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
 
2013-03-13 05:06:38 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?


Yup.  Not all people who have been in a mental institution pose a danger.  There's quite a tendency to overreact at signs that someone might be suicidal.  (While I don't personally know anyone who got in trouble that way I used to know a teetotaler that got diagnosed as an alcoholic.  It was all based on her answering Yes to "Have you ever lost friends due to alcohol?".  Note that the question does not specify whose alcohol use.)

RenownedCurator: Yeah, I thought about that, especially with the bit about restraining orders. Not that most of them aren't legit, but considering how many DV restraining orders are the standard opening salvo (so to speak) in a divorce, it seems unfair that there's no compensation or way to get them back if it's lifted, as the article said they'd be destroyed.


In that case you should transfer them to someone else before the cops come after them.

Sniper061: 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.


Not to mention the money to be made out of hospitalizing them.
 
2013-03-13 05:06:57 PM
Hurry up and fall into the ocean already.

/COME ON EARTHQUAKE!
 
2013-03-13 05:08:21 PM
FTFA:In an interview as agents inventoried the guns, Lynette Phillips said that while she'd been held involuntarily in a mental hospital in December, the nurse who admitted her had exaggerated the magnitude of her condition.

See where lying gets you? If she truly did exaggerate her illness her attention whoring cost her a constitutional right and she has no one to blame but herself. If she didn't exaggerate her condition, she's probably better off without the guns.
 
2013-03-13 05:08:44 PM

hardinparamedic: Why do you hate freedom so much? You need to stay out of what I do for 30 minutes on a random Saturday.


Your arguing style -- histrionically shrieking about things that were never said, lashing out at imaginary enemies -- is that of a babbling hysteric, so it really isn't much of a surprise to find that you're also attracted to a sentimental show intended for little girls. Just making the obvious connection. Grow a pair, turn off the TV and learn to debate properly, you creampuff.
 
2013-03-13 05:10:34 PM

MythDragon: 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.


Exactly. Regardless of my mental state, I know enough to know that the LEOs at my door are not my friend and are not concerned with my safety or well being. "No. You may not come in."

/former LEO
 
2013-03-13 05:10:49 PM

Pockafrusta: Hurry up and fall into the ocean already.

/COME ON EARTHQUAKE!


See you down in Arizona Bay.
 
2013-03-13 05:10:59 PM

brainiac-dumdum: FTFA:In an interview as agents inventoried the guns, Lynette Phillips said that while she'd been held involuntarily in a mental hospital in December, the nurse who admitted her had exaggerated the magnitude of her condition.

See where lying gets you? If she truly did exaggerate her illness her attention whoring cost her a constitutional right and she has no one to blame but herself. If she didn't exaggerate her condition, she's probably better off without the guns.


Reread the quote and then go have your stone of shame attached.
 
2013-03-13 05:11:13 PM
Well I'm pants pissingly terrified the Government (capital G see, so thst means the party I dont agree with) is going to label me crazy and revoke my rights. Time to buy a gun.
 
2013-03-13 05:11:30 PM

Pockafrusta: Hurry up and fall into the ocean already.

/COME ON EARTHQUAKE!


We're not all bad, I swear to you. I don't like 90% of what California is, but the rest is pretty nice.
 
2013-03-13 05:12:13 PM

JesseL: brainiac-dumdum: FTFA:In an interview as agents inventoried the guns, Lynette Phillips said that while she'd been held involuntarily in a mental hospital in December, the nurse who admitted her had exaggerated the magnitude of her condition.

See where lying gets you? If she truly did exaggerate her illness her attention whoring cost her a constitutional right and she has no one to blame but herself. If she didn't exaggerate her condition, she's probably better off without the guns.

Reread the quote and then go have your stone of shame attached.


Ohhhh, why would a nurse do that?
 
2013-03-13 05:13:59 PM
In general, I'm pro-gun-rights.  IMO people should be able to own pretty much what civilians in most U.S. states can own today.  However,  I don't have any problem with taking guns away from people who are sufficiently mentally unstable to be a threat to themselves or others.  On the gripping hand, such people should probably be locked up--but that would take money, and "taxation is theft," right? :-P  ("Community care" of the mentally ill is a whole other rant.)

I *do* wish we had a way to restore gun rights to mentally ill people who get better with therapy and/or medication.  Currently, if you've ever spent time on a locked ward involuntarily, you lose the right to own guns for life.  That dates to the Gun Control Act of 1968, which was passed back-when attitudes towards the mentally ill were a lot different than they are today.  A lot fewer people were classified as mentally ill and if you were involuntarily committed, chances were you actually *were* a threat to yourself or others and chances that you were ever going to get better were pretty small because therapeutic techniques and medications weren't what they are today.  Also, our social view of the mentally ill has come a long way in the meantime (but IMO not far enough, as getting mental-health help is still stigmatized).

Then there's the whole slippery-slope argument about the ever-expanding definition of "mentally ill."  Currently, that's set at "involuntarily committed by a court order, or found not guilty by reason of insanity of a crime," which is a pretty high bar and involves some pretty serious due process via the court system.  It'd be all too easy to expand that to "ever in an inpatient facility, involuntary or not," "currently under psychiatric care," and so on.

One problem with the mental-health solutions propounded by the NRA is that every last one of them is going to be a deterrent to mentally-ill people seeking help for their issues.  A "mental-health registry" would even deter many of those who have no interest in ever owning a gun.  Who's going to have access to that registry and for what purposes?  Could it be used one day to deny you a job, or insurance, or be used against you in a child-custody proceeding?  Besides, who's more dangerous, someone who sought help for depression 10 years ago and is currently in therapy and on meds, or someone with undiagnosed bipolar disorder who has never sought help, and which one will appear in this "registry"?

The situation we have in the USA right now WRT guns sucks, but every solution I can think of, or that has been thought of by anyone else, sucks worse.  Kinda like capitalism as an economic system, and democracy as a form of government.
 
2013-03-13 05:17:09 PM

brainiac-dumdum: FTFA:In an interview as agents inventoried the guns, Lynette Phillips said that while she'd been held involuntarily in a mental hospital in December, the nurse who admitted her had exaggerated the magnitude of her condition.

See where lying gets you? If she truly did exaggerate her illness her attention whoring cost her a constitutional right and she has no one to blame but herself. If she didn't exaggerate her condition, she's probably better off without the guns.


No, Lynette said the nurse exaggerated the magnitude of her condition.
 
2013-03-13 05:18:25 PM
Here's why there's an issue: It's an easily exploited excuse to seize firearms.
It starts small: "If you fall into one of these categories, you are not allowed to have a firearm."
Okay, makes sense, but then...
"If someone in your house falls into one of these categories, you are not allowed to have a firearm."
Thus if you're in a multi-generational home, and grandpa has mental issues, you are not allowed to have any guns. But it "makes sense" because they want to keep grandpa away from firearms.
Then it becomes...
"If anyone in the house is being treated for a mental condition, you're not allowed to have a firearm."
Now they're moving in. Little Billy takes medication for ADHD, or your spouse some depression medication, or your brother who just came back from Iraq has some medication for anxiety... now nobody in that household is allowed to have a firearm.
But let's say you get divorced, give the kid up for adoption, and grandpa dies. "Can I have my guns back?" "No, because you have a family history of mental issues thus you can't have a gun."

Or if that's too strawman for you...
"I want to kill person X. Person X has a firearm. I'm going to file a bogus complaint and get a preliminary restraining order, wait for the police to go disarm them, and THEN I can go kill person X."
 
2013-03-13 05:18:42 PM
FREE GUNS!!!
 
2013-03-13 05:19:32 PM

j__z: brainiac-dumdum: FTFA:In an interview as agents inventoried the guns, Lynette Phillips said that while she'd been held involuntarily in a mental hospital in December, the nurse who admitted her had exaggerated the magnitude of her condition.

See where lying gets you? If she truly did exaggerate her illness her attention whoring cost her a constitutional right and she has no one to blame but herself. If she didn't exaggerate her condition, she's probably better off without the guns.

No, Lynette said the nurse exaggerated the magnitude of her condition.


yeah, i see it now. I'm working and a little distracted. Would that be a CYA maneuver in case the patient went home and offered herself?
 
2013-03-13 05:19:40 PM

geekbikerskum: One problem with the mental-health solutions propounded by the NRA is that every last one of them is going to be a deterrent to mentally-ill people seeking help for their issues. A "mental-health registry" would even deter many of those who have no interest in ever owning a gun. Who's going to have access to that registry and for what purposes? Could it be used one day to deny you a job, or insurance, or be used against you in a child-custody proceeding? Besides, who's more dangerous, someone who sought help for depression 10 years ago and is currently in therapy and on meds, or someone with undiagnosed bipolar disorder who has never sought help, and which one will appear in this "registry"?


I think they are using it as a tongue-in-cheek demonstration the idiocy of a gun registry. The unintended consequences in both cases overshadows any benefits they provide.
 
2013-03-13 05:19:47 PM

Satanic_Hamster: That's a whole lot of stupid in those comments.  So there's people who actually disagree with removing firearms from crazy people?


Which crazy people? The ones that believed them when they said they wouldn't be archiving a record of gun checks or the people that didn't?

From the article;

""Very, very few states have an archive of firearm owners like we have," said Wintemute, who helped set up the program."
 
2013-03-13 05:20:18 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.


Damn straight. I have zero love for the NRA and their lunatic fringe members, but you still have a right in this country to face your accuser. The last thing I want is some moronic college mental heath service drone with more authority than they deserve. This is some seriously dicey territory constitutionally, even if you disregard the 2nd Amendment issue.
 
2013-03-13 05:20:57 PM
Law enforcement, enforcing laws?

Clearly this is an outrage.
 
2013-03-13 05:22:50 PM
Seems like the gun owners should be compensated for this asset seizure, even if they're crazy. The money could be used towards their treatment, as the mentally ill might have a tougher time finding steady, good-paying jobs.
 
2013-03-13 05:23:05 PM

Marcus Aurelius: Law enforcement, enforcing laws?

Clearly this is an outrage.


That's crazy talk.

Now bend over.
 
2013-03-13 05:23:19 PM

Molavian: treesloth: Cymbal: I don't know what their fark handles are though, but I'm pretty sure one of them is tenpoundsofcheese

Isn't that considered to be "calling out"?

No, and stop being a pussy.


I've had a post or two disappear because I posted the Summon You-Know-Which-Creationist-Troll card.
 
2013-03-13 05:23:27 PM

kiwimoogle84: 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.


OMG. You want to kill that nice old lady downstairs. You monster!
 
2013-03-13 05:25:51 PM

Securitywyrm: Here's why there's an issue: It's an easily exploited excuse to seize firearms.
It starts small: "If you fall into one of these categories, you are not allowed to have a firearm."
Okay, makes sense, but then...
"If someone in your house falls into one of these categories, you are not allowed to have a firearm."
Thus if you're in a multi-generational home, and grandpa has mental issues, you are not allowed to have any guns. But it "makes sense" because they want to keep grandpa away from firearms.
Then it becomes...
"If anyone in the house is being treated for a mental condition, you're not allowed to have a firearm."
Now they're moving in. Little Billy takes medication for ADHD, or your spouse some depression medication, or your brother who just came back from Iraq has some medication for anxiety... now nobody in that household is allowed to have a firearm.
But let's say you get divorced, give the kid up for adoption, and grandpa dies. "Can I have my guns back?" "No, because you have a family history of mental issues thus you can't have a gun."

Or if that's too strawman for you...
"I want to kill person X. Person X has a firearm. I'm going to file a bogus complaint and get a preliminary restraining order, wait for the police to go disarm them, and THEN I can go kill person X."


Yeah, it CAN be a slippery slope. I think it should just be the registered owners. That way, the registered owners can be responsible for ensuring they are locked up and savely out of reach of anyone who may have a mental illness who visits for Christmas dinner. If the registered owner is the only one who knows the combination of the gun safe, and Grandpa has a 'Nam flashback, there's no danger.
 
2013-03-13 05:26:56 PM

Pockafrusta: MythDragon: 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.

Exactly. Regardless of my mental state, I know enough to know that the LEOs at my door are not my friend and are not concerned with my safety or well being. "No. You may not come in."

/former LEO


Also
"We would like to talk with you, can we come in?"
-No.

"Okay, how about you step outside so we can talk with you?"
-HELL no.

Outside is 'probably drunk in public, so let's take him down to the station, chuck him in a cell, and release with no charges in the morning' territory. You don't want to visit that place. The people arn't nice to foreigners there.
Best place to chat with the cops (well there is no *best* place) is right in your door way with them outside, and the door closed as much as possible.
Though if you have a mailslot in your door that would probably be even better to have a chat through.
 
2013-03-13 05:29:31 PM

Autistic_Monkey: kiwimoogle84: 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.

OMG. You want to kill that nice old lady downstairs. You monster!


Well to be fair, her apartment DOES waft the odor of feet upstairs.
 
2013-03-13 05:29:39 PM

cptjeff: 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.


Do you consider it due process when the spouse's guns are seized?   That's happened in Connecticut.
 
2013-03-13 05:31:37 PM
I'm in favor of gun control, but opposed to this. Who can blame someone for not seeking mental health treatment when there is a strong possibility they'll be put on some kind of blacklist? Maybe some schizophrenic goes apeshiat on an airplane, and the next thing you know, they're going through hospital records determining who should be added to the TSA watchlist.
 
2013-03-13 05:34:03 PM
The beauty of this, is anyone who disagrees can be diagnosed with 'oppositional defiant disorder' and have their guns taken away.
 
2013-03-13 05:34:14 PM

dittybopper: Melissa Huet owned an SKS rifle, and her boyfriend Marvin Hall was a convicted felon. He was charged with constructive possession of her rifle, and she was charged with aiding and abetting his possession of a firearm.


i3.mirror.co.uk

I'm outraged too, bro.
 
2013-03-13 05:34:37 PM

kiwimoogle84: RenownedCurator: kiwimoogle84: At the lowest point in my life my family considered me a suicide risk. And I probably was. They both made me promise not to do anything stupid AND took the guns out of the house. I have mixed feelings about it but personally, it was the right thing to do.

I can't say as far as other people go, but it's a step in the right direction probably. Recognizing that the mental instability in people is more of a problem than the guns themselves- but I do kind of feel bad for the loss of money in that case. If the gov came into my house and took my firearms, I'd be half tempted to yell after them "That wasn't a stock grip you know! That cost me an extra $175! I'll be sending you a bill!"

/late hubby was the gun owner, not me
//didn't die by gunshot wound
/not that anyone cares

Yeah, I thought about that, especially with the bit about restraining orders. Not that most of them aren't legit, but considering how many DV restraining orders are the standard opening salvo (so to speak) in a divorce, it seems unfair that there's no compensation or way to get them back if it's lifted, as the article said they'd be destroyed.


That's terrible. Some of those guns, if they're antiques or limited editions, can cost a pretty penny. There should be some sort of program where you can turn them in and get either a tax break or a refund or something. But of course, that would be REASONABLE, and this is the gov, so *shrug*

 cardex: kiwimoogle84: At the lowest point in my life my family considered me a suicide risk. And I probably was. They both made me promise not to do anything stupid AND took the guns out of the house. I have mixed feelings about it but personally, it was the right thing to do.

I can't say as far as other people go, but it's a step in the right direction probably. Recognizing that the mental instability in people is more of a problem than the guns themselves- but I do kind of feel bad for the loss of money in that case. If the gov came into my house and took my firearms, I'd be half tempted to yell after them "That wasn't a stock grip you know! That cost me an extra $175! I'll be sending you a bill!"

/late hubby was the gun owner, not me
//didn't die by gunshot wound
/not that anyone cares

Did you nag him to death ?

/don't care

It usually takes years for a successful wife to nag her husband to death. I was SO GOOD, I did it in six weeks. I deserve an award or something. This is MAJOR. I could teach lessons.


What's your enrollment fee?
 
2013-03-13 05:35:17 PM

kiwimoogle84: Autistic_Monkey: kiwimoogle84: 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.

OMG. You want to kill that nice old lady downstairs. You monster!

Well to be fair, her apartment DOES waft the odor of feet upstairs.


Does she eat a lot of Fritos?
 
2013-03-13 05:38:31 PM
I think the mentally ill should be allowed to have guns as long as they're heavily medicated for their condition.
 
2013-03-13 05:38:45 PM

dittybopper: cptjeff: 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.

Do you consider it due process when the spouse's guns are seized?   That's happened in Connecticut.


Was the spouse, under state law, allowed to be in possession of those guns? Because if the law says that you're not allowed to own guns if you live with somebody adjudicated to be unstable, than the spouse was in unlawful possession of firearms. That would make the spouse a criminal, and I'm told that you're in favor of disarming people who own guns illegally.

Who is and is not a legal gun owner is a matter of legal definition, not some inherent state. If the spouse meets the legal definitions as somebody who is not permitted to own guns, than tough- the police get to take them.
 
2013-03-13 05:38:49 PM
Wild hogs everywhere rejoice
 
2013-03-13 05:39:15 PM
So, are they going to hit the state prescription data base and take guns from anyone who has ever taken an antidepressant?
 
2013-03-13 05:40:55 PM
This is not okay.

Yes, the mentally ill who are  a danger to others should not be allowed to keep their guns. But according to the article (and CA law as I've read and understand it):

1. as long as you weren't committed by your own choice, you qualify as mentally ill. so.... suicidal? nervous breakdown? if your family wanted you committed for treatment, you are now mentally ill.
2. guns that don't belong to the mentally ill person are also eligible for confiscation. so my gun will be taken even though it's my little brother, who I am lovingly caring for, who is suffering manic depression. doesn't matter if it's in a safe, doesn't matter if it's a family heirloom.
3. guns are destroyed. there is no procedure for getting them back, or getting compensated.

So... here is my suggestion to gun owners.

1. DO NOT TALK TO THE POLICE FOR ANY REASON. someone please link the excellent youtube video by the law professor that explains this.
2. If someone in your household needs to be committed, make sure it is recorded as being voluntary unless it really is a case of "danger to others".
3. If someone in your household is eligible for confiscation, get your guns out of the house. A locked safe in a storage locker will suffice.
4. Keep your guns locked up, in a secure container, do not talk about them, brag about them, or show them off to anyone you don't trust with your life.
5. Practice regularly, become involved with your state's gun owner's organization (in California it is Calguns), and participate in the democratic process through voting, writing, and donating.

Guns are absolutely essential to freedom. The Jews in Warsaw, the South Africans during Apartheid, and the Syrians today had to learn this the hard way. No one expects violent oppression in their homeland until it quietly, insidiously, happens.
 
2013-03-13 05:41:00 PM

DisregardTheFollowing: I think the mentally ill should be allowed to have guns as long as they're heavily medicated for their condition.


What if they run out of pills, or forget to take them, and immediately revert to being a danger to themselves and others?

A lot of mental illness is not "cured". It is managed. If that management goes away for whatever reason, which happens, people can go right back to the state that got them put in a mental institution by a judge.
 
2013-03-13 05:42:07 PM

duenor: The Jews in Warsaw,


The Jews in Warsaw had guns. They tried to use them against the Nazis. Didn't end well.
 
2013-03-13 05:43:29 PM

superdude72: I'm in favor of gun control, but opposed to this. Who can blame someone for not seeking mental health treatment when there is a strong possibility they'll be put on some kind of blacklist? Maybe some schizophrenic goes apeshiat on an airplane, and the next thing you know, they're going through hospital records determining who should be added to the TSA watchlist.


It was established earlier in the thread that this applies only to those who were involuntarily committed. People who go to see a shrink because they are depressed are not going to be affected by this.

Also, everyone is talking about how the state is taking goods and not compensating, but the point is these people are all given notice that they may not keep their firearms. They have plenty of opportunity to sell them. It's the ones who choose to hang on to them who get them taken away.
 
2013-03-13 05:44:56 PM
Pay your shrink with cash. Don't use insurance either.

Problem solved.
 
2013-03-13 05:44:58 PM

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?
 
2013-03-13 05:45:44 PM

duenor: Guns are absolutely essential to freedom.


LOL
 
2013-03-13 05:45:55 PM

duenor: This is not okay.

Yes, the mentally ill who are  a danger to others should not be allowed to keep their guns. But according to the article (and CA law as I've read and understand it):

1. as long as you weren't committed by your own choice, you qualify as mentally ill. so.... suicidal? nervous breakdown? if your family wanted you committed for treatment, you are now mentally ill.
2. guns that don't belong to the mentally ill person are also eligible for confiscation. so my gun will be taken even though it's my little brother, who I am lovingly caring for, who is suffering manic depression. doesn't matter if it's in a safe, doesn't matter if it's a family heirloom.
3. guns are destroyed. there is no procedure for getting them back, or getting compensated.

So... here is my suggestion to gun owners.

1. DO NOT TALK TO THE POLICE FOR ANY REASON. someone please link the excellent youtube video by the law professor that explains this.
2. If someone in your household needs to be committed, make sure it is recorded as being voluntary unless it really is a case of "danger to others".
3. If someone in your household is eligible for confiscation, get your guns out of the house. A locked safe in a storage locker will suffice.
4. Keep your guns locked up, in a secure container, do not talk about them, brag about them, or show them off to anyone you don't trust with your life.
5. Practice regularly, become involved with your state's gun owner's organization (in California it is Calguns), and participate in the democratic process through voting, writing, and donating.

Guns are absolutely essential to freedom. The Jews in Warsaw, the South Africans during Apartheid, and the Syrians today had to learn this the hard way. No one expects violent oppression in their homeland until it quietly, insidiously, happens.


In other words, hide the fact that someone in your family may be a danger to themselves and others, because it's more important that they be able to keep their guns.
 
2013-03-13 05:47:14 PM

vicioushobbit: kiwimoogle84: RenownedCurator: kiwimoogle84: At the lowest point in my life my family considered me a suicide risk. And I probably was. They both made me promise not to do anything stupid AND took the guns out of the house. I have mixed feelings about it but personally, it was the right thing to do.

I can't say as far as other people go, but it's a step in the right direction probably. Recognizing that the mental instability in people is more of a problem than the guns themselves- but I do kind of feel bad for the loss of money in that case. If the gov came into my house and took my firearms, I'd be half tempted to yell after them "That wasn't a stock grip you know! That cost me an extra $175! I'll be sending you a bill!"

/late hubby was the gun owner, not me
//didn't die by gunshot wound
/not that anyone cares

Yeah, I thought about that, especially with the bit about restraining orders. Not that most of them aren't legit, but considering how many DV restraining orders are the standard opening salvo (so to speak) in a divorce, it seems unfair that there's no compensation or way to get them back if it's lifted, as the article said they'd be destroyed.


That's terrible. Some of those guns, if they're antiques or limited editions, can cost a pretty penny. There should be some sort of program where you can turn them in and get either a tax break or a refund or something. But of course, that would be REASONABLE, and this is the gov, so *shrug*

 cardex: kiwimoogle84: At the lowest point in my life my family considered me a suicide risk. And I probably was. They both made me promise not to do anything stupid AND took the guns out of the house. I have mixed feelings about it but personally, it was the right thing to do.

I can't say as far as other people go, but it's a step in the right direction probably. Recognizing that the mental instability in people is more of a problem than the guns themselves- but I do kind of feel bad for the loss of money in that case. If th ...


$500. Here's the wisdom... Nag him into buying a sportbike. I guarantee results.

/I take cash or credit
 
2013-03-13 05:47:43 PM

m00: 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.


Are you sitting down? You'll want to sit down before you hear this.

Right now, right here in America, the government can take one's personal freedom away and involuntary commit to a mental health facility people who are deemed "crazy" and the government gets to define what "crazy" is. Not only is this possible now, it has been this way for the entire history of our nation.
 
2013-03-13 05:48:03 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?


AFAIK it isn't "everyone with a mental illness", it's "everyone who's had to be committed due to a mental illness that posed a threat to themselves or others". Avoid botched suicide attempts (and don't kill your neighbors with flowerpots!) and your guns should be fine.
 
2013-03-13 05:49:07 PM

cptjeff: duenor: The Jews in Warsaw,

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


By the time they had them, they were starved, weak, disorganized. And they had piss-poor ones in inadequate numbers. Look up the "Liberator" pistol in google. that was the kind of "gun" they were provided with by the allies. they never seriously wanted to help the jews revolt... they just wanted them to be a disruptive force behind enemy lines.

Look at the various revolutions in the ME in recent years. The one thing they have in common is the tide turns against the oppressive government ONLY when the revolutionaries become organized and effectively armed. THis is not meant to be a politcal commentary on those revolutionaries, but their methods are worth noting.

An AR-15 (or Mini14, or SKS, or M1 Garand, or M-14) in my home does not constitute a threat to the government on its own. But when a large number of the populace is thus effectively armed, it provides a certain final check against oppression.
 
2013-03-13 05:49:11 PM

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.
 
2013-03-13 05:49:39 PM

StoPPeRmobile: Pay your shrink with cash. Don't use insurance either.

Problem solved.


Not with EMR these days. You pay cash at a doctor's office, they're still going to log your diagnosis into a database where every other doctor who ever sees you or wants to look you up can find your medical history. This cuts down a lot of drug seeking behavior, because if a patient sees nineteen different doctors all for different pain related problems just to try and get another rx, they can see the patterns.

/is addiction considered a mental illness now?
 
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 »






Report