Hell freezes over: CNN posts a quality article on gun control

[theeedude]

There is going to be a distribution of mentally ill people who are going to snap in any given moment. The question is do you want them to have easy access to a gun when they go nuts?

 

[xBiffx]

There is going to be a distribution of mentally ill people who are going to snap in any given moment. The question is do you want them to have easy access to a gun when they go nuts?

If they are documented mentally ill, there are already checks and filters in place to make sure they don't have "easy access to a gun when they go nuts."

Edit: http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-...session-of-a-firearm-by-the-mentally-ill.aspx

 

[theeedude]

If they are documented mentally ill, there are already checks and filters in place to make sure they don't have "easy access to a gun when they go nuts."

Edit: http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-...session-of-a-firearm-by-the-mentally-ill.aspx

Not documented, but adjudicated as mentally ill by a court, for which they have to have demonstrated as being a threat to themselves or others.
Some percentage will snap and commit a gun crime before that.

 

[xBiffx]

Not documented, but adjudicated as mentally ill by a court, for which they have to have demonstrated as being a threat to themselves or others.
Some percentage will snap and commit a gun crime before that.

Then you are dealing with someone who can't be classified mentally ill and your previous statement is meaningless. Anyone can snap at any time.

 

[Texashiker]

There is going to be a distribution of mentally ill people who are going to snap in any given moment. The question is do you want them to have easy access to a gun when they go nuts?

I understand the point you are making. My rebuttal is that those mentally ill people will use something besides a gun.

Did John Wayne Gacy use a gun? No he did not. He drugged those young men, raped them, killed them, and buried their bodies under his house.

Did Jeffrey Dahmer use a gun? No he did not.

Did Ted Bundy use a gun?

Those people take months, even years to commit their murders. Dahmer spread his murders out over what, 20 years?

 

[theeedude]

Then you are dealing with someone who can't be classified mentally ill and your previous statement is meaningless. Anyone can snap at any time.

Yes, and if there is a gun nearby when they snap, they can do a lot of damage.

 

[theeedude]

I understand the point you are making. My rebuttal is that those mentally ill people will use something besides a gun.

Did John Wayne Gacy use a gun? No he did not. He drugged those young men, raped them, killed them, and buried their bodies under his house.

Did Jeffrey Dahmer use a gun? No he did not.

Did Ted Bundy use a gun?

Those people take months, even years to commit their murders. Dahmer spread his murders out over what, 20 years?

So you are saying someone who snaps and has a fit of rage, if they don't have a gun nearby, they'll just pace themselves and murder people by other means over many years?

 

[nehalem256]

There is going to be a distribution of mentally ill people who are going to snap in any given moment. The question is do you want them to have easy access to a gun when they go nuts?

As opposed to having to methodically plan out their killing spree so they kill more people?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks

Fun fact you are more likely to be mass murdered in Norway than the US despite Norway having significantly stricter gun laws.

 

[xBiffx]

Yes, and if there is a gun nearby when they snap, they can do a lot of damage.

That is true of anyone, anywhere, at anytime. So now you really aren't asking to stop easy access to a gun for the mentally ill, you are asking to stop easy access to a gun for anyone. Nice veiled attempt.

 

[Texashiker]

So you are saying someone who snaps and has a fit of rage, if they don't have a gun nearby, they'll just pace themselves and murder people by other means over many years?

No, not at all.

I understand the point you are making. What is the answer? Pick up every gun in the United States? Sorry, that aint gonna happen.

Place the blame where it belongs, on society. The people who need the help are not getting it.

 

[theeedude]

No, not at all.

I understand the point you are making. What is the answer? Pick up every gun in the United States? Sorry, that aint gonna happen.

Place the blame where it belongs, on society. The people who need the help are not getting it.

The answer is to understand that there are downsides to everything, including guns, and not pretend like it's solely a mental health problem with easy gun access completely blameless. There are upsides to guns as well, self defense and recreational use come to mind, and an informed citizen should be aware of both upsides and downsides and decide for themselves, not decide first and then turn a blind eye to contradictory facts.

 

[theeedude]

That is true of anyone, anywhere, at anytime. So now you really aren't asking to stop easy access to a gun for the mentally ill, you are asking to stop easy access to a gun for anyone. Nice veiled attempt.

Nice unveiled paranoia.

 

[xBiffx]

Nice unveiled paranoia.

You just said as much. It not paranoia to think that you actually want what you ask for. I'm also definitely not paranoid because your request will fall flat, as per usual. I have nothing much to worry about.

 

[theeedude]

You just said as much. It not paranoia to think that you actually want what you ask for. I'm also definitely not paranoid because your request will fall flat, as per usual. I have nothing much to worry about.

Coming to get your gun.

 

[xBiffx]

Coming to get your gun.

 

[Exterous]

"Evaluation" and "confinement" are two very different things. Technically the police can detain you for 24 hours without charge, why not mental health clinics?

How is being "held for evaluation" regardless of your will not forced confinement in some manner? They are going to hold you (ie confine you) to some sort of structure for this purpose

Besides, have we've reached the point where we just use the 'well if the police can do it...' type of arguments? Citing the ability of police to do things is hardly an argument in favor of personal rights and certainly no reason to give up your rights to another group of individuals. Why not expand civil forfeitures to bankers while we're at it?

I am surprised I would have to point this out but you are suggesting giving up rights to a group of people who would likely benefit monetarily from a particular diagnosis or even 'additional evaluation'. As if no one has ever done something for money that they ethically shouldn't....

 

[irishScott]

How is being "held for evaluation" regardless of your will not forced confinement in some manner? They are going to hold you (ie confine you) to some sort of structure for this purpose

Besides, have we've reached the point where we just use the 'well if the police can do it...' type of arguments? Citing the ability of police to do things is hardly an argument in favor of personal rights and certainly no reason to give up your rights to another group of individuals. Why not expand civil forfeitures to bankers while we're at it?

I am surprised I would have to point this out but you are suggesting giving up rights to a group of people who would likely benefit monetarily from a particular diagnosis or even 'additional evaluation'. As if no one has ever done something for money that they ethically shouldn't....

As I said in the rest of that post that you omitted, there would have to be redundancy, an appeals system for patients, punishments for offenders and other protections precisely to stave off that kind of abuse.

And my point was the police have the ability to"abuse you for 24 hours, repeatably, yet not many people seem to be the victims of such abuse. Why not? Because the police know if they start holding people left and right for 24 hours they'll get their pants sued off, among other repercussions.

If someone demonstrates aggressive violent behavior or the threat of aggressive violent behavior I'd have no problem putting them in a padded cell for 72 hours. There should be a standard of evidence for such examinations, certainly above a single person's word, but simple fact is most of these mass shootings had early warning signs that should have been acted upon. Threats of violence on either facebook or youtube, for example, should be adequate. Hell James Yeager got his CCW revoked and got a visit from men in suits when he threatened violence on youtube, why not the Eliot Rodger?

 

[JulesMaximus]

What's next? A Fox news story about how Obama is doing a good job?

 

[Texashiker]

What's next? A Fox news story about how Obama is doing a good job?

Almost made me spew my beer on the keyboard

 

[Exterous]

As I said in the rest of that post that you omitted

I omitted it because appeals have nothing to do with your confusion over the definitions of 'held' and 'confined' nor does it prevent giving another body of citizens the ability to infringe on your rights

there would have to be redundancy, an appeals system for patients, punishments for offenders and other protections precisely to stave off that kind of abuse.

And my point was the police have the ability to"abuse you for 24 hours, repeatably, yet not many people seem to be the victims of such abuse. Why not? Because the police know if they start holding people left and right for 24 hours they'll get their pants sued off, among other repercussions.

Have you noticed the massive thread on police misconduct? All the abuses, the SWAT takedowns, civil forfeiture, constant court cases over rights infringements? I think it should be pretty obvious that oversight doesn't prevent the infringement of your rights if even the constitution struggles with that

If someone demonstrates aggressive violent behavior or the threat of aggressive violent behavior I'd have no problem putting them in a padded cell for 72 hours.

Wait - do you even know what this argument is about? They already can do that and I am not arguing against holding someone demonstrating violent behavior towards themselves or others.

I am arguing against a very nebulous 'concerned for the well being' being enough to result in forced confinement. Even a well defined 'concerned for the well being' I am against because, as long as they don't threaten someone they haven't done anything wrong. Mentally unstable individuals are responsible for only a very tiny amount of the killings - certainly not enough to go around wantonly giving up freedoms. You are more likely to die going to work or even walking down the stairs than from a mentally unstable person. Heaven forbid you ever encounter the deadly 'backyard pool'. The mind boggles at people's incomprehension of statistics and the willingness to forfeit their rights for the illusion of safety.