HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » How does improved mental ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 04:17 PM

How does improved mental health care keep guns out of certain hands?

I don't understand how that's supposed to work.

Is the restriction on the person or the person's right to own a gun?

What's the threshold?

111 replies, 6947 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 111 replies Author Time Post
Reply How does improved mental health care keep guns out of certain hands? (Original post)
CreekDog Jan 2013 OP
gejohnston Jan 2013 #1
CreekDog Jan 2013 #2
tama Jan 2013 #4
gejohnston Jan 2013 #5
CreekDog Jan 2013 #7
flamin lib Jan 2013 #68
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2013 #84
CreekDog Jan 2013 #11
HockeyMom Jan 2013 #28
CreekDog Jan 2013 #29
gejohnston Jan 2013 #43
tblue Jan 2013 #27
tama Jan 2013 #3
CreekDog Jan 2013 #6
tama Jan 2013 #8
CreekDog Jan 2013 #10
tama Jan 2013 #12
CreekDog Jan 2013 #15
tama Jan 2013 #31
CreekDog Jan 2013 #33
tama Jan 2013 #36
undergroundpanther Jan 2013 #103
DonP Jan 2013 #13
JDPriestly Jan 2013 #109
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2013 #21
spin Jan 2013 #37
tama Jan 2013 #40
spin Jan 2013 #58
tama Jan 2013 #64
spin Jan 2013 #71
tama Jan 2013 #72
spin Jan 2013 #73
samsingh Jan 2013 #9
Dog Gone at Penigma Jan 2013 #14
napoleon_in_rags Jan 2013 #26
Live and Learn Jan 2013 #60
samsingh Jan 2013 #85
gejohnston Jan 2013 #86
samsingh Jan 2013 #99
gejohnston Jan 2013 #107
samsingh Jan 2013 #110
gejohnston Jan 2013 #111
napoleon_in_rags Jan 2013 #89
samsingh Jan 2013 #100
Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #76
sylvi Jan 2013 #16
CreekDog Jan 2013 #17
sylvi Jan 2013 #18
CreekDog Jan 2013 #19
sylvi Jan 2013 #23
JI7 Jan 2013 #20
sylvi Jan 2013 #24
JI7 Jan 2013 #25
napoleon_in_rags Jan 2013 #22
krispos42 Jan 2013 #30
CreekDog Jan 2013 #34
krispos42 Jan 2013 #35
CreekDog Jan 2013 #38
krispos42 Jan 2013 #39
Straw Man Jan 2013 #69
gejohnston Jan 2013 #70
hack89 Jan 2013 #93
Tuesday Afternoon Jan 2013 #50
CreekDog Jan 2013 #51
gejohnston Jan 2013 #54
Tuesday Afternoon Jan 2013 #55
Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #79
Bosso 63 Jan 2013 #32
Tuesday Afternoon Jan 2013 #41
CreekDog Jan 2013 #42
Tuesday Afternoon Jan 2013 #44
CreekDog Jan 2013 #46
Tuesday Afternoon Jan 2013 #48
gejohnston Jan 2013 #45
CreekDog Jan 2013 #47
Tuesday Afternoon Jan 2013 #49
CreekDog Jan 2013 #52
Tuesday Afternoon Jan 2013 #56
CreekDog Jan 2013 #59
Clames Jan 2013 #75
Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #80
Clames Jan 2013 #88
Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #90
CreekDog Jan 2013 #78
Tuesday Afternoon Jan 2013 #83
CreekDog Jan 2013 #87
gejohnston Jan 2013 #57
iiibbb Jan 2013 #61
iiibbb Jan 2013 #62
bowens43 Jan 2013 #53
Tuesday Afternoon Jan 2013 #65
discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2013 #66
Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #81
libdem4life Jan 2013 #63
gejohnston Jan 2013 #67
libdem4life Jan 2013 #74
gejohnston Jan 2013 #77
libdem4life Jan 2013 #91
gejohnston Jan 2013 #96
Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #82
libdem4life Jan 2013 #94
gejohnston Jan 2013 #95
libdem4life Jan 2013 #97
Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #98
libdem4life Jan 2013 #108
hack89 Jan 2013 #92
undergroundpanther Jan 2013 #104
sleestak smile Jan 2013 #101
ZombieHorde Jan 2013 #102
undergroundpanther Jan 2013 #105
ZombieHorde Jan 2013 #106

Response to CreekDog (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 04:22 PM

1. under the federal Gun Control Act of 1968

who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/how-to/identify-prohibited-persons.html

Your state may vary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #1)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 04:25 PM

2. does everybody need to be tested?



what is a mental defective?

depression?

epilepsy?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #2)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 04:28 PM

4. Prone to

 

violently harming others. Generals, politicians, corporate big shots, that sort of type.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #2)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 04:29 PM

5. the key word is adjudicated

by a judge or other due process mechanism. Beyond that, have to ask a lawyer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #5)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 04:33 PM

7. how would this have stopped Lanza, Holmes, or Laughner?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #7)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 12:39 AM

68. In Lanza's case it appears that his mother was trying to get him into therapy

but there were no resources she could access.

There are no definitive statements yet but this is the evidence from neighbors and friends of the family.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #68)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 05:15 PM

84. I'd have to look up...

...what's covered on my hmo plan but usual health insurance caps the number of visits to about 10/year and pays 50%. In my experience (Philly area specialists including shrinks = $150/hour or more) that means the first 10 visits will cost $750. After the first 10 you pay it all. Lots of folks can't afford this.

Many states had facilities for severe cases where families just couldn't afford coverage. These places were never great options but they remained options. 1%ers are in the same situation they were; they can afford anything. The middle class can choose between becoming poverty cases and neglecting the mental health of themselves and their families. The poor just get the shaft.

The state facility in Philly lost funding and was shutdown during Reagan, probably a Republican thing.

I don't know the situation with the Lanzas but various mental issues can present or become pronounced at his age. Some of these may be detectable if regular health coverage included those kinds of coverage and checkups.

I would favor a doctor's report being acceptable for the NICS for a one year term. Continued treatment yields continued restrictions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #5)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 04:48 PM

11. okay, those three were not adjudicated, how does the NRA plan for better mental health keep us safer



you seem to have left the thread when the questions got harder to evade.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #11)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 07:03 PM

28. Don't keep a gun in your home

if your have crazy kids?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HockeyMom (Reply #28)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 07:09 PM

29. oh goody, that sounds like a plan

the plan is that other people, not covered by any mental health requirement, will act sensibly on a voluntary basis.

funny that in this forum of strong belief in law enforcement, that when it comes to guns everything must be voluntary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #11)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 09:49 PM

43. that is the fault of their families and communities

but the last guy stole his.

Even though The Netherlands doesn't have a high rate of gun ownership, police are not allowed access to mental health records when processing gun permits. At least that was the case two years ago. Since many if not most European gun laws were aimed at political violence during the 1920s, that is fairly typical.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #2)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 07:02 PM

27. If they're diagnosed, then what? Drugs? Some drugs increase suicidal feelings.

They bump up energy more than the emotional pain. You toss a semiautomatic into the mix and you are pouring gasoline on a flame. Terrifying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 04:26 PM

3. You could start improving mental health with a questionnaire

 

1) are you willing to join army and fire weapons against other humans?
2) if you would hold political position, would you willing to order people to attack other people or follow such order?

If answer is yes, send the guys to reeducation camps of continuous marijuana smoking and trips with stronger entheogens. guided by experienced healers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tama (Reply #3)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 04:32 PM

6. yeah but what if everyone doesn't want to fill out the questionnaire?

i doubt Adam Lanza or James Holmes or Jared Loughner would have and what if they didn't?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #6)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 04:37 PM

8. If you don't wanna live peacefully in this community and respect other life

 

here's some basic gardening tools and there's an island not far away where you can live (as long as you can) with similar minded people and where you can use your gardening tools to build weapons and hurt and kill each other as much as you want.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tama (Reply #8)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 04:40 PM

10. people get sent to an island for not filling out a questionnaire?



what's the crime? not filling out a questionnaire --penalty is loss of citizenship???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #10)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 05:03 PM

12. Point is

 

we are living in mental asylum run by the insane. The most insane - when that is defined by as being prone to violence - are at the top of hierarchy and those who are ready and willing to follow their orders.

And that, my friend, what is wrong about this whole discussion about mental sanity and guns. There are lots of people for various symptoms and burn outs for mostly caring too much, loving too much and hurting too much, and the crowd that keeps on demanding more control over those people, by system that is insanely violent not just potentially but actually being in constant state of war against it's own people, other peoples and nature and planet as whole.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tama (Reply #12)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 05:18 PM

15. save the recorded lecture on whatever weird philosophy unrelated to this OP you're trying to spread



i'd prefer not to interact with someone who sounds like they are high and talking about anarchist literature simultaneously.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #15)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 07:50 PM

31. Funny that

 

and that you perceive this as "forum of strong belief in law enforcement." Not, e.g. of conscience and compassion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tama (Reply #31)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 07:59 PM

33. this is a group and the most limited at DU in terms of compassion



unless it's for George Zimmerman.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #33)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 08:06 PM

36. Ah, didn't look and thought this was in GD.

 

Didn't realize this was in THE looney bin of DU until you told. Figures...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tama (Reply #8)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 10:17 PM

103. I wish

this could happen to all psychopaths including corporate ones who hire other psychopaths to kill for them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #6)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 05:09 PM

13. In all three cases, plus Cho at VTech, there was a history that was ignored or hidden

IIRC, In the case of Cho, a "well meaning" faculty advisor was trying to keep his record clean and not hurt his career, even after he had been removed from several classes for his harrassing behavior.

Jared Loughner had a lengthy track record, known to his family and local law enforcement, of erratic behavior. But no one wanted to do anything legal that might stigmatize him.

I don't know much about Holmes or Lanza's background that I trust as accurate.

In these cases well meaning people, trying to help a friend or family member, refused to do anything formal or legal to protect them from a stigma and possible legal commitment proceedings.

A new system, where authorities (police, school administrators, family members, mental health professionals etc.) could put out a temporary warning and hold of some kind to the NICS data base, the way they do now with an Order of Protection.

That order/hold can only be removed by a licensed mental health professional who examines the person and determines they are not a threat to others or themselves would be a good start.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Reply #13)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 02:46 AM

109. If you excluded all people who express crazy, angry feelings or who act crazy and angry

at times from gun ownership, you would end up with a very short list of people who were allowed to own guns, and very few of them would be interested.

Suddenly, I find the NRA's linking mental illness and gun abuse a bit humorous.

We are a nation in which spousal and child abuse of the violent kind are more common than people realize.

People who are not crazy, angry and abusive are not extremely interested in guns unless they really use them either for genuine sport or for their work.

I wonder whether the NRA has actually done any research on the correlation between gun ownership and anger, gun ownership and abusive or aggressive behavior.

Yes, many gun owners would pass a psychological qualification requirement, but if we imposed it, we would have many fewer gun owners than we do now. And a lot of the gun owners who are angry now would be even angrier.

In addition to better and more readily available mental health services, how about requiring gun owners to take courses on anger management.

Frankly, all Americans probably need this. As a matter of fact, rather than mental health services for a few, why not anger management for all of us. That's probably what we need. All of us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #6)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 06:22 PM

21. "...doesn't want to fill out the questionnaire"

Come now, the law says you have to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tama (Reply #3)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 08:18 PM

37. So people like me who joined the Air Force during the Vietnam War ...

should be sent to a "reeducation" camp for estrogen treatments and doses of marijuana?

I was trained how how to use an M16 but never had to fire one in warfare as I was stationed stateside during my entire tour of duty. Had I been sent to a war zone and found myself under attack from an enemy, I would have gladly used a firearm to defend myself and my fellow airmen.

I will admit that I am not and have never been a pacifist, however I don't agree with foolish wars fought for corporate gain and ego. Still I believe that it is wise for our nation to have a military force to defend against attack from enemy forces and also have political leadership that would be willing to engage an attacking force with any opponent who attacks us. Was our nation wrong to declare war against Japan and Germany after Pearl Harbor?

Of course you were just probably being sarcastic but I will ask you if you feel that I should be sent to a reeducation camp today merely because I own firearms for target shooting and self defense and also have a concealed weapons permit?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #37)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 09:11 PM

40. Well

 

let me put it this way: if we want to heal and adapt as society and avoid dystopian present changing into just worse and worse, we all desperately need "reeducation camps". Life itself is that in many ways.

Children cannot be blamed how they are conditioned by the culture they are born into, and how their innate sensitivy, compassion and conscience reacts to the culture of insane destruction and violence they are made parts of. When we had schoolkillings here in Finland, there were lots of discussions also about our gun laws and mental health care system, but we also asked ourselves: what is wrong with us as culture and society, when our members, some of our children act in this way?

Sadly, I don't see much of that in America and DU after the latest school killing, just increasingly individualized and myopic attitudes and cries for more top-down control of "crazy" people. By culture and system that certainly fulfills the criterion of "dangerous to its environment or to itself", which is a crucial criterion in mental health care system for limiting anyone's personal freedom.

Point is, you can't have meaningful and beneficial discussion of the mental health problems involved, if you keep the discussion just on individualized level and are not able to address our collective level of insanity in any way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tama (Reply #40)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 10:31 PM

58. Re-education camps have a tarnished history. ...

Such camps have existed and in some cases still exist in many nations including Russia, China, North Korea, Viet Nam and Cambodia. They often serve as an excellent way to isolate and brainwash those who disagree with a tyrannical government.

Do you honestly believe that a person such as myself who is now 66 years old should be sent to such a camp because I own firearms for self defense and enjoy target shooting? I have been an honest and responsible citizen during my adulthood and I held a government security clearance from age 21 to age 62.

If the government of the United States suggested putting all gun owners into re-education camps you would have an armed rebellion. Of course this is highly unlikely to happen in my lifetime. If you consider that there are an estimated 80,000,000 gun owners in the U.S. and add many of the voting age members of their family passing such a law is politically impossible.

Of course this might happen if a dictator were to achieve power in this nation but that is unlikely as long as American citizens are armed. It might not even require action by the citizenry as there is an excellent chance that if a dictator did assume control, our military would overthrow him.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #58)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 11:34 PM

64. As you noticed

 

the "re-education campr was sarcasm and I said life is a "re-education camp" of life long learning. Have you stopped learning or wish to stop, as long as you breath?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tama (Reply #64)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 01:11 PM

71. I did suspect that you were being sarcastic ...

but I wasn't sure. Sometimes people post some truly unusual views on DU and actually are serious.

But no big deal.

Of course I haven't quit learning and I will agree that many people could benefit from counseling in today's complicated world.

But you did suggest that:


You could start improving mental health with a questionnaire:

1) are you willing to join army and fire weapons against other humans?
2) if you would hold political position, would you willing to order people to attack other people or follow such order?


Do you honestly feel that people who answer in the affirmative have serious mental issues?

The reason I ask this is because many people who know I enjoy shooting have asked me about the wisdom of their buying a firearm for self defense.

I first ask them, "Are you absolutely sure that you could shoot another human being if it was absolutely necessary in order to save your life or health or that of members of your family?"

If they reply that they only want a firearm to scare off an attacker I point out that this is very foolish as the attacker will possibly take your weapon away and kill you with it. I then point out that I don't consider being unable to shoot another person even if necessary is not a character fault in the least.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #71)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 01:39 PM

72. During WWII

 

many if not most American soldiers didn't fire they weapons at other human beings, but "missed" on purpose when they were expected to use their weapons by their officers. I hold that to their credit. It takes intensive (dehumanizing) psychological training to condition people to kill another human being.

I find lot of wisdom in the argument that people who want to eat meat should experience and be able to kill the animal they eat, instead of leaving that part to industrialized meat production which is much more horrible and desensitized and alienated practice than hunting for food.

Target practice can be good meditative practice and fun sport, also nothing against that.

What is very problematic is the "self-defence" motivation in culture that is inherently extremely violent and unequal class system with numerous social and environmental problems. And that is not individual problem but socio-cultural and communal level problem reflected in individuals and their fears and behavior.

I don't think that it is exaggeration to call such culture collectively insane and in dire need of healing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tama (Reply #72)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 03:13 PM

73. I have found that most combat vets from places like Vietnam ...

do not like to talk about their experiences.

Fighting in a war is dirty and brutal and often takes a significant psychological toll on those who were involved. I've often heard some vets brag about their experiences and I took much of what they said with a grain of salt. The ones I did believe said that they did what was necessary in order to survive. Many struggled with alcoholism or abused drugs.

I did know one WWII vet who landed on Normandy Beach and was engaged in combat across Europe. He wasn't boastful at all and did not try to portray himself as a hero. He did say that he had experience clearing buildings in towns our army was invading and it was hell. His weapon of choice was a Thompson sub machine gun. He said it was a very effective close quarters weapon. I honestly believe that he shot some enemy soldiers and probably some died.

When he left the service he used the GI bill to become an electronic engineer and went to work on many space programs writing software for missions such as the Viking probes which landed on Mars. Oddly he was one of the kindest and most gentle men I have ever known. However any intruder who invaded his home might regret that decision if he survived.

Now I seriously believe that I could shoot another person if truly necessary based on my life experience and how I have reacted to stressful and dangerous situations in the past. Fortunately I have never had to in the past and hope that I never will find myself in such a situation. I also realize that if I did shoot another person in entirely legitimate self defense I would most likely go thorough a long period of time suffering from the aftereffects. I would probably need professional counseling as many police officers do after a shooting.

The fact that I feel that I could use a weapon for self defense might make me different from you but it doesn't indicate that I have serious mental issues that need to be treated.

One pundit once stated that society can be divided in three main groups which are sheep, sheep dogs and wolves. To me sheep dogs are the military and the police. I served my time in the military and I have never had any desire to be a cop nor am I a vigilante. I don't fit well in any of the groups the writer described but perhaps I would fit into a new category called fanged sheep.

The United States is a very broad region with significant cultural differences that has admittedly a large number of social problems. We are also fighting a foolish War on Drugs which has contributed greatly to the problem of violence in our nation. Still, we are making significant headway in addressing violent crime as FBI statistics show our violent crime rate is now at the levels last seen in the late 1960s. Oddly during this half century gun ownership has increased and legal carry of firearms by citizens in public is now allowed in almost all states. While the decrease in the crime rate can not be totally attributed to civilian gun ownership or legal carry, it does show that more guns does not always equal more crime.

Hopefully in the near future our nation will pass some sensible laws that will help keep firearms out of the hands of those who might misuse them. It is a sad fact that we can never totally eliminate all tragedies caused by firearms as it is impossible to gather up all 300,000,000 firearms from the 80,000,000 gun owners no matter what laws we pass.

Of course you may disagree with much of what I have said which is fine. People and their opinions often differ and usually both sides of any issue have valid points.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 04:39 PM

9. it doesn't. it's another talking point to enable more guns to be sold

in the meantime and more profits for the gun companies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #9)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 05:13 PM

14. on the one hand the NRA says it wants to restrict crazy people gettig guns.

But then they turn around and lobby their pet members of congress to make contribution of the names of the dangerously ill voluntary, and lobby state legislators not to fund or authorize providing those names.

And they make it appallingly easy for those who are dangerously mentally ill to get guns AFTER they have been identified, by other legislation they wrote and got passed by the conservative members of congress they effectively own.

But of course if they scare people that there are hordes of armed dangerously mentally ill people around every corner and behind every tree, they can sell more guns, so that the good guys can shoot the crazy bad guys.

The reality is that the mentally ill are more likely to be harmed by all kinds of violence, including gun violence, than they are to perpetrate such violence.

All we need do is to make it legal to prohibit someone from getting a gun if a family member or other person - like an employer, or mental health professional - reports they are dangerous, rather than waiting for a court to determine this.

So long as this involves very few people - it really should not be the emphasis of preventing gun violence. Most mass shootings for example are the work of sane, angry people, not the mentally ill. Or so say the criminologists who have specialized in the study of violence by the mentally ill (or to them).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #9)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 06:53 PM

26. No, its really not.

Dems have been advocating health services, including mental health for all for a long time. Lack of mental health services really does contribute to a class of "WTF?" violent acts, that get widespread media attention. So now claiming that seeking mental health system improvements is now a right wing talking point is really too much a credit to the right, don't you think?

The mental health issue is real. The reasons Loughner shot Giffords for instance are entirely delusional, that's why Loughner now resides in a mental health facility. The improvements to mental health aren't all of the solution, but they are a part of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to napoleon_in_rags (Reply #26)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 10:38 PM

60. +1 nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to napoleon_in_rags (Reply #26)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 05:18 PM

85. people with guns, whether they are mentally ill or not can kill with the guns

the nra supports assault rifles and supports them for hunters. let's get real. hunters shouldn't be in the hobby of slaughtering animals. there is NO need for assault rifles except to make money for the manufacturers and the nra in the guise of membership fees to poeple afraid to lose access to these horrific weapons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #85)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 05:30 PM

86. are you a vegetarian?

or just pretend that buying a dead animal someone else killed for you, under barbaric conditions after being pumped full of chemicals and hormones, is "civilized" while harvesting their own organic food in a sustainable manner is "sick and uncivilized"? Even vegans kill. Vegans often eat their food alive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #86)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 09:21 PM

99. i'm a vegetarian

not sure how vegans could eat their food alive as they don't eat meat or dairy products

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #99)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 11:23 PM

107. if a plant is still green,

it is still alive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #107)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 08:54 AM

110. talking about taking an argument to the ridiculous

does a plant have a nervous system? a brain?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #110)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 09:45 AM

111. simply pointing out

it is still alive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #85)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 06:58 PM

89. Hunters are great.

They are one of the biggest contributors to wildlife and wetland conservation funds. And as far as animal cruelty? I put myself in the animal's shoes: Would I rather live a life in horrible conditions pumped full of steroids in a pen, watching those around me get slaughtered, or would I rather live a life free, only to be killed quickly at maturity by a quick gun shot? I believe Mark Zuckerberg has a rational stance as far as animal cruelty:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/green-living-blog/2011/may/27/mark-zuckerberg-kill-animals-meat

But when I learned gun safety, I learned the goal of hunters was the clean one shot kill. A good hunter kills an animal instantly and painlessly, with one shot (also minimal damage to the surrounding meat, he does't spray the animal with bullets) So the weapon of choice for most hunters is a bolt action rifle, with a much larger bullet than most assault rifles, and a really good pinpoint accuracy scope. Something like a 5 shot magazine for if they fail on their first shot.

I don't want to get dragged into the gun debate, but I don't think conflating hunters and assault rifles is accurate. My stance is that all semi-autos should require a license above and beyond repeaters. So while they are available, those who own them should go through some additional safety training and sanity checks. But its not something I've looked at the numbers on and really don't want to get dragged in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to napoleon_in_rags (Reply #89)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 09:25 PM

100. delusions and self justication is great

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #9)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 04:40 PM

76. Seems anything that doesn't involve gun bans is an "NRA talking-point." Kind of illustrates...

how those seeking "gun-control" are really seeking bans, since they give the "N" word* to anything else. Did I get that right?


*As in "National" Rifle Association.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 05:23 PM

16. There seems to be two items conflated here

 

Mental health screening for gun buyers vs. mental health care. I don't know which one LaPierre was talking about since I haven't heard his speech or read the transcript.

I'm not sure how the mental health screening would be carried out in relation to gun sales while still preserving the privacy rights of the individual and making sure it was competent and non-biased. But it stands to reason that if competent mental health care was more readily available and accessible to those in need it would reduce the possibility of self-harm for those suffering from problems like severe depression, or harm to others from someone, say, who is a paranoid schizophrenic experiencing "command hallucinations" telling them to harm certain others, even absent a screening process for gun buying. Of course, the two would work better in tandem, but again, the devil would be in the details of that screening.

I would just remind folks that the vast majority of folks with mental health issues are not violent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sylvi (Reply #16)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 05:27 PM

17. gun advocates here would probably not want any restriction at the point of sale

meanwhile supporting forced testings of random people or people reported on for whatever reason and seeming to have a "mental illness".

at which point, it would not be the restrictcions at the gun shop that stop them from purchasing, but from being institutionalized.

i think what you will find here in this group, is that people here are in the main, much more willing to have lots of people institutionalized in exchange for everyone who manages *not* to get institutionalized to buy guns with wild abandon.



unlikely they'll admit to that, or not in those words, but the sum total of arguments in this group point to a majority of people in this group feeling that way --or supporting what amounts to that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #17)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 05:52 PM

18. Im not sure I'm seeing that

 

Perhaps I'm looking at the wrong posts, but I'm not seeing a call for random forced testings or institutionalization of the mentally ill. Forced testing and institutionalization should be reserved only for those who have shown indication that they are an immediate danger to themselves or others, and have strict time limits subject to judicial review, such as Florida's Baker Act.

I suppose I'm just saying that better mental health care in general, made freely available and without societal stigma, would go a long way in preventing violence from firearms or otherwise, as part of a multi-pronged addressing of root causes, even in the absence of an effective point of sale screening process.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sylvi (Reply #18)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 06:00 PM

19. i don't see how it would've changed the most notable shootings of the past 2 years

or are you wiling to entertain more restrictions at the point of sale?

or more restrictions about how firearms must be stored at home?

if you say "sure" but want everything voluntary, you're wasting our time and want nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #19)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 06:36 PM

23. The only place I used the word "sure"

 

The only place I used the word "sure" was in response to your assertion about statements from other pro-gun posters regarding "random forced testing" and "institutionalization" of the mentally ill. That was merely a comment on the behavior of posters here, not having anything to do with actual policy.

The subject of the thread is mental illness and gun ownership. There are many instances of violence both with firearms and without that far outstrip in numbers only those deemed worthy of national attention by the media, thus becoming "notable". Are you denying that, even with participation by affected individuals being voluntary, an improved mental health system - greater accessibility, more effective treatment modalities, less stigma, better follow-up treatment - would not markedly decrease the potential for suicides and harm to others from person suffering from afflictions that present those dangers? I consider that neither a waste of time nor "wanting nothing".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 06:09 PM

20. not sure it does if it's still very easy to get a gun

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JI7 (Reply #20)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 06:50 PM

24. Ideally

 

Ideally, it would be better that a person with suicidal or homicidal tendencies as a result of mental illness not have access to a firearm. But short of that, wouldn't it be a great improvement and mitigation of risk if those individuals could receive treatment that relieved those thoughts and feelings that compelled them to use it for harm? Of course it is not a fix-all in and of itself, but as part of an overall strategy for reducing gun violence, in combination with other approaches, would it not be worth it?

Let's not let perfection be the enemy of good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sylvi (Reply #24)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 06:53 PM

25. of course, even without the violence they should be able to get treatment

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 06:36 PM

22. What it does is it enables individuals to have a strategy when they are in crisis.

Other than lashing out.

Check out Cho's video before the the VA tech shooting for instance. The individual was having the experience of Christ like persecution at the hands of others. A successful system would had him come through for his past oddities, and always have that line to more support for when he feels persecuted. So he would have had options, people he could call and talk to. And of course, if an any of these sessions he said he had guns and was going to hurt people, he could have been committed. The key is having that ongoing channel where he, or any of the vast number of non-dangerous mentally ill can communicate for help and support, talk about what's going on with them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 07:21 PM

30. People would be less likely to think

"Hey, it would be a fine day to gun down a bunch of people in a school/mall/church."


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #30)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 08:01 PM

34. most people in this group don't even support universal health care

you think they support universal mental health care?

dreaming!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #34)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 08:05 PM

35. Supposition on your part.

I know I do. I'm on Connecticut's MedicAid program, and it's spectacular. SPECTACULAR.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #35)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 08:34 PM

38. I said "most in this group" --and it's not a supposition

i've been arguing for health care and anti-poverty programs with the regulars in this forum (when they venture out into the rest of DU) and they consistently oppose social programs and the taxation that supports them.

i fully support Medicaid and/or good single-payer healthcare systems in the US and am glad that you have access to good care for yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #38)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 08:38 PM

39. Well, I can't speak for that.

I don't recall from the 2009 health care debates who was on what side. Too many years ago.

I watched "Sicko", and I would very much like a little piece of France here in the States.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #38)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 01:24 AM

69. Count me out of your "most."

I fully support universal healthcare. I think you're going to have to take a headcount before you can continue to air your "suppositions."

Hint: banned trolls don't count.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #38)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 01:31 AM

70. I love my socialized VA and kind of single payer Tri Care

and I would like to see Trumancare replace the current system for everyone else. That is the only reason my brother hasn't retired from driving a snow plow yet. My conservative FIL voted Democratic simply for single payer or soicalized healthcare. Yeah, he was a one issue voter.
I know I'm not on your list. Let's see the list.
Show the list or retract.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #38)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 07:58 PM

93. I fully support single payer. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #34)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 10:20 PM

50. disgusting. ott post and a virtual slam of all posters in this group.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #50)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 10:24 PM

51. not a slam against all the posters in this group

just an empirical observation of *most*.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #51)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 10:29 PM

54. if it is empirical,

you can give us evidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #51)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 10:29 PM

55. how do you knowwhat *most* posters in this group think of Health Care? you have links?

and if you slam most of us you are slamming all of us. without links it is total bullshit and you know it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #34)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 04:49 PM

79. So you just create narratives, huh? And lying is fair game for you? This is why...

Hard-line gun-controller/culture warriors like yourself end up discrediting themselves.

Your rolly-polly smilie suggests that you really don't care about gun-control. But you do care about authoritarian culture war.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 07:54 PM

32. What happens if you have crappy mental health care?

People die.




Its really not that difficult is it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 09:45 PM

41. Improving Mental Health care improves society. Taking care and helping is the democratic way.

An improved society feels less threat, less threat leads to less feeling of need to protect one's self.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #41)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 09:46 PM

42. should we replace speed limits with more driver's education classes?

same approach, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #42)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 09:52 PM

44. wrong. Driving is a privilege It is Not a Right. Ask any Night Court Judge. Also,

any speed limit is too fast when it is raining.

kind of like any gun is too fast in a paranoid schizophrenic's hands.

I notice you say nothing about helping the less fortunate. Do you want to improve the lives of people in this country or not?

analogy fail on other levels, too - but, you knew that when you typed it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #44)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 10:14 PM

46. lol

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #46)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 10:18 PM

48. boingboing! we missed you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #42)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 09:52 PM

45. the whole car/gun analogy is silly on many levels

and are in no way alike.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #45)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 10:16 PM

47. true, since the first use of a car is not to kill

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #47)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 10:19 PM

49. vehicular manslaughter ring a bell with you, boingboing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #49)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 10:25 PM

52. so a car is designed first and foremost to kill?

and secondly just to drive around?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #52)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 10:30 PM

56. boingboing! we missed you so!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #56)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 10:37 PM

59. boingboing?

is that a joke or are you talking about another poster?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #59)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 04:29 PM

75. It's just an observation.

 

Your posts are increasingly becoming more like those of a DU member currently barred from this group.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Clames (Reply #75)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 04:55 PM

80. ....and an "empirical" one at that!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #80)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 06:34 PM

88. He's using a medical definition of "empiracal I believe.

 

Medical Definition of EMPIRICAL

1
archaic
a : following or used in the practice of the empirics—compare rational 2
b : being or befitting a quack or charlatan

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Clames (Reply #88)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 07:34 PM

90. LOL!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #56)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 04:48 PM

78. Well, I'm not them and just like before you are embarrassingly mixing me up with another

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=27846

Tuesday Afternoon (40,244 posts)
81. I owe you an apology. mea Culpa

I had you confused with another DUer who goes by the last name of Dog.

I am very sorry, CreekDog.

However, it still stands that you do have a flair for Mr. Magoo type posts and I stand by that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #78)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 05:11 PM

83. what is embarassing about that? I made an error. BFD. but, this time you are acting just like

boingboing, who is blocked from this group by the way, and I will call you boingboing every time you act like him.

You are doing it quite often in this thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #83)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 05:49 PM

87. kinda shows that you make errors about this sort of thing

does it make you more cautious in making another accusation? the opposite.

because you don't even know that the poster's name is: bongbong not BOINGBOING.



very convincing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #52)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 10:31 PM

57. they do a better job of it than anything else

not to mention the public health and planetary effects of the emissions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #52)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 10:48 PM

61. They are certainly misused more than guns.

 

They certainly cause more deaths than guns.

Does it matter the purpose when one is being inappropriately used?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #47)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 10:49 PM

62. A guns "first use" is as a deterrent... it's "second use" is as a projectile weap

 

I know two close friends with first-hand stories of using guns in self defense.

Shots were not fired.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 10:26 PM

53. EVERY gun owner is a danger to society.

It's not only the mentally ill who kill. It's not only the mentally ill who make it possible for others to easily kill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bowens43 (Reply #53)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 11:35 PM

65. just like every idiot is a danger to society.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bowens43 (Reply #53)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 11:56 PM

66. Let's get real

Everyone is a danger to everyone else. Get use to it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bowens43 (Reply #53)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 04:58 PM

81. bowens, are you so paranoid that you think tens of millions of fellow-Americans are a danger?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 10:53 PM

63. It doesn't. It's a Red Herring yet I am strongly for gun management.

The reality, as opposed to hype, is that no one may legally be considered a "mental case" until proven to be so by the state, and in front of a judge in a court of law. An official Psychological Evaluation is a lengthy and very expensive determination. Three or more psychologists/psychiatrists must make elaborate reports, hire an attorney to craft the information into a legal filing, court date set, and make the presentation to the judge. Then, they are given a Court-Approved Guardian in conjunction with any family. Depending on the situation, it can cost $5,000 or more. Even then there is no surety that they will be locked up in a mental hospital situation. Often the person is sent right back home.

Or, if someone acts crazy, gets reported, police come...they can be held against their will for 72 hours, medicated and stabilized. Usually sent home, perhaps with a Court-Approved guardian or co-guardian.

There are few mental health hospitals any more and they hold the most dangerous to themselves or other, often mentally retarded, as well. There are 14 beds in the county of around 200,000 In my county, what used to be the mental hospital...a real hospital...now consists of County offices.

I believe that the gun issue should have nothing to do directly with Mental Health because it is horribly expensive as a private solution, and as a public solution. Government psychiatrists get paid $400,000 a year and up.

Most real mental health cases end up in prison...not getting a firearm.

Gun management must be done in its own context, with its own funds, and with the intention of providing adequate hunting abilities, and home protection...which can be accomplished with a 22 rifle and a 6 shooter pistol. No actual need for much more than that.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libdem4life (Reply #63)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 12:01 AM

67. One question

and with the intention of providing adequate hunting abilities, and home protection...which can be accomplished with a 22 rifle and a 6 shooter pistol.
are you speaking as an firearms expert, self defense instructor, security consultant, hunting expert, or are you simply parroting what some equally unqualified pundit said?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #67)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 04:02 PM

74. Something far, far more terrifying...intellingence and critical thinking skills...the ability to put

together information, common sense, history, forward looking logical conclusions and wisdom in actions. It's no wonder states like Texas have banned it ... Critical Thinking classes ... from their state school curriculum. Just need an armory of machine guns et al ...what's to think about?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libdem4life (Reply #74)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 04:47 PM

77. first you have to have the correct information

I hope you didn't put too much thought in your post. The school board is controlled by religious fundamentalists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #77)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 07:46 PM

91. As opposed to the Liberals? Let me restate...mental health is no way no how an answer

let alone cure for gun violence. Violence, accidental or intentional, supervised or non-supervised in every form, drunk or sober or stoned ... all a social and cultural health problem, as with nutty religious beliefs... and can be deadly to innocents.

You don't need a degree to know that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libdem4life (Reply #91)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 08:11 PM

96. I didn't say it did

I was mostly referring to spree killing. In the US it has more to do with WOD and gangs. In the UK, gangs and god knows what, since their violent crime, other than murder, is higher than ours. In fact, they have the highest assault rates in the OECD.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libdem4life (Reply #74)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 05:09 PM

82. Admirable, this "intelligence and critical thinking skills"

Now, will you apply such to the prospects of effecting a prohibitionist scheme which would reduce folks to a SD firearm like a .22?
BTW, that caliber is not considered a weapon whose "only purpose is to kill." It is a caliber more suited to inexpensive target shooting, competitive shooting (Olympics) and small game hunting. The only folks who regularly used a .22 for killing others were mob hit-men, who used "silencers" and placed the gun against one's head and fired a couple of times. Then it would work. You can find other examples of people killed with these. But the weapon preferred is one with "stopping power," i.e. those which have enough shock power to cause an assailant to STOP what he/she is doing. That this might kill the person is secondary; usually it doesn't. But a .22 has little or no stopping power. Hence, of little value for home defense. I realize that gun prohibitionists don't like technical jargon, but if you make an assertion like the above, then you can expect some very basic "critical thinking skills" to be used.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #82)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 08:01 PM

94. Depends on where one lives. Mobs and hit men and silencers???

These must be some scary break-ins around...but I did suggest a 6 shooter ... or some such portable gun for protection. And perhaps you did not read what I wrote...I am not a prohibitionist.

And 22's used to be able to take care of deer season and legal hunting for people who need food...or for killing innocent animals for fun and sport. Worked for generations of rural folk. Stops deer and varmints just fine.

Arming against citizen insurrections or government malfeasance or hordes coming across the border or other fear factors...surely no machine gun can protect against that. There is always one more person with one more weapon with extra caliber and clips, etc. More crippling is the fear and terror that presents as reality within the mind.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libdem4life (Reply #94)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 08:08 PM

95. deer with a .22?

Florida Key Deer maybe, and I do mean maybe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_deer


Where I'm from, it's illegal and won't drop a mule deer. The round commonly associated with ARs aren't legal either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mule_deer

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #95)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 08:17 PM

97. One for hunting one for protection? Is it that hard? Really.

I'm sure if I or anyone I know ever feel the fear and the need, some kind clerk at a gun store can help me out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libdem4life (Reply #94)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 08:19 PM

98. Your arguments don't begin to hold up...

"More crippling is the fear..."

Some gun-controller/prohibitionists keep using the "paranoid" argument over and over, yet most folks who have guns sleep well at night, including myself. I think you and many other controllers are projecting all over the place; it is YOU who live in some kind of "fear and terror."

The use of .22s for poaching is not much of an argument for SD or hunting (since it is illegal); completely irrelevant.

I'm glad your "suggestion" is just that: it won't go anywhere. Limiting arms to .22 six-shooters, and denying you are a prohibitionist, rings true like a rotten 2 X 4.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #98)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 11:26 PM

108. Fear and paranoia are very different. And a Prohibitionist means

like "banning"...like alcohol Prohibition...none. Poaching is killing animals illegally. Hunting... licenses ... in seasons ... for particular animals ... with a bag limit ... to hunt and declare ...legally. As opposed to shooting a coyote or bobcat on your property ... neither poaching or hunting. It is protection ... for the humans and domestic animals. This is my understanding.

The other one for human protection...but machine guns...assault weapons?

I lived in rural Oklahoma and and lived and taught school in LA County...short driving distance (10-12 miles) through two other suburbs to the "ghettos". You don't go there and mess with the arrangements for drugs, guns, millions of dollars and whores between them and the cops...and they do have specific arrangements. That's healthy fear. But even so, my boyfriend (white, Jewish) taught Kindergarten right in the middle of the ghetto and on a couple of occasions I went there with him. I never once felt unsafe. The "homies" had kids or relatives in the school ... it was definitely don't ask-don't tell. He retired after 30 years. Never owned a gun, as far as I know.

Thinking "they" or the cops or the illegals are coming to get the well-to-do outside their turf...highly unlikey...that tends toward paranoia...fear without a logical reason.

Nancy Lanza...God rest her soul.

I've slept well for a number of decades without a gun, as has most everyone I know. Having one ... especially with kids or grandkids or neighbor kids ... would keep me awake ... just sayin'. Everybody has different situations and maybe, in the end, it's just Karma or Fate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Original post)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 07:53 PM

92. Reduction of suicides would be the main benefit.

since gun suicides are more numerous then murders it would save lives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #92)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 10:28 PM

104. What Hack 89 said!! KnR!

True,True,TURUE!
BTW I am on 3 SSRI's and they help me.I get frustrated at injustice like anyone else with a consience ,I'm not violent I do not want any gun.Don't want to kill anyone.

1 in 10 people take SSRI's
1 in 4 people have a mental illness.

How many people who kill take SSRI's and kill with a gun? VS the millions of people that take SSRI's?

How many gun murders are committed by drug gangs or psychopaths,for criminal reasons NOT taking SSRI's
How many drunks or addicts with no mental illness diagnosis kill people with guns?
How many accidental deaths are caused by guns sitting in the wrong place or in a child's hand because of a parent's irresponsibility??

Just askin'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Original post)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 09:28 PM

101. Lanza was a thief

 

Just how does his mental health status affect his ability to steal?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Original post)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 09:40 PM

102. If people have easier/cheaper access for help with depression,

then less depressed people will have guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #102)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 10:34 PM

105. No,

Less gun owners will be depressed.
Depression and SSRI use does not erase the personal sense of responsibility in people,nor does it erase a person's conscience,if they already have one.

Psychopaths however have no conscience and no sense of remorse guilt or shame they do whatever they want, don't care who suffers because of what they do,they don't feel anxiety or much emotion at all, and they lust for power because that's the only thing that gives them a charge.



http://www.psinvestigates.com/Psychopath%20At%20Work,%20Home%20and%20Play.htm
http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/july-2012/psychopathy-an-important-forensic-concept-for-the-21st-century

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to undergroundpanther (Reply #105)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 11:07 PM

106. If less gun owners are depressed, then less gun owners will use their guns

for suicide.

Of course there are many ways for a person to kill themselves, but firearms seem to be one of the surest ways to do it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread