Mass killings and mental health

GlocksAndPatriots · May 17, 2017

DaemonAssassin said:
I'm calling ******** and am quoting your exact words earlier in the thread.

Ignorant extremist statement.

NYC is showing you an urban environment where people do not have mental issues, but act in the manner that they were raised. Because they are not your "high standards" for society, you are acting out.

Direct contradiction in the post quoted below.

Back to the extreme again.

You might want to read federal law on your assumption, because you are factually incorrect.

And you are extreme, yet again. If the person is medicated or is able to manage themselves in a manner that poses no danger to the public, then there is no reason why they should not be able to exercise the right.

Here comes the extremist nature and ignorance again, without any factual information to back up your assumptions and statements.

So now you are attempting a half assed backpedal on what you have previously stated. Really classy.

Want to keep spouting the BS? Go right ahead, but members know you are full of it and are seeing right through you to your extremist ways.

Nothing I said contradicts anything else. You're arguing that mentally ill is a broad enough category that they shouldn't all be locked up. I agree with that. I'm referring to the paranoid schizophrenic and severely bipolar. It used to be much easier for the government to institutionalize these people (often with the help of their families). Now it's almost impossible. The people running down the street screaming are probably schizophrenic, but have never been diagnosed or continue to roam the streets because we have an inadequate mental health system. Your solution is to do nothing about these people.

Pinecone · May 17, 2017

fred333 said:
As cited in my previous post(s), those diagnosed by a properly trained medic as being dangerous to self and others. Not perfect, but it'll do 'til perfect gets here.

And has been explained, diagnosing mental illness and predicting behavior from that is not an exact science.

Heck, you could be committed under that guidance, if you saw a liberal mental health professional and mentioned your owned firearms.

Yeap, that works.

smokey · May 17, 2017

Pinecone said:
And has been explained, diagnosing mental illness and predicting behavior from that is not an exact science.

Heck, you could be committed under that guidance, if you saw a liberal mental health professional and mentioned your owned firearms.

Yeap, that works.

....Biden's response tells us all we need to know about the anti-gunner endgame to use "mental health" as a means of stripping the 2A without due process.

I tell you what, if that's his baby, he needs help. I think he just made an admission against self-interest. I don't know that he's mentally qualified to own that gun. No, I'm not bein, I'm being serious.

..."mentally qualified to own that gun". :sad20:

DaemonAssassin · May 17, 2017

GlocksAndPatriots said:
Nothing I said contradicts anything else. You're arguing that mentally ill is a broad enough category that they shouldn't all be locked up. I agree with that. I'm referring to the paranoid schizophrenic and severely bipolar. It used to be much easier for the government to institutionalize these people (often with the help of their families). Now it's almost impossible. The people running down the street screaming are probably schizophrenic, but have never been diagnosed or continue to roam the streets because we have an inadequate mental health system. Your solution is to do nothing about these people.

Severe bipolar is not the issue you are making it out to be. As I said earlier, I know people with sever bipolar that I wouldn't trust with a piece of paper, much less a firearm. There are others that I know that have severe bipolar, that you wouldn't even know they had it, unless they said something. You can't say lock them all up, because there are those that pose zero threat to anybody, and are fully functioning members of society, but you are lumping them in with those that should be locked up. Your argument fails on so many levels because of your ignorance of the subject of mental health.

Just because something used to be easier with mental disorders, it doesn't mean it was right. Back then, those that had mental disorders were not getting the treatment they truly needed, to become functioning members of society. During those days, mental health was still in it's newborn phase. Now we are emerging into the childhood phase of the world of mental health. As time goes on the theories and practices for treatment evolve. We have been trying to figure out how the brain works for many years, but after all of those years of research, we still don't know anything at all.

You can't strip somebody of their rights, because they are part of "X" group, that is what has happened in history and how we have the Holocaust, the Soviet purges, and other things in human history. Your statements are downright scary to people in their extremist ways, and you have contradicted yourself so many times over this thread from your posts, and I have multi-quoted them, but you aren't able to see that fact.

If you want to gain a greater perspective on mental health with people that severe issues, but are still able to function as a normal person, you might want to speak to a mental health professional and pick their brain on the subject. Become more informed about the issues at play and you will see that you are the one that needs to change your views, opinions, and thoughts on mental health.

I knew a kid that has severe ADD/ADHD and the only way he learned how to focus was through marksmanship. He is now a functioning member of society that shows zero trace of the ADD/ADHD. Firearms required that attention to detail and a reason to focus, as such he no longer has to take medications to keep him focused. He learned how to apply that focus to his everyday life. By your logic, he should have been locked up too.

Wait till the shoe is on the other foot for you with your child having a mental issue, and you tune will change int he blink of an eye.

With all of that said, I have nothing further to say to you on this topic. Good day.

GlocksAndPatriots · May 18, 2017

DaemonAssassin said:
Severe bipolar is not the issue you are making it out to be. As I said earlier, I know people with sever bipolar that I wouldn't trust with a piece of paper, much less a firearm. There are others that I know that have severe bipolar, that you wouldn't even know they had it, unless they said something. You can't say lock them all up, because there are those that pose zero threat to anybody, and are fully functioning members of society, but you are lumping them in with those that should be locked up. Your argument fails on so many levels because of your ignorance of the subject of mental health.

Just because something used to be easier with mental disorders, it doesn't mean it was right. Back then, those that had mental disorders were not getting the treatment they truly needed, to become functioning members of society. During those days, mental health was still in it's newborn phase. Now we are emerging into the childhood phase of the world of mental health. As time goes on the theories and practices for treatment evolve. We have been trying to figure out how the brain works for many years, but after all of those years of research, we still don't know anything at all.

You can't strip somebody of their rights, because they are part of "X" group, that is what has happened in history and how we have the Holocaust, the Soviet purges, and other things in human history. Your statements are downright scary to people in their extremist ways, and you have contradicted yourself so many times over this thread from your posts, and I have multi-quoted them, but you aren't able to see that fact.

If you want to gain a greater perspective on mental health with people that severe issues, but are still able to function as a normal person, you might want to speak to a mental health professional and pick their brain on the subject. Become more informed about the issues at play and you will see that you are the one that needs to change your views, opinions, and thoughts on mental health.

I knew a kid that has severe ADD/ADHD and the only way he learned how to focus was through marksmanship. He is now a functioning member of society that shows zero trace of the ADD/ADHD. Firearms required that attention to detail and a reason to focus, as such he no longer has to take medications to keep him focused. He learned how to apply that focus to his everyday life. By your logic, he should have been locked up too.

Wait till the shoe is on the other foot for you with your child having a mental issue, and you tune will change int he blink of an eye.

With all of that said, I have nothing further to say to you on this topic. Good day.

Since I said NOTHING about ADD/ADHD, your statement that "by my logic, he should have been locked up too" is a complete lie. I'm not discussing this with a person who lies and misrepresents. Good day.

Peacefuloutrage · May 18, 2017

smokey0118 said:
Where do you draw it for anyone? Other demographics have a disproportionately high rate of committing violent crimes. If you're 18 and hanging out with a bunch of gang members, but haven't committed a crime yet, do you lose your rights for what people think you're likely to do?

I also agree. This is a very complex issue, but many people want to scapegoat "mental health" or push the blame on something without rolling up their sleeves to delve deeper so we can effectively help each other.

(added) There are many people who receive treatment that wouldn't hurt a fly, who still have a right to self protection. These people would be made defenseless and become an unnecessary burden because they could otherwise defend themselves. People with "good" or knowingly evil intentions like the Soc. Sec. executive order is not a solution to anyone but those who wish to disarm us. (/added)

fred333 · May 19, 2017

Pinecone said:
And has been explained, diagnosing mental illness and predicting behavior from that is not an exact science.
Heck, you could be committed under that guidance, if you saw a liberal mental health professional and mentioned your owned firearms.
Yeap, that works.

Let's try this again....
We (i.e., I) are talking about people who've been diagnosed as "dangerous to self or others" by a trained psychiatrist. We (i.e., I) are NOT talking about the general class of depressives, PTSDs, OCDs, female hysterics and their genetically male counterparts, et al.

Do psychiatrists make mistakes? Of course. But if we're gonna er, I'd much rather er on the side of sanity...

teratos · May 19, 2017

fred333 said:
Let's try this again....
We (i.e., I) are talking about people who've been diagnosed as "dangerous to self or others" by a trained psychiatrist. We (i.e., I) are NOT talking about the general class of depressives, PTSDs, OCDs, female hysterics and their genetically male counterparts, et al.

Do psychiatrists make mistakes? Of course. But if we're gonna er, I'd much rather er on the side of sanity...

Those people should absolutely be prohibited.

That's not what a lot of the other posters are talking about.

alucard0822 · May 19, 2017

fred333 said:
Let's try this again....
We (i.e., I) are talking about people who've been diagnosed as "dangerous to self or others" by a trained psychiatrist. We (i.e., I) are NOT talking about the general class of depressives, PTSDs, OCDs, female hysterics and their genetically male counterparts, et al.

Do psychiatrists make mistakes? Of course. But if we're gonna er, I'd much rather er on the side of sanity...

Yep, and once a doc determines they are a danger to themselves or others, they can present their findings to a court, and get a commital order or rule a person is incompetent, both result in a person being prohibited, and a near impossibility to get their rights restored down the road. That is the current system. Should an unelected doctor, who represents a private organization be able to decide who is prohibited and who isn't on their own? Perhaps your insurance company should remove your rights if they determine you are at an elevated risk. With no need for judicial review or due process in either case. That is what it seems you are proposing, a system more broken than we currently have.

If that is the case why not let individual police, or private security issue a lifetime ban on rights? How about teachers determining which students are "smart enough" to vote, Have a local priest determine weather you can practice your religion or not. Let a professional librarian determine weather your education affords you the right to speak freely, and so on. There is a reason that people cannot be stripped of their rights without due process involving representatives, or those they appoint. It is a bare basic constitutional right to ensure citizens have recourse if they are oppressed, and to entrust their representatives with a solemn duty to uphold the law and preserve our rights.

Most folks that both cherish liberty, and understand mental health issues are looking to preserve rights, and offer MORE oversight, not less. There are millions of people that could potentially be denied their rights unjustly, and many who already are prohibited for distant past problems, who need a fair avenue to having their rights restored. Then there is the hugely complex issue of de-stigmatizing a villianized category of disease that is largely misunderstood, in order to treat mental disorders more like physical disorders, with the care, compassion and resources that something affecting around 1 in 4 Americans deserves.

Bob A · May 19, 2017

fred333 said:
Let's try this again....
We (i.e., I) are talking about people who've been diagnosed as "dangerous to self or others" by a trained psychiatrist. We (i.e., I) are NOT talking about the general class of depressives, PTSDs, OCDs, female hysterics and their genetically male counterparts, et al.

Do psychiatrists make mistakes? Of course. But if we're gonna er, I'd much rather er on the side of sanity...

It would be nice if this level of judgement was subject to due process safeguards. The ability to challenge such judgements, and reverse them when and if the operant factors are mitigated, would seem to be essential in preserving individual rights and freedoms.

teratos · May 19, 2017

Bob A said:
It would be nice if this level of judgement was subject to due process safeguards. The ability to challenge such judgements, and reverse them when and if the operant factors are mitigated, would seem to be essential in preserving individual rights and freedoms.

Absolutely.

fred333 · May 19, 2017

teratos said:
That's not what a lot of the other posters are talking about.

Yes, which is why I keep disassociating myself from them.

The_Emperor · May 20, 2017

The good thing about these posts is that it offers an open dialogue for this aspect of society. It is helpful because we can either sharpen ourselves with other ideas or think about new ones that would benefit the society as a whole.

teratos · May 20, 2017

The_Emperor said:
The good thing about these posts is that it offers an open dialogue for this aspect of society. It is helpful because we can either sharpen ourselves with other ideas or think about new ones that would benefit the society as a whole.

Sometimes the Rights of an individual trump what benefits society as a whole. Once you start going down the "it benefits society as a whole" slope, it gets very slippery indeed.

Pinecone · May 20, 2017

fred333 said:
Let's try this again....
We (i.e., I) are talking about people who've been diagnosed as "dangerous to self or others" by a trained psychiatrist. We (i.e., I) are NOT talking about the general class of depressives, PTSDs, OCDs, female hysterics and their genetically male counterparts, et al.

Do psychiatrists make mistakes? Of course. But if we're gonna er, I'd much rather er on the side of sanity...

So an anti-2A psychiatrist finds out you have firearms in your house, with children, and "diagnoses" you as dangerous to others.

And you get locked up.

What do you do? What you are proposing has NO LEGAL PROTECTIONS.

OK. I am fine with that, enjoy your time locked up. Are YOU?

smokey · May 20, 2017

teratos said:
Sometimes the Rights of an individual trump what benefits society as a whole. Once you start going down the "it benefits society as a whole" slope, it gets very slippery indeed.

Often times, increased individual liberty is the best means for benefiting society. For example, we're all familiar with the benefit of removing 2a infringements as a means of combating violence rather than placing more infringements

teratos · May 20, 2017

Maryland wanted to look at restricting the 2A Rights of the mentally ill. For those in favor, you have that in common with Del. Rosenberg.

http://dlslibrary.state.md.us/publications/Exec/GOCCP/HB618Ch131_2012.pdf

fred333 · May 20, 2017

Pinecone said:
So an anti-2A psychiatrist finds out you have firearms in your house, with children, and "diagnoses" you as dangerous to others.
And you get locked up.
What do you do? What you are proposing has NO LEGAL PROTECTIONS.
OK. I am fine with that, enjoy your time locked up. Are YOU?

Can you cite any cases in Maryland where a non-mentally-ill taxpayer's been diagnosed by a psychiatrist as "dangerous to self or others" and incarcerated on the basis of that diagnosis?

Pinecone · May 21, 2017

How would you know if that happened?

smokey · Feb 21, 2018

bumpity bump bump bump for the current climate.

Mass killings and mental health

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Banned

Ultimate Member

2A TEACHER

Why should we Free BSD?

Banned

Member

Banned

My hair is amazing

For great Justice

όυ φροντισ

My hair is amazing

Banned

Member

My hair is amazing

Ultimate Member

2A TEACHER

My hair is amazing

Banned

Ultimate Member

2A TEACHER

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics