Do we have a "gun problem" or a "mental health problem"?

[Birds Away]

Just so you know, I went to the range last night. No gun problems here.

 

[Trooper]

Just so you know, I went to the range last night. No gun problems here.

And, I gather, no need for a check up from the neck up either?

 

[88GT]

We need to get Guy or Kirk in on this. The best I understand it is that the courts have long had the power to supervise those who are mentally ill. It may be pre-emptive, in your view, but there should be clear evidence of potential threat to society.

The abuse part of this would happen if it is too easy. After all 60% of felons are emotionally ill. And another 20% are mentally ill. Over 70% have been in foster care (early childhood abuse).

The question is whether punish all of society via a gun ban or to limit the rights of the few (mentally ill)?

This is the part I have a problem with. Without having actually done someone harmful, how do you or anyone else know what a person is likely to do. You can't go with the standard of what he's capable of doing or has the potential to do, because we should all be locked up. This is about a likelihood of doing something. And short of a history of harmful behavior, I don't see how you can argue that there's any way to determine which person is going to be a threat and which isn't. And I am NOT okay with locking people up just because.

You last statement is a false dichotomy. It isn't just one or the other. We could be adults and realize that bad things happen when we let people be free (incidentally, bad things happen when we lock some of them up too, proving your solution isn't going to fix anything). You sound just like a squishy lib who wants to prevent every form of harm or violence known to man. You can't.

 

[Birds Away]

And, I gather, no need for a check up from the neck up either?

That's subjective. There are probably a few who would think it warranted based simply by the fact that I own guns and go to the range regularly.

 

[88GT]

That's subjective. There are probably a few who would think it warranted based simply by the fact that I own guns and go to the range regularly.

I've been called a lot of things on INGO that would make someone believe I was unfit for parenting/gun-owning/other things if the claims were taken at face value.

I know where Trooper is coming from, but his solution is no better in terms of protecting an individual's rights than all of the firearm restrictions that come out of these things.

 

[findingZzero]

Greg Garrison's program this morning ****snip****QUOTE]

You lost me at Greg Garrison. He doesn't have discussions so much as rants.

Do we have a gun problem or a mental health problem?

Both. I have to sign for a case of wine, but they'll leave 500 rnds of ammo on my porch. Period. End of discussion!

 

[Indy_Guy_77]

Greg Garrison's program this morning ****snip****QUOTE]

You lost me at Greg Garrison. He doesn't have discussions so much as rants.

Do we have a gun problem or a mental health problem?

Both. I have to sign for a case of wine, but they'll leave 500 rnds of ammo on my porch. Period. End of discussion!

I agree that they should leave the wine signature-free, too.

But all in all - that's at the discretion of the sender and not necessarily the content of the delivery.

also - if "we" leave things to the courts/physicians - how long until we're ALL in the "unfit" category?

Kind of like wanting to kill off all the poor people to help alleviate our national debt issues. How long until we're all considered "poor"?

-J-

 

[ViperJock]

What do you mean by "we?"

 

[Birds Away]

I agree that they should leave the wine signature-free, too.

But all in all - that's at the discretion of the sender and not necessarily the content of the delivery.

also - if "we" leave things to the courts/physicians - how long until we're ALL in the "unfit" category?

Kind of like wanting to kill off all the poor people to help alleviate our national debt issues. How long until we're all considered "poor"?

-J-

I think Obamacare is supposed to take care of that.

 

[Expat]

I agree we need to be careful as totalitarian governments in the past have used the mental health system to punish and imprison its enemies. I would say though that if you have ever been around someone that is in a psychotic episode you would not want that person having access to firearms.

 

[88GT]

I agree we need to be careful as totalitarian governments in the past have used the mental health system to punish and imprison its enemies. I would say though that if you have ever been around someone that is in a psychotic episode you would not want that person having access to firearms.

I have an uncle who is not mentally sound enough to be safe with a firearm. He's not maliciously dangerous, but not safe. Guess who keeps him away from firearms? We do. His family and his primary caregivers. We don't want children having unsupervised access to firearms and everybody around here generally goes apoplectic at the mere mention of government intrusion requiring safe storage, trigger locks, and the like. We don't want bad guys having access to our firearm either, but we bristle at the implication that we should be required by law to take herculean steps to prevent unwanted access to them.

This is no different. Bad things happen. I'm not willing to sacrifice my freedom or that of someone else's because I'm too naive to realize that you can't stop bad things.

 

[Trooper]

I agree that they should leave the wine signature-free, too.

But all in all - that's at the discretion of the sender and not necessarily the content of the delivery.

also - if "we" leave things to the courts/physicians - how long until we're ALL in the "unfit" category?

Kind of like wanting to kill off all the poor people to help alleviate our national debt issues. How long until we're all considered "poor"?

-J-

You do not leave it to the courts. You hire a top ranked attorney. Ever notice that they tend to not go after the rich up in Carmel?

 

[Trooper]

I have an uncle who is not mentally sound enough to be safe with a firearm. He's not maliciously dangerous, but not safe. Guess who keeps him away from firearms? We do. His family and his primary caregivers. We don't want children having unsupervised access to firearms and everybody around here generally goes apoplectic at the mere mention of government intrusion requiring safe storage, trigger locks, and the like. We don't want bad guys having access to our firearm either, but we bristle at the implication that we should be required by law to take herculean steps to prevent unwanted access to them.

This is no different. Bad things happen. I'm not willing to sacrifice my freedom or that of someone else's because I'm too naive to realize that you can't stop bad things.

But we are not talking about normal people (conservatives and libertarians). We are talking about leftwingers who are the ones doing the mass shootings. The left has far more to fear is we sweep the mentally ill off of the streets.

 

[hdjake73]

we have a media problem

 

[88GT]

But we are not talking about normal people (conservatives and libertarians). We are talking about leftwingers who are the ones doing the mass shootings. The left has far more to fear is we sweep the mentally ill off of the streets.

YOU'RE talking about a difference. I'm talking about people. I make no distinction. There is no left/right dichotomy. You're manufacturing one.

 

[88GT]

You do not leave it to the courts. You hire a top ranked attorney. Ever notice that they tend to not go after the rich up in Carmel?

So only the rich can keep their rights?

You're no better than the left. You still want to control people.

 

[Trooper]

YOU'RE talking about a difference. I'm talking about people. I make no distinction. There is no left/right dichotomy. You're manufacturing one.

Lets see the guy who did the Colorado shooting was a hardcore OWS type and into the anarchist movement. That is not a conservative (right wing).

If we go through all those who have been involved in shootings lately, lots of ties to various leftwing causes.

 

[Trooper]

So only the rich can keep their rights?

You're no better than the left. You still want to control people.

We have the best courts system that "money can buy". OJ got a good defense because he was willing to spend the million dollars that it took to get off.

BTW, you can get legal insurance to pay for a good defense.

But defending your rights is has always been expensive. In the past they just took you out and hung you. Hard to have rights in the face of a lynch mob.

 

[steveh_131]

Exchanging gun control for mind control.

Classic.

I have an innovative idea. Let's leave the government out of both of these problems.

 

[88GT]

We have the best courts system that "money can buy". OJ got a good defense because he was willing to spend the million dollars that it took to get off.

BTW, you can get legal insurance to pay for a good defense.

But defending your rights is has always been expensive. In the past they just took you out and hung you. Hard to have rights in the face of a lynch mob.

I'd have to spend a helluva lot less if people like you weren't trying to use the government to control me.