have a system whereupon a petition gets filed and an investigator does some fact finding and prepares a report and recommendation to the court. These are seen all the time in child custody and guardianship matters, so there is plenty of practice in implementing these things. Yes, it will also make the matter more expensive, but no more so than a guardianship.
These are the sorts of things with which I have no problem because there is a system set up that will allow rights to be restored.
In all, I think the article was very good because it shows anybody who reads it who might say, “There has to be a system set up” that there IS a system set up. A bunch of them, in fact. I think that in the coming years, we may see a Model Code drafted that would allow all of the states to become signatories with minor tweaks and changes. This would also create a system of communication between the several states so that each knows what the other is doing fairly well.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

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