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
satch
Footballguy
Obviously the answer is no. So, the next question is who gets to decide what classifies as "mentally ill"? I know plenty of people who have opinions, views, and attitudes that indicate some kind of troubled mind or instability, in my opinion. Racism, for example. One would have to be mentally ill to have racist views and opinions. Should racists have access to guns?
What about those people we all know who display little fits of road rage from time to time? Flipping off other drivers, tailgating someone who cut them off, racing to win the precious merge. One would have to have some kind of mental insecurity/instability to believe those actions are logical. Should your buddy who gets just a little too fired up when he gets cut off have access to guns?
What about people who habitually don't use their blinker when changing lanes on a crowded highway? It's clearly a very dangerous thing to do, not to mention unbelievably selfish and lazy. Using their blinker is the logical, sensible and safe decision to make. Just a moment's thought should confirm this. I'd submit that anyone who's brain tells them that the correct decision is to NOT use their blinker when changing lanes on a crowded highway is mentally ill to some extent.
What about the people who somehow think it's ok to talk loudly in a movie theater during the movie? Obviously doing so is incredibly rude and inappropriate. How can they not understand this?
To be honest, I think most people are "mentally ill" to a certain degree, and most people shouldn't have access to guns.
What about those people we all know who display little fits of road rage from time to time? Flipping off other drivers, tailgating someone who cut them off, racing to win the precious merge. One would have to have some kind of mental insecurity/instability to believe those actions are logical. Should your buddy who gets just a little too fired up when he gets cut off have access to guns?
What about people who habitually don't use their blinker when changing lanes on a crowded highway? It's clearly a very dangerous thing to do, not to mention unbelievably selfish and lazy. Using their blinker is the logical, sensible and safe decision to make. Just a moment's thought should confirm this. I'd submit that anyone who's brain tells them that the correct decision is to NOT use their blinker when changing lanes on a crowded highway is mentally ill to some extent.
What about the people who somehow think it's ok to talk loudly in a movie theater during the movie? Obviously doing so is incredibly rude and inappropriate. How can they not understand this?
To be honest, I think most people are "mentally ill" to a certain degree, and most people shouldn't have access to guns.
Last edited by a moderator:
dickey moe
Fingerpicker
satch
Footballguy
How so? I'm suggesting that the term "mentally ill" is incredibly subjective, and providing examples.
El Floppo
Footballguy
IMO, you just described lazy, thoughtless, selfish people. Mentally ill (bi-polar, schizophrenic, etc) may show these qualities... but so do most of the planet.
satch
Footballguy
Do you think someone described as "thoughtless" AND "selfish" should have access to guns? Sounds like a recipe for something bad to happen, doesn't it?Think about it. If someone doesn't have the common sense and regard for the safety of themselves or others on a crowded highway, do they seem like a good candidate to own firearms?
Last edited by a moderator:
El Floppo
Footballguy
satch
Footballguy
Edited my previous post to add:If someone doesn't have the common sense and regard for the safety of themselves or others on a crowded highway, do they seem like a good candidate to own firearms?
timschochet
Footballguy
It was Ronald Reagan who changed the laws regarding the ability of family members to keep the mentally ill in hospitals, at least in California.
My mother's mother was mentally ill. During my childhood, she wandered through the streets of Los Angeles, sleeping on park benches like a homeless person, despite the fact that we were reasonably well-to-do and could have easily seen to get needs. My mom spent a lot of time searching for her and when we found her we couldn't keep her anywhere beyond 72 hours. She'd just wander away again. Finally she died, just wasted away near Echo Park. My mom blamed Reagan and never forgave him.
My mother's mother was mentally ill. During my childhood, she wandered through the streets of Los Angeles, sleeping on park benches like a homeless person, despite the fact that we were reasonably well-to-do and could have easily seen to get needs. My mom spent a lot of time searching for her and when we found her we couldn't keep her anywhere beyond 72 hours. She'd just wander away again. Finally she died, just wasted away near Echo Park. My mom blamed Reagan and never forgave him.
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
Your Mom should have looked into involuntary civil commitment if she wanted to keep her Mom in one place. If your Grandmother were not able to see to her own needs the courts would have readily solved the apparent, but not actual, 72 hour dilemma by committing her long term and making your mother her custodian.
I'd take solace in the fact that Grandma spent her final days as she wanted, not being ordered to do what others thought best for her.
BowieMercs
Footballguy
Sudsy knows more than beer30 & I do
cstu
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
Harry Manback
Footballguy
Glad this thread easily outs the idiots. Hi BigSteelThrill!
timschochet
Footballguy
Your information, as least with regard to California 40 years ago, is inaccurate. My mother did go to court in order to attempt to become my grandmother's custodian, and failed due to the law at the time. I have no idea if that law has changed.
Regarding the bolded: no I can't take any solace. My grandmother had no idea what she wanted from moment to moment. I doubt she wanted to die of starvation and cold, which is basically what happened. She was a very unhappy woman, but I didn't know her very well. I did however know my own mother and I witnessed the agony she was forced to go through.
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
I don't want to push too hard on an emotional issue for you. Seeing family lost, mentally or emotionally is extremely difficult. I would suggest, however, that if your Mother went to Court the law necessarily provided her a potential remedy. If she lost it was not due to the law, it was due to the facts.
As for Reagan, well he did not write laws nor did he interpret them. that was on the legislators and the Courts. My memory of him as the Governor of California is minimal, since I lived in Wisconsin at the time, but I do remember him as President. I recall that as President he did cut administrative funding to many Departments resulting in massive budget reductions which hit programs serving the mentally ill particularly hard. Certainly millions moved from care facilities to the streets due to lack of funding. Certainly that angered families of those effected, and I would not argue that it should not, at least not with someone who may have an open wound on that issue. But to imply that the law provided no remedy, no avenue to commitment, is simply not correct.
As for Reagan, well he did not write laws nor did he interpret them. that was on the legislators and the Courts. My memory of him as the Governor of California is minimal, since I lived in Wisconsin at the time, but I do remember him as President. I recall that as President he did cut administrative funding to many Departments resulting in massive budget reductions which hit programs serving the mentally ill particularly hard. Certainly millions moved from care facilities to the streets due to lack of funding. Certainly that angered families of those effected, and I would not argue that it should not, at least not with someone who may have an open wound on that issue. But to imply that the law provided no remedy, no avenue to commitment, is simply not correct.
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
The Lanterman-Petris-Short Act certainly was a California precursor to the actions Reagan would take again as President in dismantling Carters Mental Health programs. It did cut public funding for institutions, to the benefit of Reagan's business buds (My increasingly failing memory is that Reagan received substantial financial support through the operators of private care facilities who were flooded with business). It did not, however prevent civil commitments. It did raise impediments to state sponsored unchallenged commitments to state facilities.
All that said, if you Grandmother could not care for herself or apprehend she was a danger to herself or others, and that could have been proven to a Courts satisfaction, she would have been civilly committed after a contested hearing (basic due process as opposed to administrative expediency) and she would have ben committed at your family's expense. you did imply your family could afford it.
Forgive any slight inaccuracies or misspellings. It has been 30 some years since I studied the Lanterman Act and its effects.
All that said, if you Grandmother could not care for herself or apprehend she was a danger to herself or others, and that could have been proven to a Courts satisfaction, she would have been civilly committed after a contested hearing (basic due process as opposed to administrative expediency) and she would have ben committed at your family's expense. you did imply your family could afford it.
Forgive any slight inaccuracies or misspellings. It has been 30 some years since I studied the Lanterman Act and its effects.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
We could have afforded it. My mother wanted to do it. Perhaps you're right about the legal process after all; I can only go by my mother's recollections, and as she is no longer living, I can only tell you what she related to me. She told me that over the years she committed my grandmother to different places several times, and that my grandmother would always wander away and the homes refused to keep her there. For that she blamed Reagan.
I can't evaluate Ronald Reagan as governor because I was barely alive. I think he was clearly one of our greatest Presidents (top 10 in my rankings). My mom would be horrified to hear me say that, but in terms of his overall performance this one issue is a minor affair (not as minor as Hillary's emails, but you get the idea.)
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
I remember some study being propounded back in the day that Ronald Reagan's Policies as President during his first term dismantled funding used to house and treat 10 million mentally ill folks turning them to homelessness. They claimed that those 10 million had 30 million family members effected indirectly by the policies. I never saw the study, only heard it oft cited but never quoted as the media is sometimes wont to do. The fact is the study was likely hokum, more apocryphal tale than study, but in such there are sometimes nuggets of truth. Certainly Reagan's policies caused a massive shift in the country. The mentally ill became homeless, at least some, and the Courts and Cops then became the default caregivers. Costs were not reduced as much as Reagan believed, they were just shifted outside his view and attention span.
Last edited by a moderator:
El Floppo
Footballguy
interesting following along with this discussion- I never knew the specifics. I moved to NYC in 1986 and whenever those policies came into place- it felt like the change was over-night here in NYC. One day there was just a ton of mentally ill homeless folk out on the streets. unfortunately, it was right around when crack hit... the combo made a lot of the city completely nuts and random- felt like the wild-west.
El Floppo
Footballguy
fantasycurse42
Footballguy Jr.
Sure.
I'm also in the camp that supports the blind driving.
I'm also in the camp that supports the blind driving.
johnnycakes
Footballguy
Similar threads
