Expanded Background checks fail in Senate (goverment, benefits, arsenal, illegal)
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.
Bro, I'm with you! I'm in criminal justice and have logged a ton of hours in the field, lab, and in the classroom in regards to guns.
I'm telling you what the common Joe/Jane thinks these definitions mean. We know different. The history of gun manufacturing for private use later to be adopted by militaries is well established.
What they cannot seem to grasp is that a useful tool for civilians can also be a useful tool for the military, and visa versa. That is all firearms are - tools. A means to accomplish a task. If it was not for our tools we would not be on top of the food chain. I am reminded of that frequently living in Alaska.
If you have a problem with what constitutes a mental illness, I suggest you take it up with the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association.
That said, one Valium (which is what I am assuming "valume" in the other person's post is supposed to mean) for a surgical procedure is not the same as ongoing treatment for something like schizophrenia, anti-social personality disorder, or bipolar disorder. I think most people with a fair amount of intelligence can tell the difference. I also think that most people with a fair amount of intelligence could understand which disorders would necessarily preclude the purchase of a firearm.
Some of you folks are real big on yammering about the average American not knowing a lot about firearms. I could just as easily say the same to you about mental health. Talking about one-off "valumes" tells me that some here either lack the literacy to comprehend what I'm talking about, are too lazy too look up terms they may be unfamiliar with, or just like to split hairs and dwell on irrelevant minutiae for the sake of arguing, and honestly? I don't have time to indulge it.
The spelling police are out.
Everyone find your dictionary before further judgement is past.
The first sign you have no argument is arguing spelling and grammar.
If you have a problem with what constitutes a mental illness, I suggest you take it up with the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association.
.............
Some of you folks are real big on yammering about the average American not knowing a lot about firearms. I could just as easily say the same to you about mental health.Talking about one-off "valumes" tells me that some here either lack the literacy to comprehend what I'm talking about, are too lazy too look up terms they may be unfamiliar with, or just like to split hairs and dwell on irrelevant minutiae for the sake of arguing, and honestly? I don't have time to indulge it.
What we do here is communicate with words....just taking what you said yourself.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lilac110
"As you apparently don't understand what I mean by treatment of a mental disorder as characterized by DSM-IV or the forthcoming DSM-5,"...
I can understand why you may now be excusing yourslef from the discussion
Everyone find your dictionary before further judgement is past.
The first sign you have no argument is arguing spelling and grammar.
Actually, my point was not so much about spelling as about your inability to tell the difference between ongoing treatment for a diagnosed disorder and a one-off use of a sedative for surgery. I'm afraid I can't help you with that. Maybe you can ask some nice doctor to explain it to you, 'kay?
The spelling was just the icing on the cake, a bit of irony to demonstrate what it's like to deal with someone who is pedantic. Apparently you fail to see that, too.
If you have a problem with what constitutes a mental illness, I suggest you take it up with the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association.
That said, one Valium (which is what I am assuming "valume" in the other person's post is supposed to mean) for a surgical procedure is not the same as ongoing treatment for something like schizophrenia, anti-social personality disorder, or bipolar disorder. I think most people with a fair amount of intelligence can tell the difference.
Some of you folks are real big on yammering about the average American not knowing a lot about firearms. I could just as easily say the same to you about mental health. Talking about one-off "valumes" tells me that some here either lack the literacy to comprehend what I'm talking about, are too lazy too look up terms they may be unfamiliar with, or just like to split hairs and dwell on irrelevant minutiae for the sake of arguing, and honestly? I don't have time to indulge it.
You're missing the point.
Firearms are more of a "hard science" in comparison to psychology. So the standards there should be much more black and white. Of course there is gray.
I respect psychology and the pursuits it strives for, however, it is a much harder discipline to label in terms of black and white.
I have issues with both and just believe we need to really understand that psychology is a very fluid school.
You want me to take my issues up with the AMA? Well, that's exactly what people have done over the years. It's why homosexuals were labeled mentally ill and why they were later removed (1986).
I don't think psychology and the folks in that field are out to get guns or some other agenda. I'm just saying we all know this is a very fluid discipline. And quite frankly, it's extremely new. Speaking from the CJ angle it's nearly right out of the box.
A military grade indiscriminatory assault spear
It's sole purpose was to be a weapon and kill.
More nonsense. Read the Heller decision. See post 1008.
I do realize it will be impossible to have a rational discussion with you, however, so, you have a nice day now. Enjoy your experience at City-Data, as you'll be joining my ignore list.
More nonsense. Read the Heller decision. See post 1008.
I do realize it will be impossible to have a rational discussion with you, however, so, you have a nice day now. Enjoy your experience at City-Data, as you'll be joining my ignore list.
I've read the heller decision. It only encompasses handguns used for protection in the home.
Doesn't mention weapons of war with a sole purpose of killing and maiming people like spears.
Firearms are more of a "hard science" in comparison to psychology. So the standards there should be much more black and white. Of course there is gray.
I respect psychology and the pursuits it strives for, however, it is a much harder discipline to label in terms of black and white.
I have issues with both and just believe we need to really understand that psychology is a very fluid school.
You want me to take my issues up with the AMA? Well, that's exactly what people have done over the years. It's why homosexuals were labeled mentally ill and why they were later removed (1986).
I don't think psychology and the folks in that field are out to get guns or some other agenda. I'm just saying we all know this is a very fluid discipline. And quite frankly, it's extremely new. Speaking from the CJ angle it's nearly right out of the box.
I went back and elaborated, as it does seem that there is an all-or-nothing perspective here, kind of like how some assume that anyone who wants to extend background checks somehow wants to deprive everyone, everywhere, of every kind of firearm forever and ever amen, when that is just not the case. I'm actually one of the first to stand up and say that sane, law-abiding people should be able to own a handgun or hunting rifle. But, see, I must be a big, bad gun-grabber because I want to make sure that those with a propensity toward criminal behavior, sane or insane, shouldn't. Likewise, I must be a big, bad gun-grabber because I don't believe the guy next-door to me should be allowed to have an arsenal to rival that of our local police department.
Anway, my elaboration is that I think that most people with a fair amount of intelligence could understand which disorders would necessarily preclude the purchase of a firearm. It falls under common sense. You wouldn't give a firearm to someone suffering from paranoid delusions or suicidal ideation any more than you would give matches to someone suffering from pyromania. At least, most rational people wouldn't.
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.
