Author Topic: gun control... (Read 7052 times)

Yeager · « **Reply #180 on:** April 19, 2007, 10:32:45 AM »

Just how do you determine who is mentally ill and who is not?
====
Good question.

Also, I think because it was a voluntary admission for a mental evaluation that Virginia law did not require it be recorded for use in determining firearm ownership.

I suspect thats going to change, at least in Virginia.

GtoRA2 · « **Reply #181 on:** April 19, 2007, 10:37:48 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
I'm sure you wouldn't do anything bad with a nuclear bomb either. Surely everyone should have the right to own one.

You call someone else retarded and you bring up this tired BS?

It's ok freedom is to much for someone like you. I trust my fellow citizens with guns.

One bad apple does not make us all bad.

FrodeMk3 · « **Reply #182 on:** April 19, 2007, 10:37:53 AM »

Srry, Toad. My understanding was that he only went to the hospital. That can be done voluntarily, or at a judges' referal. I hadn't seen where it had actually gone through a court at first. I just went back to the news story. It seems that an initial evaluation found him suicidal, and that the magistrate sent him to St. Albans. At St. Albans, they found him to not be suicidal, and his thought and judgments were normal. So, they just turned around and released him as an outpatient.

Charon · « **Reply #183 on:** April 19, 2007, 11:59:09 AM »

On a side "gun control" note, the media is actually putting the feet of some of the strongest antis to the fire. I am dumfounded. Now this is that smarmy Tucker Carlson, who has reengineered himself from neocon to "libertarian" in the past year or so, but still. The congressperson is the author of the latest assault weapons ban, and he pulls a Stephen Cobert on here, like when Stepehen asked the guy pushing the 10 Commandments legislation to actually list the 10 commandments. In this case, it's the evil "barrel shroud."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U#GU5U2spHI_4

Charon

lazs2 · « **Reply #184 on:** April 19, 2007, 02:56:34 PM »

yeager.. I agree with you that the insane should not be able to buy guns... or drive cars for that matter..

What I want to hear from you is how you stop that from happening. What is the cure? what law would you pass?

should shrinks have an open file policy? Should any accusation of insanity no matter from who made it be enough for you to lose a gun or a drivers licence?

What would you have us do?

lazs

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #185 on:** April 19, 2007, 03:06:57 PM »

To clean up Bagdhad, all we need is some bomb control legislation...

Yeager · « **Reply #186 on:** April 19, 2007, 03:17:51 PM »

I would have a thorough process in place to evaluate and catagorize the mentally ill based on the degree and intensity of their illness. I would institutionalize any person found to be a remote or greater threat to themselves or others and have strict post institutional re-evaluations to determine either progress towards health or digression towards further mental deterioration. I would have a fair and just system of rehabilitation in place for those that could be made stable and safe. But I would also insist that thos most dangerous be removed from society completely.

The more I find out about those people who were lost at VT the more painful it is for me. This one event in particular should have been preempted, and I want to know that action is taking place to make it less likely in the future.

As gun enthusiasts, we need to become proactive in helping prevent mentally ill and unstable people from having any legal access to firearms and we should be very concerned for our own safety and the safety of our loved ones that the mentally ill are being segregated from us. For our own safety as well as theirs.

I will write some letters this weekend and send them off...

Toad · « **Reply #187 on:** April 19, 2007, 03:30:54 PM »

Sounds nice but I don't see how it could possibly work.

Are you going to evaluate every single citizen? If not you're going to miss a bunch of loonies.

The organization required to diagnose, treat, hospitalize and follow up on subjects would be huge. It'd be a governmental department the size of the Department of Defense.

Sorry, Yeager, it can't happen. The current system can't handle 1% of the loons out there and a new, huge system just won't happen.

Heck, most really good health insurance policies cover only a small percent of mental illness costs. Most people don't have good insurance.

Yeager · « **Reply #188 on:** April 19, 2007, 04:01:11 PM »

You asked, I was simply putting fourth some thoughts. Every person wanting to purchase a firearm should be required to pass a mental health evaluation, and be required to take a training class in firearms safety, and be fingerprinted, but that would trample on all of our rights......

In the meantime, go read up on these folks. Read every single one of them if you have the time. I have.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2007/virginiatech.shootings/victims/index.html

VOR · « **Reply #189 on:** April 19, 2007, 05:14:12 PM »

The Prez should enact a "war on guns" and congress can make it illegal to purchase them legally. That will solve our problems.

Maverick · « **Reply #190 on:** April 19, 2007, 06:00:54 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Yeager
I would have a thorough process in place to evaluate and catagorize the mentally ill based on the degree and intensity of their illness. I would institutionalize any person found to be a remote or greater threat to themselves or others and have strict post institutional re-evaluations to determine either progress towards health or digression towards further mental deterioration. I would have a fair and just system of rehabilitation in place for those that could be made stable and safe. But I would also insist that thos most dangerous be removed from society completely.

In regards to removing the "most dangerous", you'll have a difficult time in identifying them much less in removing them with the ACLU who were instrumental in getting the courts to RELEASE folks held in mental institutions that were there without benefit of court orders bordering on convictions.

I had other questions for you but realize if I use more than 5 lines you will simply ignore it anyhow.

Toad · « **Reply #191 on:** April 19, 2007, 07:16:01 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Yeager
You asked, I was simply putting fourth some thoughts. Every person wanting to purchase a firearm should be required to pass a mental health evaluation, and be required to take a training class in firearms safety, and be fingerprinted,

Yet another unworkable solution Yeager and you knew that when you typed it. It's very easy to generalize but the devil is in the details as you've undoubtedly realized by now.

It's tough about those 33; sad they died to a pile of dung.

Too bad you can't come up with any sort of workable solution to the problem too. But it probably makes you feel better and more involved to generalize solutions. I guess.

Did you read up on all the previous school massacres and even try to determine how many might have been prevented by your generalizations? I'm betting you did not.

Gunthr · « **Reply #192 on:** April 19, 2007, 09:24:13 PM »

Ok, back on topic. This is why you should join the NRA today:

(caution vulgar language)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xo0IeO5_AAk&mode=related&search=

bustr · « **Reply #193 on:** April 19, 2007, 10:07:55 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Yeager
You asked, I was simply putting fourth some thoughts. Every person wanting to purchase a firearm should be required to pass a mental health evaluation, and be required to take a training class in firearms safety, and be fingerprinted, but that would trample on all of our rights......

In the meantime, go read up on these folks. Read every single one of them if you have the time. I have.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2007/virginiatech.shootings/victims/index.html

In the end, a database of who, what, and where to find "you". And then we are back to 1935 having not learned from history: required to pass a mental health evaluation, and be required to take a training class in firearms safety, and be fingerprinted, but that would trample on all of our rights......

Yeager the better question to ask may be: As a society are we even capable of insuring each of us our own Liberty, Freedom and Life? Do we as a Nation have the guts to do it anymore? That is more germain to why that nutjob was able to perform his EVIL deed. We no longer understand that we can die each and every day at the hands of other people. Which means we don't understand our personal responsibility to protect our own lives. So now we die in droves in gun free zones because we live fantasy lives.

What you are suggesting is trading personal responsibility for the lie and fantasy of "PEACE". Peace is easy. Just do what the people with guns tell you to do. You may not die or you may die. But die you will in slavery either to the people with guns or to the fear of dieing to which "PEACE" at any cost is so seductive.

Your reflections on those 33 and your emotions are the real price each of us must come to terms with to have Liberty, Freedom. and our Lives. Some day it may not be this way. But now, can you live with the price? And if you can't, are you going to stand in the way of those who can like the Liberals around the world do to anyone who can?

Terror · « **Reply #194 on:** April 19, 2007, 10:14:20 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by VOR
The Prez should enact a "war on guns" and congress can make it illegal to purchase them legally. That will solve our problems.

VOR,
I hope that is sarcasm... With "Vote Libertarian" in your signature, I assume it is sarcasm, since Libertarians fully support the 2nd amendment.

From the Libertarian Gun Rights page.

Quote

"Law-abiding, responsible citizens do not and should not need to ask anyone's permission or approval to engage in a peaceful activity. Gun ownership, by itself, harms no other person and cannot morally justify criminal penalties."

Just checking....
Terror