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.
It seems silly to suggest that people with bi-polar are not more prone to suicide than the general population. Bi-polar folks have some awful low periods and even their "manic stage" can be troubling.
Quote:
Unfortunately, bipolar disorder causes an increased risk of suicide. The correlation between bipolar disorder and suicide risk is related to the depression experienced and the feeling of hopelessness that depression can cause. A few, key bipolar disorder suicide risk statistics to take note of:
25–50 percent of people with bipolar disorder will attempt suicide
The bipolar disorder suicide rate is about 11 percent
Between 5 and 15 percent of people with bipolar disorder will develop rapid cycling
Stop being silly, you know what exactly a banana clip is in relation to guns and why they are brought up with mass shootings.
"They are brought up"? The last person I heard use that term was some uneducated folks in the 80s.
Its well known, that no one uses this term today unless they want to seem ignorant or ironically humorous.
No, "most" people will not respond with homicidal acts, unless there is an immediate threat to their lives or the lives of their families. We are a nation of some 330 million people-the vast majority of the human race would be extinct if "most" people responded with as mass murderers for the trivial "stuff" that has supposedly triggered those that commit these acts. No-MOST would not do so-only a tiny percentage of the population would-and we do need to learn just how to identify those that would do these things.
Which is one circumstance that I mentioned. However that does not eliminate those who flip out over Twitter. Most people will respond homicidally under the correct circumstances, to argue otherwise shows incredible lack of understanding of the vast numbers of circumstances one can find themselves in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toyman at Jewel Lake
In the case of the Aurora shooter, and I suspect all of these mass shootings, we have people that are in all likelihood competent to stand trial. They are competent to plan these attacks, to acquire weapons, to implement the attack. They know right from wrong-they are individuals that just, simply, don't care and are driven to take the lives of others.
So then what is your argument? If someone is mentally competent enough to retain their 5th and 6th amendment rights, why are they not competent enough to retain their 2nd amendment rights?
Are you suggesting that the 2nd Amendment is less important than the 5th and 6th Amendments?
Lets put the party squabbling aside for the moment...to some degree...and look at the real problem. The Reagan administration "changed" the ways mental institutions were funded, passing the responsibility onto the states along with (here's the catch) a largely reduced budget to work with. Coupled with the belief that the mentally ill and drug addicts have rights and shouldn't be institutionalized despite being a danger to society and/or themselves (looking at you democrats), this has resulted in the closing and defunding of facilities all the while our population has grown and grown. The failure was in a republican administration of the past and the continued enabling has continued through administration after administration of both parties. I said weapons and not guns because weapons are all around us. One can easily use vehicles, chemicals, and combinations of endless off-the-shelf consumer goods to make all kinds of destructive and deadly devices. If we want positive change, taking all the potential "weapons" away isn't going to do a lick of good. We need to institutionalize the addicts and the mentally ill. I've seen our local hospitals ER and even our police reports overflowing with "mental issues". If you've ever watched "I almost got away with it", there was a documentary on a teen drug addict that strangled his own grandmother for $80. Sadly, I have a relative who is an addict and she burglarized her own parents place, assaulted her mother, and has had multiple kids with different men which have all been taken away by the state. Veterans come back from war after watching their army buddy explode into hamburger and fall into substance abuse and deal with PTSD, and aren't cared for or treated. If we want real change, these people need a place to go not waiting lists 3 years long. For many of them, it's hope for them as well, a chance to get clean and/or get mental help, get them off the streets, and would surely make our nation a safer one.
Because we now allow the mentally ill to roam the streets of society, society itself must now conform to and coddle them, while stripping everyone's rights, in the name of safety.
Now that is INSANE!
Because we now allow the mentally ill to roam the streets of society, society itself must now conform to and coddle them, while stripping everyone's rights, in the name of safety.
Now that is INSANE!
I can guarantee that there are posters on this forum that may well consider you, or I, or anyone to have a mental illness (isn't liberalism a mental illness? I've seen that posted several times, and if course it may be considered a delusion if you truly believe that). Should we incarcerate you, I, or anyone in the name of social safety?
Why are the rights of people considered mentally ill less important than everyone not considered mentally ill? Isn't the point of the constitution that the people have identical rights, does it say only those adjudicated mentally healthy? Isn't the point that only by due process that permits the accused a defense, can someone have their rights suspended?
Sorry I don't buy this BS defense of the 2nd by throwing other people under the bus. You're just doing the same thing as you're defending against, just with some different rights. Rights are absolute, you don't get to pick and choose which kinds of people have which kinds of rights, or there are no rights.
I can guarantee that there are posters on this forum that may well consider you, or I, or anyone to have a mental illness (isn't liberalism a mental illness? I've seen that posted several times, and if course it may be considered a delusion if you truly believe that). Should we incarcerate you, I, or anyone in the name of social safety?
Why are the rights of people considered mentally ill less important than everyone not considered mentally ill? Isn't the point of the constitution that the people have identical rights, does it say only those adjudicated mentally healthy? Isn't the point that only by due process that permits the accused a defense, can someone have their rights suspended?
Sorry I don't buy this BS defense of the 2nd by throwing other people under the bus. You're just doing the same thing as you're defending against, just with some different rights. Rights are absolute, you don't get to pick and choose which kinds of people have which kinds of rights, or there are no rights.
They were culled from society for their own safety. Because out in the real world they were easy prey.
Now today, with people convinced government will take care of them, they do not have the ability to cull the nutjobs.
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.
