http://www.fixnics.org/

[cad68m_m]

http://www.fixnics.org/

I heard Emily Miller mention this on CNN recently, Folks MD is the the 36th worse state at reporting mental health issues. Check out the site for more info.

 

[press1280]

http://www.fixnics.org/

I heard Emily Miller mention this on CNN recently, Folks MD is the the 36th worse state at reporting mental health issues. Check out the site for more info.

Pretty interesting. One issue is that states' laws may prohibit this info from being shared.

 

[hvymax]

Pretty interesting. One issue is that states' laws may prohibit this info from being shared.

You assume they are not trying to make things worse intentionally.

 

[alucard0822]

We're #1

although "winning" means we either have more crazy people by volume AND capita, or a state that is quicker than the rest to disclose reccords and remove the rights of people in the mental health system.

 

[john_bud]

And yet the crime rate in the green colored states is not lowest.
Nor does the color relate to anything, except how often HIPA is violated...

I want a gov that keeps away from me, not one with a thick dossier on every aspect of my life...

 

[MDFF2008]

It's interesting. Does a lower rate mean fewer crazies, or less reporting. Difficult to say.

One thing that concerns me though; we see people saying that it's not the guns, it's the mentally ill, but then they are saying they don't support efforts to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.

We must avoid being hypocrites on this issue.

 

[john_bud]

It's interesting. Does a lower rate mean fewer crazies, or less reporting. Difficult to say.

One thing that concerns me though; we see people saying that it's not the guns, it's the mentally ill, but then they are saying they don't support efforts to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.

We must avoid being hypocrites on this issue.

The problem is with who defines mentally ill, and how it is determined a person is so unstable that inalienable right s are removed --- without a trial.

Also what other rights are eliminated ? How are your rights regained?

This is s huge leap towards using healthcare to squelch political opposition.

 

[abean4187]

The problem is with who defines mentally ill, and how it is determined a person is so unstable that inalienable right s are removed --- without a trial.

Also what other rights are eliminated ? How are your rights regained?

This is s huge leap towards using healthcare to squelch political opposition.

If they really hit the mental health issue hard I would assume that anyone on mind altering medication would not be allowed to own firearms. Many of the mass shootings over the last 20 years were committed by people that were either on or withdrawing from mind altering medication.

 

[smokey]

It's interesting. Does a lower rate mean fewer crazies, or less reporting. Difficult to say.

One thing that concerns me though; we see people saying that it's not the guns, it's the mentally ill, but then they are saying they don't support efforts to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.

We must avoid being hypocrites on this issue.

http://www.mdshooters.com/showpost.php?p=2721743&postcount=22


it's not about being a hypocrite at all, why would we be okay with may-issue 2a rights? The mental health route is one where people can be prohibited from owning a firearm based solely on the discretion of a govt employee with no due process. It also falls into the same illogical thinking in which someone that doesn't care about laws prohibiting murder will suddenly become law abiding when it comes to obtaining a firearm. The very premise itself is one in which people are prohibited because of a futurecrime they may commit based on someone thinking their class of people are more likely to commit a crime. I've already shown how this logic should also prohibit black males from obtaining a firearm if applied evenly.

If someone is mentally ill and poses an imminent threat to themselves or others, we currently have procedures in place in which they can be involuntarily committed so they can get the help they need and be removed from public. Again, arbitrarily prohibiting purchases of a firearm based on mental health concerns is an easy way to give the antis may-issue control over the 2A. If we want to solve the "mass shootings by crazy people" problem, we need to ensure that the public is armed and can immediately respond to such a threat. Anything less is an exercise in futility at the expense of liberty.

 

[RightNYer]

http://www.mdshooters.com/showpost.php?p=2721743&postcount=22


it's not about being a hypocrite at all, why would we be okay with may-issue 2a rights? The mental health route is one where people can be prohibited from owning a firearm based solely on the discretion of a govt employee with no due process. It also falls into the same illogical thinking in which someone that doesn't care about laws prohibiting murder will suddenly become law abiding when it comes to obtaining a firearm. The very premise itself is one in which people are prohibited because of a futurecrime they may commit based on someone thinking their class of people are more likely to commit a crime. I've already shown how this logic should also prohibit black males from obtaining a firearm if applied evenly.

If someone is mentally ill and poses an imminent threat to themselves or others, we currently have procedures in place in which they can be involuntarily committed so they can get the help they need and be removed from public. Again, arbitrarily prohibiting purchases of a firearm based on mental health concerns is an easy way to give the antis may-issue control over the 2A. If we want to solve the "mass shootings by crazy people" problem, we need to ensure that the public is armed and can immediately respond to such a threat. Anything less is an exercise in futility at the expense of liberty.

I agree. I feel the same way about "Megan's Law." If someone is too dangerous to live within 1000 feet of a school or to own a gun, they are too dangerous to roam free. In that case, they need to be locked up.

 

[MDFF2008]

Show me the money to imprison all these people for life.

I'm disappointed to see that some people are truly opposed to doing anything.

 

[smokey]

Show me the money to imprison all these people for life.

I'm disappointed to see that some people are truly opposed to doing anything.

Money? how about reforming the drug war so the state and federal prisons aren't populated by people with drug charges. The money from regulating and taxing drugs and the money saved on the drug war should put a big dent in the money needed. Also, instead of making 2A may issue through mental health requirements, they could just remove infringments on bearing arms. That's free and would enable citizens to stop a threat from a mentally disturbed person instead of trying a bunch of things that likely won't prevent an attack in the first place.

The mental healthcare system absolutely needs a reformation, but that is a separate issue from guns. It is more of a medical issue than anything.