If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Bloomberg)   State seizes weapons from homes of mentally ill. Judging by the derp in the comments section, the mentally ill have a problem with this   (bloomberg.com) divider line 438
    More: Stupid, California, registered owner, Vice President Joe Biden, probable cause, assault weapons  
•       •       •

11845 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Mar 2013 at 3:48 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



438 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-13 04:28:35 PM  

Boeheimian Rhapsody: you know, there are some days I come to fark and I just want to hug people.


Don't, it doesn't seem to take her too long to get attached.

/kidding
 
2013-03-13 04:28:45 PM  

justtray: Happy Hours: monoski: Sounds like a good program. The mentally ill and felons should not have guns.

Define "mentally ill" for us, please.

People involuntarily committed is a no brainer. Theres already a process for getting that in Cali I believe its not easy.


involuntarily committed = police or a doctor (or in Florida, anyone. Baker Act.) thinks you're acting crazy. involuntarily committed for more than 48 hours = a doctor filled out a form saying that at that moment you might be a 'danger to yourself or others' and a judge rubber stamped it. you never go before the judge or anything, someone just puts a pile of papers on his (her) desk and he automatically signs them all.

if you called a suicide hotline 15 years ago when some really bad stuff was going on and you felt hopeless, then the cops came and took you to a hospital where you stayed for observation and were deemed safe and released 4 days later with a temp prescription and a followup appointment, and you've been well since, does that mean that you should never be able to own a gun?

and is registration a california thing? at one point i owned close to 20 guns, but none were registered to me or to previous owners. seems odd you'd want to file paperwork with the state to tell them about your gun.
 
2013-03-13 04:29:55 PM  

the801: involuntarily committed = police or a doctor (or in Florida, anyone. Baker Act.) thinks you're acting crazy. involuntarily committed for more than 48 hours = a doctor filled out a form saying that at that moment you might be a 'danger to yourself or others' and a judge rubber stamped it. you never go before the judge or anything, someone just puts a pile of papers on his (her) desk and he automatically signs them all.


Uh, you're confusing a 24 hour psychiatric hold with an involuntary commitment. Involuntary commitment requires a court hearing, not just a "rubber stamped" form.
 
2013-03-13 04:30:51 PM  

skozlaw: trey101: So tell me, which one is correct?

Considering you're linking to Glenn Beck's blog I'm going to go with "whatever is the opposite of what the page says"...


gotcha, then look at the paragraph in the article that starts with
Probable Cause then read a little lower and...

"They had better luck in nearby Upland, where they seized three guns from the home of Lynette Phillips, 48, who'd been hospitalized for mental illness, and her husband, David. One gun was registered to her, two to him. "

but you have a problem with the link i showed earlier... because it is on a blog from glenn beck?  i just linked to that because it goes into more detail.
 
2013-03-13 04:31:15 PM  

Ionessa: As a gun owner who does suffer from depression I'm somewhat torn on the issue. I understand wanting to disarm possibly dangerous people, but not everyone with a mental illness is going to go on a shooting spree.
Heck, of I was going to hurt myself, or someone else, my gun doesn't even come to mind (not that I would anyways.) But then again, that could be because of the way I was brought up, respecting guns.

/just don't group me in with the crazies.
//please?


This.  This is my concern about this issue.  Not that there doesn't need to be action taken, just that it will be done with the broadest brush possible.
 
2013-03-13 04:31:41 PM  

jigger: skozlaw: jigger: So did this person whose guns were confiscated receive due process of law as required by the 5th amendment?

Maybe you should try reading and comprehending the article before you post things that make no sense within its context.

This person was deprived of property by the state. According to the 5th amendment, this requires due process of law. Did this person receive it? I'd like to know if what happened is considered due process.


Being involuntarily committed usually requires some due process. Once a court decides you meet the standard for you no longer being allowed to own guns, you don't get an additional hearing when they decide to enforce that.
 
2013-03-13 04:32:43 PM  
cdn.buzznet.com
 
2013-03-13 04:33:07 PM  
hardinparamedic: [Citation Needed]

Citation needed for what, that psychiatry can be manipulated for political purposes? It's already happened in the past -- in the USSR and in Cuba, among other places. There's no need to sound so skeptical, you can Google it for yourself.

You sound paranoid. And like you have no idea what you're talking about.

The alleged objectivity of the DSM was already compromised when homosexuality was removed as a disorder after aggressive lobbying, so providing a hyperlink to an article about the DSM proves exactly nothing. And if paranoia means not just believing everything you hear because the speaker says "trust me, I'm an expert", every genuinely free-thinking person must be a paranoiac by your definition.
 
2013-03-13 04:33:15 PM  

chapman: WhoGAS: If you don't go to a shrink, you have nothing to worry about.  And neither do the other twelve people in my head....

You think that's funny.  But this is a great way to dissuade people with mental health issues from getting care.


The mentally ill read Fark?

Oh wait... the politics tab.
 
2013-03-13 04:35:06 PM  

cptjeff: jigger: skozlaw: jigger: So did this person whose guns were confiscated receive due process of law as required by the 5th amendment?

Maybe you should try reading and comprehending the article before you post things that make no sense within its context.

This person was deprived of property by the state. According to the 5th amendment, this requires due process of law. Did this person receive it? I'd like to know if what happened is considered due process.

Being involuntarily committed usually requires some due process. Once a court decides you meet the standard for you no longer being allowed to own guns, you don't get an additional hearing when they decide to enforce that.


Some states, California and Connecticut included, the police can seize your guns even if you haven't really done anything, so long as they can articulate some reason why they think you might be a danger to yourself or others.

There is no due process involved.
 
2013-03-13 04:36:21 PM  

Boeheimian Rhapsody: kiwimoogle84: Sniper061: I'm all for having weapons removed from the hands of those deemed mentally ill, but in reality the whole system needs to be reworked.  Currently in California, the belief of a single health professional, be it a nurse, a psychiatrist, whatever, is enough for a person to be deemed a hazard to other people and lose their rights to own a weapon.  In other words, THEY HAVE NO DUE PROCESS before having their rights revoked.  If this situation were unique to California, it would be easy to chalk it up to another stupid California ordinance but in reality, it is like this in most states.

What needs to happen is that if a person is believed to be dangerous, there needs to have a hearing before a judge where that person has a chance to refute the claims.  As it stands, there have been way too many people involuntarily committed simply for being "slightly depressed" because a mental health professional doesn't want to be liable if that person goes out and harms themselves or someone else.  Having a judge actually make the call solves the problem of due process as well as relieves the burden of liability from the mental health professional.

That's pretty smart actually. I myself had depression medication thrown at me several times by therapists, which is kind of BS because they didn't want to work through the problem with me, they just want to cover it up with happy pills. I wasn't one of those people who was miserable for no discernable reason though- I had emotional trauma to work through (see previous dead husband six weeks after wedding thing). I didn't want drugs, I wanted help.

Many "mental health" professionals might have seen my refusal to take medication as rejecting help and possibly tried to get ME locked up, but luckily I found a good psych guy who didn't just want to write me an rx and send me on my way. I just wonder about the repercussions of what would have happened had one therapist decide I was a risk just because I didn't want to ...


*squeeze* We don't get enough hugs around here.

You've been on the favorites for a while now- blue ok?
 
2013-03-13 04:36:35 PM  

trey101: insano: Ionessa: As a gun owner who does suffer from depression I'm somewhat torn on the issue. I understand wanting to disarm possibly dangerous people, but not everyone with a mental illness is going to go on a shooting spree.
Heck, of I was going to hurt myself, or someone else, my gun doesn't even come to mind (not that I would anyways.) But then again, that could be because of the way I was brought up, respecting guns.

/just don't group me in with the crazies.
//please?

The article says the law only applies to those who were  involuntarily committed, so you should be fine.

Guns of Law -Aiding husband confiscated after wife's single VOLUNTARY mental health visit.

So tell me, which one is correct?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/12/calif-gun-owner-who-says- sh e-admitted-herself-to-mental-hospital-for-medication-adjustment-has-gu ns-confiscated/


From your own link:
Then, when she reviewed her file, Phillips said the nurse had recorded that she was involuntarily admitted and indicated she might be a suicide risk. Phillips claims the nurse had put words into her mouth.
 
2013-03-13 04:38:31 PM  

EvilRacistNaziFascist: The alleged objectivity of the DSM was already compromised when homosexuality was removed as a disorder after aggressive lobbying, so providing a hyperlink to an article about the DSM proves exactly nothing. And if paranoia means not just believing everything you hear because the speaker says "trust me, I'm an expert", every genuinely free-thinking person must be a paranoiac by your definition.


pictures.mastermarf.com

You just lost any right to be taken seriously by making the oft-repeated claim that gay people are really mentally ill, but there's a powerful cabal keeping them from being listed as such. Oddly enough, the only people who tend to claim this are the same ones which seek to justify their irrational hatred of people. In reality, the removal of homosexuality came about because of a complete discrediting of the principles by which it was listed as a mental disorder in the first place, namely the work of the Freud camp, and the Neo-Freudians, and research in the 1950s onwards which pointed out that sexual variation among orientation was normal.

EvilRacistNaziFascist: And if paranoia means not just believing everything you hear because the speaker says "trust me, I'm an expert", every genuinely free-thinking person must be a paranoiac by your definition.


No. Paranoia is equating the modern mental health system which is run by providers themselves, and guided by evidence, with the State-run mental health system of the USSR under Communism.

Actually, I take that back. That equation doesn't make you seem paranoid. It makes you look like a complete idiot.
 
2013-03-13 04:39:32 PM  

donnielove: trey101: insano: Ionessa: As a gun owner who does suffer from depression I'm somewhat torn on the issue. I understand wanting to disarm possibly dangerous people, but not everyone with a mental illness is going to go on a shooting spree.
Heck, of I was going to hurt myself, or someone else, my gun doesn't even come to mind (not that I would anyways.) But then again, that could be because of the way I was brought up, respecting guns.

/just don't group me in with the crazies.
//please?

The article says the law only applies to those who were  involuntarily committed, so you should be fine.

Guns of Law -Aiding husband confiscated after wife's single VOLUNTARY mental health visit.

So tell me, which one is correct?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/12/calif-gun-owner-who-says- sh e-admitted-herself-to-mental-hospital-for-medication-adjustment-has-gu ns-confiscated/

From your own link:
Then, when she reviewed her file, Phillips said the nurse had recorded that she was involuntarily admitted and indicated she might be a suicide risk. Phillips claims the nurse had put words into her mouth.


if you are going to use a quote use the ENTIRE quote.

"Phillips told TheBlaze she had an adjustment to her medication in December and could not stop crying. Her personal psychiatrist suggested she go to Aurora Charter Oak Hospital in Covina, Calif., where she said she was admitted voluntarily, not a threat to herself or others. Then, when she reviewed her file, Phillips said the nurse had recorded that she was involuntarily admitted and indicated she might be a suicide risk. Phillips claims the nurse had put words into her mouth.
"I kept telling her I had a grand-baby at home and had to be better for Christmas," she said. "Does that sound like the words of someone who is a risk to themselves and others?"


still wanna fark that chicken?
 
2013-03-13 04:39:44 PM  
hardinparamedic:  Well, if a random New York Times op-ed writer speaks for the left in your mind,

[Citation needed]. I never said that, sunshine.

you don't get the right to marginalize any member of the GOP media brigade when they say something stupid.

I'm not a Republican, so I have no idea why I supposed to care about the reputation of the "GOP media brigade", whatever that is.

Q.E.D. Todd Akin now represents the mainstream Republican party.


I think you know very well that most left-liberal Farkers do indeed blame the entirety of the GOP whenever a Republican politician says something silly.
 
2013-03-13 04:39:48 PM  

Molavian: Boeheimian Rhapsody: you know, there are some days I come to fark and I just want to hug people.

Don't, it doesn't seem to take her too long to get attached.

/kidding


Did you want a hug too? WAY more effective than Prozac.
 
2013-03-13 04:40:35 PM  

Ionessa: As a gun owner who does suffer from depression I'm somewhat torn on the issue. I understand wanting to disarm possibly dangerous people, but not everyone with a mental illness is going to go on a shooting spree.
Heck, of I was going to hurt myself, or someone else, my gun doesn't even come to mind (not that I would anyways.) But then again, that could be because of the way I was brought up, respecting guns.

/just don't group me in with the crazies.
//please?


The depressed tend to just kill themselves while the crazies who make threats before rampaging are the real problem. So you go ahead and hold onto your gun until you need it lil buddy.
 
2013-03-13 04:41:41 PM  
Ah, California.

imageshack.us
 
2013-03-13 04:42:11 PM  

dittybopper: so long as they can articulate some reason why they think you might be a danger to yourself or others.


dittybopper: There is no due process involved.


You mean articulate that before a judge?

Due process does not always work the way you're imagining it to.
 
2013-03-13 04:42:52 PM  
Considering homosexuality used to be considered a mental defect, I guess we'll have to confiscate all the guns from them. 

Fabulous!
 
2013-03-13 04:43:39 PM  

EvilRacistNaziFascist: [Citation needed]. I never said that, sunshine.


Of course you didn't. But don't pretend you didn't infer it. Don't play stupid. You're more intelligent than that. If you're going to make idiotic claims, at least have the gall to stand by them and defend them when called out, don't backtrack.

Your inference was that "This is what they believe", namely an Op-Ed in the NYT with a poor grasp of - well, everything - speaks for the majority of Americans who think different than you.

The only reason you trotted that out was to set up an appeal to ridicule.

EvilRacistNaziFascist: I'm not a Republican, so I have no idea why I supposed to care about the reputation of the "GOP media brigade", whatever that is.


Of course you're not a Republican. You're a right winger. The real republicans died off with the Southern Strategy when it ceased being the party of Lincoln.

 You've already proven that by making absurd claims, like a conspiracy of teh ghei was the reason we don't lock up those dirty homos anymore. You just don't get to play the poor, persecuted believer, when you make the same tactics.
 
2013-03-13 04:44:10 PM  

kiwimoogle84: Molavian: Boeheimian Rhapsody: you know, there are some days I come to fark and I just want to hug people.

Don't, it doesn't seem to take her too long to get attached.

/kidding

Did you want a hug too? WAY more effective than Prozac.


I'll take a down south mouth hug. They are even better than normal hugs.
 
2013-03-13 04:44:17 PM  

JesseL: jfivealive: There's no reason to own a gun anwyays

Well shiat, it's a good thing you told me. Guess I'll get rid of mine then.

/never mind about the hunting
//and recreational target shooting
///and self defense
////-from people and dangerous animals
////and keeping the king of England out of your face



/The food in the mall is already dead
//Those targets better not shoot back
///It's a war zone out there
////I gotta move out of the zoo
////Don't shoot - swallow.
 
2013-03-13 04:44:19 PM  

stevetherobot: way south: timujin: They didn't seize his guns, just told him he had to get rid of them or turn them in, so he "sold" them to his brother.

That'sreasonable.
"The state gets to take your stuff with no warrant, arrest, or trial", not so reasonable.

/The cause may be just but the method is shady, to say the least.
/This sort of thing is not really selling the "gun registry" idea to owners.

Hey, if asset forfeiture is legal then so is this.


Assuming its a punishment that comes to pass through proper procedures.
Say You did something wrong, so you got penalized.

"We heard the owner was sick, so we talked our way into the house and took stuff" sounds more like a flimsy excuse you'd hear from a burglar rather than a cop.
 
2013-03-13 04:44:27 PM  

Bigdogdaddy: Considering homosexuality used to be considered a mental defect, I guess we'll have to confiscate all the guns from them. 

Fabulous!


That was then, this in now.
 
2013-03-13 04:45:40 PM  
Agents also took 117,000 rounds of ammunition and 11,000 high-capacity magazines, according to state data.

Subby here's the non-derp in the story.  Why take these?  What is the person going to do with them, make booby traps?

Merely being in a database of registered gun owners and having a "disqualifying event," such as a felony conviction or restraining order, isn't sufficient evidence for a search warrant, Marsh said March 5 during raids in San Bernardino County. So the agents often must talk their way into a residence to look for weapons, he said.

So basically these people were stupid enough to let the cops in without a warrant and let them conduct a search.  How about "come back with a warrant?"

Went off to spend some quality time in the state correctional facility, maybe you don't need a firearm, spend a number of months in the local nut grove and still on meds, maybe you don't need a firearm.  But a restraining order?  Really?  Why is that a seizure and not a temporary handing over of the weapons until the order is lifted?

The lesson is if you want to keep your firearms under those circumstances, transfer them to friend or family member you trust and when the cops show up for them, tell you don't own any and go away.
 
2013-03-13 04:47:01 PM  

Bigdogdaddy: Considering homosexuality used to be considered a mental defect, I guess we'll have to confiscate all the guns from them. 

Fabulous!


Sorry, we have already been shown in this thread that the inclusion, and eventual exclusion of homosexuality as a mental disorder is proof that the system works.
 
2013-03-13 04:48:04 PM  

kiwimoogle84: Molavian: Boeheimian Rhapsody: you know, there are some days I come to fark and I just want to hug people.

Don't, it doesn't seem to take her too long to get attached.

/kidding

Did you want a hug too? WAY more effective than Prozac.


i184.photobucket.com

Says you.
 
2013-03-13 04:48:25 PM  
What a wonderful precedent. "You took responsible action and sought help for your depression, pardon us while we take away your rights". I wonder how long before gun ownership is added to the DSM as a mental illness. Then they can confiscate all the guns.
 
2013-03-13 04:48:33 PM  

kiwimoogle84: Boeheimian Rhapsody: kiwimoogle84: Sniper061: I'm all for having weapons removed from the hands of those deemed mentally ill, but in reality the whole system needs to be reworked.  Currently in California, the belief of a single health professional, be it a nurse, a psychiatrist, whatever, is enough for a person to be deemed a hazard to other people and lose their rights to own a weapon.  In other words, THEY HAVE NO DUE PROCESS before having their rights revoked.  If this situation were unique to California, it would be easy to chalk it up to another stupid California ordinance but in reality, it is like this in most states.

What needs to happen is that if a person is believed to be dangerous, there needs to have a hearing before a judge where that person has a chance to refute the claims.  As it stands, there have been way too many people involuntarily committed simply for being "slightly depressed" because a mental health professional doesn't want to be liable if that person goes out and harms themselves or someone else.  Having a judge actually make the call solves the problem of due process as well as relieves the burden of liability from the mental health professional.

That's pretty smart actually. I myself had depression medication thrown at me several times by therapists, which is kind of BS because they didn't want to work through the problem with me, they just want to cover it up with happy pills. I wasn't one of those people who was miserable for no discernable reason though- I had emotional trauma to work through (see previous dead husband six weeks after wedding thing). I didn't want drugs, I wanted help.

Many "mental health" professionals might have seen my refusal to take medication as rejecting help and possibly tried to get ME locked up, but luckily I found a good psych guy who didn't just want to write me an rx and send me on my way. I just wonder about the repercussions of what would have happened had one therapist decide I was a risk just beca ...


Blue is awesome. And thank you!
 
2013-03-13 04:49:16 PM  

hardinparamedic: EvilRacistNaziFascist: The alleged objectivity of the DSM was already compromised when homosexuality was removed as a disorder after aggressive lobbying, so providing a hyperlink to an article about the DSM proves exactly nothing. And if paranoia means not just believing everything you hear because the speaker says "trust me, I'm an expert", every genuinely free-thinking person must be a paranoiac by your definition.

You just lost any right to be taken seriously by making the oft-repeated claim that gay people are really mentally ill,


I never made any such claim. Can you even read? I said that homosexuality was removed from the DSM after aggressive lobbying; I never advanced any opinion as whether or not it should have been in there in the first place. Look pal, I know you desperately want to do battle with some kind of evil fantasy conservative who hates everyone, but he doesn't exist.

but there's a powerful cabal keeping them from being listed as such. Oddly enough, the only people who tend to claim this are the same ones which seek to justify their irrational hatred of people. In reality, the removal of homosexuality came about because of a complete discrediting of the principles by which it was listed as a mental disorder in the first place, namely the work of the Freud camp, and the Neo-Freudians, and research in the 1950s onwards which pointed out that sexual variation among orientation was normal.

"In the early 1970s, activists campaigned against the DSM classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder, protesting at APA offices and at annual meetings from 1970 to 1973. In 1973 the Board of Trustees voted to remove homosexuality as a disorder category from the DSM, a decision ratified by a majority (58%) of the general APA membership the following year."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Psychiatric_Association


No. Paranoia is equating the modern mental health system which is run by providers themselves, and guided by evidence, with the State-run mental health system of the USSR under Communism.

Because the modern mental health system is staffed by infallible human beings who would never let their own prejudices and biases guide their decisions? If you believe that, you're even more foolish than you sound.

Actually, I take that back. That equation doesn't make you seem paranoid. It makes you look like a complete idiot.

I'm cut to the quick by this insult from a grown man who adores cartoon ponies.
 
2013-03-13 04:49:43 PM  

Bigdogdaddy: Considering homosexuality used to be considered a mental defect, I guess we'll have to confiscate all the guns from them.

Fabulous!

 
2013-03-13 04:51:54 PM  
So if someone were to start an L.L.C. and have that purchase their guns, what's the outcome?
 
2013-03-13 04:52:20 PM  

mark12A: Plus, the government will s-l-o-w-l-y stretch out the definition of crazy (cray-cray??) until they can disarm anybody they want, at any time, like troulemaking political opponents.....


img96.imageshack.us
 
2013-03-13 04:52:23 PM  

umad: kiwimoogle84: Molavian: Boeheimian Rhapsody: you know, there are some days I come to fark and I just want to hug people.

Don't, it doesn't seem to take her too long to get attached.

/kidding

Did you want a hug too? WAY more effective than Prozac.

I'll take a down south mouth hug. They are even better than normal hugs.


farm9.staticflickr.com
 
2013-03-13 04:55:03 PM  

hardinparamedic: EvilRacistNaziFascist: [Citation needed]. I never said that, sunshine.

Of course you didn't. But don't pretend you didn't infer it.


If I didn't say it, I didn't say it -- simple as that. You don't get to pretend that you're a Magic Internet Mindreader by claiming that I was really "thinking" it.

And by the way, the verb you're looking for is "imply", not "infer".

The only reason you trotted that out was to set up an appeal to ridicule.

I do believe the implication that the Constitution is obsolete because it was written by "white males" is ridiculous (not to mention racist, sexist etc.) However, I still didn't say that all Leftists share this view. Why don't you stop floundering and admit you were wrong?

Of course you're not a Republican. You're a right winger. The real republicans died off with the Southern Strategy when it ceased being the party of Lincoln.

O parochial one, have you considered that I might not even be an American?

You've already proven that by making absurd claims, like a conspiracy of teh ghei was the reason we don't lock up those dirty homos anymore.

Never said this either. What a tremendously fertile imagination you have! Keep making stuff up tho', it's awfully entertaining.
 
2013-03-13 04:55:28 PM  
s18.postimage.org
 
2013-03-13 04:56:21 PM  
If you want to own or own a gun, you're mentally ill. If you're mentally ill, you can't own a gun.
 
2013-03-13 04:56:39 PM  
WITHOUT THEIR WEAPONS THEY'LL BE DEFENSELESS!!!  Then it's just a waiting game.  Called the cops?  She's crazy!  It's not like I was the one who shaved one letter into each of her cats to spell out "Thundercats are on the move!".  I'm allergic to dander.  She's clearly crazy in the head and about '80's cartoons.
 
m00
2013-03-13 04:56:55 PM  

mark12A: Plus, the government will s-l-o-w-l-y stretch out the definition of crazy (cray-cray??) until they can disarm anybody they want, at any time, like troulemaking political opponents.....


Came to make this comment. If the government can take away X from people who are deemed "crazy," and the government gets to defined what "crazy" is, then nobody has a right to X.

Haven't you ever heard someone say "it's crazy to own a gun?" Well, if wanting to own a gun makes you crazy, and crazy people are deprived of guns, fantastic catch-22.
 
2013-03-13 04:57:11 PM  

EvilRacistNaziFascist: hardinparamedic: EvilRacistNaziFascist: The alleged objectivity of the DSM was already compromised when homosexuality was removed as a disorder after aggressive lobbying, so providing a hyperlink to an article about the DSM proves exactly nothing. And if paranoia means not just believing everything you hear because the speaker says "trust me, I'm an expert", every genuinely free-thinking person must be a paranoiac by your definition.

You just lost any right to be taken seriously by making the oft-repeated claim that gay people are really mentally ill,

I never made any such claim. Can you even read? I said that homosexuality was removed from the DSM after aggressive lobbying; I never advanced any opinion as whether or not it should have been in there in the first place. Look pal, I know you desperately want to do battle with some kind of evil fantasy conservative who hates everyone, but he doesn't exist.

but there's a powerful cabal keeping them from being listed as such. Oddly enough, the only people who tend to claim this are the same ones which seek to justify their irrational hatred of people. In reality, the removal of homosexuality came about because of a complete discrediting of the principles by which it was listed as a mental disorder in the first place, namely the work of the Freud camp, and the Neo-Freudians, and research in the 1950s onwards which pointed out that sexual variation among orientation was normal.

"In the early 1970s, activists campaigned against the DSM classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder, protesting at APA offices and at annual meetings from 1970 to 1973. In 1973 the Board of Trustees voted to remove homosexuality as a disorder category from the DSM, a decision ratified by a majority (58%) of the general APA membership the following year."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Psychiatric_Association


No. Paranoia is equating the modern mental health system which is run by providers themselves, and guided by evidence ...


Your post is internally inconsistent. Did "aggressive lobbying" get the DSM changed? Or was it changed as the result of a vote by the Board of Trustees followed by a ratification vote by the general membership?

It is entirely disingenuous, based on what you've provided, to make the leap of logic that "aggressive lobbying" caused the outcome of the vote.
 
2013-03-13 04:58:23 PM  
Personally, I think anyone who is a member of a religion or is a Republican is crazy. Can we start confiscating now?
 
2013-03-13 04:58:47 PM  
My biggest concern with this is about the exploding definitions of mental illness. One of the my major criticisms when we left the DSM-IV TR to go to DSM-V was that, theoretically, you can find a way to wedge just about anyone alive into some definition of mental illness as they're described (and I have a BA in Clinical Psychology, and several years working in clinical settings, yes I work as a R&D engineer, long story).

So it's not inconceivable that someone who is seen protesting something the government does (on either side of the aisle) is ID'd, stopped for any number of silly offenses, and forced to go in front of a shrink who is receiving a nice tax incentive. It's not like corrupt judges and private businesses don't have a history together.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal

Shrink gets cash, judge gets to look good for "disarming crazies," and anyone with political opinions gets disarmed. I'm not saying it will happen that way, but it's not a far-fetched situation.
 
2013-03-13 04:59:12 PM  

EvilRacistNaziFascist: I never made any such claim. Can you even read? I said that homosexuality was removed from the DSM after aggressive lobbying; I never advanced any opinion as whether or not it should have been in there in the first place. Look pal, I know you desperately want to do battle with some kind of evil fantasy conservative who hates everyone, but he doesn't exist.


Riiiiiight.

EvilRacistNaziFascist: "In the early 1970s, activists campaigned against the DSM classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder, protesting at APA offices and at annual meetings from 1970 to 1973. In 1973 the Board of Trustees voted to remove homosexuality as a disorder category from the DSM, a decision ratified by a majority (58%) of the general APA membership the following year."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Psychiatric_Association


"Aggressive lobbying" is protesting, and ratification by the national membership of the APA? Wow. No wonder you create these strawmen you believe people view you as. Actually, peaking at your profile, Yeah. I can see it.

You poor, poor persecuted man you.

In reality, the 1973 decision did  not remove Homosexuality as a mental health disorder, but created a new category for the DSM-III, known as ego-dystonic homosexuality. The diagnosis, by the way, was not supported by any evidence, and there was overwhelming outcry in the Psychiatric community to have it removed, which the APA has done since 1987, and the release of the DSM-IV.

EvilRacistNaziFascist: Because the modern mental health system is staffed by infallible human beings who would never let their own prejudices and biases guide their decisions? If you believe that, you're even more foolish than you sound.


Actually, I made the point that the difference lay in the fact that the Psychiatric community is controlled by it's member boards and practices dictated by medical evidence and research, not by the State. Since you don't seem to be able to follow the conversation, you made the claim that "Anti-Gun" activists would change the definition of mental health to keep you from owning guns, and deliberately invoked the Soviet practice of declaring dissidents mentally ill through the state-controlled system as proof of this.

You need to be careful with all these strawmen. It's rather dry, and you might cause a fire.

EvilRacistNaziFascist: I'm cut to the quick by this insult from a grown man who adores cartoon ponies.


Why do you hate freedom so much? You need to stay out of what I do for 30 minutes on a random Saturday. It's not like I go on the internet and make badly constructed comparisons to the Soviet Union which demonstrates a substantial misunderstanding of history, and then stomp my foot because someone calls me out on it, and when I have no other recourse to argue, I insult that person's 30 minute sunday activity, which is completely irrelevant to the thread.

706b87399f-custmedia.vresp.com

If you only had a brain.
 
2013-03-13 05:00:15 PM  
I'm all for taking guns from mentally unstable people.
I'm also all for my farking 4th amendment rights.
Getting railroaded into an involuntary 72 hour psych eval by a nurse or doctor who dislikes you doesn't make you mentally unstable, and that seems to be the grounds they are using to take people's shiat.

I think they should have to actually get a farking warrant, meaning they have to go to a judge and show reasonable proof that there's a gun in the house and that someone who shouldn't have one lives there.

A psych eval declaring someone to be mentally competent and no threat to society like the one in TFA? yeah no warrant.
 
2013-03-13 05:01:47 PM  

monoski: Sounds like a good program. The mentally ill and felons should not have guns.


Ok, two issues here:

So, someone who embezzled from their employer is a violent threat how? What about a computer hacker?
What about the instances where the spouse is having their weapons seized AND destroyed because Their SO is depressed?
 
2013-03-13 05:02:13 PM  

lunkhed: JesseL: jfivealive: There's no reason to own a gun anwyays

Well shiat, it's a good thing you told me. Guess I'll get rid of mine then.

/never mind about the hunting
//and recreational target shooting
///and self defense
////-from people and dangerous animals
////and keeping the king of England out of your face


/The food in the mall is already dead
//Those targets better not shoot back
///It's a war zone out there
////I gotta move out of the zoo
////Don't shoot - swallow.


How droll. Allow me to retort:

/somebody killed the food in the mall
//I do generally try to avoid anything that's likely to be shooting at me. Paper is a pretty safe bet.
///Bad shiat happens and it never hurts to be prepared.
////Indeed.
// I like the freedom to choose not to swallow.
 
2013-03-13 05:02:15 PM  

K-jack: It is entirely disingenuous, based on what you've provided, to make the leap of logic that "aggressive lobbying" caused the outcome of the vote.


Yeah, you're right. I'm sure it's a total coincidence that the APA changed the diagnosis after four years of aggressive lobbying at their annual meetings. Look, believe what you like -- God knows you will anyway, regardless of the truth.
 
2013-03-13 05:04:36 PM  

oryx: If you want to own or own a gun, you're mentally ill. If you're mentally ill, you can't own a gun.


If you want to own a gun, you're mentally ill? That makes zero sense. My hubs had them because he was a competitive shooter. It was a hobby. We shot clay and paper. There's nothing wrong with that WHATSOEVER.

The guns are not the problem. Anything can be a weapon- second post in, someone mentioned a guy being killed with a flowerpot. Cars kill people all the time. How about knives? NOT JUST FOR COOKING ANYMORE!

The issue is the mental health and responsibility of anyone carrying anything that could potentially be lethal. Me carrying a TV up the stairs could prove lethal if I didn't watch where I was going and dropped it on the old lady downstairs.
 
2013-03-13 05:06:28 PM  
Merely being in a database of registered gun owners and having a "disqualifying event," such as a felony conviction or restraining order, isn't sufficient evidence for a search warrant, Marsh said March 5 during raids in San Bernardino County. So the agents often must talk their way into a residence to look for weapons, he said.


Cop: Hi, we want to search through all your shiat, take any gun we find, smash it with a steam roller, and give you jack for compensation. Can we come in?
Me: ...I'm thinking no.
 
Displayed 50 of 438 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report