Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Should a mentally ill people have access to guns? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Righetti
- Start date
mr roboto
Footballguy
Hey...uh, I really like your finger painting! So proud of you.You know, you really should take those meds. Mom and I really love you. We'll see ya next Tuesday! Make sure to keep you underwear on in the hallway, k?
Last edited by a moderator:
proninja
Footballguy
I also own guns. When my wife got pregnant I sent them to my dad's house for the same reason.
proninja
Footballguy
Pretty sure he's joking
NCCommish
Footballguy
Officer Pete Malloy
Footballguy
BustedKnuckles
Footballguy
the crazier they are the bigger the gun should be
Ratbert
Footballguy
NCCommish
Footballguy
Doctor Detroit
Please remove your headgear
proninja
Footballguy
I'm guessing you've never heard of postpartum depression, or had to spend any time with a pregnant woman? I never said incompetent, my wife is a stud. Emotionally unstable during that whole event? Absolutely.
I'm going to guess you're under 25.
timschochet
Footballguy
Question for the two of you who voted yes:
Are you ####### crazy?
Are you ####### crazy?
Officer Pete Malloy
Footballguy
Look at Tim being on top of things.
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
Mental illness (crazy) comes on in an absolute instant.
And having a gun makes people act differently.
As such, yes people are allowed to have guns.
If you just want to put a couple people on notice because some doctor had some time with 'em, you really aren't doing much at all.
You aren't looking at it honestly, that's for damn sure.
And having a gun makes people act differently.
As such, yes people are allowed to have guns.
If you just want to put a couple people on notice because some doctor had some time with 'em, you really aren't doing much at all.
You aren't looking at it honestly, that's for damn sure.
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
Can he have a car? Or be around other people unsupervised? Carry a knife?
Last edited by a moderator:
Officer Pete Malloy
Footballguy
Officer Pete Malloy
Footballguy
TheAristocrat
Footballguy
Are we talking me or someone else?
Officer Pete Malloy
Footballguy
ghostguy123
Footballguy
But guns are how we find out who is seriously mentally ill.
Major catch 22
Major catch 22
Officer Pete Malloy
Footballguy
ghostguy123
Footballguy
Fennis
Footballguy
I was joking.
No you weren't...don't type that you, #######
But I don't think we should have a gun
I think we should, just shut up before I ####### kill you.
Multiple voices is way funnier when not typing it.
Shut up and buy me some ice cream
johnnycakes
Footballguy
Only so I can blow my head off with it.
timschochet
Footballguy
My questionnaire to determine if one is mentally ill:
1. Do you like the band, Rush?
2. Do you like the talk show host, Rush?
3. Are you a New England Patriots fan?
4. Do you eat regularly at The Olive Garden? (more than once ever without being invited by someone else)
5. Have you watched a single Twilight film from start to finish?
6. Was your favorite Stephen King novel written after 1990?
7. When somebody says, "background checks!" do you immediately think of Adolf Hitler?
8. Would you have sex with Yoko Ono?
9. Would you hire the FBGer known as "Eminence"?
10. Do you enjoy listening to Hillary Clinton laugh?
A single "yes" answer to any of these questions would require a full psychological examination and clearance before gun purchase. 2 yes votes would result in a mandatory 5 year suspension from purchasing weapons. 3 or more yes votes would entail a lifetime ban.
1. Do you like the band, Rush?
2. Do you like the talk show host, Rush?
3. Are you a New England Patriots fan?
4. Do you eat regularly at The Olive Garden? (more than once ever without being invited by someone else)
5. Have you watched a single Twilight film from start to finish?
6. Was your favorite Stephen King novel written after 1990?
7. When somebody says, "background checks!" do you immediately think of Adolf Hitler?
8. Would you have sex with Yoko Ono?
9. Would you hire the FBGer known as "Eminence"?
10. Do you enjoy listening to Hillary Clinton laugh?
A single "yes" answer to any of these questions would require a full psychological examination and clearance before gun purchase. 2 yes votes would result in a mandatory 5 year suspension from purchasing weapons. 3 or more yes votes would entail a lifetime ban.
Xavier L. Steele
Footballguy
How is this even a question..?
Insein
Footballguy
jonessed
Footballguy
You would end up with people not seeking help for their depression, which would make things worse.
The general answer is quite easy, but when you break it into practical application there is a lot of room for disagreement.
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
Interesting in the implementation. Obviously if someone is adjudicated as mentally ill, and with a propensity, or potential propensity towards violence against self or others they should have their civil rights evaluated, including, perhaps, taking away their right to own weapons or perhaps even to vote. I mean, do we want violent crazies voting, or even driving for that matter? What about their right to care for their own kids?
Here's the thing, very few are adjudicated mentally ill, and even fewer would then be predicted to have a propensity towards any particular future behavior. Psychologists and psychiatrists are notoriously not in the game of making future predictions, largely because they have no or very little statistical basis for so doing. Would the Courts then do this on their own without the evidence of a medical or expert opinion? Also, would we have some sort of reporting requirement for mental health professionals above and beyond what we currently have? If so would we have to adjust the HIPAA law? Would we also be discouraging folks from seeking treatment by stigmatizing them?
I think this can be accomplished Constitutionally, but there would be substantial procedures which would need to be put in place, expanding, and perhaps massively so, government.
It is past the time, long since, that we have a national conversation about whether the 2nd Amendment, in its current form, serves our interests. I am not for ignoring the 2nd, as some wish to do, either outright or by parsing it to mean what it clearly did and does not. I am not for trying to get around it. Our founders recognized that from time to time we would have to come together to evaluate whether our Constitution served us. This may have been their greatest gift to us, forcing us to come together and forge consensus when we are entrenched in opposing camps. We need to discuss the matter and forge consensus. This will be nearly impossible due to the rhetoric and idiocy which has prevailed. Both sides of the issue have largely alienated the other. That said, the task is only nearly impossible, it is not actually so.
Here's the thing, very few are adjudicated mentally ill, and even fewer would then be predicted to have a propensity towards any particular future behavior. Psychologists and psychiatrists are notoriously not in the game of making future predictions, largely because they have no or very little statistical basis for so doing. Would the Courts then do this on their own without the evidence of a medical or expert opinion? Also, would we have some sort of reporting requirement for mental health professionals above and beyond what we currently have? If so would we have to adjust the HIPAA law? Would we also be discouraging folks from seeking treatment by stigmatizing them?
I think this can be accomplished Constitutionally, but there would be substantial procedures which would need to be put in place, expanding, and perhaps massively so, government.
It is past the time, long since, that we have a national conversation about whether the 2nd Amendment, in its current form, serves our interests. I am not for ignoring the 2nd, as some wish to do, either outright or by parsing it to mean what it clearly did and does not. I am not for trying to get around it. Our founders recognized that from time to time we would have to come together to evaluate whether our Constitution served us. This may have been their greatest gift to us, forcing us to come together and forge consensus when we are entrenched in opposing camps. We need to discuss the matter and forge consensus. This will be nearly impossible due to the rhetoric and idiocy which has prevailed. Both sides of the issue have largely alienated the other. That said, the task is only nearly impossible, it is not actually so.
Last edited by a moderator:
pantagrapher
Footballguy
I've brought this up in other threads. Guns are there for their owners through thick and thin. A responsible society would have a rigorous screening, licensing and renewal process for gun owners. And the types up guns available for purchase should be very limited.
Will never happen tho.
DocHolliday
Footballguy
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
How would you kill a large group of folks, presuming you were of such a mind, if you did not have access to firearms? Me, I would probably look to chaining exits to buildings and the use of fire accelerants to do the job. As for taking out individual targets I might go poison or cutting weapons. I do not believe that taking away my access to firearms would offer society any protections should I go homicidal maniac. Do you believe it would limit your effectiveness?
pantagrapher
Footballguy
Amused to Death
Footballguy
And this of course is what the far right is vehemently against. They are willing to sacrifice their 4th amendment rights in the name of safety, they will ignore the 1st amendment when they want to inject Christianity into our government, but don't dare infringe on that pesky 2nd amendment. We need to follow that to the extreme.
Oh well, sad about all the killings but there's nothing we can do about it.
pantagrapher
Footballguy
I don't even think they should have to be diagnosed with a mental illness. Maybe have certain mental or physical factors be red flags that completely disqualify someone.
B-Deep
Footballguy
Better Question
for those who oppose a national gun owners database, would you suport a national mental illness database to keep the guns out of their hands, and why is that different?
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
So you do not care to share your thoughts on the matter? I have admitted that I think our current iteration of the 2nd amendment does not serve our purposes. I am open to a new way, but I am also a practical person and I think the gains may be somewhat less than we would hope. That said, that is no reason to not address the issue, just to do so soberly. I thought you might be willing to share your perspective. Apparently not. Perhaps next time.
