Time to Make Untreated Mental Illness, Not Guns, Illegal

So we take guns away from everyone it's a gambling addiction?

 

Give everyone a gun and everyone is equal and polite to each other.

 

Okay, what about fraudulent courts and unconstitutional courts colluding with a municipality and a newspaper to prevent effective mental health care, gagging reporters and editors so they cannot even tell their family and friends about a lawsuit they wanted the paper to do a story on?

http://algoxy.com/law/no_free_press/sbsecretsofmedia.html

The 17 reporters and editors that were fired, or resigned then gagged staged a protest.

 

Accept she wasn't killed in the same room as the safe. So he didn't just grab a gun while she was opening the safe. She left it unlocked.

 

Ok.

Do you have a source for that, I don't recall reading that.

Regardless, does anyone think their kid is going to shoot them with their own gun?

 

https://nypost.com/2012/12/16/mother-shared-her-gun-obsession-with-school-shooter-adam-lanza/

According to this, she was actually training him, how to shoot. She took him to firing ranges regularly, and she was actually planning to take him on one of these trips the day of the attacks. She was the one who took the guns out of the safe and gave him full access to them. He grabbed one of the guns after she had loaded it, and then shot her. I can't find it now, but I did see another report that clearly states that this occurred in the kitchen, where she had the guns she was planning to take laid out along with ammo, and the key to the safe. The safe itself was located in her bedroom. She took a number of guns she was planning on taking on their trip to the firing range, and had them out in the open in the kitchen. She gave him free access to them.

So, this idea that she was opening the safe, and he attacked her, took one of the guns and shot her is BS. She gave him regular access to the guns despite knowing that he was mentally unstable.

 

Ironically many of these types of laws are going to make it less likely that mentally ill people are going to come forward for treatment.
Does it really make sense to be taking away rights from people who didn't commit a crime when that is going to be dissuading people from getting help they need?

 

I didn't say that's what happened, I said that's how he might have gotten it. I'll have to go see if I can find any info on it I don't remember.

Still, I can't imagine any mother, even if they recognize potential mental illness in their son, would ever think their son would kill anyone, let alone their own mother. I'm not saying that's right, but I can certainly understand it.

Many parents don't want to believe their children are capable of doing bad things.

 

Not when they are a danger to public. Liberals just want free counseling to talk about their feelings.

 

The NRA has publically comdemned requiring mental health checks on gun purchases, and have oppose banning people with mental instability from owning guns. They WANT crazy people to get guns.

 

Something else we should keep in mind is that probably in 99 out of a 100 of these cases, nothing bad is going to happen.
So that's a lot of people you're taking away rights and due process from in the name of trying to prevent something bad from happening (and in reality it might not even end up preventing that person from murdering).

The best predicator of future action is past action; if someone committed an act in their past they are more likely to commit that same act in the future. Trying to make any other correlation is just guesswork and conjecture, haphazard at best.

 

Everything can be regulated by a mutually acceptable law. For example, psychological test/psychiatric assessment for all people who want to buy a gun. Also make people who already own a gun renew their gun licences on a more regular basis. During the renewal do another psychological test/psychiatric assessment. If people do not turn up for a renewal assessment (compulsory) or refuse an assessment confiscate their guns. There are civilised ways to deal with everyone involved. This way you keep gun owners happy and the public protected from mentally unstable gun owners. I don't see a single reason why would any sane person object to above mentioned proposal.

 

Try to apply those same laws to voting.

 

I am seeing a slippery slope here. If you take away rights from some people there's no reason that same reasoning couldn't be used to take away rights from everybody.

I'm sure there are a lot of people here who do not believe anyone is truly psychologically fit. (And so they want to restrict to as few people as possible)

Right now we only permanently take away rights for serious crimes (actually in a lot more cases than that, I don't agree with, but that's another matter).​

 

How does that make anyone either equal or polite? It would be a matter of who has the most firepower or skill at arms instead of who is bigger. You would still have violence, probably more of it and it would be more lethal, how can you believe differently?

The disgusting part is that we are here proposing to incarcerate a really large amount of people in what will ultimately be a useless and futile gesture to indulge the childish fantasies of a vociferous group of overgrown children. Eventually, we will adopt one or another of the only solutions that will work and I think it will be to just about prohibit gun ownership entirely. I can't help but wonder how many billions of dollars and innocent lives that will cost and how much damage it will do to our lives as Americans

 

Yes, that's entirely where this line of reasoning is invariably and ultimately headed.

Which is why I don't support the inferred reasoning in the OP.

 

If a sane person talked about blowing up an airplane or shooting up a cafe or school they would be at a minimum watched by law enforcement (unless you are in Florida where they don't do **** apparently) and more than likely charged with something. Yet time after time we see mentally unstable people do the exact same thing and are given a free pass. If you profess to wanting to be the next big time shooter then just like with any normal person you would be arrested and charged with planning a terrorist attack or attempted murder.

I think we are experiencing the Youtube phenomenon where people are used to saying outrageous and sick things hiding behind the anonymity of the web and its spilling out into their normal social media. Words have consequences and if someone made a threat to kill the President on their Facebook page or Twitter they would be hauled in by the Secret Service and imprisoned. It should be no different for any kid that professes to want to shoot up his school. Lock the ****ers up and punish people for saying stupid **** online for a change. Free speech does NOT including inciting violence and making threats.

 

overreaction and tough response to school shooting threats

The thing is, 99.5% of the time nothing ever happens, so what would you expect them to do?

And if you start making vague talk of doing something bad illegal, more than likely the perpetrators will go on to do it anyway; they'll just make sure not to say anything before they do it. So in the end, it might not really accomplish much.

 

You cant put out a fire with more fire.

The largest impediment to seeking treatment for mental illness are the myriad of restrictions already imposed on the afflicted. People who are sick WANT to get better. As it is now, thats impossible. Even if they manage to keep their job, their freedom to travel and recreate, their social status, their kids and their fanily, which are all at risk of forfeit depending on which diagnosis they receive, the mentally ill are permantly labelled with that diagnosis on their record regardless of the level of success of treatment. Theres nothing insane about avoiding such a system.

If we want to help the mentally ill (and its obviously in all our best interests to do so), we need to stop treating them like second class citizens. We can't offer to strip them of their rights and then fault them for refusing the offer.

 

Lock them up in prison or in a hospital. How many times do you go to an airport and hear someone yell "bomb" or "she's gonna blow............my dick" It never happens because EVERYONE knows that if you do that you will be charged with a felony.......not a misdemeanor an actual felony just for saying one word or phrase in a airport.

When the first bunch of nutters gets rounded up and thrown in a hole for 40 years after posting violent and incendiary stuff on their social media accounts threatening to kill someone or a group then eventually just like the airport people will learn to think about what they say before they type it out. Why is it that the President or some Senator gets special treatment if a threat is made against them but if someone says they want to shoot up their classmates we are told nothing can be done. **** that ****. If its good enough for the politicians its good enough for everyone else.

What I am sick and ****ing tired of is people spouting this stuff ad nauseam online without any consequences and no before you say it the first amendment does not protect that kind of speech. Its time people were held criminally liable for their threats towards other people or organizations and they should be charged just as with the airport example.

 

How about if a politician has ever been convicted of a felony or domestic violence, they don't get to have private security guards...

 

Eh...what does having security guards have to do with anything? I am talking about if some random person threatened the President or a Senator or any government official it is a felony. So why is it a felony to threaten them but it doesn't count if you threaten fellow students or some neighbor or family member? Why do government officials get special protection that normal people don't? If you threaten ANYONE it should be the same across the board and you go to prison, period.

 

I think it should depend exactly on what "threatened" means in that situation.

Wow, you just noticed that those running government pass laws to give themselves special protections?

 

It's not exactly a secret. I want a reason why it shouldn't apply to everyone else as well? If someone threatens the President I have no problem with throwing that person or persons in the clinker. I also don't have a problem with someone saying they are going to murder someone who isn't a government official also going to prison.

 

What a dumb idea. Most of these shooters are grown adults and are in control of their own lives.

Tell you what. If your kid cause a car accident, we should hold you liable. How's that??