Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But who defines what 'mental illness' is? And how big do you want to make that net? Obviously, this kid didn't meet the criteria or he wouldn't have been able to legally buy three weapons.
Right now a court does. Do you not trust our legal system ?
Due to the abuse of the legal system years ago the pendulum swung so far the other way that now we can't get mentally ill people out of the general public and into an environment where they can be watched and helped.
He attempted to push people off of a balcony, yes, that's something someone should be arrested for.
So then to swing it back to thread topic, what role did the NRA play in preventing him from being arrested for attempting to push people off a balcony?
People with a mental illness are banned from possessing firearms in California. Period.
If that were so, then how did Mr Rodger obtain his firearms? You're premise is that he was mentally ill. And that the problem in the United States is with mental illness. But if Mr Rodger was mentally ill, then why didn't the authorities know that? They had spoken to him. And while I've heard people say that the police aren't equipped to make such evaluations, I'm going to go out on a limb here, and assert that even the most intuitive psychological professional cannot evaluate a threat level based on a twenty-minute conversation. People who are mentally ill but who function in society are adept at masking their illness, at pretending to be normal especially in the short term.
And in just about every one of these mass shootings, the people had obtained their weapons legally.
If we're going to blame mental illness, then we have to define mental illness. Is someone who has Asperger's mentally ill? Are introverts mentally ill? To what degree does a person have to be different from the accepted norm to be diagnosed as mentally ill?
The issue is, being different isn't a mental illness.
And we can't just go around locking people up because they are loners or anti-social or introverts. And if we can't go around locking people up, if we can't stop them from buying or possessing firearms, then is it reasonable for law enforcement to be given access to a database of those who've bought weapons and munitions, and perhaps to cross-reference that database with a database where the police have been called to do an evaluation, or family or doctors have tried or even succeeded in committing someone.
Why? Because without those excessive amounts of weapons, or accumulation for purposes other than "militia" as envisioned by the framers of the Constitution ... we wouldn't be seeing the numbers of mass murders we've been seeing. People who accumulate such weapons (other than for the stated Constitutional purpose) are all mentally ill, IMO.
Hmmm, then I am mentally ill by your standards. The guns I own, I use, primarily, for competition. I belong to no "militia" group, other than if armed citizenry were needed, I could, and would, perform in that capacity, say, in defense of my community from an organized and extortive criminal operation. But that function is down the list a bit. Singular defense of my loved ones and myself is quite further up.
I see no...illness...in my reasons for owning firearms. Even back in the days of the Framers, militia duty was not job one for having firearms. Defense of ones family and home, putting meat in their diets, and, yes, shooting competitions, were further up the list. Shooting events, often with grand prizes of livestock, tools, and other guns were on the line. It is my h the same now. Proficiency with firearms could procure, and still can, many needed or desirable things. And , proficient shooter were, and still are, highly regarded by their peers.
You should read more. About people like Daniel Boone, David Crockett, Alvin York, Bass Reeves, and SO many others. It might help you understand why your post is inaccurate, and horribly elitist sounding.
Why ? In retrospect all of those shooters should have been legally committed and declared as such.
There's enough of an evidence trail to show it wouldn't have been a flippant attempt to get them committed.
Admit that there are people in society that need to be removed from society.
Having everyone take a pass/fail mental test is laughable to think a single test can solve your problems.
Lanza couldn't buy a gun so look what he did instead ?
People intent on killing will find a way to kill.
So are you suggesting we should have trials to determine if someone should be allowed to walk the streets based on the assumption that they MIGHT commit a crime? That's a slippery slope, don't you think, for a country the values freedom and personal liberty? History certainly proves that system of forcing people into "hospitals" for the insane was heavily abused in the name of making money for said "hospitals". Do you consider someone to be mentally ill if they have a bunker full of thousands of round of ammo and guns? I sure do but you would defend their right to own them without restriction, wouldn't you.
If that were so, then how did Mr Rodger obtain his firearms? You're premise is that he was mentally ill. And that the problem in the United States is with mental illness. But if Mr Rodger was mentally ill, then why didn't the authorities know that? They had spoken to him. And while I've heard people say that the police aren't equipped to make such evaluations, I'm going to go out on a limb here, and assert that even the most intuitive psychological professional cannot evaluate a threat level based on a twenty-minute conversation. People who are mentally ill but who function in society are adept at masking their illness, at pretending to be normal especially in the short term.
And in just about every one of these mass shootings, the people had obtained their weapons legally.
If we're going to blame mental illness, then we have to define mental illness. Is someone who has Asperger's mentally ill? Are introverts mentally ill? To what degree does a person have to be different from the accepted norm to be diagnosed as mentally ill?
The issue is, being different isn't a mental illness.
And we can't just go around locking people up because they are loners or anti-social or introverts. And if we can't go around locking people up, if we can't stop them from buying or possessing firearms, then is it reasonable for law enforcement to be given access to a database of those who've bought weapons and munitions, and perhaps to cross-reference that database with a database where the police have been called to do an evaluation, or family or doctors have tried or even succeeded in committing someone.
No, he was severely mentally ill, and his parents wanted to send him for treatment, he refused. It is the same situation as Sandy hook.
More solutions... by giving government the power to decide who should have guns and who shouldn't.
I can readily understand the desire and frustration people have when they hear about people like this nutcase, whose mental problems were clearly known well in advance, still being in a position to legally get a gun and then killing a bunch of people.
But now so many people, including those I thought were fairly clear-headed, are saying, "Well, since the problem in this case is so clear, that makes it OK to give government more power, even power that was specifically banned by the Supreme Law of the Land for more then 200 years."
Do you think James Madison was unaware of the perils of a mentally unbalanced individual going crazy with a gun? Or with four or even six of the single-shot guns that were available in Madison's time, as some crooks were wont to carry? Plus knives, of course, as Madison's crooks and this very nutcase this weekend in Santa Barbara, both used?
The problems faced by Madison, George Washington, and their compatriots were NO DIFFERENT from what we face today, in any significant way. And blithely throwing away the accumulated wisdom of hundreds of years, because something popped up and frightened us today, is not "solving" a problem". INstead, it is simply creating more problems. Problems that those Founders saw coming hundreds of years ago and tried to warn us about.... but now we are not listening.
We who call (for the umpteenth time) for "more government power over us" to solve this, are not solving anything. We're just falling into a trap we should know better than to fall into.
Stop being stupid.
There is nothing "stupid" about asserting that an unstable person with mental challenges and a propensity for violence should not have access to weapons.
As for James Madison, I think he was living in a world where the population was much sparser, where transportation was primitive and didn't allow people the swift entrance and egress that a car or motorcycle allows, where a mentally ill person would have been kept close to the family, closely monitored and controlled, and where weaponry was relatively primitive, and the need to reload gave people the chance to intercede successfully. If James Madison lived in a world where a gunman entered a school and shot down innocent children, I think James Madison would have advocated for the 2nd Amendment, and for reasonable restrictions on gun owners.
Right now a court does. Do you not trust our legal system ?
Due to the abuse of the legal system years ago the pendulum swung so far the other way that now we can't get mentally ill people out of the general public and into an environment where they can be watched and helped.
The problem is that practice completely strips away the civil rights of the mentally ill. People have the right to be crazy and not be stuffed into an institution and force feed Rx because the government says so. This should be reserved for those that are determined by a court of law to be a danger to themselves or others, not at the whim of some bureaucrat who's funding goes up by the amount of people they "treat and house". Hell, they will probably get bonuses based on how quickly they "treat" people. We have seen what that has gotten us.
No, he was severely mentally ill, and his parents wanted to send him for treatment, he refused. It is the same situation as Sandy hook.
No accountability.
If he was severely mentally ill and from all reports this is well documented then how did he LEGALLY purchase the guns he did? Why aren't you blaming the gun shops for selling him the guns?
There is nothing "stupid" about asserting that an unstable person with mental challenges and a propensity for violence should not have access to weapons.
As for James Madison, I think he was living in a world where the population was much sparser, where transportation was primitive and didn't allow people the swift entrance and egress that a car or motorcycle allows, where a mentally ill person would have been kept close to the family, closely monitored and controlled, and where weaponry was relatively primitive, and the need to reload gave people the chance to intercede successfully. If James Madison lived in a world where a gunman entered a school and shot down innocent children, I think James Madison would have advocated for the 2nd Amendment, and for reasonable restrictions on gun owners.
Like steak knives and BMW's...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
