smokey
2A TEACHER
- Jan 31, 2008
- 31,524
....this guy and people like him...
watch the question, then skip to 1:15 for joe biden's answer
...and this guy that thinks pretty much everyone here is "nuts" here in md
Guns, licenses, CCWs...and mental illness
- Thread starter Topshot
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
....this guy and people like him...
watch the question, then skip to 1:15 for joe biden's answer
...and this guy that thinks pretty much everyone here is "nuts" here in md
- Jun 28, 2009
- 4,172
now, to throw a wrench in the gears of justice regarding mental illness and VOLUNTARY psych help. many females who undergo the hard decision of aborting their baby, have counseling. even if it is to comfort the mind of the decision made, they see a head-doc. if the head-doc is bound by law to report all who seek help, the women who had the procedure are reported and possibly denied because of this mental evaluation. to make matters worse, if the woman sought an abortion because she was impregnated by a rapist, yet sought to get a handgun for protection for any future attacks, presents a major problem. 
I think we all agree that we want to reduce violent crimes, especially those involving guns. So let's look at who is committing those crimes.
Mentally ill... couple of dozen folks in as many years went off the deep end killing or wounding several hundred people (probably fewer than are murdered in Chicago in a year). And damn sure fewer than are killed every year by drunk drivers (most of whom are repeat offenders).
So how do we determine who these folks are before they go off the deep end? Sure, we can identify some folks who have shown a propensity for violence, whether in spoken or written word, or even actions. And we can put their names on a prohibited persons list (if they're not already there). Will that prevent anybody from getting a weapon? And even if it did, would that include as many as half of the crazies who have acted out in the past few years? Probably not.
Career criminals, gangs, drug dealers.. couple of thousand repeat offenders killing and wounding even more thousands of people every year. Their names are already on the prohibited persons list, and it doesn't prevent them from getting guns. Heck, it's easier for them to buy a handgun than it is for us... no HQL or waiting period down in the 'hood. Cash and carry.
So who is really a greater threat to society? A handful of folks who might act out, or an already identified population of folks who have proven their predisposition to violence? If the talking head libtards REALLY cared about reducing gun violence, they would insist on harsher sentencing. I guess having one's head shoved up one's ass prevents these folks from seeing the complete failure of prohibition, whether it's keeping guns out of the hands of bad guys, drugs, or booze back in the 20s.
Since the Supreme Court has ruled that it is not the responsibility of government (LEOs) to proactively protect citizens, and the courts continue to release violent offenders to the streets, we have cities like Chicago, Detroit, New York and Baltimore with strict gun laws that clearly do not prevent bad guys from getting and using guns, what's left? Somehow, it's got to be up to us to be responsible for our own safety.
I believe that EVERYONE who has PROVEN that they are a threat to society should be removed from society until they are no longer a threat. Treat folks humanely if that's what they deserve, and harshly if that's what they've earned. But get the threats that we can identify off the streets and stop whining about guns. The threats are the bad guys. Deal with them.
/rant off
Mentally ill... couple of dozen folks in as many years went off the deep end killing or wounding several hundred people (probably fewer than are murdered in Chicago in a year). And damn sure fewer than are killed every year by drunk drivers (most of whom are repeat offenders).
So how do we determine who these folks are before they go off the deep end? Sure, we can identify some folks who have shown a propensity for violence, whether in spoken or written word, or even actions. And we can put their names on a prohibited persons list (if they're not already there). Will that prevent anybody from getting a weapon? And even if it did, would that include as many as half of the crazies who have acted out in the past few years? Probably not.
Career criminals, gangs, drug dealers.. couple of thousand repeat offenders killing and wounding even more thousands of people every year. Their names are already on the prohibited persons list, and it doesn't prevent them from getting guns. Heck, it's easier for them to buy a handgun than it is for us... no HQL or waiting period down in the 'hood. Cash and carry.
So who is really a greater threat to society? A handful of folks who might act out, or an already identified population of folks who have proven their predisposition to violence? If the talking head libtards REALLY cared about reducing gun violence, they would insist on harsher sentencing. I guess having one's head shoved up one's ass prevents these folks from seeing the complete failure of prohibition, whether it's keeping guns out of the hands of bad guys, drugs, or booze back in the 20s.
Since the Supreme Court has ruled that it is not the responsibility of government (LEOs) to proactively protect citizens, and the courts continue to release violent offenders to the streets, we have cities like Chicago, Detroit, New York and Baltimore with strict gun laws that clearly do not prevent bad guys from getting and using guns, what's left? Somehow, it's got to be up to us to be responsible for our own safety.
I believe that EVERYONE who has PROVEN that they are a threat to society should be removed from society until they are no longer a threat. Treat folks humanely if that's what they deserve, and harshly if that's what they've earned. But get the threats that we can identify off the streets and stop whining about guns. The threats are the bad guys. Deal with them.
/rant off
now, to throw a wrench in the gears of justice regarding mental illness and VOLUNTARY psych help. many females who undergo the hard decision of aborting their baby, have counseling. even if it is to comfort the mind of the decision made, they see a head-doc. if the head-doc is bound by law to report all who seek help, the women who had the procedure are reported and possibly denied because of this mental evaluation. to make matters worse, if the woman sought an abortion because she was impregnated by a rapist, yet sought to get a handgun for protection for any future attacks, presents a major problem.
Yep.
smokey
2A TEACHER
- Jan 31, 2008
- 31,524
Interesting sidenote.... the whole point of bringing up gun control is theoretically because mass murders is such a severe societal problem that something MUST be done to prevent these preventable deaths. By the loosest definitions antis have created found here at the mass shooting tracker there were only 383 people killed in "mass shootings" in 2014. Now let's check out accidental deaths unrelated to those 115,000 from suicide, drugs, and alcohol I mentioned earlier...
...wow, it sure looks like there's a LOT of things that kill many more people every year than crazies with guns. I wonder when the president will passionately stand up and demand laws to prevent accidental poisoning and drowning?
...wow, it sure looks like there's a LOT of things that kill many more people every year than crazies with guns. I wonder when the president will passionately stand up and demand laws to prevent accidental poisoning and drowning?
Brooklyn
I stand with John Locke.
Are people who take Xanax in some prescribed amount everyday for anxiety classified as "mentally ill"? It's my understanding a Doc can only prescribe a few prescriptions in a row before they have to make a "psych" referral in order for that person to continue.
Or am I totally wrong?
Or am I totally wrong?
iH8DemLibz
When All Else Fails.
A person who drives 45 in a 55 while clenching the steering wheel and pressing their nose against the windshield because they're deathly afraid to drive on the highway can be considered "Mentally Ill".
It's a catchall phrase. It's why the Left and some on the Right, regrettably, love the term.
You'll notice, too, that no one is using the term SEVERELY Mentally Ill. Because distinctions such as that would have to be included in the diagnoses. And distinctions like SEVERELY would greatly reduce the number of gun restrictions.
Can't have that.
It's a catchall phrase. It's why the Left and some on the Right, regrettably, love the term.
You'll notice, too, that no one is using the term SEVERELY Mentally Ill. Because distinctions such as that would have to be included in the diagnoses. And distinctions like SEVERELY would greatly reduce the number of gun restrictions.
Can't have that.
I think you're wrong. I think all women should give up firearms for a week every 28 days.
I would say that people who take Xanax on a regular basis have psychiatric diagnosis. I can prescribe as much Xanax as I want.
redeemed.man
Ultimate Member
Yeah with posts like that we know your wife never reads the forum, LOLI think you're wrong. I think all women should give up firearms for a week every 28 days.
DaemonAssassin
Why should we Free BSD?
She got all the info she wanted, or didn't like the info she was given because it didn't support something?
Blacksmith101
Grumpy Old Man
- Jun 22, 2012
- 22,286
I can prescribe as much Xanax as I want.
Yes, Dr. House
- Jun 28, 2009
- 4,172
I would say that people who take Xanax on a regular basis have psychiatric diagnosis. I can prescribe as much Xanax as I want.
so um, you can write prescriptions? do tell.Users who are viewing this thread
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
-
Timonium Gun Show April 27-28 (Timonium Fairgrounds Exhibition Hall) (1 Viewer)
- Started by joro55
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
-
Convicted For Building Guns; Judge says, “Do not bring the Second Amendment into this courtroom”- Started by Harrys
- Replies: 1