kelpdiver 2 #101 November 4, 2011 QuoteQuoteTherefore, 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. You have to solve 3 problems here first. 1) remove all guns owned by a suspect person 2) prevent said person from being able to obtain more 3) prevent said person from committing violent acts with other weapons. And all of this requires up front that you can successfully determine those who need to be disarmed. And you have yet to figure out how to do any of this without trampling on Americans and making the overall safety of the people worse than it is now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #102 November 4, 2011 QuoteQuote . . . 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. Post 1: "This is exactly the scenario I've been talking about in other threads. I'm curious how some people are going to defend this. " and then immediately followed in post 5: "So, then, you're in favor of the mentally ill having access to guns? " This is the for the benefit of those who don't know the longer history and can't read everything out of your opening salvo. You know what people object to, we've had several threads on it before. Let me be clear: Every time you say that others here are in favor of the mentally ill having access to guns, YOU ARE A LIAR. And yet you persist in writing it because you know the reaction it will create. You are completely incapable of arguing with facts, so you resort to emotionalism in the form of strawmen. it's pathetic for anyone, and more so for a moderator, and triply so for one chastising a lawyer for 'bending the rules' while you break them over the head with a 2x4. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marinus 0 #103 November 4, 2011 QuoteYou're uncomfortable having it done to you, but within the same paragraph do it yourself! No, I didn't. I even admitted I wasn't sure my words were being twisted and I didn't put words in anyone else's mouth. I'm not native English, so I could be over-looking some major linguistic mistake that does change what I intended to say entirely, but I'm rather sure that isn't the case. Until you provide me with proof of me (accidentally or not) twisting words beyond reasonable doubt, you can consider yourself ignored by me. I don't really have patience with people who refuse to listen to what I say. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #104 November 4, 2011 QuoteQuoteYou're uncomfortable having it done to you, but within the same paragraph do it yourself! No, I didn't. I even admitted I wasn't sure my words were being twisted and I didn't put words in anyone else's mouth. I'm not native English, so I could be over-looking some major linguistic mistake that does change what I intended to say entirely, but I'm rather sure that isn't the case. Until you provide me with proof of me (accidentally or not) twisting words beyond reasonable doubt, you can consider yourself ignored by me. I don't really have patience with people who refuse to listen to what I say. eh, fine by me. I have little patience for people who ask for proof that's already been provided. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marinus 0 #105 November 4, 2011 Quoteeh, fine by me. I have little patience for people who ask for proof that's already been provided. In other words, you can't really back up your claim that I twist the words of others and/or that I put words in anyone's else's mouth... So you try to create a diversion.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #106 November 4, 2011 QuoteYou claim that mental ill people are as/less violent than normies, but I would want to see some source to go with that. Fulwiler showed that substance abuse – either alone or in combination with mental disorders – increased the chances of violent behavior. Thus, inclusion of the mentally ill when discussing substance abuse is mooted. Substance abuse – whether a person is mentally ill or not – increases the chances of violence. Note – it doesn’t mean that a person needs to be high. The MacArthur Foundation did a study that found NO increase in rate of violence in mentally ill patients compared to the general population if they were not using illicit drugs or alcohol. Again – see Fulwiler. Lots of studies have supported the criminal and violent victimization of the mentally ill. A study done on acute inpatient psychiatric patients showed that 15 percent had been assaulted, sexually assaulted or threatened with a weapon in the last ten weeks. Yes – in a ten week span 15 out of 100 will have been victimized. Teplin et al found that mentally ill patients were four times as likely to have been the victims of violent crime than the general population. And with psychiatric patients (meaning primary diagnosis) that, depending on the type of crime, they had victimization rates between 6 times and 23 times the rate of the general population. But, considering that the media depict psychiatric pateitns as dangerous and hostile, public perception is controlled by that. It’s by all means understandable why people equate random violence with mental illness – that’s all they’ve experienced through films, television, etc. Check the MacArthur Violence Risk Assessment Study. http://www.macarthur.virginia.edu/violence.html Key findings: "People discharged from psychiatric hospitals" is not a homogeneous category regarding violence. People with a major mental disorder diagnosis and without a substance abuse diagnosis are involved in significantly less community violence than people with a co-occurring substance abuse diagnosis. The prevalence of violence among people who have been discharged from a hospital and who do not have symptoms of substance abuse is about the same as the prevalence of violence among other people living in their communities who do not have symptoms of substance abuse. But – it also lists a greater risk of substance abuse upon psychiatric patients. The point? That the public understanding of this is controlled by the media portrayal. And the media portrayal is not accurate. The point? Mentally ill are no more likely than the general population to commit acts of violence. Drug and alcohol abuse cause the greatest predisposition to violence among both mentally ill and non mentally ill. And, psychiatric patients are far, far more likely to be victims of violence than the general population. But hey, the media paints them as violent. They shouldn't be able to do harm or even protect themselves, right? My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #107 November 5, 2011 QuoteQuoteeh, fine by me. I have little patience for people who ask for proof that's already been provided. In other words, you can't really back up your claim that I twist the words of others and/or that I put words in anyone's else's mouth... So you try to create a diversion.... it's a bit pointless to debate linguistics with a guy who can claim (honestly or not) to have second language nuance issues when convenient. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #108 November 5, 2011 Quote mental illness and substance (ab)use go hand in hand.. Really? REALLY? Got credentials, do you?My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #109 November 5, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteTherefore, 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. You have to solve 3 problems here first. 1) remove all guns owned by a suspect person 2) prevent said person from being able to obtain more 3) prevent said person from committing violent acts with other weapons. And all of this requires up front that you can successfully determine those who need to be disarmed. And you have yet to figure out how to do any of this without trampling on Americans and making the overall safety of the people worse than it is now. Short, sweet and to the point. Ball's in Paul's court.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #110 November 5, 2011 Quoteeh, fine by me. I have little patience for people who ask for proof that's already been provided. You may now understand why I have little patience for people who ask for proof that's impossible to provide.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #111 November 5, 2011 QuoteEvery time you say that others here are in favor of the mentally ill having access to guns, YOU ARE A LIAR. No, sir. It is you who are not telling the truth in this matter. There are, indeed, people in this thread who advocate the mentally ill should be allowed access to guns.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #112 November 5, 2011 QuotePost 1: "This is exactly the scenario I've been talking about in other threads. I'm curious how some people are going to defend this. " Which is the truth. You calling it a lie is silly.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marinus 0 #113 November 5, 2011 Quote it's a bit pointless to debate linguistics with a guy who can claim (honestly or not) to have second language nuance issues when convenient. No, that's not it, I didn't twist anyone's words, and I didn't put words in anyone's mouth and you know it. Even if you assume my English is 100% perfect, you couldn't even make it plausible that I put words in mouths and/or twisted words. I was decent enough to admit that it's possible that my imperfect knowledge of English could have been the cause of a misunderstanding, and you only took that as an excuse to dodge the fact that you falsely accused me of things. So: Even if You assume I'm fluent at English: where did I put words in mouths and or twisted words? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marinus 0 #114 November 5, 2011 Quote Really? REALLY? Got credentials, do you? It's common knowledge in areas where the word "drugs" doesn't cause hysteria. Or in other words. Areas that aren't like the US of A. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #115 November 5, 2011 QuoteQuoteTherefore, 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. And how would you do that? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DFWAJG 4 #116 November 5, 2011 QuoteQuoteEvery time you say that others here are in favor of the mentally ill having access to guns, YOU ARE A LIAR. No, sir. It is you who are not telling the truth in this matter. There are, indeed, people in this thread who advocate the mentally ill should be allowed access to guns. No. We are saying that no one, no matter whether or not he/she has a mental illness, is entitled to Due Process. You repeatedly miss the point. You repeatedly choose to remain ignorant. You avoid looking at the data. You avoid the statistics. You only believe what you want to believe. You believe in the stigma portrayed by the media. You do not know what schizophrenia is. Yet you want to take away any of a schizophrenic patients rights. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #117 November 5, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteEvery time you say that others here are in favor of the mentally ill having access to guns, YOU ARE A LIAR. No, sir. It is you who are not telling the truth in this matter. There are, indeed, people in this thread who advocate the mentally ill should be allowed access to guns. No. We are saying that no one, no matter whether or not he/she has a mental illness, is entitled to Due Process. Are you sure you phrased that the way you wanted to?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DFWAJG 4 #118 November 5, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteEvery time you say that others here are in favor of the mentally ill having access to guns, YOU ARE A LIAR. No, sir. It is you who are not telling the truth in this matter. There are, indeed, people in this thread who advocate the mentally ill should be allowed access to guns. No. We are saying that no one, no matter whether or not he/she has a mental illness, is entitled to Due Process. Are you sure you phrased that the way you wanted to? I am not saying anything untrue. You repeatedly say that someone with mental illness is not entitled to the Second Amendment, simply for having an illness, and no other reason. Others here continually tell you that all are entitled to due process. Then you stand on your soap box and pout about how dangerous schizophrenics are. You have not looked at the data. You are not listening. You have two ears and one mouth for a reason. Because listening is more important. I'm tired of listening to you. I treat these people. And I must say, the schizophrenics make more sense to me than you do. And yes, I meant to say that All deserve the Bill of Rights including the Second amendment. When you remove one right from someone, you are at risk for removing all rights from someone. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #119 November 5, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteEvery time you say that others here are in favor of the mentally ill having access to guns, YOU ARE A LIAR. No, sir. It is you who are not telling the truth in this matter. There are, indeed, people in this thread who advocate the mentally ill should be allowed access to guns. No. We are saying that no one, no matter whether or not he/she has a mental illness, is entitled to Due Process. Are you sure you phrased that the way you wanted to? So, that's all you've got? A 'gotcha' over a typo when it's obvious that she meant that nobody should be deprived due process?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DFWAJG 4 #120 November 5, 2011 He had written something else, but had edited it while I was responding. Something to the effect that I was saying he was saying things that were untrue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #121 November 5, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteEvery time you say that others here are in favor of the mentally ill having access to guns, YOU ARE A LIAR. No, sir. It is you who are not telling the truth in this matter. There are, indeed, people in this thread who advocate the mentally ill should be allowed access to guns. No. We are saying that no one, no matter whether or not he/she has a mental illness, is entitled to Due Process. Are you sure you phrased that the way you wanted to? I am not saying anything untrue. Actually, you are. QuoteYou repeatedly say that someone with mental illness is not entitled to the Second Amendment, simply for having an illness, and no other reason. No, actually I'm not. In fact, I've repeatedly suggested a board of psychiatrist review people thought to be at risk and then, if the case warrants it, that they be denied access to guns. The process would work the other way as well. It is you and others who have ignored that. So . . . stop making shit up.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DFWAJG 4 #122 November 5, 2011 Your words: "He was a known schizophrenic, yet still had access to guns." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #123 November 5, 2011 QuoteYour words: "He was a known schizophrenic, yet still had access to guns." Correct. Further and sadly, he 100% proved how a system should be in place to remove guns from people like himself.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #124 November 5, 2011 QuoteI've repeatedly suggested a board of psychiatrist review people thought to be at risk Two things: (1) "Thought to be at risk." By whom? And what does the 4th Amendment have to say about this? What about the 5th? How about Joe Snuffy says, "I think lawrocket is a bit weird." So they seize me and bring me before a board of psychiatrists to decide? Do I have the right to not participate? Are they going to review my medical history? Work history Credit? And THEN decide whether I can maintain a right? (2) Board of Psychiatrists? I hate to break it to you, but psychiatrists aren't judges. What will be the procedural rules? Evidence? What is the standard? Beyond a reasonable doubt? Clear and convincing? Or will the tables be turned and so that the accused must prove he/she is no risk? This is the highly regarded slippery slope. Note - this has been repeatedly pointed out to you. When DFWAJG suggests that Due Process is important, your recommendation of a psychiatry board is exactly the kind of kangaroo court that she's talking about. This isn't a game around the bonfire. These are people's rights we're talking about. And again, as has been repeatedly pointed to you, that pesky Constitution stands in the way of whatever it is that you are discussing. Like it or not, there IS a system set up for those who are identified as an immediately danger to self or others. Even the Constitution, however, says that there must be a standard reached BEFORE a person can be seized against his or her will AND there must be a process to restore that person's rights. And again, Paul, what are thoughts on cops keeping guns? I'vve posted numerous recent examples of cops killing innocent people? Note: Paul, I understand you're a screen writer and need villains and heroes. But your view of schizonphrenics and the mentally ill in general is as valid as the view of the public on Skydiving. They all saw Point Break, Dropzone and Terminal Velocity and therefore know what it's all about. Edited to add: suggesting a review board of psychiatrists implicates that the Second Amendment provides no right. Psychiatrists may be mpowered to deny licenses. Or revoke other privileges and immunities. But rights? THat's a whole different thing... My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #125 November 5, 2011 QuoteQuoteYour words: "He was a known schizophrenic, yet still had access to guns." Correct. Further and sadly, he 100% proved how a system should be in place to remove guns from people like himself. A SYSTEM WAS IN PLACE AND IT WAS NOT FOLLOWED. HE PURCHASED THE GUNS LEGALLY. HE GOT COMMITTED AND THEREFORE SHOULD HAVE HAD HIS GUNS SEIZED. BUT THE SYSTEM FAILED TO DO IT. Enforce the rules instead of dumping the Constitution. THere's a reason why you haven't responded to my posts on this topic, Paul. I pointed it out earlier and NOBODY has commented on it. Is it because you wish to ignore that a system is in place that failed? IS it because admission of this FACT would mean that the demonization of the mentally ill would be lost in asking why the fucking system did not do its job? You are ignoring this. There has to be a reason, and I'd like to hear it. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
