Time to ban the mentally ill

page: 3
13
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


I stand by my point. You are not better than the government you rail against.

Stereotyping and justifying the killing of a large portion of the population so you can feel safe.

Yet, you would rather kill people, remove their rights, because you want to protect yourself. And protect pieces of metal.

You should be first on the list.




posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by spangledbanner
What can you do about mental people?

And most mentally ill people dont commit crime.


Register them, house them in a complex, make their families take out insurances to protect the rest of us from them.

Most mentally ill people dont commit crimes, sure. Neither do most gun owners. That hasnt stopped politicians and political action committees and an ignorant public from attacking them and calling for bans on them and they arent even the common thread in these assaults and crimes.

I'm just suggesting all that energy be focused where a difference can actually be made and not toward some scapegoat.


Son. most members on this board are suffering from one or several symptoms of mental illness Like paranoid schizophrenia and other not so nice illnesses. Many of the heavier cases are living on psycho meds like other people live on food. If anyone should be locked in it is us. Thats right, we who love conspiracy and the words, 'them', 'they' and the more obfuscated terms of an evil cabal...'nwo' which pretty much makes anyone endowed with assets over 1 billion USD a hell being out to achieve world domination. Yes...you are on the 'crazy' board and call your self sane, gimme a break!

So take my advice; before you try making people categorize others into straight jackets, why don´t you put on your own first?
edit on 15-12-2012 by johncarter because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by nixie_nox
So you want to protect pieces of metal instead of your citizens with a disability.

Can we ban you too?


I want to protect society and this is more efficient and will result in more net benefits than going after pieces of metal.

what about people who dont have schizophrenia and kill, like armies, police, random intent thugs who claim mental illness to get lesser charges, oh and the things that only kill sometimes, like video games, Then we have family /neighbor disputes, uprisings, travel accidents..we need to ban stuff..no we fix it intelligently? when it applies to humans, a higher standard need be applied to get at a more workable solution than just creating socialism or fascism for one group of people. If you had voices you would know where im coming from. I got out of that for a specific reason, it's lame and i've learned to have power and control through a rational and balanced thought process. It's really for everyone i recommend they try it sometime.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by darkbake
This is a terrible idea, you can't punish someone before they commit a crime.


A growing number of laws and regulations are pre-crime based attempts to prevent real crimes that result in harm.

Punishment before a crime occurs is the way of the future.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Merriman Weir

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by nixie_nox
So you want to protect pieces of metal instead of your citizens with a disability.

Can we ban you too?


I want to protect society and this is more efficient and will result in more net benefits than going after pieces of metal.


Make up your mind. You're talking about being 'efficient' in this post, but in the other you're basically admitting you're wrong about the demographic you want to lock up. Not a great way to be efficient.

You must be really scared of having your gun taken away to be trolling as badly as this.


Mentally ill. Doesnt matter if they're depressed, schizo or autistic since they've all been traits of killers at one time or another alone or grouped with multiple disorders.
edit on 15-12-2012 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


I stand by my point. You are not better than the government you rail against.

Stereotyping and justifying the killing of a large portion of the population so you can feel safe.

Yet, you would rather kill people, remove their rights, because you want to protect yourself. And protect pieces of metal.

You should be first on the list.


Sorry? When exactly did I propose extermination or eugenics?



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by darkbake
This is a terrible idea, you can't punish someone before they commit a crime.


A growing number of laws and regulations are pre-crime based attempts to prevent real crimes that result in harm.

Punishment before a crime occurs is the way of the future.


I agree. Lets lock up all gun owners legal or not before they actually use them on someone. Throw them in the Grand Canyon and put a perspex roof on it.

Oh, you didn't mean your demographic though did you?



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by Merriman Weir

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by nixie_nox
So you want to protect pieces of metal instead of your citizens with a disability.

Can we ban you too?


I want to protect society and this is more efficient and will result in more net benefits than going after pieces of metal.


Make up your mind. You're talking about being 'efficient' in this post, but in the other you're basically admitting you're wrong about the demographic you want to lock up. Not a great way to be efficient.

You must be really scared of having your gun taken away to be trolling as badly as this.


Mentally ill. Doesnt matter if they're depressed, schizo or autistic since they've all been traits of killers at one time or another alone or grouped with multiple disorders.
edit on 15-12-2012 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)


Of course it matters. It you don't know or appreciate the difference between depressives, various schizophrenic disorders, multiple personality disorders or any other mental health issue, you shouldn't really be using this as a point for your boo-hooing about gun bans. It just makes you look a dick.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Merriman Weir

I agree. Lets lock up all gun owners legal or not before they actually use them on someone. Throw them in the Grand Canyon and put a perspex roof on it.

Oh, you didn't mean your demographic though did you?


And that's a solution being worked on right now by several members of Congress. Criminalize all gun owners despite the vast majority having done nothing wrong.

The problem is that gun owners are not necessarily mentally ill.

The mentally ill population includes some gun owners, some knife owners, some video game players, some teachers, some parents, some drivers, some drinkers.....

Think of it presented as a Venn diagram. Where is the biggest bang for your buck, the gun owners or the mentally ill?

Adam Lanza wasnt even a gun owner. His mother was.
edit on 15-12-2012 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


I stand by my point. You are not better than the government you rail against.

Stereotyping and justifying the killing of a large portion of the population so you can feel safe.

Yet, you would rather kill people, remove their rights, because you want to protect yourself. And protect pieces of metal.

You should be first on the list.


Sorry? When exactly did I propose extermination or eugenics?


The part where you proposed 90s style mental wards on a mass scale. Mentally ill people in wards are not allowed to conjugate as it can cause frenzy and hysteria among the inmates, plus the heavy sedation in the more problematic patients removes all but basic motor function, and sometimes even that.

Not allowing a group to reproduce is tantamount to eugenics, you troll.

Edit: sorry, it's unfair to call you a troll, you could just be a bit slow.
edit on 15-12-2012 by Dispo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 09:12 AM
link   
I'm not usually that easilly offended. But this thread has really annoyed me.

OP do you actually have any first hand experience of severe mental illness or know anybody who has?

Judging by your ignorance on the subject. I would imagine it would be a big fat no.

A saying i have brought up many times since i was diagnosed.

"It's not me that's mad, it's the rest of the world"

Seeing threads like these solidifies the above for me.

You can't segregate a bunch of people because you are afraid of them.

How about you do some research on how many people get killed by so called "sane and normal " people vs those with mental health problems.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by Merriman Weir

I agree. Lets lock up all gun owners legal or not before they actually use them on someone. Throw them in the Grand Canyon and put a perspex roof on it.

Oh, you didn't mean your demographic though did you?


And that's a solution being worked on right now by several members of Congress. Criminalize all gun owners despite the vast majority having done nothing wrong.

The problem is that gun owners are not necessarily mentally ill.

The mentally ill population includes some gun owners, some knife owners, some video game players, some teachers, some parents, some drivers, some drinkers.....

Think of it presented as a Venn diagram. Where is the biggest bang for your buck, the gun owners or the mentally ill?


Statistically? People who have access to guns, by a massive margin.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Punishment before a crime occurs is the way of the future.


It's just a prediction, but I feel you have the ability to rape. I will notify the pre-crime authorities so they can pick you up and charge you with pre-rape.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Merriman Weir

Statistically? People who have access to guns, by a massive margin.


Not according to BOJ statistics. The vast majority of violent crimes included no weapon at all.


No weapon 73 % 85 % 48 % 76 %
link



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThisToiletEarth

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Punishment before a crime occurs is the way of the future.


It's just a prediction, but I feel you have the ability to rape. I will notify the pre-crime authorities so they can pick you up and charge you with pre-rape.


We'll get to that point soon enough. Paying with cash gets you a visit from homeland security. Eventually glaring at a womans behind as she walks buy will be enough to get you hauled in.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by Merriman Weir

Statistically? People who have access to guns, by a massive margin.


Not according to BOJ statistics. The vast majority of violent crimes included no weapon at all.


No weapon 73 % 85 % 48 % 76 %
link


Those are non-fatal violent crimes only. Do you have stats for fatal violent crimes or all violent crimes?



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
We'll get to that point soon enough. Paying with cash gets you a visit from homeland security. Eventually glaring at a womans behind as she walks buy will be enough to get you hauled in.


Pre-raper!!!!!!
I am alerting homeland security now.
She didn't deserve it and you just pistol whipped here and dragged her in an alley to satisfy your sadistic urges.
You disgust me.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dispo

Those are non-fatal violent crimes only. Do you have stats for fatal violent crimes or all violent crimes?


What's the difference? The goal is to reduce all violent crimes as much as possible not just to reduce fatalities.

We want a safe society. Not one where everyone walks around raped, beaten and bloodied.



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by Dispo

Those are non-fatal violent crimes only. Do you have stats for fatal violent crimes or all violent crimes?


What's the difference? The goal is to reduce all violent crimes as much as possible not just to reduce fatalities.

We want a safe society. Not one where everyone walks around raped, beaten and bloodied.



The point is that violent crimes ending in fatality could be because those crimes involved firearms.

You cannot cherry pick your statistics to prove a point. Either provide a full and complete picture of violent crime involving weapons, or don't provide any picture.

Do you understand what I'm trying to say here?



posted on Dec, 15 2012 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Dispo
 


Handguns are twice as likely to be used in a homicide than any other weapon.
Homicide Trends 1980-2008





top topics
 
13
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join