Four kids, two adults shot dead near Houston

a reply to: HauntWok

and you would trust the government to make that determination?

and let's say they determine that anyone with mild depression, ADHD, PTSD, doesn't meet some arbitrary IQ requirement, or is just not as chipper or upbeat as they would like, is unfit to own a gun?

would you still be ok with this, when it is used as a de facto ban?

get a parking ticket "well, that was a lapse in judgement....what other lapses might you be capable of? can't have people like you owning guns" ..would you be ok with this?

the only one trolling, is you...

originally posted by: HauntWok
a reply to: Another_Nut
Some people need to have their guns taken from them. Certainly a few in this thread if you want my opinion shouldn't be near anything more powerful than a straw and a wad of paper.

ORLY?

and who among us do you feel should be disbarred the use of arms? and why might you have cause to hold this conviction?

Some people won't be satisfied till toddlers are given a gun as soon as they are able to sit up on their own, and they think that every person leaving prison should be immediately issued a firearm of their choice and a map to the nearest liquor store.

try as i might, i can't seem to find anyone in this thread saying anything even remotely like this.....could you point out such statements?

One is that people that are seriously mentally ill do not need to be in possession of a firearm. I'm not the one to define it, nor diagnose it, nor make the list. But professionals who talk to these individuals should be able to make that recommendation.

so, in other words, you'd like it to be completely arbitrary, and wide open for abuse?

so you really DO want a gun ban...you just don't want it to be CALLED a gun ban....

a reply to: Daedalus

I think i would be far more accepting of the individual state determining that, but yes, that over gun nuts idea that everyone and a monkey should be armed to the teeth at all times.

a reply to: HauntWok

so you have a low opinion of guns, and their owners, and would rather, instead of actually actually acknowledge that they are human beings, simply reduce them to a stereotype, thus stripping them of their humanity?

how quaint.

a reply to: HauntWok

Not wanting further violation of the 2nd does not equal to wanting everyone armed.

Clearly your MDA and Giffords based talking points are not well thought out.

a reply to: macman

I'm using your argument, that any regulation equates to complete disarmament.

So, therefore by working against simple, reality based regulation, with the attempt to keep people with diagnosed serious mental illnesses that may be deemed by a psychologist to be dangerous from legally obtaining firearms, according to your own logic, that means that you want absolutely every single person armed to the teeth including infants, and criminals.

Seems you don't like your own tactics used against you.

a reply to: HauntWok

and you work in absolutes, assumptions, and hyperbole....

you're not using his own logic against him, you're being a smartass, and deliberately dense...

i think perhaps YOU have a mental illness...perhaps you should not own a gun..

a reply to: Daedalus

Deliberately dense? Really? Oh, now you are accusing me of being obtuse on this subject?

I've repeatedly answered your questions, asserted my stance that I don't want a gun ban (repeatedly) And all but had to swear an oath.

But I'm being deliberately dense on this subject?

Hello Mr Pot, I'm Mr Kettle apparently.

originally posted by: HauntWok
The trolling is really sad here.

I'm not trying to ban anyone that should have a gun from having a gun. All I am saying is that perhaps people who are deemed mentally ill by a professional might not be the best people to hand a gun to.

The real gun problem is mental health, not the NRA

Debate over gun control, mental health starts anew

Guns & Mental Health

It's a complicated issue, that takes more than people being deliberately obtuse to solve.

DSM-V

The fifth edition was criticized by various authorities both before and after it was formally published. Critics assert, for example, that many DSM-5 revisions or additions lack empirical support; inter-rater reliability is low for many disorders; several sections contain poorly written, confusing, or contradictory information; and the psychiatric drug industry unduly influenced the manual's content. Various scientists have argued that the DSM-5 forces clinicians to make distinctions that are not supported by solid evidence, distinctions that have major treatment implications, including drug prescriptions and the availability of health insurance coverage. General criticism of the DSM-5 ultimately resulted in a petition signed by 13,000, and sponsored by many mental health organizations, which called for outside review of the document.[1]

Looks like a FANTASTIC guide to determine if someone is fit to own a gun or not. /sarcasm

a reply to: HauntWok

The DSM isn't a test. It's a book composed of all the mental illnesses and the symptoms so you can diagnose them. The DSM is pretty much the psychiatric bible. The MMPI-2 and other tests like it, use the DSM to diagnose; actually the MMPI-2 uses the DSM-IV to diagnose since many of the codes the test uses are condensed into different diagnoses or are gone. If the DSM is flawed, then any tests that use it are inherently flawed as well.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Is this the climate change debate over again? Am i going to find out that it's overwhelmingly supported by the psychiatric community, but a few fringe doctors disagree with it?

a reply to: HauntWok

My link was from wikipedia. It was literally the second or third paragraph in the wiki article. I'm sure if this was a fringe minority who disagreed with the DSM then it wouldn't be so close to the top of the page. But here's some other articles.

Controversy over DSM-5: new mental health guide

Controversial update to psychiatry manual, DSM-5, arrives

The DSM-5 is here: What the controversial new changes mean for mental health care

Looks like one of the big issues is with pharmaceutical companies getting involved with the writing of the DSM among other things.

originally posted by: HauntWok
a reply to: macman

I'm using your argument, that any regulation equates to complete disarmament.

So, therefore by working against simple, reality based regulation, with the attempt to keep people with diagnosed serious mental illnesses that may be deemed by a psychologist to be dangerous from legally obtaining firearms, according to your own logic, that means that you want absolutely every single person armed to the teeth including infants, and criminals.

Seems you don't like your own tactics used against you.

Doesn't work that way.

See.....I have defined clearly my stance.
Follow the 2nd Amendment. If you or others want it changed, there is a process of doing so.

You, on the other hand, have offered very little but some talking points marched around by MDA, Brady Camp or any of the other Anti-2nd groups.

You have yet to define what mental illness will prohibit someone from owning a firearm.
You have yet to define what "shall not be infringed" means.
You have yet to explain why violence with any other weapon is okay with you.
You have yet to explain why you are fine with violence period, so long as it isn't done with a firearm.
You have yet to explain how a law limiting access to a group of people, will stop them from obtaining a firearm.
You have yet to address the Police Chief of Detroit comments on armed citizens.


I could go on, but seeing as you just about any question that can't be answered with one of your pre-fashioned, not really worried about your using of my tactics.

mental illness is a lot like physical illness.

some people have good immunity to mental illness but everyone has gone through periods of mental illness.

here is a big problem is that I purchase a firearm when I am 22 years old.
At thirty two I develop schizophrenia.
now i am mentally ill and in possession of a gun.

only someone high on lack of oxygen or marijuana would propose
that mental illness or lack there of determines exercise of a God given right.

DSM diagnosis for NPD Narcissistic Persoonality Disorder finds that the person afflicted demands that those they interact with orbit around them and mirror back to them their brilliant plans ideas and schemes.
Sounding kinda familiar??

I just saw this thread, and i am strongly agains guns. Mostly because you cant run away from a gun. Guns have something, other weapons dont have : Range of fire. I have never seen a knife to kill 2 people from far. I do think all guns should be destroyed, and people should go to the old times with swords. Before lot of people actually survived the wars, not because they run away, but because they had cut of arms and legs, which made them incapable of battle. Now even a man in wheelchair can shoot a gun and kill.

a reply to: macman

You have yet to define what mental illness will prohibit someone from owning a firearm.

As I've said before, that would not be up to me, but would have to be determined on a case by case basis. No broad brushes.

Shall not be infringed means absolutely nothing without the rest of the sentence it belongs to.

I never said i was ok with violence of any kind.

The laws on the books already do an adequate job about illegal firearms, although enforcement can always improve.

Detroit is in mad max mode, I don't care what that cesspool does. They should sell the city to Windsor as a landfill.

a reply to: spirited75

If guns were a god given right, you would have been born with a gun. You weren't.

Its not a god given right but an amendment to the constitution, and it can be repealed. Don't kid yourself.

a reply to: HauntWok

well, either you're being obtuse, or you have an issue with comprehension (another mental illness?)

you say you don't want a ban, yet you suggest things that would be a de facto ban...and still wouldn't have any effect on the problem you want to stamp out...

a reply to: HauntWok

lol