Why can't they understand?


PDA






Eric F
April 18, 2008, 09:12 AM
I saw a recent story on the news where a Va Tech student was going to protest guns. Ok fine and well but this is what he said,
I am protesting guns. We need to close the loop holes as to where mentall ill people can not purchase guns. those were his words so he says he is protesting guns but he is actualy protesting gun purchasing policies. On top of that he aparently wants to make it ok for mentaly ill people to buy them. Do all of these people just not listen to themselves?

If you enjoyed reading about "Why can't they understand?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Sato Ord
April 18, 2008, 09:23 AM
Do all of these people just not listen to themselves?

Of course not, they find their schizophrenic tirades as confusing as the rest of us do, and they don't want to make their brains hurt trying to think anyway: they'd rather trust the thinking and their safety to their wonderful, protective government officials, who are professionals, and will even promise to tuck them in safely at night.

The liberal nonsense about gun control is the only argument I can think of where they get what they want, it doesn't do any good, and they use that as "absolute proof" that we need more of it. :cuss:

It's type of thinking that gets total bans in cities, and then is touted as a success even though the crime rate involving guns in those cities continues to rise. Then they respond to the rising crime rate by crying that we need more security, "Let's put in these cameras, no one will commit a crime on camera, right?:banghead:

I'm sorry, I haven't had enough coffee to keep up with this discussion yet!:confused:

Pete409
April 18, 2008, 09:29 AM
Quote:
I am protesting guns. We need to close the loop holes as to where mentall ill people can not purchase guns.

My guess is that he did not clearly state what he was thinking. He probably meant that he wanted to close the loophole which allowed mentally ill people to purchase guns. Of course, this point is debatable since "mental illness" is not clearly defined as to what constitutes mental illness.

gunNoob
April 18, 2008, 09:32 AM
How do you know if someone is mentally ill until they do something crazy? hmmmm?

Old Fuff
April 18, 2008, 09:46 AM
These are individuals that usually were brought up in an environment where there were no firearms, and often guns were despised and feared. Now their worst fears have been realized and perhaps even someone they know was a victim. They cannot come to grips with the fact that their warm, secure and fuzzy world has evaporated and the a sign at the front gate saying “Gun Free Zone – No Firearms Allowed” didn’t protect them in the least.

So they blame guns – and they’re supposed easy availability. “If,” they think,” we could just "close the loopholes" and get rid of those awful guns, everyone would be nice and friendly, and I could have my warm and fuzzy world back again.” Now this is naive and child-like, but frankly you are dealing with people that meet that description.

They also believe that laws really work, and that they are the solution for any threat to their little perfect world. The idea that human behavior – especially criminal behavior – can’t be controlled through statutes and regulations, are way beyond any concept they understand. We know that this approach isn’t much more effective then the Gun Free Zone sign. They refuse to believe it.

It is far easier to understand where such people are coming from, then it is to get them to change directions, because their feelings and fears toward guns is entirely driven by emotions rather the logic.

Deanimator
April 18, 2008, 10:23 AM
We need to take this one step at a time. Let's make it impossible for mentally ill people to get cocaine and heroin first...

The Tourist
April 18, 2008, 11:21 AM
I have never understood the overall mindset of a leftie.

When I get up in the morning, I make a good strong latte' to go with my newspaper and then I feed the dogs.

It seems when Hillbama gets up they think about new and varied ways to disenfranchise citizens from their enumerated rights.

There's an old Sicilian adage about a devout preist who tossed and turned all night because he knew someone was out there someplace committing some type of sin.

And BTW for all of you hypocrites, I run Stage II pipes.

Standing Wolf
April 18, 2008, 12:24 PM
How do you know if someone is mentally ill until they do something crazy?

I'll simplify it for you: only crazy people want guns.

The Tourist
April 18, 2008, 12:32 PM
How do you know if someone is mentally ill until they do something crazy? hmmmm?

Oy. Your assumption is that "craziness" can be assessed by howling at the moon or chewing a rug.

As you know, I'm OCD and bipolar.

My acts of "craziness" were excessive vacuuming, continually polishing my bike and taking naps.

And all of these are legal acts.

Deanimator
April 18, 2008, 01:20 PM
I'll simplify it for you: only crazy people want guns.
And that means that cops are "crazy", but those are the only people they want to have guns, and...

Werewolf
April 18, 2008, 04:19 PM
Quote:
I'll simplify it for you: only crazy people want guns.

And that means that cops are "crazy", but those are the only people they want to have guns, and...
Where on Earth did you acquire the notion that cops want guns? :confused:

ChopperKen
April 18, 2008, 11:10 PM
They don't wan't to understand, They are right and that is that!
The Tourist, I run 2" open drags,
By the way what ya doing this weekend? my bike could use some OCD like yours,It hasn't been polished since last fall.:D

Samuel Adams
April 18, 2008, 11:27 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v437/candm1998/2ndA-caveman-1.jpg

XLMiguel
April 19, 2008, 12:24 AM
Basic problem is personal privacy (i.e. medical records), vs public safety (i.e. background checks for buying guns). Can't have it both ways if you want the mentally unfit kept out or included in NCIC.

Use case: What if you were depressed after a nasty divorce 10 yrs ago, sought help, moved on, and are now a happy camper?

No easy answers. I favor dealilng with those whose behaviour indicates a problem (history of bad behaviour, or current experience), not "what if" (prior restraint), but I haven't been elected King of the World yet . . .

Pete409
April 19, 2008, 01:14 PM
Basic problem is personal privacy (i.e. medical records), vs public safety (i.e. background checks for buying guns). Can't have it both ways if you want the mentally unfit kept out or included in NCIC.

I think that sums up the problem pretty well. A reasonable and fair solution is considerably harder to determine.

As far as gun laws are concerned, I think that the mental health "experts" need to come up with some criteria for determining what sort of mental or emotional problems would make a person unfit (i.e. unsafe) to own firearms. I think that these determinations should be periodically subject to review and renewal (perhaps every 5 years). That way, if a person had a problem 5 or more years ago, but has since worked it out, then their right to own a gun could be restored.

I realize that this would not be an easy task, but that is no reason not to TRY to tackle the issue. Otherwise, the law is likely to go to one extreme or the other with regard to mental problems and neither extreme presents a fair or safe solution for all involved.

Guitargod1985
April 19, 2008, 02:43 PM
As far as gun laws are concerned, I think that the mental health "experts" need to come up with some criteria for determining what sort of mental or emotional problems would make a person unfit (i.e. unsafe) to own firearms.

Here's an idea: How about until the person is actually convicted of a crime, we assume that person is a decent human being capable of exercising his or her rights in a responsible fashion. I know it's a crazy idea, the presumption of innocence and all, but I can't help feeling there's something in the law about it. Oh yeah, the Fifth Amendment.

The fact is that you cannot know for certain what any person will do unless (a) they've already done it, or (b) you are omnipotent. Since option (b) seems pretty far fetched to most of us (unless you happen to be a "doctor" of psychiatry), we must allow people the benefit of the doubt until they act in a manner which warrants forfeiture of said rights.

bogie
April 19, 2008, 02:45 PM
Now, this may be a stretch, but I'm thinking that one of the reasons more than a few of today's youth can't get their heads around logic is that they have never learned to communicate in a structured fashion. It is "okay" for them to write something which is essentially random thoughts, and then require the reader to figure it out.

stephpd
April 19, 2008, 02:46 PM
Head shrinker's think everyone is crazy, it's all a matter of degree. It not who is crazy but who is dangerous. That's why felons can't buy guns legally. Nobody should be denied the right to self defense until they DO something that harms others. Even drunk drivers can get their license back if it's even revoked. Cars kill many more folks then legally owned guns. Maybe drunk drivers should never be able to get or keep a license after one DUI. Would make the world a lot safer then worrying about crazy people with guns.

Guitargod1985
April 19, 2008, 02:49 PM
bogie, that is by no means a stretch. Here in Florida, for example, we have a standardized test known as the FCAT, which all public school students must pass in order to graduate from high school. The FCAT is essentially a dumbed-down sixth grade level reading/writing exam. Many of the students in public school are instructed in FCAT test taking skills, while other more significant areas of study are neglected. I suspect the case in many other states is similar.

Wayne G.
April 19, 2008, 03:15 PM
Oy. Your assumption is that "craziness" can be assessed by howling at the moon or chewing a rug.

As you know, I'm OCD and bipolar.

My acts of "craziness" were excessive vacuuming, continually polishing my bike and taking naps.

And all of these are legal acts.
...including howling at the moon and/or chewing a rug.

:)

Going back to the mindset of the fellow who is "protesting guns" because he doesn't want the mentally ill to have them. Well, what about cars? They are far more deadly in the hands of the "mentally ill" bent on destruction and mayhem. Why not protest the "vehicle loophole"?

Do you really think this has anything to do with the mentally ill or the protection of society? No, there is an agenda here that is being pushed under false pretenses, and people are buying it hook, line, and sinker.

Pete409
April 19, 2008, 10:00 PM
Here's an idea: How about until the person is actually convicted of a crime, we assume that person is a decent human being capable of exercising his or her rights in a responsible fashion. I know it's a crazy idea, the presumption of innocence and all, but I can't help feeling there's something in the law about it. Oh yeah, the Fifth Amendment.

So if several mental health experts agree that a person is very unstable mentally and has a pre-disposition to violent acts; and further they agree that the person is dilusional and often can't distinguish right from wrong, you would have no problem with this person owning an arsenal until he actually goes on a killing spree and kills a dozen or so people???? :rolleyes:

Sorry, but I don't agree with that.

Werewolf
April 20, 2008, 11:45 AM
So if several mental health experts agree that a person is very unstable mentally and has a pre-disposition to violent acts; and further they agree that the person is dilusional and often can't distinguish right from wrong, you would have no problem with this person owning an arsenal until he actually goes on a killing spree and kills a dozen or so people????

Sorry, but I don't agree with that.Sorry - but freedom isn't free. With it comes risk. Eliminate risk and eliminate freedom.

Punish acts not a presumption that one may act.

Example:
Based on your response you seem to me to be an authoritarian statist. You may just try to become dictator of the US. I propose we toss you into the clink, chain you to a wall and do electro-shock every day, twice a day to preclude any chance that you may try to become dictator.

Sounds pretty silly doesn't it? No sillier than what you proposed though.

Pete409
April 20, 2008, 01:48 PM
Punish acts not a presumption that one may act.

By that, I conclude that you believe that those people who are tried, convicted, and sentenced to prison for having child pornography on their computers or in books/magazines/etc in their home should never have even been subject to trial at all. Better to wait until they actually molest some children, right?

Werewolf
April 21, 2008, 06:12 PM
By that, I conclude that you believe that those people who are tried, convicted, and sentenced to prison for having child pornography on their computers or in books/magazines/etc in their home should never have even been subject to trial at all. Better to wait until they actually molest some children, right?

Very ill thought out and poor reasoning skills exhibeted by that logic.

A person who has child pornography in his posession has subourned either directly or indirectly child molestation. Without the demand for it there would not be those willing to risk supplying it. Thus children would not be used to produce it.

Posessing child porn aids and abets criminal acts which is way different from some shrinks getting to decide that you or I are a danger to ourselves or society based upon some nebulous psycho-babble.

t3rmin
April 21, 2008, 08:03 PM
Not to mention the possibility of misuse. Proponents of restricting folks based on what they MIGHT do often seem to assume these powers will always be used in the most altruistic ways.

Don't make enemies of any shrinks, since they may soon have the power to take away your rights. Or don't make enemies with anyone who has sway over the shrinks. It's quite easy to have a kangaroo court and declare somebody incompetent when you have these subjective standards.

Pete409
April 21, 2008, 09:52 PM
In addition to the "crime" of possessing the wrong type of pictures, there are other "crimes" where people are punished not for what harm they have actually caused or what damage they have done to others, but what they MIGHT do.

A prime example of this is the "crime" of operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content (BAC) greater than 0.08% (in most states). There have been MILLIONS of people who have operated vehicles while having a BAC greater than 0.08% and not caused any wrecks or accidents, yet they are presumed guilty because of what they MIGHT do.

Guitargod1985
April 21, 2008, 10:27 PM
Driving while intoxicated is a grossly negligent act and characterized by a complete disregard for others' well being.

When a person drives while intoxicated, he or she is willfully violating other drivers' safety (right to life).

Now in many jurisdictions, you can be given a DUI for simply having the keys in your ignition and listening to the radio while you are intoxicated. I don't believe this is a negligent act in the slightest, so this would qualify as something I would argue against. However, a judge would say that by placing the keys in the ignition a person has shown intent to drive or some such nonsense.

trinydex
April 21, 2008, 10:28 PM
dude, possessing a gun is not a LEAD TO CRIME act, as legal gun possession is used by all of us and is not inherent in the definition of "insane" or "mentally ill."

if the kid stabbed dogs, he should not get a gun. if he stabbed his sister in the eye, no gunz for him. if he robbed an old man without a gun, no gunz for him.

is this making sense yet? anything that HE'S DONE that aids in the ability to enact further violence WITH the use of firearms precludes him from the right to bear arms for the safety of the public.

Pete409
April 21, 2008, 10:54 PM
Driving while intoxicated is a grossly negligent act and characterized by a complete disregard for others' well being.

That's the same way I look at the idea of letting some "crazy" guy own a gun until he has actually done someone harm with it.

If we are going to say that someone who possesses certain pictures MIGHT harm someone, and someone whose reactions/judgement are impaired by alcohol MIGHT cause an automobile accident, then it's reasonable to also conclude that someone who is not mentally stable MIGHT harm someone if allowed to own a gun. In each of these cases, it is SOCIETY in general that is being protected at the expense of personal liberty/freedom of some individual who MIGHT do someone some harm.

trinydex
April 21, 2008, 11:00 PM
it's not MIGHT HARM SOMEONE, it's HAS ALREADY HARMED SOMEONE or something.

partaking in child porn means some child was victimized.

stabbing a dog means the dog was harmed.

stabbing your sister means your sister was harmed. etc

Tamlin
April 21, 2008, 11:30 PM
I lean towards GuitarGod's thinking. Some poor slob is going to get divorced and have a mental meltdown. Happens every day. Do we want background checks to include psychological exams, too? I agree that Meltdown Bob may be LIKELY to commit gun violence at that particular moment in his life, but that moment will likely fade in a couple of days after he's drowned his sorrows and got a grip back on his life. Any type of government intervention is likely to bar Bob from purchasing guns for, say, five years. Unlike the ultra liberals, I believe people deserve the benefit of the doubt (liberals want big government because they don't trust the people to work things out for themselves). At this point Bob hasn't done anything. Can we keep him from buying guns? Not without severely infringing on his rights in the process. It's a give and take here. Yes, society would be "safer" if we could keep that .38 special out of Bob's hands during the week he really wants to kill his ex-wife, but then we might as well keep the guns out of everyone's hands, right? How many people obtain guns for such a purpose - either thinking they will kill an ex-spouse, or perhaps take their own life? By denying Bob his right to buy a gun, we are supporting the Brady Bunch's "waiting period" rationale. The few people who abuse their rights is not justification to infringe everyone else's rights. I say unless (1) the person has been declared mentally incompetent in a court, or (2) has committed a VIOLENT felony, we should not preclude them from their Second Amendment rights. Yes, the Innocent until Proven Guilty may wind up costing us a few lives, but it is the cost of protecting the greater right for everyone. P.S. - sorry for the long rant.

packnrat
April 22, 2008, 12:11 AM
better becarefull talking about anykind of mental problem,
as 99% of the pop can at any time have a "mental" problem, and now not be able to have a gun.:eek:



:uhoh:


.

The Tourist
April 22, 2008, 01:50 AM
better becarefull talking about anykind of mental problem

The only thing that is really needed is a learned discussion of the facts. Imagine how fighting erroneous ideas can be.

After all, to most of the media you are, "a hopelessly inbred Gomer bent on shooting Bambi with a Dodge City mentality."

The harder you fight the idea with statistics or rage, the nuttier you look to the people trying to pigeon-hole you. You actually become that inbred Gomer when they reduce your rebuttal to a sound byte for the evening news.

Being a patient carries the same stigma. Most of society feels you will snap like a dry twig, despite the fact that typical Ward Cleaver husbands kill more wives than the patients ever will.

As I point out, ask a working LEO which call is more dangerous--a mentally ill patient crying outside a library, or a domestic dispute in a trailor park.

Sarcastically I point out that if people were serious about stopping violent crime they should simply outlaw trailor parks.

sm
April 22, 2008, 03:39 AM
Delete.

Some of us would rather discuss this thread topic, off public forum, sharing some real life experiences and observations we have.

qajaq59
April 22, 2008, 06:42 AM
Liberal and Logical are two totally different things. And they are never going to meet.

Pete409
April 22, 2008, 09:15 AM
SM,

No offense intended, but I have no clue what you're talking about. Your writing style or something about the way you say it just leaves me wondering what point you are trying to get across. You seem to jump from one unrelated subject to another. Maybe I'm just dense and maybe others understand you perfectly well, but I sure don't.

sm
April 22, 2008, 12:15 PM
Pete409,

No offense taken.
I have edited that post as I and some others would rather discuss the thread topic off public view anyway.

The Tourist
April 22, 2008, 12:28 PM
I and some others would rather discuss the thread topic off public view anyway.

At this point, I think that's a prudent idea.

Like many topics, this one really has only two sides. Either you're pro or anti. Kind of like issues of pregnancy. Either you is or you ain't. After all, the only middle ground I can see on this issue is to sell the mentally ill some guns, just not a whole lot of them.

I'm very pleased about the adult manner in which this thread has carried itself.

If you enjoyed reading about "Why can't they understand?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!