joether
Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: eulero83
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: eulero83
I side with the gun nuts on this, this man went through a screening process in order to be proven fit for gun ownership.
Which process is that? Explain it to me in detail.....
I don't know what proof were produced in court and I honestly don't care, but I suppose this man is no more a psycho, I'm just not the kind of person that consider people with problems broken and to be trown in the trash. Said that I'd be more concerned about all the psychos undetected by the system.
People throw the word 'psycho' around without REALLY understanding the definition of the word in medical terms. I never called this guy a psycho directly. His mental/emotional level/state is unknown to myself. Nor would I give a long distance diagnosis without meeting the individual at length on a few sessions. The title of the threat is the logical step process that this court case allows. That I feel mentally and emotionally unstable individuals should be barred from firearms, seems almost common sense; but there are those whom religious defend concepts without stopping and considering the ramifications.
Should we simply throw our hands up and not do anything towards keeping the mentally/emotionally unstable (that we are aware of) from obtaining firearms, because we are not aware of those whom suffer without knowing they could get treatment?
You have never said how you would do this.
How many times have you given a loaded gun to someone whom REALLY sounds like they are on the verge of suicide? Are you dumb enough to do such a thing? Would you know if someone had serve or bi-polar depression just by looking at them? And you dont. Because your background is not in that area. The sort of individuals that handle therapy sessions are not just college level educated, nor registered by the state; they have to know quite an indepth amount of material. Because treating people with mental/emotional disorders is not the same as treating cancer, broken bones, or cuts. It takes times, skill, and patience. Even when someone is over the REALLY bad parts, they are not out of the woods. Since sadly, relapses and events can trigger the effects back once more. All the good treatment effectively having to be redone.
Consider an individual whom is 11 years free of alcohol after abusing it for years before. Some event or serious trauma lands the individual back into the habit. If people are around the person, things could be adverted quickly. If people dont pick up on it quick enough, it could take longer. I use alcoholism since its much more well seen in public than someone suffering from schizophrenia.
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
It sounds good but how do you implement it.
We contact professionals rather than politicians and special interest groups. *COUGH*NRA*COUGH*
We ask them how best to handle the staggering volume and depth of disorders. Be they common or not, onto the population. After that, we as society have to decide what we can live with, and make laws to that effect. Do we go for being responsible with firearms? Or irresponsible?
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
It smacks of guilty until proven innocent.
Unfortunately it is. They aren't being charged with a crime, but of a circumstance. The founding fathers didn't understand, much less, many within this nation in 2014, the concept let alone the depth and degree of mental/emotional disorders. Should we air on the side of cautious, reason, knowledge? Or just 'let the bodies fall as they may? Which is the more responsible way for government to act?
Here is where it gets....REALLY...hard. Determining 'mental/emotional' stability is taken at the individual level. Laws in our nation have to be handle at the 'one size fits all'. These two concepts are in direct conflict with each other. So the crafting of a law, that allows the individual to obtain firearms even if they had a history of mental/emotional illness has to be carefully written so as to not be 'out of bounds' constitutionally speaking. That if later, due to some event, the firearm(s) have to be removed, it can be reasonably expected the 'defenders of firearms' brigade doesn't rear its head/ass in public or in the court room. There are alot of gun nuts that I've seen whom I suspect hold one or more mental and/or emotional problems that are not being treated.
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
It sounds like you are now going for making everyone who wants to buy a firearm to undergo evaluation, who is going to pay for that?
You want a firearm? You pay for your evaluation. More likely it comes as part of a healthcare package through the ACA. It could be side step, given a court order on the basis of law enforcement that one's life is endangered. But have you notice that yearly (and for those over age 65 bi-annual) checkups by a medical doctor ask the individual for an estimate of their mental/emotional health? Do you think they are doing that, with the hidden agenda of 'taking your guns away by the power of government regulations'? No, they are trying to determine if there might be other problems that blood work and physical examines do not cover. Their job is to make certain that you are as healthy as you can be. Your having trouble with your marriage, for example; they might refer you to a specialist.
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
It would add several hundred dollars to the price of a firearm, are they repaid when they "prove" they are sane?
As I mentioned above, this evaluation is already part of the healthcare package through the Affordable Care Act. You know the ACA? The law your friends in the Republican/Tea Party are against.....
If your going through some serious bills due to a mental and/or emotional disorder; would it be wise to obtain a firearm?
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
Do you send them to shrinks predisposed to disqualify everyone so they "never make a mistake". Perhaps one who thinks that wanting a firearm is proof of instability.
Most likely they would see a medical doctor. Since some kinds of mental/emotional disorders are simply the effects brought about by other physical illnesses. Once the doctor removes the likelihood of those possibilities, they might refer you to a therapist. Its not the therapist job to disqualify you for a firearm. And they have training (usually speaking) to determine when someone is not being honest with themselves. There will be individuals that want/demand a firearm and try to 'game the system' to obtain one; thus, allowing a real mental and/or emotional problem that could have been treated, to allow to grow until it explodes one day. Do you want to be down range when that happens, BamaD?
Wanting a firearm is not proof of instability. Its a fair question to ask 'Why do you feel you want/need a firearm'? Depending on how the individual answers and the tune, might determine which of many paths are taken. Would you give a firearm to someone that states they wish to kill a publicly elected official because the Devil said to? Because the authorizes will have a nice 'chat' with you after that person walks into a Sunday school and kills thirty kids with the gun you gave them. Firearm responsibility, right?
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
We currently have a system that tries to keep guns out of the hands of the dangerously unstable. But it also allows the opportunity to demonstrate that the disqualifying factor is no longer valid, like the people who show a false positive for a felony conviction.
Can you accurately and scientifically show a 'false positive' for a mental and/or emotional illness? And bet your livelihood on that?
I've dealt with one soldier home from war, BamaD. He was in the US Army. Served his nation with distinction. A Non-com officer. His folks thought his 'lazy attitude' was just 'a rough spot' and 'nothing to really worry about'. When I sat down with him, I *knew* his condition. It was myself from years before. I told his parents "Get him treatment...NOW. Or make the funeral arrangements...NOW. Because he is going to explode pretty soon, given what I think is a very serious problem. And he has access to a number of firearms and knows how to make explosives. If you love him, you'll send him to a professional....NOT...the VA." They were not ready for that sort of viewpoint. He's been in treatment for a while. His parents didnt act quick enough, and he got into some trouble with the law. Fortunately, the court order him to a lower sentence but with treatment. This is the sort of guy I'd trust with a firearm (if he didnt have that damn problem). Known him for a long time. Stupid Afghanistan War....
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
This case WAS NOT about allowing unstable people to have firearms but to allow them to demonstrate that the disqualifying factor was no longer valid.
No actually this is about unstable people having firearms. As I've pointed out a few times, how do you determine if the person is stable? Even stable people have misused firearms and the result was much in the way of slaughter and destruction. Why does that 73 year old man want a firearm? Why is that question not asked by journalists? Why have you not asked it? Or did you just assume since he wants a firearm, he's automatically 'on your side' in things? I would like to think the man is stable and free of what ever landed him in trouble. Firearm or not is irrelevant. Do you share that viewpoint?
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
You grossly distorted that in the op.
No, I state clearly in the original piece the viewpoint several things. One of them being that this opens a door I dont think society has fully considered the ramifications on before proceeding forward. That the three judges were Republican placed. And that the Republican party has...strong....ties to the firearm industry. It does set it up for a 'conflict of interest'. Who gains from this ruling? Those that may have a mental and/or emotional problem that is currently being untreated. The knowledge that if problem flares up, they can have their firearm afterward. And that you support this lunacy is both strange and concerning. Wouldn't you rather an individual be getting help/treatment for a problem (firearm owner or not)?
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
You also implied that allowing him to disprove the disqualifying factor somehow opened the floodgates for unstable people to own firearms.
An no one so far has made a good argument against the viewpoint. I always thought have a firearm requires much in the way of personal responsibility with such objects. Are you telling me, that its 'ok' for people who are mentally and/or emotionally compromised to have easy access to firearms?
[sarcasm]Because we have not seen that EVER end badly in this country....[/sarcasm]
|
RE: Psychos Can Now Have Guns! - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread