Pro-gun myths busted

[mrsleeve]

I guess the lesson here is you shouldn't make "jokes" about killing yourself, especially to your psychiatrist who has a legal and moral obligation to contact the police if they have credible reason to believe you are serious about hurting yourself or others.

No the lesson is not to be public about your beliefs, not to discuss such topics with a medical professional and not wear your empty holster to your doctors visit. The real lesson here is that if you own firearms and are feeling a little off in the head or a bit depressed DONT SEEK treatment for it or you will be stripped of your rights and invaded by the state against your will to protect you from your self, if you need it or not.

What would stop a nurse or receptionist or pharmacist at the Obama care approved facility with a mother jones app on their phone from calling in something similar because I have a O/C pistol on my hip and picked up my scrip of prozac for my cat (yes it works for curbing pissing around in some cats) and the wife's Wlebutrin (sp) scrips.

I believe you laughed off farbins similar "hypothetical" not all that long ago and less than a month latter the 7th up holds a very similar REAL case.

[CorvallisBMW]

He concludes: In every state, we should prevent individuals with a known history of serious psychiatric illness or substance abuse, both of which predict increased risk of violence, from owning or purchasing guns.

So then why do gun nuts have a hernia every time someone suggests enforcing the current laws we already have on the books barring the mentally-ill from buying guns by closing loopholes in background checks?

You have not, so far in this thread, acknowledged that you think ANYONE has the right to own a weapon. You have instead gone on about how "some people" shouldn't be allowed to own guns and said that "reasonable restrictions" should be in place. This is the language used by people who don't want anyone to own a weapon.

So even though I've said that YES I think people should be able to own guns, that NO I don't think all guns should be taken away, and that REASONABLE laws such as not allowing felons or the mentally ill to buy guns, having universal background checks, licensing and training requirements, and waiting periods, are the only laws I support... You think I'm saying the exact opposite?

You don't have to, your dishonesty and hypocrisy is evidence enough of your agenda.

I can't tell if the two of you are high, or just really dumb.

Look, saying "I support background checks on gun sales" doesn't make me any more anti-gun than saying "I support stopping at stop signs" makes me anti-car.

[frankenbeemer]

MASS killers like Elliot Rodger teach society all the wrong lessons about the connection between violence, mental illness and guns — and what we should do about it. One of the biggest misconceptions, pushed by our commentators and politicians, is that we can prevent these tragedies if we improve our mental health care system. It is a comforting notion, but nothing could be further from the truth.

Richard A. Friedman is a professor of clinical psychiatry and the director of the psychopharmacology clinic at the Weill Cornell Medical College.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/28/op...f=opinion&_r=0

He concludes: In every state, we should prevent individuals with a known history of serious psychiatric illness or substance abuse, both of which predict increased risk of violence, from owning or purchasing guns.

[frankenbeemer]

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-01-28/health/bs-md-psych-reporting-20130128_1_mental-health-law-enforcement-gun-violence

Dr. Paul Appelbaum, past president of the American Psychiatric Association, said such efforts strip away the discretion of psychiatrists and other mental health professionals to decide the best course of action after hearing a troubling statement from a patient.

"What's really different about this new-wave approach is that it turns a clinical issue into a legal issue, and it takes discretion out of the hands of the clinician by requiring a mandatory breach of the privacy of the medical and mental health setting," said Appelbaum, director of the division of law, ethics and psychiatry at Columbia University.

"And it does all this in a structure, in a framework, that many professionals, mental health professionals, including me, think is not likely to be effective in substantially reducing gun violence and runs a very high risk of being counterproductive," he added.

[BraveUlysses]

^

Psychiatrist can be biased too you know this is from 2 weeks ago. After all making a comment (likely in jest or facetiously) + known to have guns and strongly support 2a = killing self or others right Now that "Can" = Warrant-less entry and detainment and confiscation of arms on the word and call of ONE person, (up held by the 7th) that person could be a Darrin with PHD in mental conditions and agenda or ax to grind against gun owners in general.... Slippery fucking slope is dam slippery

http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/7th-circuit-upholds-warrantless-entry-seizure-of-gun-rights-activist-b99269120z1-259087731.html

In general I do agree with you though

I guess the lesson here is you shouldn't make "jokes" about killing yourself, especially to your psychiatrist who has a legal and moral obligation to contact the police if they have credible reason to believe you are serious about hurting yourself or others.

[The Dark Side of Will]

Why should individuals who too can be bias be allowed to determine someone's mental stability?

Phsychiatrist or nothing plz, thanks.

Certainly expert testimony from a psychiatrist would be involved. Probably at least one from each side.

Obviously such a decision shouldn't be in any one person's hands.

[frankenbeemer]

When did I EVER say that you shouldn't be able to own guns?

You don't have to, your dishonesty and hypocrisy is evidence enough of your agenda.

[mrsleeve]

^

Psychiatrist can be biased too you know this is from 2 weeks ago. After all making a comment (likely in jest or facetiously) + known to have guns and strongly support 2a = killing self or others right Now that "Can" = Warrant-less entry and detainment and confiscation of arms on the word and call of ONE person, (up held by the 7th) that person could be a Darrin with PHD in mental conditions and agenda or ax to grind against gun owners in general.... Slippery fucking slope is dam slippery

http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/7th-circuit-upholds-warrantless-entry-seizure-of-gun-rights-activist-b99269120z1-259087731.html

In general I do agree with you though

[cale]

Easy answer: It should be the hands of a jury, not just a judge. If 12 people hear the arguments fro BOTH SIDES and come to the conclusion that the guy's a fruit loop, it's a pretty obvious case.

But the mechanisms have to be in place in State law first.

Why should individuals who too can be bias be allowed to determine someone's mental stability?

Phsychiatrist or nothing plz, thanks.

[The Dark Side of Will]

I didn't mean to insinuate you were anything but a Libertarian. :) Just defending my belief that due process is only as good as the politicians who write the bills and I don't trust any of them to get it right or not open massive loopholes one way or the other. While I respect your loose vision of how it would work, it's full of pitfalls that I'll spare for another topic maybe. To sum up, it's really fucking complicated and most people on both sides of the argument like trivialize the simplicity of the "solution" but fail to really think about what it would take and how it would/could affect everyone.

It's not an easy solution at all. It's one of the toughest things for a society to figure out. How do we protect the rights of someone who may be dangerous, but hasn't hurt anyone *yet* while protecting the rights of those he may hurt, WITHOUT creating a police state?

Obviously, get him off the path toward hurting people as soon as possible... That's good mental health care. A competency hearing or trial would be a last resort.

[ParsedOut]

I'm a Libertarian.
A number of states do have involuntary commitment laws... I haven't studied the minutiae of those, nor how they vary from state to state.

How I envision it working:
State law is passed giving people standing to bring suits like the following:
A plaintiff brings a suit naming a defendant he claims is a danger to society for a non-frivolous reason. Assuming it passes some basic tests like "does the plaintiff actually have any personal knowledge of or contact with the defendant", then the suit proceeds, otherwise it's thrown out and expunged. I'm on the fence about whether the plaintiff should cover the legal costs or not... He hasn't suffered damages, so he doesn't have standing to sue under tort law... and if he thinks the person is a legit danger, then he should throw down the cash. Are both sides entitled to public lawyers if they're both poor? IDK.
If the jury finds for the plaintiff, then the defendant is restricted in some way related to the complaint. If the jury finds for the defendant, the record is expunged.
It's something like a supercharged competency hearing. Maybe the defendant has the option for a hearing before a judge or a trial before a jury. I don't claim to know all the details.

Then the fun questions come along...
If the jury finds for the plaintiff and the defendant has guns, what happens to them? Required to sell them within a certain timeframe? If the government confiscates them, then they need to compensate the defendant for the loss.

If the defendant lives with someone who has guns, how does a finding against the defendant affect that person? The obvious case in point is that if a prospective mass-murderer is willing to kill his own mother for access to her guns, a government restriction wouldn't do anything to stop him and all the effort would have been wasted.
However, the government can't reasonably restrict the mother unless the plaintiff originally files his complaint against her.

The big idea is that there MUST be due process.

I didn't mean to insinuate you were anything but a Libertarian. :) Just defending my belief that due process is only as good as the politicians who write the bills and I don't trust any of them to get it right or not open massive loopholes one way or the other. While I respect your loose vision of how it would work, it's full of pitfalls that I'll spare for another topic maybe. To sum up, it's really fucking complicated and most people on both sides of the argument like trivialize the simplicity of the "solution" but fail to really think about what it would take and how it would/could affect everyone.

[The Dark Side of Will]

Can someone be put on trial for suspicion of being mentally unstable? Is the sole purpose to limit/remove firearms rights or could there be further implications? Could they be sentenced to a mental hospital? Would this be public record and therefore limit job opportunities? I don't know man, if I had a cousin that reported I was mentally unstable because I have a dozen guns and thousands of rounds of ammunition (completely legal) does that mean I would be subject to a court witch hunt? It's always an easy thing to say "I want this to happen" but refuse to dive into the deep details and consequences of the minutiae. Not saying it's a lost cause but I am saying that I don't trust the people elected to make these decisions for me, but maybe that's why I'm a libertarian...I don't trust anyone who makes a living as a politician.

I'm a Libertarian.
A number of states do have involuntary commitment laws... I haven't studied the minutiae of those, nor how they vary from state to state.

How I envision it working:
State law is passed giving people standing to bring suits like the following:
A plaintiff brings a suit naming a defendant he claims is a danger to society for a non-frivolous reason. Assuming it passes some basic tests like "does the plaintiff actually have any personal knowledge of or contact with the defendant", then the suit proceeds, otherwise it's thrown out and expunged. I'm on the fence about whether the plaintiff should cover the legal costs or not... He hasn't suffered damages, so he doesn't have standing to sue under tort law... and if he thinks the person is a legit danger, then he should throw down the cash. Are both sides entitled to public lawyers if they're both poor? IDK.
If the jury finds for the plaintiff, then the defendant is restricted in some way related to the complaint. If the jury finds for the defendant, the record is expunged.
It's something like a supercharged competency hearing. Maybe the defendant has the option for a hearing before a judge or a trial before a jury. I don't claim to know all the details.

Then the fun questions come along...
If the jury finds for the plaintiff and the defendant has guns, what happens to them? Required to sell them within a certain timeframe? If the government confiscates them, then they need to compensate the defendant for the loss.

If the defendant lives with someone who has guns, how does a finding against the defendant affect that person? The obvious case in point is that if a prospective mass-murderer is willing to kill his own mother for access to her guns, a government restriction wouldn't do anything to stop him and all the effort would have been wasted.
However, the government can't reasonably restrict the mother unless the plaintiff originally files his complaint against her.

The big idea is that there MUST be due process.

Are you going to have a trial for every single person who might or might not be mentally unstable? That's not anywhere near feasible...

Really? How many are we talking about? You must know that because you also know when robberies are going to be benign and when they're going to be violent.

When did I EVER say that you shouldn't be able to own guns?

You have not, so far in this thread, acknowledged that you think ANYONE has the right to own a weapon. You have instead gone on about how "some people" shouldn't be allowed to own guns and said that "reasonable restrictions" should be in place. This is the language used by people who don't want anyone to own a weapon.

[CorvallisBMW]

Easy answer: It should be the hands of a jury, not just a judge. If 12 people hear the arguments fro BOTH SIDES and come to the conclusion that the guy's a fruit loop, it's a pretty obvious case.

But the mechanisms have to be in place in State law first.

Are you going to have a trial for every single person who might or might not be mentally unstable? That's not anywhere near feasible...

I think it's pretty arrogant of you to try to make that decision (that I shouldn't be able to have a gun) for me.

When did I EVER say that you shouldn't be able to own guns?

[ParsedOut]

Easy answer: It should be the hands of a jury, not just a judge. If 12 people hear the arguments fro BOTH SIDES and come to the conclusion that the guy's a fruit loop, it's a pretty obvious case.

But the mechanisms have to be in place in State law first.

Can someone be put on trial for suspicion of being mentally unstable? Is the sole purpose to limit/remove firearms rights or could there be further implications? Could they be sentenced to a mental hospital? Would this be public record and therefore limit job opportunities? I don't know man, if I had a cousin that reported I was mentally unstable because I have a dozen guns and thousands of rounds of ammunition (completely legal) does that mean I would be subject to a court witch hunt? It's always an easy thing to say "I want this to happen" but refuse to dive into the deep details and consequences of the minutiae. Not saying it's a lost cause but I am saying that I don't trust the people elected to make these decisions for me, but maybe that's why I'm a libertarian...I don't trust anyone who makes a living as a politician.

[The Dark Side of Will]

If you were actually interested in research, you might look into the relationship between the strength of involuntary commitment laws and gun violence, state-by-state.