quade 3
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteThat's your solution? Whining about it and asking others to solve it for you?
No, I've written it out several times. I can't help it if you've ignored it.
It's YOUR turn.
No, you haven't - all you've said is "somebody needs to DO something!!!!!!!"
Now who isn't telling the truth?
Oh Mike, you're so cute when you try to do things like that and especially when it appears as if my ability to do a simple search works so much better than your own.
You might want to revisit this coversation -WE- had.
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=4145053;page=4;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=50;#4147878
I said EXACTLY what I thought should happen. Just start at the link and keep reading the thread.
*yawn* So? You're using mention of something that happens NOW as your plan? In that case, what are you whining about in THIS thread since the problem is evidently solved?
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
quade 3
QuoteIn that case, what are you whining about in THIS thread since the problem is evidently solved?
Because, obviously, it's not solved.
There is something incredibly broken in the system where for some reason, some people think it's not Constitutional to remove guns from the mentally ill. Some gun advocates are against taking any guns away from any person, even if they've been declared mentally ill. In fact, I'm fairly certain you indicated that just a few posts back. You said the person in question had purchased guns prior to being diagnosed and therefore had the right to retain them.
I think that's wrong. You can disagree with me if you'd like. I'm fine with that, but it's still my opinion it's the wrong way to deal with the situation.
I'm all for -responsible- gun ownership. My guess is that you and JR and in fact most of the people in this thread probably are VERY responsible gun owners.
However, the mentally ill, the kind who can't tell the difference between what is real and not real, are clearly NOT responsible gun owners. That's how the insanity defense works, the guy isn't responsible for his actions. If he's not responsible enough to be held accountable for the murder he has committed, he clearly shouldn't have been thought to be responsible enough to own a gun.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
mnealtx 0
QuoteSome gun advocates are against taking any guns away from any person, even if they've been declared mentally ill.
That's YOUR misinterpretation, as Jerry and his wife have pointed out several times now.
QuoteIn fact, I'm fairly certain you indicated that just a few posts back. You said the person in question had purchased guns prior to being diagnosed and therefore had the right to retain them.
Never claimed he had the right to retain them, sorry.
QuoteHowever, the mentally ill, the kind who can't tell the difference between what is real and not real, are clearly NOT responsible gun owners. That's how the insanity defense works, the guy isn't responsible for his actions. If he's not responsible enough to be held accountable for the murder he has committed, he clearly shouldn't have been thought to be responsible enough to own a gun.
I don't disagree with the (very) basic premise, but you're painting with an AWFULLY large brush, and that's one of the issues that myself and others have problems with.
Once you open that door, it's awfully hard to close it again. Do you *really* want to be denied the right because you went to a shrink about anxiety attacks 10 years ago? Something as innocuous as that *could* end up being a disqualifier, *exactly* because of those broad brush strokes.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
QuoteThere is something incredibly broken in the system where for some reason, some people think it's not Constitutional to remove guns from the mentally ill.
Paul – show me where it’s constitutional to remove guns from a bulimic with no criminal history. How about Constitutional to remove guns from a person with dysthymia. Could the Constitution authorize seizure of weapons from hypochondriacs? And any person with a prescription for Viagra has erectile disorder, which is a DSM-IV condition. No guns for them.
I think that the mentally ill should be allowed to purchase and possess guns unless they are shown to be a threat – which is what others are saying and what you disagree with. Find someone with major depressive disorder. For example, my client who had a double mastectomy and lost her husband to a stroke 13 days later and was left to live by herself on 8 acres and a prefabricated home in meth land. Yes, she has a mental illness of depression. For some reason, she feels a bit lost, worried and terribly alone and this upsets her. She is mentally ill. And yet, I seem to think that she is handling the situation as any sane person would.
There is something incredibly broken in the system where for some reason, some people think it's Constitutional to remove guns from Patricia. She meets the criteria for mentally ill – she’s sad and lonely and depressed. She’s also absolutely no threat to anybody including herself. But you would take her shotgun because she is “mentally ill.” And considering that a person can find a mental illness with ANYBODY, Paul, your argument is to take guns from everybody. And I think this is what it is about. This isn’t a matter of “I think your position is extreme.” Your position is extreme. It’s a shame that you do not differentiate between “gender identity disorder” or “premature ejaculation” and, say, “Bipolar I Disorder” where the manic individual may spend tens of thousands of dollars, have sex with lots of people, or otherwise do irresponsible shit, including the possibility of acts of violence.
Imagine a law that takes a person’s car if the vehicle or driver violates or has ever violated any law. Considering that there is no driver of a vehicle who has ever NOT violated a traffic law, it would be fairly certain that the purpose of the law is to get rid of all cars, despite the emphasis on illegality And since you are raising the Constitutional issue, tell me how you’d take their guns. Recall that you have not only the Second Amendment, but the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Fourteenth…
QuoteSome gun advocates are against taking any guns away from any person, even if they've been declared mentally ill.
Declared mentally ill by whom? How about “serious mental illness.” Now we’re getting someplace. Perhaps, Paul, if you merely limited it to, “An immediate threat” then you’d have little room for argument. I don’t think anybody has a problem with somebody who has been found to be a threat to be disarmed.
The problem is that you seem to refuse to see that nexus. You don’t CARE if a person is not a threat. You don’t give a shit whether the person is a threat. That gal with anorexia nervosa shouldn’t have a gun. That man who just lost his wife to cancer cannot be trusted. The 19 year old who is being put on the witness stand to testify against the sane man who raped her at gunpoint should NOT have access to a weapon – PERIOD!
That’s the problem people have with you, Paul. Your position is the opposite to “let them all have flamethrowers.” Sure, there are more extreme positions out there, but not many. Any mental disorder means no gun. Those poor kids with ADHD are hosed, aren’t they?
Quotethe mentally ill, the kind who can't tell the difference between what is real and not real, are clearly NOT responsible gun owners.
Okay. I like this sentence. This is clear, rational and sensible. Now, the Constitutional limitations still apply, and the ones who cannot tell the difference between real and not real are rare. Those ones are often committed, which means that they have lost their rights to weapons by statute. And they even have a way to get their weapons back.
Note again, this is my problem with the spin focus on the shooter having purchased the guns “legally.” Yes, he did. But he didn’t legally possess them once he was committed. And you’re moving back into the territory of “something needs to be done” from where we should be, “something wasn’t done.” So you focus on a political problem, “Why was he able to purchase these guns” instead of looking at the problem, “Why were his guns not taken when the system was set up to do that? Why did the system fail?”
QuoteThat's how the insanity defense works, the guy isn't responsible for his actions. If he's not responsible enough to be held accountable for the murder he has committed, he clearly shouldn't have been thought to be responsible enough to own a gun.
The insanity defense is used in less than 1% of all homicide defenses. And it rarely works. Let’s think of some people who attempted to use the defense: John Wayne Gacy, Jack Ruby, David Berkowitz, John du Pont, Ted Bundy, Theodore Kaczynski, Jeffrey Dahmer. It didn’t work for them.
And the insanity defense is just that – a defense. The defendant has to prove he or she is insane and it’s a REALLY high bar (note: it was the successful insanity defense of John Hinckley, Jr. and the public outrage from it that led to the imposition of a much higher bar for insanity under the Model Penal Code).
So it’s rather interesting again, Paul, that you are advocating taking gun rights from those who are insane and the defense is only attempted for less than 1% of all murders. This is nothing more than further proof that you are pointing at the bogeyman. You’ve got a small chance of being murdered. And if you are murdered, there is in excess of a 99% likelihood that it is a sane person doing it – who knows right from wrong.
And on the other side, because insanity is so hard to prove now, imagine the difficulty of the government proving insanity to take away the guns. That same standard of insanity as a defense is the same standard the government would have to prove. And note that if the government proved a person could not handle a gun, the government would also have to commit the person for treatment. It’s the double-edged sword that the law is all about. The standard cannot be arbitrary.
But I’m seeing some movement. The problem is, though, how are you going to do this constitutionally?
My wife is hotter than your wife.
I think I’ve figured something out, Paul.
One of the problems I think I’m having in understanding you is a lack of consistency in your language. “Mentally ill” is a VERY broad brush that includes erectile dysfunction. But then you bring up specifics which are sensible, and then return to the “mentally ill” standard.
Your posts are interweaving the broad with the specific and using the specific to describe the broad. Your logic often looks like “shooter was schizophrenic. Shooter was dangerous. Therefore, all schizophrenics are dangerous. Schizophrenia is a mental illness, ergo all mental illness is dangerous.”
Now that I’m looking at this post, it’s the mixing of the broad and specific words that is causing much confusion and means that your points are not clear or coherent. Between DFWAJG and me, these words on both the medical and legal front have VERY specific meanings and implications that are not readily apparent to the lay public.
It’s a problem that I know I have as a lawyer. A person coming home to find that his/her house had items stolen from it would say “I’ve been robbed.” A lawyer may say, “No. Robbery needs face-to-face contact with the victim, like a mugging or a hold up.” Part of it is interpreted as us being assholes, but the other part of it is that “robbery” means a very specific thing to us.
“Insanity” is a very specific thing to lawyers and psychiatrists. Heck, think of how many people who don’t know the difference between a “psychologist” and a “psychiatrist.” (For those that don’t, a “psychiatrist” is a physician who instead of becoming an obstetrician or a surgeon or a pathologist or a family doctor becomes a mental doctor. Psychologists perform therapy and do testing, which psychiatrists CAN do. But if a person comes in with sudden psychosis, a psychologist can treat the symptoms. But sometimes there are medical issues (like an adrenal adenoma) that cause psychosis, and a psychologist would have no way of figuring this out while a psychiatrist would. This is also why psychologists – in general – can’t prescribe (and why I think psychologists should not prescribe)).
It’s because of the specific implications of words and things that DFWAJG and I get irritated. It’s also why we are trying to educate. I understand that you are ignorant of many of these things. By “ignorant” I am not meaning it as any offense, but merely that there are things that you and others don’t know. And because of the emotional nature of it, much of the attempts to point this stuff out are being viewed as an affront to you, and insulting.
And not to say that you don’t have good reason for feeling insulted. Few people like those speaking to a person from a position of authority, and I have been insulting because of the feeling I can’t quite get through.
Looking now, I think the big issue has been words. The words you are stating convey a very specific meaning to DFWAJG and to me. We also believe that there is a great deal of stigma associated with your statements and the statistics – both medical and penal – bear that out! You’re pointing to taking guns from mentally ill, who are no more threatening than the general public. Meanwhile, in excess of 99% of all homicides are done by people who DO know right from wrong.
DFWAJG and I merely ask why the under 1% are being picked on. The 99% of people who kill are allowed to keep their freedoms despite the threat. It’s unequal, unfair and unjust to treat people differently on the basis of medical condition. Yes, “medical condition.” Medical conditions that can be treated.
The sociopath has no medical condition that can be treated. I haven’t seen the movie, but I’ve heard over and over again about Heath Ledger’s portrayal of “The Joker” in “Dark Knight.” He was a guy who was not mentally ill. He was just evil. He was a sociopath. And between 2 and 4 percent of the population has those tendencies – the fundamental lack of empathy and feeling for others.
DFWAJG and I agree – those are the biggest problems. And she and I both also agree that they have Constitutional rights, too. Anything that would be done to prevent the sociopath from harming others must also be accomplished within the guidelines of the Constitution. Mentally ill have those same rights.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
One of the problems I think I’m having in understanding you is a lack of consistency in your language. “Mentally ill” is a VERY broad brush that includes erectile dysfunction. But then you bring up specifics which are sensible, and then return to the “mentally ill” standard.
Your posts are interweaving the broad with the specific and using the specific to describe the broad. Your logic often looks like “shooter was schizophrenic. Shooter was dangerous. Therefore, all schizophrenics are dangerous. Schizophrenia is a mental illness, ergo all mental illness is dangerous.”
Now that I’m looking at this post, it’s the mixing of the broad and specific words that is causing much confusion and means that your points are not clear or coherent. Between DFWAJG and me, these words on both the medical and legal front have VERY specific meanings and implications that are not readily apparent to the lay public.
It’s a problem that I know I have as a lawyer. A person coming home to find that his/her house had items stolen from it would say “I’ve been robbed.” A lawyer may say, “No. Robbery needs face-to-face contact with the victim, like a mugging or a hold up.” Part of it is interpreted as us being assholes, but the other part of it is that “robbery” means a very specific thing to us.
“Insanity” is a very specific thing to lawyers and psychiatrists. Heck, think of how many people who don’t know the difference between a “psychologist” and a “psychiatrist.” (For those that don’t, a “psychiatrist” is a physician who instead of becoming an obstetrician or a surgeon or a pathologist or a family doctor becomes a mental doctor. Psychologists perform therapy and do testing, which psychiatrists CAN do. But if a person comes in with sudden psychosis, a psychologist can treat the symptoms. But sometimes there are medical issues (like an adrenal adenoma) that cause psychosis, and a psychologist would have no way of figuring this out while a psychiatrist would. This is also why psychologists – in general – can’t prescribe (and why I think psychologists should not prescribe)).
It’s because of the specific implications of words and things that DFWAJG and I get irritated. It’s also why we are trying to educate. I understand that you are ignorant of many of these things. By “ignorant” I am not meaning it as any offense, but merely that there are things that you and others don’t know. And because of the emotional nature of it, much of the attempts to point this stuff out are being viewed as an affront to you, and insulting.
And not to say that you don’t have good reason for feeling insulted. Few people like those speaking to a person from a position of authority, and I have been insulting because of the feeling I can’t quite get through.
Looking now, I think the big issue has been words. The words you are stating convey a very specific meaning to DFWAJG and to me. We also believe that there is a great deal of stigma associated with your statements and the statistics – both medical and penal – bear that out! You’re pointing to taking guns from mentally ill, who are no more threatening than the general public. Meanwhile, in excess of 99% of all homicides are done by people who DO know right from wrong.
DFWAJG and I merely ask why the under 1% are being picked on. The 99% of people who kill are allowed to keep their freedoms despite the threat. It’s unequal, unfair and unjust to treat people differently on the basis of medical condition. Yes, “medical condition.” Medical conditions that can be treated.
The sociopath has no medical condition that can be treated. I haven’t seen the movie, but I’ve heard over and over again about Heath Ledger’s portrayal of “The Joker” in “Dark Knight.” He was a guy who was not mentally ill. He was just evil. He was a sociopath. And between 2 and 4 percent of the population has those tendencies – the fundamental lack of empathy and feeling for others.
DFWAJG and I agree – those are the biggest problems. And she and I both also agree that they have Constitutional rights, too. Anything that would be done to prevent the sociopath from harming others must also be accomplished within the guidelines of the Constitution. Mentally ill have those same rights.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
QuoteWhat is stopping YOU from making he world a bit safer?
The Constitution protects rights, not safety at the expense of all else.
People here have frequently told you that existing processes could be more consistently followed, for some gain. But there's no way, within our American principles, to accomplish what you want.
DaVinci 0
QuoteHe was a known schizophrenic, yet still had access to guns. He says saw "demons" and voices in his head told him to kill.
And according to the law, he was a prohibited person ineligible to own them.
"he was committed more than once"
Proving once again that a law will not stop anything.
DaVinci 0
QuoteIt's the oldest and the lamest argument of them all, yet it gets used every day.
CARS don't kill people either. But we restrict them and we license them
Please show me where in the Constitution cars are.... I just can't seem to find them.
QuoteAnd I said earlier, and many times before, very sarcastically, "The USA does not have a gun problem"
And as long as you try to vilify an inanimate object you will never see the truth.
I guess spoons make people fat?
I guess pencils cause misspelled words?
You just can't wrap your head around the real issues and just want an easy scape goat.
DaVinci 0
QuoteA lawyer, of all people, ought to know the "two wrongs makes a right defense" is pretty useless.
A moderator, of all people, ought to know that ignoring one rule violation from someone you like but jumping all over one made from someone you dislike is not proper.
tkhayes 126
Whatever
You heard me loud and clear and we disagree
DaVinci 0
QuoteIt is a fact that without him having access to guns this shooting wouldn't have taken place.
But you can't say there would have not been another tool used to kill.
You can argue about other details or hypotheticals, but that's a fact and you can't deny it's true.
DaVinci 0
QuoteI used to think that a panel of mental professionals would be a good way to determine if the mentally disturbed should be put into our legal system and judged competent and allowed their full rights as Americans... but after seeing how some of those supposed "professionals" act..I have to ask, who gets to make sure those selected for the panel are not megalomaniacal nutters.
Too many of them are all too small minded people with their own personal agendas and on self-serving power trips.
This is why I have an issue with well intended efforts to "pre-clear" gun owners and track them.
All it takes is one person in power to screw and remove the rights of several people.
DaVinci 0
QuoteThere is something incredibly broken in the system where for some reason, some people think it's not Constitutional to remove guns from the mentally ill.
Please show one quote where someone said a person who has been proven in therapy and found to be ill by a court should be allowed to own firearms.
There have been people who have said you need to prove it first, but that is a FAR cry from what you are trying to claim.
QuoteYou said the person in question had purchased guns prior to being diagnosed and therefore had the right to retain them
That is not even close to what he said.
DaVinci 0
QuoteWhat is stopping YOU from making he world a bit safer?
Well if we just ignored the 4th Amendment, think how much safer we would be! You OK with that?
DaVinci 0
QuoteWhateverCrazy
You heard me loud and clear and we disagree
Yes, I believe in the Constitution. You don't unless you agree with it. What other parts of the Constitution do you think should just be ignored?
And as long as you try to vilify an inanimate object you will never see the truth.
I guess spoons make people fat?
I guess pencils cause misspelled words?
You just can't wrap your head around the real issues and just want an easy scape goat.
This is a fact... You blame an object because you are too lazy (or not smart enough and I don't think that is the case) to look at the real issues.
You don't blame the hammer for bending a nail, but you blame a gun for a crime. That just shows a simple mind process.
QuoteWhatever
You heard me loud and clear and we disagree
TK - there is a difference between a "right" and a "privilege." The Bill of Rights is NOT the "Bill of Things if the World Was Perfect But It's Not So These Things AreIgnorable."
Guns are specifically mentioned in the Constitution. Cars are not.
p.s. - to pre-empt kallend, yes, "arms" are specifically mentioned, not "guns." But they mean the same thing...
My wife is hotter than your wife.
No, you haven't - all you've said is "somebody needs to DO something!!!!!!!"
Now who isn't telling the truth?
Oh Mike, you're so cute when you try to do things like that and especially when it appears as if my ability to do a simple search works so much better than your own.
You might want to revisit this coversation -WE- (you, me and a bunch of other folks) had.
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=4145053;page=4;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=50;#4147878
I said EXACTLY what I thought should happen. Just start at the link and keep reading the thread.
If you NOW want to say I never did, then I guess that's your right, but it's not true.
The World's Most Boring Skydiver