Why can't they understand?

Do all of these people just not listen to themselves?

Click to expand...

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.

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!

Quote:
I am protesting guns. We need to close the loop holes as to where mentall ill people can not purchase guns.

Click to expand...

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.

How do you know if someone is mentally ill until they do something crazy? hmmmm?

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.

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...

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.

How do you know if someone is mentally ill until they do something crazy?

Click to expand...

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

gunNoob said:

How do you know if someone is mentally ill until they do something crazy? hmmmm?

Click to expand...

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.

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

Click to expand...

And that means that cops are "crazy", but those are the only people they want to have guns, and...

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...

Click to expand...

Where on Earth did you acquire the notion that cops want guns?

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.

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 . . .

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

mental illness

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.

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.

The Tourist said:

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.

Click to expand...

...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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Punish acts not a presumption that one may act.

Click to expand...

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?

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?

Click to expand...

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.

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.