Gothic.net News Horror Gothic Lifestyle Fiction Movies Books and Literature Dark TV VIP Horror Professionals Professional Writing Tips Links Gothic Forum




Go Back   Gothic.net Community > Boards > Politics

Politics "Under democracy, one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule -and both commonly succeed, and are right." -H.L. Menken

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 12-28-2012, 08:10 PM   #201
Despanan
 
Despanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sugar Hill
Posts: 3,887
For #3 I probably should have said "minors" instead of children.

As you KIND of answered #1 (though not adequately enough for my taste) let's re-frame it:

As blindness is a permanent condition and schizophrenia is a condition which can be corrected with medicine and thus not present 100% of the time, let's try this from another angle:

1) Alcoholism is not a permanent condition, and is also considered to be a disease. Is it reasonable to suspend an alcoholic's driver's license if they have not received/refused treatment or is it ableism since they might not drink and drive?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by KontanKarite
I promote radical change through my actions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger
I have chugged more than ten epic boners.
Despanan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2012, 09:16 PM   #202
Solumina
 
Solumina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Cali
Posts: 8,030
It is pretty fucking clear ableism if you just flat out say alcoholics shouldn't be allowed to drive, now if they have received a DWI that is a completely different scenario as they have taken action that proves they are willing and able to break the law but plenty of alcoholics go through life (treated or untreated) and do not ever drink and drive.
__________________
Live a life less ordinary
Live a life extraordinary with me
Live a life less sedentary
Live a life evolutionary with me
-Carbon Leaf
Solumina is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2012, 09:25 PM   #203
Miss Absynthe
 
Miss Absynthe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Hell, it's other people & both of them are you
Posts: 1,001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Despanan View Post
1) As blindness is a disability, is taking a driver's license away from someone who's legally blind ableism? If not, why not?
With the caveat that the following statements have little to do with my personal beliefs about the rights to own firearms, the purpose of the prison system or with involuntary hospitalisation...

The discussion isn't proposing that the right to firearms be taken from someone because they are unable to own a gun without injuring or killing themselves or others. The discussion as stated so far holds the proposition that this right be taken from people because they may or may not one day do something.

We are talking about innocent people who are capable of being responsible adults, who happen to have a mental illness.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Despanan View Post
2) If the mentally ill should enjoy all the rights and privileges of those who are not mentally ill, regardless of their condition, should they also have the same responsibilities. For instance: should courts reject the insanity plea? If not, why not?
People with mental illness simply don't enjoy all the rights and privileges of those who are not mentally ill - as has been demonstrated in this very thread.

People with mental illness have the same responsibility as people who aren't ill to not harm or injure people. "Reason of insanity" and "diminished capacity" pleas don't abjure them of that responsibility.

This question is invalid because we're not talking about what should happen to someone with a mental illness who is charged with [insert violent crime here]. Once again, we are talking about innocent people who have an illness.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Despanan View Post
3) If self-determination should never be removed under any circumstances, should children enjoy the same level of self-determination as adults? How about criminals or felons? Should people never be placed in prison? Why?
We aren't discussing children, criminals or felons. We aren't discussing people who are incapable of making informed choices because of age, or people who are being penalised for previously making poor choices.

We are talking about innocent adults who happen to have an illness.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Despanan View Post
4) If self-determination can be reasonably removed by society under specific circumstances, are there any circumstances in which it is reasonable to remove reasonable levels of self-determination from the mentally ill, depending upon their condition? ie: If it is likely that a schizophrenic's condition is so advanced that they have become a danger to themselves and others, is it ableism to involuntarily commit them?

Most people with mental illnesses who are hospitalised are done so in a voluntary manner. Most people with mental illness have insight into their condition and they want to be well. Those that are involuntarily hospitalised will often come to the point where they see the need for treatment while they were acutely ill and understand that it was in their best interests... but that insight occurs after the acute phase of their illness has passed.

What you don't seem to be grasping is that mental illness is a chronic condition with acute phases - this means that most of the time it is controlled, most of the time we have insight into our condition, most of the time we manage it. Occasionally there are acute periods where we need help in managing things - just like asthma, just like diabetes.

You don't seem to understand that we are responsible adults, capable of making mature and wise choices for our own lives... it's just that we also have an illness.

We deserve the exact same rights as everyone else.


~~~

Now, as an aside:

Will you please check your privilege and be more careful of your language.

It isn't "committed", it is "involuntary hospitalisation".
It isn't "the mentally ill", it's "people with mental illness".
And it isn't "schizophrenic" it is "person with schizophrenia".

It mightn't seem like a big deal for you, but it perpetuates the idea of "other" and is not only personally hurtful, but is harmful on a wider level.
Miss Absynthe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2012, 09:27 PM   #204
Miss Absynthe
 
Miss Absynthe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Hell, it's other people & both of them are you
Posts: 1,001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solumina View Post
It is pretty fucking clear ableism if you just flat out say alcoholics shouldn't be allowed to drive, now if they have received a DWI that is a completely different scenario as they have taken action that proves they are willing and able to break the law but plenty of alcoholics go through life (treated or untreated) and do not ever drink and drive.
As well as the fact that a lot of DWI offences are committed by people who aren't alcoholics - and I'd probably hazard a guess at saying most of them are committed by people who aren't alcoholics..
Miss Absynthe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2012, 09:59 PM   #205
AshleyO
 
AshleyO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,700
I could REALLY use a smoke.
__________________
"Women hold up half the sky" -Mao

"God always picks the strangest things to get angry about. Get an abortion or gay married and he'll aim a tornado right at you.

Rip off a million poor people and Wall street has no problems. " -Rebecca B
AshleyO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2012, 10:42 PM   #206
Despanan
 
Despanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sugar Hill
Posts: 3,887
See? isn't this better than whiny, passive aggressive posts, gifs and memes which exchange no information other than a general sense of BAAAWWW?

Now we're communicating. Thank you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solumina
It is pretty fucking clear ableism if you just flat out say alcoholics shouldn't be allowed to drive, now if they have received a DWI that is a completely different scenario as they have taken action that proves they are willing and able to break the law but plenty of alcoholics go through life (treated or untreated) and do not ever drink and drive.
1) I didn't flat-out say alcoholics shouldn't be allowed to drive.

2) The problem here, is, of course that alcoholics are most often not diagnosed until their condition becomes such a severe problem that it results in criminal activity.

Quote:
People with mental illness simply don't enjoy all the rights and privileges of those who are not mentally ill - as has been demonstrated in this very thread.
Hence why I used the qualifier "should".

Quote:
People with mental illness have the same responsibility as people who aren't ill to not harm or injure people. "Reason of insanity" and "diminished capacity" pleas don't abjure them of that responsibility.
Yes they do. That's the whole point of an insanity defense:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
In criminal trials, the insanity defense is where the defendant claims they are not responsible for their actions due to mental health problems (psychiatric illness or mental handicap)...A defendant claiming insanity is pleading "not guilty by reason of insanity" (NGRI) or "guilty but insane/mentally ill" in some jurisdictions which, if successful, may result in the defendant being committed to a psychiatric facility for an indeterminate period.
Quote:
This question is invalid because we're not talking about what should happen to someone with a mental illness who is charged with [insert violent crime here]. Once again, we are talking about innocent people who have an illness.
No, we're talking about social precedent, (at least that's what I'm talking about). My argument is that we can find reasonable pretext to strip someone of certain rights, either temporarily or permanently. One of these pretexts can be the presence of impaired reasoning and/or impaired perception. Certain mental disorders, if they are severe enough can be seen as reasonable pretext to do this, the specific situation in question determining the extent of the loss of rights.

This can run all the way from increased caution (for instance requiring epileptics to be in treatment and to have gone a certain amount of days without a seizure) to involuntary hospitalization.

You don't seem to disagree with me on this point (tell me if you do) so I'm going to assume you were simply confused because I used "paranoid schizophrenics" generally and didn't specify. My bad.

Quote:
We aren't discussing children, criminals or felons. We aren't discussing people who are incapable of making informed choices because of age, or people who are being penalised for previously making poor choices.

We are talking about innocent adults who happen to have an illness.
But mental illnesses can render people incapable of making informed choices. What do we do then?

Quote:
What you don't seem to be grasping is that mental illness is a chronic condition with acute phases - this means that most of the time it is controlled, most of the time we have insight into our condition, most of the time we manage it. Occasionally there are acute periods where we need help in managing things - just like asthma, just like diabetes.
No, I get that, which is why I thought the epilepsy comparison was particularly good. Are you arguing that drivers with epilepsy should be treated exactly the same as drivers without it? Because if not, then once again, we don't disagree.

Quote:
We deserve the exact same rights as everyone else.
Okay, but the problem here is that this is in direct contradiction with involuntary hospitalization...oh WAIT, okay now I think I get it.

Question: are you defining a person with mental illnesses as a group which doesn't include people who have reached a point where they're a danger to themselves and/or others?

Because that would explain why we're having this problem.


Quote:
You don't seem to understand that we are responsible adults, capable of making mature and wise choices for our own lives... it's just that we also have an illness.
I said nothing of the sort. I'm sorry if you got that impression, it was not my intention. I'll try to use more politically correct language in the future, I was not aware that the terms I was using were incorrect.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by KontanKarite
I promote radical change through my actions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger
I have chugged more than ten epic boners.
Despanan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2012, 10:47 PM   #207
Solumina
 
Solumina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Cali
Posts: 8,030
Quote:
Originally Posted by Despanan View Post
2) The problem here, is, of course that alcoholics are most often not diagnosed until their condition becomes such a severe problem that it results in criminal activity.
Can you source that for me?
__________________
Live a life less ordinary
Live a life extraordinary with me
Live a life less sedentary
Live a life evolutionary with me
-Carbon Leaf
Solumina is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2012, 11:00 PM   #208
Versus
 
Versus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,812
Quote:
Originally Posted by Despanan View Post
I said nothing of the sort. I'm sorry if you got that impression, it was not my intention. I'll try to use more politically correct language in the future, I was not aware that the terms I was using were incorrect.
That's kind of weird.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss Absynthe View Post
Also, it's interesting that when talking about people with paranoid schizophrenia they are labelled as "paranoid schizophrenics" (making that their primary descriptor, instead of "people with..."), but talking about people with depression or ADHD they are "those suffering from minor depression or ADHD".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Versus View Post
I was going to mention that people with MI aren't any more violent then people without, but then I remembered that I already said that a couple times. Also, I think MissAbsythne said calling people with schizophrenia schizophrenics is lame.
__________________
Woke up with fifty enemies plottin' my death
All fifty seein' visions of me shot in the chest
Couldn't rest, nah nigga I was stressed
Had me creepin' 'round corners, homie sleepin' in my vest.


-Breathin, Tupac.
Versus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2012, 11:22 PM   #209
Miss Absynthe
 
Miss Absynthe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Hell, it's other people & both of them are you
Posts: 1,001
Miss Absynthe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2012, 11:28 PM   #210
Jonathan
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: northeast us
Posts: 887
There is a difference between "factually incorrect" and "perceived to be insensitive". For example, "committed" is a perfectly accurate term. Of course whether it is factually correct or not has no bearing on whether your choice of terminology will be subject to a 3+ page detour, so may as well just call it hospitalization to keep everyone happy.
Jonathan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2012, 07:53 AM   #211
Despanan
 
Despanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sugar Hill
Posts: 3,887
Versus: did you mean to use ableist language to complain about me using ableist language? Like is your "lame" post some kind of joke?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by KontanKarite
I promote radical change through my actions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger
I have chugged more than ten epic boners.
Despanan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2012, 09:47 AM   #212
Versus
 
Versus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,812
What I meant to do was tell you that you were bothering her after she already told you. I'm not sure why you ignored it, but now you know.
__________________
Woke up with fifty enemies plottin' my death
All fifty seein' visions of me shot in the chest
Couldn't rest, nah nigga I was stressed
Had me creepin' 'round corners, homie sleepin' in my vest.


-Breathin, Tupac.
Versus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2012, 09:51 AM   #213
Versus
 
Versus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,812
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan View Post
There is a difference between "factually incorrect" and "perceived to be insensitive". For example, "committed" is a perfectly accurate term. Of course whether it is factually correct or not has no bearing on whether your choice of terminology will be subject to a 3+ page detour, so may as well just call it hospitalization to keep everyone happy.
You know, I've heard the same thing in defense of the n-word. Why can't everybody just get over themselves and rise above it like you can, amirite?
__________________
Woke up with fifty enemies plottin' my death
All fifty seein' visions of me shot in the chest
Couldn't rest, nah nigga I was stressed
Had me creepin' 'round corners, homie sleepin' in my vest.


-Breathin, Tupac.
Versus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2012, 11:07 AM   #214
gothicusmaximus
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,687
Remember Dirty Harry? Basically this guy the Scorpio Killer is on a sniping spree; Clint Eastwood totally has his number, but is flummoxed by pesky Miranda rights and constitutional provisions against unlawful search and seizure. To stick to your progressive dare-I-say-guns is hard in the context of this superlative scenario, but, in the absence of a legally evincible crime, society's moral imperative is to extend the same rights and freedoms to all people, even the Scorpio Killer, because once the exception is made, it'll be no time at all before an innocent person falls through those cracks.
To my mind, the right to bear arms is not worth its cost and our society should not provide it. Conversely, the right of a person perceived as "mentally ill" to not be treated as a criminal or potential criminal purely for the configuration of their brain is one we should highly prize.
gothicusmaximus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2012, 12:36 PM   #215
Jonathan
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: northeast us
Posts: 887
"I think there are a vast majority of responsible gun owners out there who recognize that we can't have a situation in which somebody with severe psychological problems is able to get the kind of high capacity weapons that this individual in Newtown obtained and gun down our kids. And, yes, it's going to be hard."

-President Barack Obama, ableist.
Jonathan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2012, 12:44 PM   #216
Versus
 
Versus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,812
That doesn't even make sense. They weren't his guns. I hope he means a blanket ban, rather then a criteria ban.

Also, on the side, motherfucking EVERYWHERE is sold out of magazines so they've sky rocketed in price. I have 7 30 round P-mags and 10 30 round standard mags I could fetch for over a thousand dollars on e-bay or a gun show.
__________________
Woke up with fifty enemies plottin' my death
All fifty seein' visions of me shot in the chest
Couldn't rest, nah nigga I was stressed
Had me creepin' 'round corners, homie sleepin' in my vest.


-Breathin, Tupac.
Versus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2012, 12:48 PM   #217
Jonathan
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: northeast us
Posts: 887
Legislation mandating that private owners lock their shit up securely would have a better chance of preventing a repeat. A simple combination safe and most of us would have never even heard of Sandy Hook.
Jonathan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2012, 01:12 PM   #218
Saya
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 9,548
Not really. 1) How do you prove its locked up? The cops can't go into your house and make sure its locked up all the time. 2) Lanza was an adult, not a child or a teenager, like many American adults his mother thought guns would be good for protection. I don't think it would have been totally out there if it was left accessible to him he would be able to defend himself should the worst happen. Its not like he was a five year old, she thought he was responsible enough to go shooting with. He would still also be old enough to get a gun of his own, so he could easily do that. Go to a gun show and he wouldn't even have to do a background check.

Also, how do we even ban guns from getting into the hands of the mentally ill? Questionairres are garbage, I know exactly what to say to make myself appear the picture of mental health when it comes to that sort of thing. The only way to do it is to mandate everyone go to therapy and get a clean bill, which is ridiculous, expensive and isn't going to happen.
Saya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2012, 01:19 PM   #219
AshleyO
 
AshleyO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,700
Not to mention what kind of message it would send to just about everyone to blanket assess everyone's mental health on the terms that we want to own guns. It'd be a PR nightmare and stigmatize MI even more.
__________________
"Women hold up half the sky" -Mao

"God always picks the strangest things to get angry about. Get an abortion or gay married and he'll aim a tornado right at you.

Rip off a million poor people and Wall street has no problems. " -Rebecca B
AshleyO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2012, 01:33 PM   #220
Versus
 
Versus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,812
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saya View Post
Also, how do we even ban guns from getting into the hands of the mentally ill? Questionairres are garbage, I know exactly what to say to make myself appear the picture of mental health when it comes to that sort of thing.
God forbid I actually talk to someone.







__________________
Woke up with fifty enemies plottin' my death
All fifty seein' visions of me shot in the chest
Couldn't rest, nah nigga I was stressed
Had me creepin' 'round corners, homie sleepin' in my vest.


-Breathin, Tupac.
Versus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2012, 01:56 PM   #221
Jonathan
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: northeast us
Posts: 887
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saya View Post
Not really. 1) How do you prove its locked up? The cops can't go into your house and make sure its locked up all the time. 2) Lanza was an adult, not a child or a teenager, like many American adults his mother thought guns would be good for protection. I don't think it would have been totally out there if it was left accessible to him he would be able to defend himself should the worst happen. Its not like he was a five year old, she thought he was responsible enough to go shooting with. He would still also be old enough to get a gun of his own, so he could easily do that. Go to a gun show and he wouldn't even have to do a background check.

Also, how do we even ban guns from getting into the hands of the mentally ill? Questionairres are garbage, I know exactly what to say to make myself appear the picture of mental health when it comes to that sort of thing. The only way to do it is to mandate everyone go to therapy and get a clean bill, which is ridiculous, expensive and isn't going to happen.
Impossible to prove whether it is always kept properly locked up, but making every potential purchaser show proof that they own an adequate gun safe or are purchasing one with their firearm at least ensures that the weapon can be secured. I can't prove everyone driving a car is using their seatbelt, but I think every car should have them, and I think failing to use it is a pretty clear example of irresponsible use and ownership. Nancy Lanza's personal assessment of whether her son was responsible enough to handle firearms on his own or not was tragically insufficient.

How to enforce? I'm sure we can figure something out. Periodic inspections might be one possible solution - just like building owners need to show that potential safety issues like elevator service or fire suppression systems are in proper order. Require owners of firearms to have the weapon constantly under the direct supervision of it's owner, either carried on person or securely locked with exclusive access; making reasonable exceptions for transit or servicing. Giving anyone else in the household or out of it uncontrolled access to the firearm; adult, minor, significant other, whoever, is irresponsible ownership.

Maybe a state-approved board of mental health experts can decide how they will determine fitness of mind for firearm purchases, and then issue a certificate that people who qualify for can frame or put on the fridge that will allow them to make the purchase. I'm sure there are other ways.

As you can see, we're already doing (a very poor job of) psychological screening. Why not try to make it actually effective?
Jonathan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2012, 04:15 PM   #222
Miss Absynthe
 
Miss Absynthe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Hell, it's other people & both of them are you
Posts: 1,001
Quote:
Originally Posted by ashleyo View Post
...and stigmatize mi even more.
^^^this!!!
Miss Absynthe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2012, 04:25 PM   #223
Miss Absynthe
 
Miss Absynthe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Hell, it's other people & both of them are you
Posts: 1,001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan View Post
Maybe a state-approved board of mental health experts can decide how they will determine fitness of mind for firearm purchases, and then issue a certificate that people who qualify for can frame or put on the fridge that will allow them to make the purchase. I'm sure there are other ways.

As you can see, we're already doing (a very poor job of) psychological screening. Why not try to make it actually effective?
You should look into the processes behind the writing of the DSM to see how well boards of mental health experts work together.

As for effective psychological screening - it won't work, because EVERYONE has some level of psychological issue, and we each deal or don't deal with it in different ways.

I have spoken with people who are SO fucked up from trauma that they've gone through and who beat themselves up because their shitty thing wasn't anywhere near as bad as [insert name]'s shitty thing. We need to stop trying to think of these things in quantifiable terms, because we're dealing with the way that people feel and their responses to internal states - and they aren't quantifiable.
Miss Absynthe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2012, 08:48 PM   #224
Saya
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 9,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan View Post
Impossible to prove whether it is always kept properly locked up, but making every potential purchaser show proof that they own an adequate gun safe or are purchasing one with their firearm at least ensures that the weapon can be secured. I can't prove everyone driving a car is using their seatbelt, but I think every car should have them, and I think failing to use it is a pretty clear example of irresponsible use and ownership. Nancy Lanza's personal assessment of whether her son was responsible enough to handle firearms on his own or not was tragically insufficient.

How to enforce? I'm sure we can figure something out. Periodic inspections might be one possible solution - just like building owners need to show that potential safety issues like elevator service or fire suppression systems are in proper order. Require owners of firearms to have the weapon constantly under the direct supervision of it's owner, either carried on person or securely locked with exclusive access; making reasonable exceptions for transit or servicing. Giving anyone else in the household or out of it uncontrolled access to the firearm; adult, minor, significant other, whoever, is irresponsible ownership.
Good luck with that. A lady on another forum I frequent who's in a pretty gun happy place mentioned that for Christmas her inlaws all got each other guns as gifts. I was shocked that was legal, but apparently it is. Only some states would ask there would be a transfer of ownership paperwork at a dealership, so there are a frighteningly large amount of firearms that could be passed around with no back checks or anything quite easily. There's also the gun show loophole that still hasn't be closed, even after Columbine.

If getting a back ground check is revolutionary, just imagine trying to get into someone's house to make sure its locked up. You think Deadman would let cops in for that?

Quote:
Maybe a state-approved board of mental health experts can decide how they will determine fitness of mind for firearm purchases, and then issue a certificate that people who qualify for can frame or put on the fridge that will allow them to make the purchase. I'm sure there are other ways.

As you can see, we're already doing (a very poor job of) psychological screening. Why not try to make it actually effective?
Because how can you? Say someone is pretty far into the psychotic spectrum. That person is an amazing con artist. Many have been able to play psychologists, Eric Harris, one of the Columbine shooters, got glowing reports while he was in a juvenile Diversion program from two counselors. Its fairly easy to manipulate and hide one's illnesses unless its a fairly extreme form.

Not only that, but who would cover the costs of intake therapy to get a gun? Taxpayers probably wouldn't want to pay for it, and to make anyone who wants a gun pay for it is classist and would mean that only the wealthy can afford to have guns, when chances are they are the ones with the lesser need.
Saya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-2012, 01:35 AM   #225
Jonathan
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: northeast us
Posts: 887
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saya View Post
Good luck with that. A lady on another forum I frequent who's in a pretty gun happy place mentioned that for Christmas her inlaws all got each other guns as gifts. I was shocked that was legal, but apparently it is. Only some states would ask there would be a transfer of ownership paperwork at a dealership, so there are a frighteningly large amount of firearms that could be passed around with no back checks or anything quite easily. There's also the gun show loophole that still hasn't be closed, even after Columbine.
I'm pretty sure straw purchases for firearms are not legal, if she is located in the US she admitted on an internet forum to making fraudulent statements on a Federal form. I ain't a lawyer or nothing, but

"12a. Are you the actual buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring
the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual buyer, the dealer cannot transfer the firearm(s) to
you. (See Important Notice 1 for actual buyer definition and examples.)" seems pretty cut and dry. If they gave each other hundreds of dollars in cash or gift certificates with which to make the purchases, then they are cool, but actually buying a glock or whatever to wrap up in a box for someone else is a no-no.

The "gun show loophole" applies to any private seller - any actual FFL still needs to do the standard background check and so forth, that just applies to sales between private individuals, for example if you decide you want to sell a gun of yours when gun-dealing is not your primary profession, and it can only be done between state residents. Out of state, it has to be conducted through an FFL. Personally I think it should have to be done through an FFL regardless.

Quote:
If getting a back ground check is revolutionary, just imagine trying to get into someone's house to make sure its locked up. You think Deadman would let cops in for that?
I hear you for sure on this one, and knowing a gun nut or two, it could be a problem. A big one. I don't see an easy answer to this. Actual efforts to enforce this would have to be handled, well, diplomatically, to avoid having a siege. I just don't think doing nothing is the way to go.

Quote:
Because how can you? Say someone is pretty far into the psychotic spectrum. That person is an amazing con artist. Many have been able to play psychologists, Eric Harris, one of the Columbine shooters, got glowing reports while he was in a juvenile Diversion program from two counselors. Its fairly easy to manipulate and hide one's illnesses unless its a fairly extreme form.
It is, and I don't believe any one approach would stop everyone hell-bent on carrying out a mass killing with 100% certainty. I do think that it is possible to stop some - if you can catch them before they get set in motion. This is why I was advocating earlier for better access to mental health care - the time to stop these guys is not necessarily at the point of purchase, although I don't think it's a bad idea to do some kind of psych screening there just in case.

Quote:
Not only that, but who would cover the costs of intake therapy to get a gun? Taxpayers probably wouldn't want to pay for it, and to make anyone who wants a gun pay for it is classist and would mean that only the wealthy can afford to have guns, when chances are they are the ones with the lesser need.
I'd like to see it covered by tax payers, just the like current cost for the NICS background check, the person at the counter buying a gun doesn't foot the bill for that. Of course I'd like public option health care and a pony, even though those will probably not happen. Still, raising the cost for the individual isn't the answer. The goal shouldn't be keeping guns away from poor people, it's about keeping them out of the hands of people who will misuse them. I don't want rich people or anyone else being irresponsible or malicious with a gun. Casting too wide a net is definitely a problem, you don't want to disenfranchise someone on a whim, but it's becoming more clear that not doing anything at all is not a viable strategy.
Jonathan is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:04 AM.