Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

11865 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Mar 2013 at 3:48 PM (2 years 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 10:45:20 PM  

geekbikerskum: kiwimoogle84: I see. Well glad to know you didn't go off the deep end. I never ended up with anything like that, thankfully.

Whoops, I think we've got our chain of attribution a little confused here, and maybe that's my fault.  Just to untangle things:

There wasn't any "deep end" for me to go off of. :-) 

It was  Ionessa who made the original post saying that "gloomy feelings" got her a two-day involuntary commit.  A couple of people doubted her story so I put the Depression Comix link up with the attendant personal anecdotes to substantiate the notion that the threshold for putting you in a hospital for a 24/48/72 hour involuntary commit (whatever the limit is where you live, in MA it's 72 hours) can be highly variable, and subjective, lending credibility to  Ionessa's story.

A friend of mine pointed me at "Depression Comix", that's why I started reading.   I have enough friends who've had interactions with mental-health professionals, and who've been in various inpatient facilities, voluntarily and not, that I can appreciate the humor.  Apparently if you're a frequent guest, you develop a real sense of gallows humor about the whole thing, pardon the expression.  Fits in really nicely with my own sick sense of humor, which, I guess, is why my friends in that situation feel it's safe to share with me.


This is why I should read names more carefully. *facepalm*
 
2013-03-13 10:48:57 PM  
As someone that works at a state hospital I do think that those with mental illness should have at the very least restricted access to weapons of any sort. However, I also think that first we need to identify what should be considered mental illness. I work in a maximum security facility with people that have committed rapes, strong arm robbery, murder and a combination of other crimes. And these people have just about any and every mental illness that is in the DSM IV-TR/DSM 5. But not all are crazy. Some such as those with personality disorders or even the sexually violent predators do not have what can be seen as a chemical imbalance in the brain that can be fixed with meds. The other guys with depression, or schizophrenia, or the various types of bi polarisms, or even developmental disabilities on the other hand can be somewhat cured with a good medication regiment.
Even more so in the ward that I work with we have everything from individuals literally born into the system, to individuals that went to Ivy league schools, professors, pilots, and people from all levels of the social, economic, cultural spectrum.
Which brings me back to my original point, yes that meth head who has been in and out of jail has some sort of mental illness, most likely drug induced and yes he should have his guns taken but so should that CEO who has began showing signs of dementia and has a dossier in his desk with the words "sacrifice for the Lord Satan" of peeping tom pictures he took of his female staff while they were doing their business in the bathroom.

Guns are bad, yes, and lots of the guys I supervise have used them in their crimes, but they have also used fists and cars and hammers and bat and an assortment of other bludgeoning and stabbing devices. And not to go too off topic but lots of these guys are slowly becoming geriatric which means in the next few years you will have a lot of medical psych cases, if you think the homeless old man yelling at the clouds is bad now multiply the number several fold. And add in the returning veteran equation in there, hundreds if not thousands or tens of thousands of young men and women who are weapon trained and will eventually show signs of TBI, PTSD or mental illness due to their exposure to the battlefield. If we don't have a dialogue about mental health right now then... well I'll have job security, but so will the cops, the coroner, as well as the mortician and the gravestone maker.

/my $0.02.
//Having worked retail during black Friday, the crazies are saner than the sane.
 
2013-03-13 10:50:55 PM  
geekbikerskum:

Crap, I think I have to make you my sworn enemy.  Go to my profile and look at my email address to see why.
 
2013-03-13 10:51:28 PM  

Ionessa: geekbikerskum: kiwimoogle84: Gloomy feelings translated to a two-day stay? Sounds like there's more to the story, but I won't pry. Just seems like the diagnosis didn't justify the stay.

SFW, and mordantly funny, but trigger warning for those with a history of mental-health issues, especially depression and/or suicide attempts:
http://depressioncomix.tumblr.com/post/44684701412/depression-comix- 11 0-nav-1-109-110-111

That comic actually spawned quite a lot of discussion in comments about just when a mental-health professional will decide it's time for an involuntary commit.  It's *highly* variable and depends on the practitioner.  Based on the highly variable experiences of the commenters, it sounds like if you phrase things the wrong way, or try to pass off a bit of black humor, to the wrong person, you could end up an involuntary guest at the Hoo Hoo Hotel.

Sadly that was the case.

But I must admit, that comic made me chuckle.


Same here, liking the comic, was put in for a ten day observation once by my parents when I was still a minor.
/I don't like the sound of punishing people that had mental health problems though.
//If they're a danger to themselves or others they shouldn't be on the street
/If they're out why punish them like felons?
 
2013-03-13 10:52:10 PM  

fnordfocus: In California, people are frequently committed for "contempt of cop" rather than any actual mental illness.  It's an easy way to lock someone up for a guaranteed 72 hours with no chance of ROR or bail.


Yep, this.  The Baker Act in Florida is similarly abused, but is even worse by an order of magnitude.  Just an anonymous phone call to 911 from a "concerned citizen" can have you Baker acted.  Mad at your neighbor?  Make a concerned phone call.

The investigative news here has also done several pieces on how the act is heavily abused by young adults having their parents committed.  Tired of dealing with Mom, who is older, but not technically sick?  She refuses to go to a  "nursing home"?  No problem.  Have her Baker Acted.  It takes just one phone call.

You're 25, have no job, and you want Dads house, boat, car, and all his stuff?  Just call 911 and tell police he has been acting erratically.  Instant inheritance.
 
2013-03-13 10:53:18 PM  

scruffy1: Guns are bad, yes


No.  They aren't.  Guns are inanimate objects with absolutely no leanings towards either good or bad.
 
2013-03-13 10:58:48 PM  

OgreMagi: geekbikerskum:

Crap, I think I have to make you my sworn enemy.  Go to my profile and look at my email address to see why.


Heh.  I'm "bikergeek" at a bunch of places but when I signed up for an account here that username was already taken.
 
2013-03-13 11:00:07 PM  

OgreMagi: scruffy1: Guns are bad, yes

No.  They aren't.  Guns are inanimate objects with absolutely no leanings towards either good or bad.


That's what they want you to think.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=E_-h2_ontVs
 
2013-03-13 11:01:01 PM  

geekbikerskum: OgreMagi: geekbikerskum:

Crap, I think I have to make you my sworn enemy.  Go to my profile and look at my email address to see why.

Heh.  I'm "bikergeek" at a bunch of places but when I signed up for an account here that username was already taken.


As was "geekbiker" and "ogre".  I bet those handles aren't even being used.
 
2013-03-13 11:02:16 PM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: fnordfocus: In California, people are frequently committed for "contempt of cop" rather than any actual mental illness.  It's an easy way to lock someone up for a guaranteed 72 hours with no chance of ROR or bail.

Yep, this.  The Baker Act in Florida is similarly abused, but is even worse by an order of magnitude.  Just an anonymous phone call to 911 from a "concerned citizen" can have you Baker acted.  Mad at your neighbor?  Make a concerned phone call.

The investigative news here has also done several pieces on how the act is heavily abused by young adults having their parents committed.  Tired of dealing with Mom, who is older, but not technically sick?  She refuses to go to a  "nursing home"?  No problem.  Have her Baker Acted.  It takes just one phone call.

You're 25, have no job, and you want Dads house, boat, car, and all his stuff?  Just call 911 and tell police he has been acting erratically.  Instant inheritance.


I have you farkied as "has common sense". And I can't for the life of me recall during what thread I gave you that handle, though you haven't proven otherwise yet.

Never heard of this law, now I'm kind of fascinated.
 
2013-03-13 11:03:45 PM  

OgreMagi: scruffy1: Guns are bad, yes

No.  They aren't.  Guns are inanimate objects with absolutely no leanings towards either good or bad.


Very true, I'm getting tried of the gun hate.
/And if they're so bad why do cops get bigger and better ones?
 
2013-03-13 11:04:20 PM  

scruffy1: OgreMagi: scruffy1: Guns are bad, yes

No.  They aren't.  Guns are inanimate objects with absolutely no leanings towards either good or bad.

That's what they want you to think.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=E_-h2_ontVs


That was a joke, right?  Please tell me it was a joke and there aren't people who actually believe that shiat!
 
2013-03-13 11:04:39 PM  

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

Define "mentally ill" for us, please.


Uh, done in less than 50 comments. The husband of the person committed (in the article) lost his guns too, because the mentally ill person "can't have access at all," even though he did nothing wrong. Also, this was after she was supposedly only committed for two days, all over a nurse's note in her medical record.

Before people lose guns due to "mental illness," let's see those folks with a long string of involuntary commitments go, not people who had an issue once or twice. I'd also like to see the list of diagnoses that qualify someone for this. Is it everyone who has schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and depression, or are we legitimately going after people who pose a danger to OTHERS (not self, that shouldn't count) and who lack the proper mental capacity?

/Don't go to the head doctor
//Well, unless you want a fancy label to help you get through school
 
2013-03-13 11:04:55 PM  

scruffy1: OgreMagi: scruffy1: Guns are bad, yes

No.  They aren't.  Guns are inanimate objects with absolutely no leanings towards either good or bad.

That's what they want you to think.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=E_-h2_ontVs


By that logic, my Volkswagen is out for blood. And don't even get me started on that TV I previously mentioned. It yearns to leap out of my arms with the unbridled desire to positively pulverize poor old Ms. Neidermeyer from apt 6B.
 
2013-03-13 11:12:54 PM  

OgreMagi: scruffy1: OgreMagi: scruffy1: Guns are bad, yes

No.  They aren't.  Guns are inanimate objects with absolutely no leanings towards either good or bad.

That's what they want you to think.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=E_-h2_ontVs

That was a joke, right?  Please tell me it was a joke and there aren't people who actually believe that shiat!


I hope so... but then again I do work with the anti-Christ, a zombie, and several guys that think that water is made from the poisoned souls of angels.
 
2013-03-13 11:13:20 PM  

kiwimoogle84: scruffy1: OgreMagi: scruffy1: Guns are bad, yes

No.  They aren't.  Guns are inanimate objects with absolutely no leanings towards either good or bad.

That's what they want you to think.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=E_-h2_ontVs

By that logic, my Volkswagen is out for blood. And don't even get me started on that TV I previously mentioned. It yearns to leap out of my arms with the unbridled desire to positively pulverize poor old Ms. Neidermeyer from apt 6B.


All Volkswagen's are evil incarnate. I know, I've own two of them they would always leave me stranded in the most inconvenient places.Goob luck with the old lady in 6B :)
 
2013-03-13 11:13:21 PM  
Part of me thinks this is a good idea, and the other part thinks that this will end up dissuading a bunch of mentally ill/depressed people from certain walks of life from getting treatment for their problems because they don't want their guns taken away. I understand the intent, but this could end up backfiring.
 
2013-03-13 11:14:48 PM  
Goob = good
/damn typo's
 
2013-03-13 11:15:29 PM  

karlandtanya: Article the fourth..... A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


Are these mentally ill people members of well regulated militias?
 
2013-03-13 11:17:34 PM  

tinfoil-hat maggie: kiwimoogle84: scruffy1: OgreMagi: scruffy1: Guns are bad, yes

No.  They aren't.  Guns are inanimate objects with absolutely no leanings towards either good or bad.

That's what they want you to think.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=E_-h2_ontVs

By that logic, my Volkswagen is out for blood. And don't even get me started on that TV I previously mentioned. It yearns to leap out of my arms with the unbridled desire to positively pulverize poor old Ms. Neidermeyer from apt 6B.

All Volkswagen's are evil incarnate. I know, I've own two of them they would always leave me stranded in the most inconvenient places.Goob luck with the old lady in 6B :)


That was in reference to an earlier post where I said my tv could be considered a lethal weapon if I dropped it on my neighbor.

And my bun has never let me down yet! Maybe she's just waiting... I'll have to sleep with one eye open...
 
2013-03-13 11:18:26 PM  

ambercat: Part of me thinks this is a good idea, and the other part thinks that this will end up dissuading a bunch of mentally ill/depressed people from certain walks of life from getting treatment for their problems because they don't want their guns taken away. I understand the intent, but this could end up backfiring.


Sorta what I'm thinking and the potential for abuse of it ,well.... Not to mention basically it turns having a one time mental illness problem into a felony type punishment.
/Not really happy about the sound of that.
 
2013-03-13 11:18:45 PM  
i've spent time in mental institutions. most of those folks are of a much higher caliber than those wearing badges and sitting in office in WashDC.
 
2013-03-13 11:23:37 PM  

scruffy1: As someone that works at a state hospital


Doing what?

Why should we trust the opinion of someone who uses "regiment" when the correct word is "regimen"?

And you also work retail?

And then you post some ridiculous youtube video.

And claim "guns are bad"?
 
2013-03-13 11:27:18 PM  

itsanillusionmichael: Simple problem...simple solution.



Nope on both counts.
I don't think its simple or acceptable to make me pay a fine or sit a test to prove that I'm not a criminal or crazy.
Its not a solution for those who hate firearms.  Their response to weapons isn't rational, and any incident will be an excuse to alter this deal.
It doesn't stop crime. Many places with high murder rates have permit systems, but the crooks don't care.


You'd be taking away my rights just to offer them back as a gift from the state.
While that sounds very generous, what do I get out of this that I didn't have better under the old system? ...Aside from a new liability.
The promise to be eaten first by DianeFeinstein and her ilk when some hideous law finally rises from the depths of congress?

I'd rather keep the fleeting shadow of anonymity that exists, such as it is.
 
2013-03-13 11:29:36 PM  

duenor: However, I'm not sure that the state should intervene in a case where the person is not a danger to others. If I'm committed at one point for being suicidal, and then later get better, should I still have my guns taken away? Especially if part of the reason why I was suicidal was because I felt unsafe? Again, hypothetical but things to think about.


In an attempt to keep discussing this intelligently, I looked up the actual California law. It turns out the Bloomberg article is just filled with crap! For suicidal threats, they can take your guns ONLY if a licensed psychotherapist has reported you to the police as a danger to yourself WITHIN THE LAST SIX MONTHS. As for the "lack of due process" (another farker's phrase, not yours), there's a full set of due process appeals and such spelled out right there in this law. Bloomberg says you don't get your guns back? Look at this:

b) Upon confiscation of any firearm or other deadly weapon from a person who has been detained or apprehended for examination of his or her mental condition, the peace officer or law enforcement agency shall notify the person of the procedure for the return of any firearm or other deadly weapon which has been confiscated.

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.

Source:  http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=wic&group=08001- 09000&file=8100-8108
 
2013-03-13 11:30:24 PM  

swangoatman: Balchinian: Gun enthusiast and retired criminal psychoanalist.  I do not have a problem with this.  Will it drive more guns "underground"?  Yes, of course.  All legislation does that.  Will it save lives?  Absolutely.

If there is a mentally ill person in your home there should never be guns in that home.  Period.

So PMS and Postpartum blues makes daddy lose?


I've actually made arrangements to lend my guns to a favorite cousin for a few months after husband and I have our first kid, both in exchange for a bit of babysitting and as a safeguard against the possibility that the hormones might make me a little nuts. Considering what my Mom went through, it seemed like the safest option, plus hey, free babysitting, and cousin had me do the same thing when she had her son, just in case. It's just like how after my great-uncle suddenly passed, my great-aunt asked my dad and uncle to please come and collect his guns, as she wasn't sure she could trust herself while she managed the grief. They brought them back in about a year, once she was feeling better and once my cousin and I were old enough for black-powder lessons with Auntie.

Not every gun-owner has that much foresight and self-awareness, though (our family's a bit more aware of mental health than most, given what one ancestor did back in the 1850s,) and provided gun confiscation for the purposes of preventing deaths can be done fairly, I have no objection to the state saying "it's safer this way."

See, if the guns weren't going to be destroyed, but held until the person were either A. certifiably sane again or B. able to find a buyer who didn't live in the same house, I'd be okay with it. I'd also be okay with the guns, outside of very rare or historical ones, being sold at market rate and the potentially-crazy person being given the money.

I'd also prefer due process and a clearly outlined path of what mental health standards a person must meet in order to be gun-safe, not only for the people experiencing temporary rough patches, but so that eventually, some reasonable standard of sanity would be required to get a gun in the first place. I also like the idea of events including a suicidal call or a doctor-recommended gun-confiscation immediately qualifying one for a free, state-funded support program with access to therapists, and I'm also in favor of single-payer healthcare as a baseline standard for all American citizens. If mental health is to become a condition of having access to certain Constitutional rights, then it only seems fair for the means to attain said health to be provided as a standard condition and right of all citizens...and if this law helps get us there, well, good.

/did you know that there are liberal gun-enthusiasts?
//we're rare and quiet, but we're here, and we're really fond of our black-powder and our AR-15s.
///the cut-down .30-30 mare's leg from great-Grandma is my favorite.
 
2013-03-13 11:32:08 PM  

tinfoil-hat maggie: Goob = good
/damn typo's


I know someone named Goob, and yes, he's a good guy. I'll let him know you care and stuff.

/I hope that's just a nickname, cuz if it's not, his parents have creepily accurate psychic abilities
 
2013-03-13 11:32:44 PM  

kiwimoogle84: tinfoil-hat maggie: kiwimoogle84: scruffy1: OgreMagi: scruffy1: Guns are bad, yes

No.  They aren't.  Guns are inanimate objects with absolutely no leanings towards either good or bad.

That's what they want you to think.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=E_-h2_ontVs

By that logic, my Volkswagen is out for blood. And don't even get me started on that TV I previously mentioned. It yearns to leap out of my arms with the unbridled desire to positively pulverize poor old Ms. Neidermeyer from apt 6B.

All Volkswagen's are evil incarnate. I know, I've own two of them they would always leave me stranded in the most inconvenient places.Goob luck with the old lady in 6B :)

That was in reference to an earlier post where I said my tv could be considered a lethal weapon if I dropped it on my neighbor.

And my bun has never let me down yet! Maybe she's just waiting... I'll have to sleep with one eye open...


Well, too be fair I only had the old ones. Although do be on you're guard ; )
 
2013-03-13 11:33:14 PM  

justtray: "Better mental health!"

"Wait, I'm crazy? Don't thread on me! Shall not be infringed!" said the Area man.


Go away with your crazy ideas sir
 
2013-03-13 11:33:56 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?


Same here. Plus, my gun was a birthday gift from my boyfriend so that would be extra shiatty of me. But it does sound like it would take more to qualify than a simple depression diagnosis, especially if your medical history proves it's being managed.
 
2013-03-13 11:33:58 PM  

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.
 
2013-03-13 11:42:41 PM  

tinfoil-hat maggie: kiwimoogle84: tinfoil-hat maggie: kiwimoogle84: scruffy1: OgreMagi: scruffy1: Guns are bad, yes

No.  They aren't.  Guns are inanimate objects with absolutely no leanings towards either good or bad.

That's what they want you to think.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=E_-h2_ontVs

By that logic, my Volkswagen is out for blood. And don't even get me started on that TV I previously mentioned. It yearns to leap out of my arms with the unbridled desire to positively pulverize poor old Ms. Neidermeyer from apt 6B.

All Volkswagen's are evil incarnate. I know, I've own two of them they would always leave me stranded in the most inconvenient places.Goob luck with the old lady in 6B :)

That was in reference to an earlier post where I said my tv could be considered a lethal weapon if I dropped it on my neighbor.

And my bun has never let me down yet! Maybe she's just waiting... I'll have to sleep with one eye open...

Well, too be fair I only had the old ones. Although do be on you're guard ; )



I shall, minus the apostrophe.

/I'm sorry I'm a grammar nazi sometimes
 
2013-03-13 11:46:01 PM  

SpiderQueenDemon: swangoatman: Balchinian: Gun enthusiast and retired criminal psychoanalist.  I do not have a problem with this.  Will it drive more guns "underground"?  Yes, of course.  All legislation does that.  Will it save lives?  Absolutely.

If there is a mentally ill person in your home there should never be guns in that home.  Period.

So PMS and Postpartum blues makes daddy lose?

I've actually made arrangements to lend my guns to a favorite cousin for a few months after husband and I have our first kid, both in exchange for a bit of babysitting and as a safeguard against the possibility that the hormones might make me a little nuts. Considering what my Mom went through, it seemed like the safest option, plus hey, free babysitting, and cousin had me do the same thing when she had her son, just in case. It's just like how after my great-uncle suddenly passed, my great-aunt asked my dad and uncle to please come and collect his guns, as she wasn't sure she could trust herself while she managed the grief. They brought them back in about a year, once she was feeling better and once my cousin and I were old enough for black-powder lessons with Auntie.

Not every gun-owner has that much foresight and self-awareness, though (our family's a bit more aware of mental health than most, given what one ancestor did back in the 1850s,) and provided gun confiscation for the purposes of preventing deaths can be done fairly, I have no objection to the state saying "it's safer this way."

See, if the guns weren't going to be destroyed, but held until the person were either A. certifiably sane again or B. able to find a buyer who didn't live in the same house, I'd be okay with it. I'd also be okay with the guns, outside of very rare or historical ones, being sold at market rate and the potentially-crazy person being given the money.

I'd also prefer due process and a clearly outlined path of what mental health standards a person must meet in order to be gun-safe, not only for the people exper ...


^^^^Pretty much all of this ^^^^
/And ya I'm a solid libby that believes in the right to own guns.
 
2013-03-13 11:47:07 PM  

Real Women Drink Akvavit: tinfoil-hat maggie: Goob = good
/damn typo's

I know someone named Goob, and yes, he's a good guy. I'll let him know you care and stuff.

/I hope that's just a nickname, cuz if it's not, his parents have creepily accurate psychic abilities


LoL ; )
 
2013-03-13 11:47:19 PM  

Beowoolfie: duenor: However, I'm not sure that the state should intervene in a case where the person is not a danger to others. If I'm committed at one point for being suicidal, and then later get better, should I still have my guns taken away? Especially if part of the reason why I was suicidal was because I felt unsafe? Again, hypothetical but things to think about.

In an attempt to keep discussing this intelligently, I looked up the actual California law. It turns out the Bloomberg article is just filled with crap! For suicidal threats, they can take your guns ONLY if a licensed psychotherapist has reported you to the police as a danger to yourself WITHIN THE LAST SIX MONTHS. As for the "lack of due process" (another farker's phrase, not yours), there's a full set of due process appeals and such spelled out right there in this law. Bloomberg says you don't get your guns back? Look at this:

b) Upon confiscation of any firearm or other deadly weapon from a person who has been detained or apprehended for examination of his or her mental condition, the peace officer or law enforcement agency shall notify the person of the procedure for the return of any firearm or other deadly weapon which has been confiscated.

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.

Source:  http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=wic&group=08001- 09000&file=8100-8108


I don't know if the cops are or are not selectively ignoring parts of the law on purpose or if they--like probably the writer of this article--are just ignorant of it. I suspect it's the latter. Certainly I knew even without any research that there are mechanisms for having your firearms returned; someone else has already posted repeatedly and without any response that there are ways to have your guns given back; and here you've done it again. Yet the herpaderp of outrage continues.

Look, I don't know why people insist on believing the worst possible outcomes for everything, but the simple fact is that: 1) Yes, if you are detained for mental health reasons, the state of California can and probably will take your guns. 2) If they do, you have every right to have them returned after a certain period of time, unless your problems remain unabated. 3) 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.

I've ranted before about people not giving consequences a good thinking through before making suggestions, and here it is again: Only a month or so ago, everyone was shrieking about getting gunz away from crazy people! Whatever it takes! National registration! Don't let them have gunz! So now we find out that California has a policy in place to take gunz away from crazy people and the response is OMFG! We can't do that! What about due process?! What about their rights?! Fascism! Police state!

There is due process already: The person who was 5150'd has a way to go to court and ask to have his weapons returned if he so chooses and can demonstrate he's taken care of the problem. And the people of California felt that this was needed to keep crazy people from having gunz. Confiscation is what must happen to keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill, who may have been perfectly sane when they originally bought the weapons. Did people think the guns would dissolve when the owner lost his mind? No: The only way to keep weapons away from crazy people is to take them AFTER they are found to be ill. Just like you can't take sugar away from someone before they become diabetic. Or, we can not take guns away from the mentally ill and live with the consequences. There is no third option.
 
2013-03-13 11:50:20 PM  

kiwimoogle84: I shall, minus the apostrophe.

/I'm sorry I'm a grammar nazi sometimes



No worries, if I'm posting on Fark I'm probably drinking, which I am right now and me no spell so good then ; )
 
2013-03-14 12:00:54 AM  

tinfoil-hat maggie: kiwimoogle84: I shall, minus the apostrophe.

/I'm sorry I'm a grammar nazi sometimes


No worries, if I'm posting on Fark I'm probably drinking, which I am right now and me no spell so good then ; )


I overcompensate my enunciation when I drink, and I probably do the same thing while typing. That's how everyone around me knows I'm trashed- I speak slowly and carefully and over pronounce my consonants. I sound great but they know that's the sign.

Enjoy your evening! I'm gonna go clean out my four-wheeled demon spawn vehicle :P
 
2013-03-14 12:02:42 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Beowoolfie: duenor: However, I'm not sure that the state should intervene in a case where the person is not a danger to others. If I'm committed at one point for being suicidal, and then later get better, should I still have my guns taken away? Especially if part of the reason why I was suicidal was because I felt unsafe? Again, hypothetical but things to think about.

In an attempt to keep discussing this intelligently, I looked up the actual California law. It turns out the Bloomberg article is just filled with crap! For suicidal threats, they can take your guns ONLY if a licensed psychotherapist has reported you to the police as a danger to yourself WITHIN THE LAST SIX MONTHS. As for the "lack of due process" (another farker's phrase, not yours), there's a full set of due process appeals and such spelled out right there in this law. Bloomberg says you don't get your guns back? Look at this:

b) Upon confiscation of any firearm or other deadly weapon from a person who has been detained or apprehended for examination of his or her mental condition, the peace officer or law enforcement agency shall notify the person of the procedure for the return of any firearm or other deadly weapon which has been confiscated.

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.

Source:  http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=wic&group=08001- 09000&file=8100-8108

I don't know if the cops are or are not selectively ignoring parts of the law on purpose or if they--like probably the writer of this article--are just ignorant of it. I suspect it's the latter. Certainly I knew even without any research that there are mechanisms for having your firearms returned; someone else has already posted repeatedly and without any response that there are ways to have your guns given back; and here you've ...


Alright so there's supposed to be due process but why should a person have to go through it after they've been released from a mental institution? Are they still a danger to themselves or others? If that's the case why release them?
/Just sounds messed up to me.
 
2013-03-14 12:05:30 AM  

kiwimoogle84: tinfoil-hat maggie: kiwimoogle84: I shall, minus the apostrophe.

/I'm sorry I'm a grammar nazi sometimes


No worries, if I'm posting on Fark I'm probably drinking, which I am right now and me no spell so good then ; )

I overcompensate my enunciation when I drink, and I probably do the same thing while typing. That's how everyone around me knows I'm trashed- I speak slowly and carefully and over pronounce my consonants. I sound great but they know that's the sign.

Enjoy your evening! I'm gonna go clean out my four-wheeled demon spawn vehicle :P


Yea everyone has a tell : )
Stay safe, just remember the woman in 6B might be thinking of dropping a TV on you as well ; )
 
2013-03-14 12:10:01 AM  

tinfoil-hat maggie: Gyrfalcon: Beowoolfie: duenor: However, I'm not sure that the state should intervene in a case where the person is not a danger to others. If I'm committed at one point for being suicidal, and then later get better, should I still have my guns taken away? Especially if part of the reason why I was suicidal was because I felt unsafe? Again, hypothetical but things to think about.

In an attempt to keep discussing this intelligently, I looked up the actual California law. It turns out the Bloomberg article is just filled with crap! For suicidal threats, they can take your guns ONLY if a licensed psychotherapist has reported you to the police as a danger to yourself WITHIN THE LAST SIX MONTHS. As for the "lack of due process" (another farker's phrase, not yours), there's a full set of due process appeals and such spelled out right there in this law. Bloomberg says you don't get your guns back? Look at this:

b) Upon confiscation of any firearm or other deadly weapon from a person who has been detained or apprehended for examination of his or her mental condition, the peace officer or law enforcement agency shall notify the person of the procedure for the return of any firearm or other deadly weapon which has been confiscated.

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.

Source:  http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=wic&group=08001- 09000&file=8100-8108

I don't know if the cops are or are not selectively ignoring parts of the law on purpose or if they--like probably the writer of this article--are just ignorant of it. I suspect it's the latter. Certainly I knew even without any research that there are mechanisms for having your firearms returned; someone else has already posted repeatedly and without any response that there are ways to have your guns given back; and h ...


The article was vague on what constitutes a mental institute. In California you have the various psych hospitals and psych clinics. You have group and community homes for people with psych issues and you also have the state hospital system. Within that system you have the civil commitments and the forensic commitments. I work with the latter and those are by all definition felons who have been paroled into the hospital system because they are either not ready to return to society or will never return to society. The civil commitments also known as LPS short for  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanterman%E2%80%93Petris%E2%80%93Short_A c t are different altogether and are not felons therefore in most cases should not be barred from owning firearms. I wonder if the article is referencing those and not the guys that are in as criminal commitments.
 
2013-03-14 12:15:30 AM  

way south: itsanillusionmichael: Simple problem...simple solution.


Nope on both counts.
I don't think its simple or acceptable to make me pay a fine or sit a test to prove that I'm not a criminal or crazy.
Its not a solution for those who hate firearms.  Their response to weapons isn't rational, and any incident will be an excuse to alter this deal.
It doesn't stop crime. Many places with high murder rates have permit systems, but the crooks don't care.


You'd be taking away my rights just to offer them back as a gift from the state.
While that sounds very generous, what do I get out of this that I didn't have better under the old system? ...Aside from a new liability.
The promise to be eaten first by DianeFeinstein and her ilk when some hideous law finally rises from the depths of congress?

I'd rather keep the fleeting shadow of anonymity that exists, such as it is.



^^^
"It doesn't stop crime."

False. http://www.wsbt.com/wsbt-more-gun-laws-fewer-deaths-50state-study-say s -20130307,0,4280494.story
 
2013-03-14 12:17:30 AM  

Cyrorm: Telling people they should avoid mental health providers over fears that they will lose thier guns is the STUPIDEST reason to not seek mental health when you are feeling unstable in any way shape or form.  Seeing a "shrink" does not get your gun removed in California, being INVOLUNTARILY commited to a mental hospital is the qualifier....  Learn to read dumbasses.


I agree, it's farked up that someone would fear their property being taken (And bear in mind it is 'taken', not 'held until you get better') is messed up. It's also the truth.
If someone is involuntarily committed to a mental hospital, do you seriously think that they'll be allowed to have a gun in the mental hospital just because they own it? And if they're being sent back home when they're still a threat, isn't that a failure of mental healthcare rather than a failure of the second amendment?

It seems that you're anti-mental healthcare. You'd rather have the streets full of crazy but unarmed people than sane armed people.
 
2013-03-14 12:21:09 AM  

OgreMagi: 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.

That was my personal experience.  I never hit my (ex)wife.  I never threatened to hit her.  I never even thought about hitting her.  But her opening shot at me was to get a restraining order.  In California, a woman can say the magic words, "I don't feel safe", and the courts would grant a retraining order against Fred Rogers himself.  You can't even fight it.  I dutifully turned in my firearms to the local police station thinking I'd have them back in a few days after the hearing.  At the hearing, the judge admited there was no evidence of DV, but chose to leave the retraining order in place "just in case".  When the retraining order expired a few years later I went to get my guns.  The police had turned them into metal filings.


Now picture this.
Your soon to be ex-wife is a crazy person, thus the "Soon to be ex" part.
She wants to kill you. She knows you have a gun.
She files a restraining order.
You, as a law-abiding citizen, have to turn in your guns.
She then shoots you.
Police don't care, they just arrest you. The judge, the police, nobody will be held accountable for taking away your ability to defend yourself.
 
2013-03-14 12:25:36 AM  

pedrop357: 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.

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.


Thank you. I'll have to save this for the next time someone tries to compare owning guns and owning firearms.
 
2013-03-14 12:27:08 AM  

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.
 
2013-03-14 12:33:06 AM  

Balchinian: Gun enthusiast and retired criminal psychoanalist.  I do not have a problem with this.  Will it drive more guns "underground"?  Yes, of course.  All legislation does that.  Will it save lives?  Absolutely.

If there is a mentally ill person in your home there should never be guns in that home.  Period.


Your child was just diagnosed with ADHD. Turn in your guns.
 
2013-03-14 12:37:45 AM  

Securitywyrm: Balchinian: Gun enthusiast and retired criminal psychoanalist.  I do not have a problem with this.  Will it drive more guns "underground"?  Yes, of course.  All legislation does that.  Will it save lives?  Absolutely.

If there is a mentally ill person in your home there should never be guns in that home.  Period.

Your child was just diagnosed with ADHD. Turn in your guns.


Anyone who would have a gun in their home is, by definition, CRAZY!


/Argument over
 
2013-03-14 12:41:51 AM  
"they seized three guns from the home of Lynette Phillips, 48, who'd been hospitalized for mental illness, and her husband, David. One gun was registered to her, two to him."The prohibited person can't have access to a firearm," regardless of who the registered owner is, said Michelle Gregory, a spokeswoman for the attorney general's office."

That doesn't sound right to me.
 
2013-03-14 12:53:44 AM  

ReapTheChaos: "they seized three guns from the home of Lynette Phillips, 48, who'd been hospitalized for mental illness, and her husband, David. One gun was registered to her, two to him."The prohibited person can't have access to a firearm," regardless of who the registered owner is, said Michelle Gregory, a spokeswoman for the attorney general's office."

That doesn't sound right to me.



Yeah.

Sounds kinda "left", doesn't it?

But don't you worry, once the Lefties have achieved their "goal", the Righties will come in to power - and they'll NEVER relinquish it.

Why should they?
 
2013-03-14 12:54:34 AM  

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.
 
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 »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report