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  
•       •       •

11843 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
 
2013-03-14 12:57:59 AM
The problem is the ever expanding definition of mentally ill and ever longer list of mental illnesses.

At some point everyone will just be an official diagnosis from being so.

Guns will likely never be banned directly but rather via some other leverage point of government such as mental illness, health care, welfare, or transportation.
 
2013-03-14 01:08:50 AM

Happy Hours: scruffy1: Happy Hours: scruffy1: As someone that works at a state hospital

Doing what?
Licensed Psychiatric Technician, California being one of 4 states that offers such license. The job involves working with patients, administering medication, helping them work through their situation and preparing them for re-entry into the free world if they are able to head back out. Most of the time babysitting them, the rest of the time preventing them from hurting themselves, peers, staff or imaginary people.

Why should we trust the opinion of someone who uses "regiment" when the correct word is "regimen"?
I wasn't aware that spelling errors were cause for disavowing someone's personal opinion.

And you also work retail?
Worked. Not work. Worked.

And then you post some ridiculous youtube video.
Welcome to Fark. Didn't they give you your manual and free kitty?

And claim "guns are bad"?
I'm sorry to offend you, I didn't realize that you had been raised by a happy family of Bushmasters.

Well, like you said, "Welcome to Fark" where people will jump on you if you misplace an apostrophe. It just seems like quite a lot of examples while only claiming to work in a state hospital in an unspecified position. For some reason I was reminded of Nurse Ratched. It does sound like you work with actual criminals who probably should never have access to guns again, but there's a lot of misinformation in this thread (and on Fark in general). The contradiction of things people claim are facts are proof of that. They can't all be right, so I take everything with more than a few grains of salt. (And yes, I mean things presented as fact, not just differing opinions).

Saying "guns are bad" is clearly an opinion though - one that I do not hold. They're probably a bad way to kill roaches running around your kitchen, but I don't believe they're bad in and of themselves.



I agree on the misinformation but that's the nature of the Internet. As for "guns are bad," don't get me wrong I do enjoy going out to the range from time to time and I admit that perhaps saying it in that manner makes it seem as if I'm putting the blame solely on the guns. I guess in my attempt to make express my opinion that the way we recognize mental health should come before anything else made it seem that way. I guess I should have expanded it with "guns are bad in the hands of the wrong people," but for some reason I just didn't think it was important to elaborate on that point.
 
2013-03-14 01:31:21 AM

fnordfocus: Gyrfalcon: Despite what your friend's cousin's sister's hairdresser posted on her Facebook page, the police just can't 5150 you for any reason they feel like, or because you're bothering them, or because your family wants you locked in the nuthouse. And once you're there, they can't keep you for more than 72 hours without bringing you before a judge.

Huh?

Admission under 5150 is made based on a probable cause determination made solely by the detaining officer.

Can you explain what keeps you and your fellow Officers from locking up anyone whenever they like?  I found a post on another forum where one of y'all explains you 5150 people for contempt of cop because refusing to obey an unlawful Police order is a sign a civilian is putting himself in danger.


I'm not a cop. I'm almost a lawyer.

5150 can only be made if the individual is 1) a danger to himself, 2) a danger to others, 3) gravely disabled, which is defined as being unable to provide for his basic needs of food, shelter and clothing. If someone is refusing to obey a police order and that's the ONLY reason they're being 5150'd, then either there's a department that is seriously abusing the 5150 order and you better call the state board of mental health, or someone on that "other forum" is lying to you. Refusing to obey an order does not constitute "danger to self", and any cop knows it. If that were true, the jails would be nearly empty and the hospitals would be overcrowded.

Or there's something more involved. For instance, refusing to obey an order to take one's hands out of one's pockets is hardly a sign of putting anyone in danger; while resisting arrest is more likely to end up with the suspect in jail instead of a psych ward. Psychiatric hospitals are even shorter on beds than jails, and they don't want cops bringing in random drunks and felons just because he wouldn't produce an ID when told to do so. It is desperately hard to get a 5150 on someone, even when it's clear they need one, and more often than not, the cops take the person to JAIL, not to the hospital. Now, it is true that beat cops know who the mental cases on their beats are, and will take them to hospitals if possible instead of jails when it's cold or the old guys really need a few days of food and a bed; and often on the flimsiest of excuses. ("He was...uh...not wearing shoes.") But anyway, the hospital can always refuse a patient even if he's brought in 5150. They do a triage, and if they feel he's not crazy, or too dangerous for the locked ward, they'll send him back.

Oh, and why do I know this? I was a patient advocate for the local agency*, and used to travel with the Administrative Law Judge to 5250 hearings at the psychiatric wards. Those are the due process hearings that determine if someone brought in on a 5150 (72 hour hold) needs to stay for another two weeks. If they don't want to stay, they get to make their case before the ALJ, in the hospital instead of hauling them all the way down to a courthouse. If the ALJ decides they have to stay, they get to appeal to a court, within 48 hours. So they DO have due process, for whoever was so worried about it. About 75% needed to stay; the rest left.

*I'd identify it, but confidentiality--you've heard of that?--kind of prevents me.
 
2013-03-14 01:34:57 AM

ThatGuyOverThere: Paranoid gun nut here, I'm okay with this.
As long as there is an appeal process in the event that you're on the list wrongly, and as long as you can have somebody you sell them to pick them up from the police.  Just because you can't have it anymore doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to recoup costs to cover the loss.


Except the problem isn't subject to appeal as it's a problem with the system rather than a mistake.

If you're involuntarily committed as a risk to yourself (which happens all too often) you now have a lifetime gun ban.

itsanillusionmichael: Why don't they just pass a law that makes owning a gun just like owning a driver's license so everybody can shut up and move on to problems that don't cause such ridiculous nutbaggery? Simple problem...simple solution.

Of course, that doesn't fix the problem of having 300 million guns in this country already but at least we'd know that we had done something sensible to help the problem rather than continue with this ridiculous debate.


I've been advocating this for years.

pedrop357: Because that would give gun owners a lot more freedom than they have now.

No background check to have license or purchase
License is shall issue
No limits on number purchased per period
No limits on fuel tank capacity
No limits on automatics
15-17 minimum age
No license required to own/possess/use on private property
Few size limits on public roads, no size limits on private property
License valid in all states (even Canada and Mexico!)
Few places are off limits

I could get behind treating guns like cars in this case.


There *IS* a background check to issue a driver's license.  It's just handled so well you aren't aware of it.  I'm not for doing away with such checking, I just want it moved from the gun sale to the license.

As for automatics, they would be an additional endorsement on the license, the same background requirements we have now but done once rather than once per purchase. You could walk out of the store with your NFA purchase in hand rather than a long wait period for the bureaucracy.
 
2013-03-14 01:41:42 AM
Hahaha finally an issue that libs, and farklibtards, libfarktards, tardlibfarks, and libtardkarks, and tardfarklibs, and farktwattards.... Well you get the picture.... can't win for popular opinion.

Go ahead and call people derpy for speaking their piece on the right to bear arms..... Really farking funny/fascist how you want to control not only the 2nd amendment but also prefer Americans don't exercise our 1st amendment rights as well. Farking libtardtwatfarks.
 
2013-03-14 01:56:36 AM

Lee Jackson Beauregard: duenor: cptjeff: JesseL: cptjeff: duenor: The Jews in Warsaw,

The Jews in Warsaw had guns. They tried to use them against the Nazis. Didn't end well.

Because being submissively gassed is a much better alternative?

Either way, having guns didn't exactly protect them from a modern, well organized military. Your protection against government tyranny does not come from guns- it comes from strong democratic institutions, rule of law, a strong independent judiciary, and extremely strong protection of open political discourse.

Your first defenseagainst tyranny, you mean. And I agree entirely, and hope that that will always be enough. But any student of history, even of only US history, knows that the government is more than capable of using force as a way to impose its will upon a subjugated group.

Unfortunately, when tyranny comes to America, the NRA and its supporters will not be the ones shooting at Dear Leader's goon squad.  They will be the ones waving flags and chanting slogans between the Sousa marches.


Possibly. It's happened before.
I'm not a member of the NRA. I do contribute and participate in a number of other gun rights organizations, though (like Calguns and THR).
 
2013-03-14 01:59:09 AM

Gyrfalcon: fnordfocus: Gyrfalcon: Despite what your friend's cousin's sister's hairdresser posted on her Facebook page, the police just can't 5150 you for any reason they feel like, or because you're bothering them, or because your family wants you locked in the nuthouse. And once you're there, they can't keep you for more than 72 hours without bringing you before a judge.

Huh?

Admission under 5150 is made based on a probable cause determination made solely by the detaining officer.

Can you explain what keeps you and your fellow Officers from locking up anyone whenever they like?  I found a post on another forum where one of y'all explains you 5150 people for contempt of cop because refusing to obey an unlawful Police order is a sign a civilian is putting himself in danger.

I'm not a cop. I'm almost a lawyer.

5150 can only be made if the individual is 1) a danger to himself, 2) a danger to others, 3) gravely disabled, which is defined as being unable to provide for his basic needs of food, shelter and clothing. If someone is refusing to obey a police order and that's the ONLY reason they're being 5150'd, then either there's a department that is seriously abusing the 5150 order and you better call the state board of mental health, or someone on that "other forum" is lying to you. Refusing to obey an order does not constitute "danger to self", and any cop knows it. If that were true, the jails would be nearly empty and the hospitals would be overcrowded.

Or there's something more involved. For instance, refusing to obey an order to take one's hands out of one's pockets is hardly a sign of putting anyone in danger; while resisting arrest is more likely to end up with the suspect in jail instead of a psych ward. Psychiatric hospitals are even shorter on beds than jails, and they don't want cops bringing in random drunks and felons just because he wouldn't produce an ID when told to do so. It is desperately hard to get a 5150 on someone, even when it's clear they need one, an ...


Ok, I'll concede you are a lawyer.  However, I don't care.  I've seen with my own eyes how a cop an use his VAST power granted by 5150 to commit someone.  Boom!  72 hours were taken from someone.  Plus the immediate loss of 2nd Amendment Rights.  Sure, you can fight that, but that requires going through the pain of getting a hearing.  Why should anyone have to fight to retain a civil right (and yes, the 2nd is a civil right) that was taken from you without a trial?  The power to commit is to great a power and is too easy to abuse.  When we are having enough trouble getting cops fired who are caught on camera beating an innocent person half to death, what chance do we have of getting rid of cops who "merely" abuse a 5150 a few times?
 
2013-03-14 02:03:47 AM

OgreMagi: Ok, I'll concede you are a lawyer. However, I don't care. I've seen with my own eyes how a cop an use his VAST power granted by 5150 to commit someone. Boom! 72 hours were taken from someone. Plus the immediate loss of 2nd Amendment Rights. Sure, you can fight that, but that requires going through the pain of getting a hearing. Why should anyone have to fight to retain a civil right (and yes, the 2nd is a civil right) that was taken from you without a trial? The power to commit is to great a power and is too easy to abuse. When we are having enough trouble getting cops fired who are caught on camera beating an innocent person half to death, what chance do we have of getting rid of cops who "merely" abuse a 5150 a few times?


I failed to mention the part about that person getting billed for the bogus 5150.  Ambulance trip to a hospital first (why?),  another ambulance, then three days in an overcrowded psych ward where he didn't even have a bed the first two of the three nights.  He couldn't pay it.
 
2013-03-14 02:13:01 AM

hardinparamedic: Lee Jackson Beauregard: duenor: cptjeff: JesseL: cptjeff: duenor: The Jews in Warsaw,

The Jews in Warsaw had guns. They tried to use them against the Nazis. Didn't end well.

Because being submissively gassed is a much better alternative?

Either way, having guns didn't exactly protect them from a modern, well organized military. Your protection against government tyranny does not come from guns- it comes from strong democratic institutions, rule of law, a strong independent judiciary, and extremely strong protection of open political discourse.

Your first defenseagainst tyranny, you mean. And I agree entirely, and hope that that will always be enough. But any student of history, even of only US history, knows that the government is more than capable of using force as a way to impose its will upon a subjugated group.

Unfortunately, when tyranny comes to America, the NRA and its supporters will not be the ones shooting at Dear Leader's goon squad.  They will be the ones waving flags and chanting slogans between the Sousa marches.

What's hillarious about his statement is that Poland had a larger defense budget and allowance under the League of Nations than Germany and a HIGH rate of private firearm ownership before the Soviet and German invasions.


Your comment is the one that's laughable. Poland had a larger defense budget - BEFORE germany started mobilizing for war and shrugging off the pathetic LoN (which the US was not part of). The high rate of private firearm ownership - how many of those were Jews/Gypsies? Don't forget that the ones who did have guns willingly surrendered them when they were rounded up for their "vacation". Like you, they had implicit faith that their government would have their best interests in mind and that human beings couldn't ever be so twisted to systematically engineer the eradication of an entire populace.

Any 7th grade history textbook will tell you this - that Germany went from toothless beaten dog to lion within a few short years, and that the Jews were methodically stripped of everything remotely useful before behind trotted off to dachau/warsaw ghetto/auschwitz/et al (apparently there were 100s of camps all over europe.) Those same books will tell you that those Jews thought they were being cared for by their nation right up till they went under the barbed wire.
 
2013-03-14 02:27:23 AM
Beowoolfie:

Either California law enforcement are selectively ignoring huge parts of this law, or the Bloomberg article is nothing but a propaganda piece intended to frighten gun owners. I hate it when they manage to con me and waste my time.

CA routine selectively enforces/ignores its own laws. It gets away with it by doing things that aren't exactly illegal - for instance, they can not enforce a law by simply withdrawing funds for it from the budget. In other instances, the AG may even explicitly say that he will not prosecute certain crimes even though those people are clearly breaking the law.
As for the returning guns part.... I know of a great many CA gun owners (and one fark member who posted his experience in this thread) who had their guns never returned. Again, there are many ways to get around the law for the gov.... and as citizens you can't do a whole lot about it.
Another example of this is the way the 2000 Assault Weapon law was done. The way the law read, all AWs were banned as of 2000. Anyone who legally (not stolen, not felon, etc) owned an AW after 2000 could file an application for an AW license and according to the law the state would then issue you a license for that gun pending background check. Well, they got around that part of the law by simply announcing that they would not accept any applications.
Did they break the law? Nope. They never turned down any applications. They simply refused to accept them. The law had simply said that there would be a function, but never said that they had to accept applications.

I strongly recommend that you watch this video. afterwards, you will see law enforcement in an entirely different light. it's not that the gov is bad. it's that the gov is not necessarily the upstanding friend we grew up thinking it was.
 
2013-03-14 02:27:42 AM

Gyrfalcon: I'm not a cop. I'm almost a lawyer.


I have you favorited in blue from a while back when I was trying to determine what portion of farkers are cops -- it's a lot higher than the population at large.  Unfortunately, this is before I thought to record the thread number so I don't know exactly why.  Were you perhaps in private law enforcement?
 
5150 can only be made if the individual is 1) a danger to himself, 2) a danger to others, 3) gravely disabled, which is defined as being unable to provide for his basic needs of food, shelter and clothing.

This is misleading, as the decision is made entirely by the LEO, with no review.  Perhaps Department policy says not to 5150 people just for dating your ex-wife, but we all know what happens to Officers who break policy.  (Nothing, occasionally a few weeks of paid leave).  The law explicitly protects Officers from any liability in the determination.

If someone is refusing to obey a police order and that's the ONLY reason they're being 5150'd, then either there's a department that is seriously abusing the 5150 order and you better call the state board of mental health, or someone on that "other forum" is lying to you.

I'd post a link, but I think it's against policy to link to other forums.  But this is also misleading.  No state board, court, or anyone else has any power to sanction an Officer for 5150ing people.

Refusing to obey an order does not constitute "danger to self", and any cop knows it.

Again, there is no enforcement that an Officer act in good faith with respect to 5150.  They get to send anyone for 72 hours (actually, more like 5 days since weekends don't count) anytime they like, as often as they like.

It is desperately hard to get a 5150 on someone, even when it's clear they need one...

Again, huh?  The only thing necessary is a signed declaration by the detaining Officer.  Even with the jokes about IQ caps and donut lifts, it's a stretch to call that hard.
 
2013-03-14 02:43:17 AM
This is one more thing which is liable to prevent many mentally ill folks from getting treatment.

There have been far more gang-related killings, including innocent bystanders, than people killed by guns handled by the mentally ill. So, naturally, the cops go after the mentally ill or those who had been mentally ill.

There are assorted forms of 'Mental Illness', many of which can easily be cured, especially if treated early. Some of the more serious forms usually result in the affected harming themselves rather than others.

If you seek treatment for, say, mild to moderate depression, the chances of you being cured within a year are good. (Note: Winning huge amounts of money in a lottery has often cured depression faster than anything else.) Still, the fact you visited a professional for mental help remains on your record, which now can be used against you.

That fact has been a bone of contention within the psychiatric community for decades, especially as they worked hard to convince sick people it was OK to get help before their illness became incapacitating and altered psychiatric treatments and facilities to make them more friendly; to get away from the Hollywood Horror version and decades old intimidating tags.

This just set those efforts back about 20 years. The Reagan closing of State Institutions and cutting the mental health funds set the nation back close to 75 years in treatment.

FACT: As a population grows and personal space becomes smaller and smaller, there is an increase of mental illness within it.

FACT: People living in poverty, especially those crammed into areas like low income housing developments, tend to treat each other so badly that a high incidence of mental illness forms. This form can kind of spread like a virus in a crowd. Especially if the community is surrounded by areas much more well off.

The more pressure you put on a big population, the higher the incidents of mental illness. People become trapped. They can't get out of their situation. In time, a percentage will react, violently, striking out at everyone.

And .... we have this huge homeless population which, over the decades, people have developed less and less empathy for and have taken steps to cut social services to them, force them out of areas and basically ostracize them.

They become 'non-people', to be used and abused and blamed for almost anything.

It's kind of like lighting a slow fuse to a warehouse full of TNT.

Now, society is under even more stress due to financial concerns, political misbehavior and the media informing everyone how everyone else is against them.

We're probably facing record numbers of mentally ill folks. So, naturally, the governments decide to make it even less likely anyone will voluntarily go in for help.

In many high end businesses, a record of mental illness can cost you a good position or even your job. Chances are, you might not get bonded if your job requires it.

Plus, these raids are no pointing out where people live who have had mental problems.

Yeah. When the voices start up in your head, you're going to be expected to flit right down to your local shrink and get treated.

The chances of that just diminished tremendously -- especially in California.

There are better ways of handling this situation.
 
2013-03-14 04:01:20 AM

scruffy1: I'm sorry to offend you, I didn't realize that you had been raised by a happy family of Bushmasters.


What something raised by a happy family of bushmasters might look like:

gallery.photo.net
 
2013-03-14 04:26:53 AM

OgreMagi: OgreMagi: Ok, I'll concede you are a lawyer. However, I don't care. I've seen with my own eyes how a cop an use his VAST power granted by 5150 to commit someone. Boom! 72 hours were taken from someone. Plus the immediate loss of 2nd Amendment Rights. Sure, you can fight that, but that requires going through the pain of getting a hearing. Why should anyone have to fight to retain a civil right (and yes, the 2nd is a civil right) that was taken from you without a trial? The power to commit is to great a power and is too easy to abuse. When we are having enough trouble getting cops fired who are caught on camera beating an innocent person half to death, what chance do we have of getting rid of cops who "merely" abuse a 5150 a few times?

I failed to mention the part about that person getting billed for the bogus 5150.  Ambulance trip to a hospital first (why?),  another ambulance, then three days in an overcrowded psych ward where he didn't even have a bed the first two of the three nights.  He couldn't pay it.


All I can say is what I know. And what I know is that, although individual cops may, and probably do, overuse the law, it just doesn't happen as often as people fear it might. I also know that it's incredibly difficult because it was meant to be that way. The Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS Act, which is where the 5150 powers come from) was designed to provide a means whereby mentally ill individuals could be remanded for care involuntarily but not for too long and not on anyone's whim. If an individual cop can come up with a reason why someone needs to be in a hospital for 72 hours on the county dime (which is what an involuntary hold is all about), then there must be some kind of reason. (And if your friend was billed for the 5150, and couldn't pay, then he's got another fine case to take back to court. Because he shouldn't have been required to pay it)

During my time with the county agency, I did not encounter one situation where a person wasn't in the hospital who didn't need to be. Now, I admit that that's hardly evidence (but then neither is your friend's experience). I also didn't encounter anyone there because the cops just up and decided "You know, that guy's a nuisance. Let's put him in the psych ward for a few days." COULD it happen? Sure. DOES it happen? I really doubt it. The hospital is way more expensive than jail, so why would a cop take a bothersome drunk to the psych ward when the lockup is right across the street?

I know there is a great desire on Fark to believe we're only a couple steps away from a police state, with cops locking people up willy-nilly, and I don't deny that there are individual abuses, sure. But I'm telling you from my very own experience in a really rotten system right here in California that it just doesn't happen the way you seem to think. If your friend was sent to the psych ward, there must have been something else that happened that either he's not telling you or you're not telling me. Because I know it was not that he was walking down the street and the cops just grabbed him up and shot him into the looney bin for no reason at all.
 
2013-03-14 07:31:49 AM

Gyrfalcon: OgreMagi: OgreMagi: Ok, I'll concede you are a lawyer. However, I don't care. I've seen with my own eyes how a cop an use his VAST power granted by 5150 to commit someone. Boom! 72 hours were taken from someone. Plus the immediate loss of 2nd Amendment Rights. Sure, you can fight that, but that requires going through the pain of getting a hearing. Why should anyone have to fight to retain a civil right (and yes, the 2nd is a civil right) that was taken from you without a trial? The power to commit is to great a power and is too easy to abuse. When we are having enough trouble getting cops fired who are caught on camera beating an innocent person half to death, what chance do we have of getting rid of cops who "merely" abuse a 5150 a few times?

I failed to mention the part about that person getting billed for the bogus 5150.  Ambulance trip to a hospital first (why?),  another ambulance, then three days in an overcrowded psych ward where he didn't even have a bed the first two of the three nights.  He couldn't pay it.

All I can say is what I know. And what I know is that, although individual cops may, and probably do, overuse the law, it just doesn't happen as often as people fear it might. I also know that it's incredibly difficult because it was meant to be that way. The Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS Act, which is where the 5150 powers come from) was designed to provide a means whereby mentally ill individuals could be remanded for care involuntarily but not for too long and not on anyone's whim. If an individual cop can come up with a reason why someone needs to be in a hospital for 72 hours on the county dime (which is what an involuntary hold is all about), then there must be some kind of reason. (And if your friend was billed for the 5150, and couldn't pay, then he's got another fine case to take back to court. Because he shouldn't have been required to pay it)

During my time with the county agency, I did not encounter one situation where a person wasn't i ...


"This is a place for crazy people. If you don't come in crazy, it will make you that way."
 
2013-03-14 07:48:13 AM

duenor: Any 7th grade history textbook will tell you this - that Germany went from toothless beaten dog to lion within a few short years, and that the Jews were methodically stripped of everything remotely useful before behind trotted off to dachau/warsaw ghetto/auschwitz/et al (apparently there were 100s of camps all over europe.) Those same books will tell you that those Jews thought they were being cared for by their nation right up till they went under the barbed wire.


And those same books will tell you you're wrong: The Nuremburg Laws did nothing to restirct the ownership of private firearms by Jews. Those were not taken until long after the Nazis came to power, and after Reichskrystallnacht. The 1928 gun laws, which were supported by the SA and SS, actually loosened restrictions imposed on German citizens, INCLUDING the Jews, and allowed mass private ownership of Firearms. It wasn't until November 2, 1938, that Jews were forbidden from being sellers or manfuacturers of Firearms, and November 20, 1938, that Jews of the First Degree were forbidden from ownership of firearms, which mixed blood Germans still allowed to own.

duenor: The high rate of private firearm ownership - how many of those were Jews/Gypsies? Don't forget that the ones who did have guns willingly surrendered them when they were rounded up for their "vacation". Like you, they had implicit faith that their government would have their best interests in mind and that human beings couldn't ever be so twisted to systematically engineer the eradication of an entire populace.


Uh, the Polish army had 2.5 million men, to Germany's 1.8 Million. Poland had more tanks than Italy, and had a large calvary force that attracted a great number of highly trained volunteers.

Their problem was that their military was not as modern as the Spanish Civil War-experienced Germans.

In addition, the lies you are promoting border on revisionism of the Holocaust, namely that it could have been stopped if the Jews JUST owned more guns, and ignores the fact that the German Army, especially the elements of the SS in occupied countries, didn't really care if they fought back or not, and ignored the technological superiority and novel tactics of the Germans during early World War II. It also ignores the fact that Poland was rapidly overwhelmed from TWO sides - the East by the Russians, and the West by the Germans.

TL;DR - STOP BELIEVING CHAIN LETTERS, YOU DOLT.
 
2013-03-14 09:16:58 AM
Rik01-

"If you seek treatment for, say, mild to moderate depression, the chances of you being cured within a year are good...Still, the fact you visited a professional for mental help remains on your record, which now can be used against you."

Um... I've NEVER had my therapy used against me. Never. And I had several doctors over a three year period- one of whom actually DIAGNOSED me with suicidal behavior. Well, YEAH. It made sense. Another TRIED to say that I refused help. I found a new doctor.

So, I'm not really sure why you're trying to stir up crap, because you're confusing "permanent record" with "medical history", which is protected by confidentiality laws.
 
2013-03-14 09:20:44 AM
And PS Rik01-

I have a government security clearance. It was required for a high- PHI federal job I got a couple years ago. This was DURING THERAPY. So you're spouting right out your ass, because they don't check medical history for job applications.

Think before you talk, because you clearly have no clue what you're talking about.
 
2013-03-14 09:40:29 AM

skozlaw: trey101: but you have a problem with the link i showed earlier... because it is on a blog from glenn beck?

No, I have a problem with the link you showed earlier because it's on a site owned by a ranting maniac who has never shown once any propensity for dispensing anything that comes remotely close to the truth.

I don't care what people who make a business of lying for effect about everything have to say about anything.


Thanks for clarifying that you have a problem with a link just because it is on a site owned by Glenn Beck.  I did not even know it was a site owned by Glenn Beck, at least not until you informed me with your comment.  It is quite difficult to contradict oneself inside the same sentence, but you seem to be quite good.  By the way, it wasn't written by Glenn Beck.
 
2013-03-14 09:48:22 AM

trey101: Thanks for clarifying that you have a problem with a link just because it is on a site owned by Glenn Beck.  I did not even know it was a site owned by Glenn Beck, at least not until you informed me with your comment.  It is quite difficult to contradict oneself inside the same sentence, but you seem to be quite good.  By the way, it wasn't written by Glenn Beck.


There's a lot of stuff on NaturalNews.com, the Website of Mike Adams of Naturalnews.com that wasn't written by Mike Adams of NaturalNews.com. But because it is hosted on a website owned by Mike Adams of NaturalNews.com, it is of questionable and dubious veracity.
 
2013-03-14 10:38:32 AM
FTA: "The no-gun list is compiled by cross-referencing files on almost 1 million handgun and assault-weapon owners with databases of new criminal records and involuntary mental-health commitments."

Sounds fine by me, aside from an owner registry. You commit a crime or are involuntarily committed to a mental health institution, you forfeit your right. The gun registry a no go for me, but I am alright with putting people on the "no-gun" list and ordering they get rid of all firearms by a judge in a trial.

/Bold and italics for important distinctions.
 
2013-03-14 12:04:03 PM

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


You ... are a Felon. You just don't know it yet.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2203713
 
2013-03-14 12:34:12 PM
Even though this is dying out, just want to bring up one point.  There are a lot of people here who state that it is rather difficult to get someone involuntarily committed.  This is not true.  The process varies state to state but usually it simply involves a medical health professional (even a nurse) filing a single piece of paper.  That is the case in Pennsylvania.  I actually know somebody who had the following story happen to him:


1)  Mother in law who didn't like the fact that my friend had a pistol called the police and told them, "My stepson is depressed and has a gun.  I'm afraid he is going to hurt himself"
2)  Police show up at friends house.  He tells them he is not depressed, never has been depressed, and no he will not go with them to the hospital.
3)  Police arrest friend "For his own safety" and take him to mental clinic.
4)  Friend spent nearly a day and a half at the mental clinic and spoke to a nurse for about 5 minutes.  He never saw a judge and never signed any forms.
5)  Returns home and found that police had searched his house and confiscated his pistol.
6)  Friend has lawyer inquire as to why police searched his house and took his pistol.  Lawyer finds out they got a warrant which was backed up with a PA302 form stating he had been involuntarily committed because he was a danger to himself and therefore no longer allowed to own a pistol.
7)  Friend spent two years and about $10,000 of his own money to get 302 repealed.  This process involved going into a court and getting grilled about his most personal thoughts and actions by a team of psychiatrists for several hours.


This story is what got me into researching mental health laws, involuntary committments, etc.  Most states follow a process very similar to that of PA.  So that means in most states you can have your rights revoked by someone simply making a phone call.  It should not be this easy for the state to revoke your rights nor this hard to get them back.  That is why I will push for a hearing, in person, before a judge, before anybody can have this done to them.  It solves a lot of the potential problems with people either 1) Abusing the system to get back at someone -or- 2) Some "mental health professional" deciding that they are going to "throw the book" at you simply so they can cover their butts if you do indeed do something later.
 
2013-03-14 03:22:33 PM

JesseL: As a fairly rabid gun-nut I have no problem with this, as long as the people whose guns are being seized were actually given due process and properly adjudicated as mentally defective.

Something like a single doctor's diagnosis alone should never be sufficient to permanently deprive someone of any of their civil rights.


Listen, I'm going to need you to froth at the mouth a bit more and generally not be so rational and reasonable.

Us gun nuts have an image to uphold.
 
2013-03-14 03:32:20 PM

Sniper061: Even though this is dying out, just want to bring up one point.  There are a lot of people here who state that it is rather difficult to get someone involuntarily committed.  This is not true.  The process varies state to state but usually it simply involves a medical health professional (even a nurse) filing a single piece of paper.  That is the case in Pennsylvania.  I actually know somebody who had the following story happen to him:


1)  Mother in law who didn't like the fact that my friend had a pistol called the police and told them, "My stepson is depressed and has a gun.  I'm afraid he is going to hurt himself"
2)  Police show up at friends house.  He tells them he is not depressed, never has been depressed, and no he will not go with them to the hospital.
3)  Police arrest friend "For his own safety" and take him to mental clinic.
4)  Friend spent nearly a day and a half at the mental clinic and spoke to a nurse for about 5 minutes.  He never saw a judge and never signed any forms.
5)  Returns home and found that police had searched his house and confiscated his pistol.
6)  Friend has lawyer inquire as to why police searched his house and took his pistol.  Lawyer finds out they got a warrant which was backed up with a PA302 form stating he had been involuntarily committed because he was a danger to himself and therefore no longer allowed to own a pistol.
7)  Friend spent two years and about $10,000 of his own money to get 302 repealed.  This process involved going into a court and getting grilled about his most personal thoughts and actions by a team of psychiatrists for several hours.


This story is what got me into researching mental health laws, involuntary committments, etc.  Most states follow a process very similar to that of PA.  So that means in most states you can have your rights revoked by someone simply making a phone call.  It should not be this easy for the state to revoke your rights nor this hard to get them back.  That is why I will push f ...


An involuntary commitment is a court order. Not a "sheet of paper" signed by the nurse, as you claim.  Not "Hey, I feel suicidal." Not "I want to check myself into rehab." It is a court order, signed by a judge, under the due process of law that someone poses such a danger to themselves and others that their rights under the law to refuse care must be taken away in the best interest of society at large. It requires the opinion of Physicians, and evidence presented in court to execute.

An involuntary commitment is NOT a psychiatric hold, or a 24 hour obs.
 
2013-03-14 03:41:00 PM

hardinparamedic: An involuntary commitment is a court order. Not a "sheet of paper" signed by the nurse, as you claim. Not "Hey, I feel suicidal." Not "I want to check myself into rehab." It is a court order, signed by a judge, under the due process of law that someone poses such a danger to themselves and others that their rights under the law to refuse care must be taken away in the best interest of society at large. It requires the opinion of Physicians, and evidence presented in court to execute.


On more time -- this may be true where you live, but it is absolutely not true in many places.

In California, the subject of the article, an involuntary commitment involves a document signed by a Police Officer.  That's it.  No judge.
 
2013-03-14 04:11:45 PM

duenor: I strongly recommend that you watch this video. afterwards, you will see law enforcement in an entirely different light. it's not that the gov is bad. it's that the gov is not necessarily the upstanding friend we grew up thinking it was.


Thanks for the info, though I'm actually not that naive  :) My comment wasn't a joke; I really did already know there's the possibility of selective enforcement, and haven't thought the government and cops were my "upstanding friend" for over 4 decades. :)

But you did fill in information I didn't have. I can see the need for 5150s, but don't think they should trigger the "gun removal" law. After review, I'd only take that step for a 5250 (14-day hold, determined by psychiatric staff rather than a cop...and brought before a judge)

Sniper061: There are a lot of people here who state that it is rather difficult to get someone involuntarily committed.  This is not true.  The process varies state to state but usually it simply involves a medical health professional (even a nurse) filing a single piece of paper.  That is the case in Pennsylvania.  I actually know somebody who had the following story happen to him:


Part of the problem is we casually use the same terms to mean different things. To me, at least, "72-hour-hold" is an emergency police power. "Involuntary commitment" is a judicial/medical power. The police power should not trigger the side-effects you described. Those steps (including the "mark on your permanent record") should only happen after judicial review. This is the step my wife's been an expert witness for.

While I didn't know how this has been perverted by eager law enforcement and politicians wanting to look tough, I am, alas, completely unsurprised. A quick Googling didn't show me any organized attempt to fix this here in Pennsylvania, but as penance for my ignorance I will be volunteering or contributing to such a group when I do find them.

Regarding your friend's 302 form, did the physician sign the notice at the bottom that says "no mental disability was found?" If he did, the design seems to be that should have undone the process that was started and he should  have gotten his gun back. If that section wasn't signed, then your friend was (supposed to be) diagnosed as mentally ill by a psychiatrist and the effort to get his record cleared seems appropriate...by which I just mean it cost about the same money and effort as similar things do once they require attorneys in our crazy system.

But my real guess is, it wasn't signed because he was never seen by a psychiatrist, but the system interprets that as "something was found", which is obviously broken. Cop makes a spot judgement, and if the doctor doesn't get around to dotting every "i" and crossing every "t", the system assumes there was really something wrong with the patient. Not a good design, Pennsylvania!

Cheers!
 
2013-03-14 04:15:43 PM

hardinparamedic: An involuntary commitment is a court order. Not a "sheet of paper" signed by the nurse, as you claim. Not "Hey, I feel suicidal." Not "I want to check myself into rehab." It is a court order, signed by a judge, under the due process of law that someone poses such a danger to themselves and others that their rights under the law to refuse care must be taken away in the best interest of society at large. It requires the opinion of Physicians, and evidence presented in court to execute.


http://www.alleghenycounty.us/dhs/commitment.aspx

Involuntary Commitment in Pennsylvania is not done by court order.  The form is filled out by police, doctor, or mental health professional, etc.  The Office of Behavioral Health is then contacted and the 302 is authorized.  A hearing is optional but not required, so one is never done.  There is no judge involved in this process.

A police officer or a doctor has the authority to initiate a 302 without prior authorization from the OBH delegate. The OBH delegate can be reached by calling 412-350-4457.
Once a 302 is authorized, the individual will be taken to an emergency room by the police or ambulance for an evaluation by a physician to determine if they need to be admitted for involuntary psychiatric inpatient treatment.  If the individual is admitted they may be kept no longer than 120 hours unless a petition for a 303, Extended Emergency Involuntary Treatment, is filed by the hospital.


So at the whim of a police officer or a doctor you can be taken in and the hospital will admit you under the 302 just to ensure that they don't get sued if you really do something.  Guess what?  No more firearms.  No judge is involved in this process.  Tennessee, where you are from, has a completely different system for dealing with this issue and is a state you are lucky to be in with regards to this issue since it does require a court order.  Most states in the US, California and PA included, do not require a court order or a hearing in front of a judge.


Now we go onto the 303, which extends an involuntary commitment beyond 120 hours.  A 303 *does* require a hearing in front of a judge because they are now basically keeping you as a ward of the state.  That point is moot however since the 302 is the only criteria for no longer being allowed to own firearms.  No judge, no hearing, no due process.
 
2013-03-14 04:23:41 PM
kiwimoogle84

And PS Rik01-

I have a government security clearance. It was required for a high- PHI federal job I got a couple years ago. This was DURING THERAPY. So you're spouting right out your ass, because they don't check medical history for job applications.

Think before you talk, because you clearly have no clue what you're talking about.


Uh, worked in the field for years. Also worked with the local police concerning mental health.

I'm aware of several people who have gone for treatment and not used their mental health coverage on their insurance for fear of loosing their jobs. I'm also aware of just how easy it is for Medical History Confidentiality to be circumvented.

When you buy an gun, you have to go through a background check, at least in my state. You are asked on the questionnaire if you have ever had treatment for mental illness. If you mark yes, you are denied. If you lie, chances are high that several months later you'll be contacted by the government concerning charges to be pressed against you for lying on the application.

The law requires, in most states, that severe mental health conditions, especially aggressive ones, be brought to the attention of the police.

BTW, how do you think the California cops got the information on all of the mentally ill in the first place? Guessed?

While employers might not dig deeply in background checks because of the cost, many will. Apply for a key position in a Federal Lab handling dangerous substances and your medical records will be examined. Especially any mental health issues.

A DUI can be found on your arrest record, which can open the door to check to see if you've gone to treatment, which can open the door to checking your medical records for substance abuse, which can allow them to view any mental health records.

Laws have changed since I first got into the mental health fields, making privacy harder and harder to keep. The mass media coverage of school shootings and the increase of random public attacks has forced the creation of new laws.

In many states, if you are very suicidal, your therapist is obligated to report it to the cops. The reasoning is that you just might decide to act -- and take others with you. If you threaten violence towards another and your therapist feels you may carry it out, again they are obligated to report it to the cops.

There's a handful of lawsuits lodged against mental health facilities for not doing just that before someone got killed. Lawsuits have been filed against clinics for not warning folks that someone they know was likely to beat them half to death -- AFTER the incident happened.

If you are on Disability for a mental illness, it's even easier to find out about it.

If you're willing to spend the money, go to a good online background checking company and have them run your background. Chances are high that your treatment for mental illness will show up.
Workman's Comp companies are always working hard to dig into a claimants background to determine if they had a pre-existing condition that may have contributed to their claim.

Yes, we have privacy laws, but there seem to be more and more ways being developed to circumvent them.

BTW. Bipolar Depressive here. I can't buy a gun from a shop. I can buy a gun from a private owner. It's in my mental health files that I own several guns. Previously, prior to becoming bipolar, as a stock room manager, I was investigated by the ATF over some gun thefts from the department store I worked for. They required me to verify the serial numbers of every gun I owned. (Turned out a sales clerk in the sporting goods department had been stealing them. Sneaking them out through my receiving bay right under my nose!)

The catch 22 here is that in order to get well, you have to be truthful with your therapist. Thanks to changes in society, mass killings have become more common, which has turned the lawmakers attention towards those professionals who may know when a human time bomb has his fuse lit, but are bound by confidentiality laws.

The mentally ill scare people with their unpredictability. Scared people tend to lobby to take away civil rights. Politicians, interested in getting re-elected often cave in.

As I've said before, it's reached the point that someone else's civil rights can violate my civil rights.

BTW. Your health insurance company will have records of payments for mental health treatment. Your pharmacy will have records of any mental health related medications you were prescribed. Most major companies providing health care will have free access to your insurance records, since, after all, they're paying at least part of it.

It depends on how badly people want to know.
 
2013-03-14 04:32:06 PM

Rik01: When you buy an gun, you have to go through a background check, at least in my state. You are asked on the questionnaire if you have ever had treatment for mental illness. If you mark yes, you are denied. If you lie, chances are high that several months later you'll be contacted by the government concerning charges to be pressed against you for lying on the application.


Which question asks that?
http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf
The closest is 11f, which does not say treatment for mental illness.  It asks if you've ever been adjudicated mentally defective of have you ever been committed to a mental institution.
 
2013-03-14 04:59:11 PM
Rik01:

I'm aware of several people who have gone for treatment and not used their mental health coverage on their insurance for fear of loosing their jobs. I'm also aware of just how easy it is for Medical History Confidentiality to be circumvented.

When you buy an gun, you have to go through a background check, at least in my state. You are asked on the questionnaire if you have ever had treatment for mental illness. If you mark yes, you are denied. If you lie, chances are high that several months later you'll be contacted by the government concerning charges to be pressed against you for lying on the application.

The law requires, in most states, that severe mental health conditions, especially aggressive ones, be brought to the attention of the police.

BTW, how do you think the California cops got the information on all of the mentally ill in the first place? Guessed?


While employers might not dig deeply in background checks because of the cost, many will. Apply for a key position in a Federal Lab handling dangerous substances and your medical records will be examined. Especially any mental health issues.

A DUI can be found on your arrest record, which can open the door to check to see if you've gone to treatment, which can open the door to checking your medical records for substance abuse, which can allow them to view any mental health records.

Laws have changed since I first got into the mental health fields, making privacy harder and harder to keep. The mass media coverage of school shootings and the increase of random public attacks has forced the creation of new laws.

In many states, if you are very suicidal, your therapist is obligated to report it to the cops. The reasoning is that you just might decide to act -- and take others with you. If you threaten violence towards another and your therapist feels you may carry it out, again they are obligated to report it to the cops.

There's a handful of lawsuits lodged against mental health facilities for not doing just that before someone got killed. Lawsuits have been filed against clinics for not warning folks that someone they know was likely to beat them half to death -- AFTER the incident happened.

If you are on Disability for a mental illness, it's even easier to find out about it.

If you're willing to spend the money, go to a good online background checking company and have them run your background. Chances are high that your treatment for mental illness will show up.
Workman's Comp companies are always working hard to dig into a claimants background to determine if they had a pre-existing condition that may have contributed to their claim.

Yes, we have privacy laws, but there seem to be more and more ways being developed to circumvent them.

BTW. Bipolar Depressive here. I can't buy a gun from a shop. I can buy a gun from a private owner. It's in my mental health files that I own several guns. Previously, prior to becoming bipolar, as a stock room manager, I was investigated by the ATF over some gun thefts from the department store I worked for. They required me to verify the serial numbers of every gun I owned. (Turned out a sales clerk in the sporting goods department had been stealing them. Sneaking them out through my receiving bay right under my nose!)

The catch 22 here is that in order to get well, you have to be truthful with your therapist. Thanks to changes in society, mass killings have become more common, which has turned the lawmakers attention towards those professionals who may know when a human time bomb has his fuse lit, but are bound by confidentiality laws.

The mentally ill scare people with their unpredictability. Scared people tend to lobby to take away civil rights. Politicians, interested in getting re-elected often cave in.

As I've said before, it's reached the point that someone else's civil rights can violate my civil rights.

BTW. Your health insurance company will have records of payments for mental health treatment. Your pharmacy will have records of any mental health related medications you were prescribed. Most major companies providing health care will have free access to your insurance records, since, after all, they're paying at least part of it.

It depends on how badly people want to know.


Ok. I find a few things wrong with these statements. I made a huge long post previously regarding "wording" being the important thing. But let me start at the beginning, at the statements I bolded, in order.

1.  Fear of losing their jobs is different than an actual threat of their job being lost. Also it depends on your field and the severity of your mental illness. "I'm blue" is WAY different than "I want to murder everyone at my local JC Penny's because they didn't have any size 8's." I'll elaborate on the severity thing below.

2. This I agree with you on. Severe. You seek counseling because your mother died and you want closure, there's no police action necessary. Even moderate cases like mine where I had ADMITTED that my life was over, that I didn't want to live anymore because my reason for living was dead- I never said the magic words- those being that I intend to do harm to myself or others, or that I was a danger. Harm and danger. Magic words in the therapy field. It's like a public health hazard- if someone has a positive test for chlamidya, it's not a public health issue since it can be cleared up. If you test HIV+, it has to be reported. And I'm guessing the cops are kept abreast of all patients admitted to psych wards. Just seeking help isn't enough to cause a law enforcement alert.

3. I got cleared for a federal security clearance, and a fairly high one, while undergoing therapy. On my 92 page application it asked several questions regarding my physical and mental health, and since the questions were so specific such as "are you taking medication for a mental illness", I could safely answer no because I was never on medication. I'm fairly certain they scanned my medical history but never came away with anything other than a minor surgery, some stitches, wisdom teeth out, and generalized counseling for bereavement. It didn't stop me from getting my job.

4. Arrest record and criminal background checks are one thing, medical records another. They CAN overlap, but rarely do unless you commit a violent crime like our Aurora friend. They aren't going to check your medical history unless there's a substance other than alcohol in your system, or you're a repeat offender. And if you get hospitalized, again, that's something that a doctor would report to the police, but if you went for depression, they're not going to care.

5. Yes, they will. But harming oneself and harming others are two very different things. Most good therapists can tell if you're angry or just sad. They can tell intention, and moreso if you have detailed a plan to commit suicide. If you say I'm going to blow myself up in a car bomb in the middle of the city, now you're homicidal. If you're going to hang yourself, you're not going to hurt anyone.

6. Yup. That one you hit the nail on the head about, because your doctor is obligated to report the reasoning behind your disability to the state. I have ALSO been on disability leave for my depression, so I'm aware that it gets reported. And even then, that was before my federal background check, and nothing has ever happened to me regarding that.

7. See previous statements. I know EXACTLY what is in my background check. A hospitalization may show up. Generalized treatment won't. Besides, background check is seperate from medical history, again.

8. Pre-existing condition? I worked for a workman's comp facility. If I fall and hurt my back, my depression is unrelated. You would have to prove to a court or third party WC physician that it was related. If I broke my arm skiing last year and then injured my arm at work and am now getting benefits, that's different. You can't tie a toe injury to a box falling on my head.

9. I've been in the health insurance field (in some way or another) for almost ten years. Yes and no about the records of mental health treatment. I worked for HealthNet for five years, and if you had them for your HMO, you had MHN for your mental health benefit. I won't see MHN claims, so if you called me, I'd have JACK on their mental state. Not that I could give it to you without a court order. It's a HIPAA violation, and you can be fired for a single one where I worked.

Also, your pharmacy will have not have records of rx's that were never filled. I have had six depression medication prescriptions written. I never filled a single one. (I talked about that upthread). And that last statement about most major companies providing health care will have access since they're paying part of it? You don't know how the insurance system works. Define "major company providing health care". Any health care provider will have access to your medical records- thanks to EMR. But not any "company." Pfizer drugs will not have access to your medical records. Neither will an insurance company who isn't insuring you.

Besides, the main point is law enforcement would have to subpoena those records, and they won't unless they have a reason, which would not be something minor like my counseling. You're blowing lots of stuff out of proportion but we really are tightly bound as far as when we can give out information. I can't even give medical info to X patient's husband if he's not authorized to speak on her behalf.

You make a lot of good points but I just don't think it's as easy as my head shrink broadcasting it on Monster.com that I had therapy because I was a widow at 23. And you're perpetuating that fear on to others, which may make people not seek treatment. THAT IS A BAD THING. Most minor to moderate issues can be solved with counseling alone, without medication or a psych ward stay.

/sorry for being long winded
//I had too much caffeine today and I type really fast
 
2013-03-14 05:40:52 PM

fnordfocus: hardinparamedic: An involuntary commitment is a court order. Not a "sheet of paper" signed by the nurse, as you claim. Not "Hey, I feel suicidal." Not "I want to check myself into rehab." It is a court order, signed by a judge, under the due process of law that someone poses such a danger to themselves and others that their rights under the law to refuse care must be taken away in the best interest of society at large. It requires the opinion of Physicians, and evidence presented in court to execute.

On more time -- this may be true where you live, but it is absolutely not true in many places.

In California, the subject of the article, an involuntary commitment involves a document signed by a Police Officer.  That's it.  No judge.


You are going to need to use fewer words (and smaller ones at that) if you expect to get through his thick farking head. He will just be right back to derping it up in the next one of these threads because he can't understand simple things.
 
2013-03-14 05:50:11 PM

umad: You are going to need to use fewer words (and smaller ones at that) if you expect to get through his thick farking head. He will just be right back to derping it up in the next one of these threads because he can't understand simple things.


Funny, he's absolutely right for California. Which is terrifying considering the history of mental health system abuse by the police in California.

But I suppose you expected me to argue the point, right?

i.chzbgr.com
 
2013-03-14 06:06:01 PM

hardinparamedic: But I suppose you expected me to argue the point, right?


No, I expect you to claim that you can only be involuntarily committed by a court order the next time it is brought up. Gun control advocates have shown a shockingly short memory. So short, in fact, that it goes in one ear and out the other pretty much every time one of us points out your errors.
 
2013-03-14 06:16:12 PM
hardinparamedic:
Uh, the Polish army had 2.5 million men, to Germany's 1.8 Million. Poland had more tanks than Italy, and had a large calvary force that attracted a great number of highly trained volunteers.

Their problem was that their military was not as modern as the Spanish Civil War-experienced Germans.

In addition, the lies you are promoting border on revisionism of the Holocaust, namely that it could have been stopped if the Jews JUST ...


You just made the argument that Poland was easily overcome because they had inadequate weaponry - that their military was neither as well armed nor well trained. How does that run counter to my argument that being disarmed made the Jews more easily herded into cattle cars? Your 2.5million to 1.8 million statistic (and I'll assume that's verifiable) is akin to the camps in which jews outnumbered germans by several times, and yet were helpless to defend themselves because  they were unarmed.
I'm not arguing that "had the jews been gun owners, the holocaust would never have happened." I'm simply arguing that it was far easier to round up, starve, beat, and gas the jews because they were unarmed.

Saying that Poland fell to Germany (and yes, they were indeed a victim of the Ribbentrip-Molotov pact) in spite of having more men and more [obsolete] tanks than  Italy, and that therefore the Jews could not possibly have benefited from being armed with regards to their systematic execution, makes no sense.

It's akin to saying that my elderly neighbor who had a blackpowder revolver still got beaten up by a teenage thug with a 9mm, and therefore there's no point keeping a gun at home for self defense.

My response isn't for your benefit, incidentally. You're clearly committed to your view. But I felt it necessary to respond so that others don't wind up believing and then perhaps espousing your ill-logic.
 
2013-03-14 06:35:33 PM

duenor: You just made the argument that Poland was easily overcome because they had inadequate weaponry - that their military was neither as well armed nor well trained.


The Polish army was well equipped for another World War I. In fact, all of Europe was. They were not equipped for a Blitzkrieg battle on two fronts, fighting the Soviets in the East, and the Germans in the front, and they were not equipped to fight a battle which involves rapidly mobile, mechanized infantry and the use of armored vehicles to bypass fortifications.

Their military was trained and equipped for the last war. Had Hitler fought another trench battle, the odds are the Polish could have held out against him. Even with their lack of ability to combat Hitler's tactics, their entire position was not hopeless. It was the fact that Stalin entered the war from the other side that devastated them.

duenor: How does that run counter to my argument that being disarmed made the Jews more easily herded into cattle cars?


Uh, I hate to break this to you, but prior to 1945, Europe was predominantly anti-semetic. So was the United States. Many Americans - including some pretty well known Industrialists, supported the Nuremberg Laws. It wasn't that hard to isolate a group that comprised 1.5% of the European population at the time. The fact that Jews made up such a small minority of the European population at the time of the Second World War and the Holocaust means it didn't matter if every man, woman, and child had an MG42. The SS would have still exterminated them.

Your argument amounts to "They got killed because they didn't fight hard enough".

duenor: Your 2.5million to 1.8 million statistic (and I'll assume that's verifiable) is akin to the camps in which jews outnumbered germans by several times, and yet were helpless to defend themselves because  they were unarmed.


NO, THEY WERE NOT.And they DID defend themselves. Against an enemy which saw them as little more than cattle to be slaughtered. The results were devastating. The First Warsaw Ghetto Uprising cost 20 - 90 German lives, compared with over 50,000 Jews being deported and/or summarily executed by the Waffen SS forces. The Second uprising had around 100 or so german casualties depending on the historical source, and resulted in the complete destruction of the city by the Waffen SS. These were not "victories by an armed people" like you seem to claim didn't happen, but rather the token resistance of people who had no choices except to die in a shower room, or die by a bullet.

duenor: Saying that Poland fell to Germany (and yes, they were indeed a victim of the Ribbentrip-Molotov pact) in spite of having more men and more [obsolete] tanks than  Italy, and that therefore the Jews could not possibly have benefited from being armed with regards to their systematic execution, makes no sense.


They WERE armed. That was the point that you can't seem to comprehend through your thick skull. Poland did nothing to limit firearm ownership among Jews before the invasion of Poland. In addition, even when the Nazis restricted Jews of the First Degree from owning firearms, they did not do so through confiscation, but rather through seizure when the Jews were deported. Anyone resisting was shot dead on the spot by the SS or Gestapo.

Guerilla Warfare only works when your opponent is willing to see you as human, and not as a walking bullet sponge.

duenor: I'm not arguing that "had the jews been gun owners, the holocaust would never have happened." I'm simply arguing that it was far easier to round up, starve, beat, and gas the jews because they were unarmed.


They weren't, but since you can't seem to accept that, here we are.

duenor: It's akin to saying that my elderly neighbor who had a blackpowder revolver still got beaten up by a teenage thug with a 9mm, and therefore there's no point keeping a gun at home for self defense.


No, it's akin to pointing out that 1.5% of the population could have never stood up, armed or not, to 98.5% of the population which willingly went along with their deportation and extermination because of centuries of antisemitism and predominant belief in the Jewish conspiracy not just in Europe, but across the world.

The fact of the matter is that those jews which DID take up arms died by the bullet, and those that didn't died by the gas chamber. The Nazis did not care which, in the least, only that the former kept them from plugging a Russian soldier with that hunk of lead.

duenor: My response isn't for your benefit, incidentally. You're clearly committed to your view. But I felt it necessary to respond so that others don't wind up believing and then perhaps espousing your ill-logic.


Wind up believing historical facts versus blaming the victim?
 
2013-03-14 10:38:08 PM
once again, your dim wits fail at basic reading comprehension. and, might I add, at history.

I never asserted that Jews would've fought off the Wehrmacht if they'd been armed - but rather that it was much easier to herd those Jews into the camps because they were unarmed. Let's try a simple yes/no test:

Did the fact that the Jews were unarmed in each of the ghettos make it easier for the Nazis to keep them under control?

oh, but I'm sure you'll argue that things are vastly different because I'm setting the premise as their already having been corralled. Ok, so let's put it this way...

Would it have been harder to force the Jews into the concentration camps had they been armed?

Some more gaping holes in your assertions:

"All of Europe was anti-semitic" (nice generalization there) does not equate to "all of Europe was trying to kill off the Jews". Ergo, no 1.5% vs 98%. If I'm Jewish, and (pick a random country) Mexico is most anti-semitic, this does not mean that I have 112 million Mexicans trying to kill me. Now that crack head on the corner with a kitchen knife,  he's trying to kill me. If Mexico declares war on the US, and I'm a Jewish American,  maybe you can make that argument though that would be more hyperbole than fact. Not even that was the case in 1936-1945.

"jews which took up arms died by the bullet" does not logically lead to the conclusion that "there's no point putting up a fight". If someone were to hold a gun to you and order you to get into a dark alley with them and take off your clothes, would you decide that since you'll probably die anyway, you might as well not struggle and go meekly?

"Poland did nothing to limit firearm ownership" does not equate to "the Jews were armed". My neighbor who believes that no one would ever break into her house has no gun. Nothing is preventing her from owning a firearm (albeit only certain types/forms). That does not mean she is armed.

Must we continue to entertain your way of stretching hasty generalizations and non sequitur arguments posing as logic?
 
2013-03-14 10:56:21 PM
hardinparamedic:

I'm pretty sure you're going to keep trying to argue this... so... I'll just leave this here.

http://jpfo.org/

Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership. "America's Most Aggressive Defender of Firearms Ownership"
Seems like plenty of Jews disagree with your assertion that there's no point to being armed.
 
Displayed 38 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 »






Report