Forget gun control. Lock up all the crazy people!

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 01:36 PM
link   

If you want to stop gun violence or at least make a huge dent in the numbers there really is only one way


People with dangerous personality disorders should be detained indefinitely in secure mental hospitals even if they have committed no crime

Alabama child hostage deal, Sandy Hook, theater shooting dude and countless other's.

Forget bans on military style assault weapons that's not going to solve anything.
the thee men in each of the incidents I listed were mentally disturbed. someone should have picked up a phone and said "Hey this guy is dangerous crazy and you need to stop him!"

Well we cant do that any more. lack of founding has crippled our mental health system and there are only a very few mental health hospitals that still have the facilities to do that in the first place. Committing a mental health patients usually only happens after the crime was committed!

Look I know I'm going to piss off a lot of people right here right now but the simple fact is our country does not need more gun restrictions!
what we really need is a law that reads
People with dangerous personality disorders should be detained indefinitely in secure mental hospitals even if they have committed no crime

Let the doctors sort them out, keep them locked up or release them with supervision and meds? but stop letting these people roam the streets and dont give me that BS about protecting their rights either. It wouldnt be suppressing it would be aiding in their health care! As well as keeping everyone else safe.

Most states already have these laws on the books.Here's one from Calif problem is lack of funding and awareness have crippled these programs.

Forget Mag capacities let me say what all the drumbeating liberal politicians are afraid to say!
People with dangerous personality disorders should be detained indefinitely in secure mental hospitals even if they have committed no crime

otherwise this promlem will only get worse!
edit on 5-2-2013 by MajorMayhem because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 01:44 PM
link   
The problem with this is who gets to define what a "dangerous personality disorder" is. It seems like it lends itself to a whole lot of abuse, just like the term "terrorist".

If the people defining what that term means decide to include gun owning patriots on the list of people with "dangerous personality disorders" then nobody will be safe.

They already want us on the lookout for veterans and freedom loving types as potential terrorists. We don't need to give them an excuse to lock more people away just because they don't fit into some groups vision of how a "normal" person should act or think.



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 



who gets to define what a "dangerous personality disorder"


That we leave to the doctors the trained medical experts.


Pima Community College officials had banned alleged gunman Jared Loughner from the Tucson campus before the Jan. 8 massacre because of his video rants, and others had noted his increasingly sick behavior.

The school wanted a psychologist to certify that Loughner was not a threat to himself or others before allowing him back on campus.


so what went wrong? took to long to find a doctor, the system as it stands now is unable to deal with the tremendous pressure it's already under! This single issue is our nations greatest problem right now and what answer do we get?

more proposed gun control legislation
edit on 5-2-2013 by MajorMayhem because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by MajorMayhem
 


Many of the people you have listed were on drugs prescribed by DOCTORS. No way in hell should we give the power to detain innocent ppl to doctors. It'd be better for the whole system to fall then for that to happen. Perhaps its our unnatural way of life (including healthcare) that brings about the unstable people of the world. The more liberties we give up in order to feel 'safe' the less safe we will be. We are conscious ANIMALS in a shrinking cage of totalitarian society. The owners of privatized prisons are drooling at the thought of being able to do what you are saying.



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 02:14 PM
link   
I don't really want my wife calling someone up and telling them I have a personality disorder after we get into a fight.

Too much room for abuse with this idea.



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 02:15 PM
link   


People with dangerous personality disorders should be detained indefinitely in secure mental hospitals even if they have committed no crime


Oh now where have I heard this before?

Now I remember the last 2 Potus's waiting for the "your either with us or against us part".

No thanks.



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 02:18 PM
link   
Herein lies the conundrum for those saying insanity breeds gun crime. You fear a totalitarian state which takes away your guns, but you're comfortable with a totalitarian state which incarcerates or even kills people with "mental disorders". Um, red flag. You can't have it both ways, and your way suggests destroying more freedoms than ours. Please, lay the gun down.



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 02:18 PM
link   
lock up the crazies an leave the inmates in charge of the asylum?

I think not.

Considering that the maniacs in charge of the war-machine, who are they to pointing fingers calling others 'crazy'?



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 02:19 PM
link   


People with dangerous personality disorders should be detained indefinitely in secure mental hospitals even if they have committed no crime

What if they have the said personality disorder but have never acted out? Isn't that throwing away one amendment of the constitution for another?

Sure there's help needed but indefinite detention of potential dangerous people can lead to a lot of other issues. For one, the care of these people. Who is going to support those mental hospitals? Remember Pennhurst?

Look how many under doctor care that seemingly fall through the cracks. How many sought help, were ignored, then proceeded with their actions? Maybe the problem of that needs to be further investigated, with solutions proposed.



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by MajorMayhem
reply to post by FortAnthem
 



who gets to define what a "dangerous personality disorder"


That we leave to the doctors the trained medical experts.


Pima Community College officials had banned alleged gunman Jared Loughner from the Tucson campus before the Jan. 8 massacre because of his video rants, and others had noted his increasingly sick behavior.

The school wanted a psychologist to certify that Loughner was not a threat to himself or others before allowing him back on campus.


so what went wrong? took to long to find a doctor, the system as it stands now is unable to deal with the tremendous pressure it's already under! This single issue is our nations greatest problem right now and what answer do we get?

more proposed gun control legislation
edit on 5-2-2013 by MajorMayhem because: (no reason given)


The mental health industry is entirely corrupt, and based upon junk science. Mental health professionals are taught in school to secure a diagnosis as soon as possible, and in the case of psychiatry particularly, to secure one that requires medication. These people are taught to be immoral whores to Big Pharma, or who ever will secure them the most income. Also, more and more this field is becoming influenced by the state to slap labels on people that the state is nervous of.

For the record, I am currently a psychology major, and a second amendment advocate. Your ideas are absolute bunk. This would only become a tool for The Establishment to neutralize people that make them jumpy. Based on what you've said here, it would only be a matter of time before you found yourself in an institution against your will, so over-medicated that all you could do is stare out you metal lattice covered window and drool and twitch.



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 02:24 PM
link   
You know what is a 'dangerous disorder'?

People who are psychopathic, compulsive liars who are hell bent on the death and destruction of millions of people.

So I guess any of (us) random nuts could expect to be bunked with GWB when we arrive at the lockdown straight jacket facility?

oh peachy, dibbs on the bottom bunk (so I can keep my eye on that sob).



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by MajorMayhem
 


not a chance of these people ever being locked up, they are an industry.

the small city i live in, 40,000, has over two dozen agencies, programs, nonprofits, shrinks, who need these clients to keep their cash flow going.
and that is not counting wellfare, fuel assistance as in state and federal programs.

managing this sketchy population is a huge industry, creating many government and private jobs that will resist any challenge to the status quo.

the more damage they cause, the more grants will flow to these make beleive social jobs.

once a program is born, it's forever, you have a good idea, wrong country.



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by MajorMayhem
 


Really going to help. The US has the highest amount of prisoners in the world already by percentage and you want to lock more people up...: If you locked up all the crazies. I dont think ATS would have much traffic left either..

Get rid of the guns. You can still be men without them.
edit on 5-2-2013 by purplemer because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 02:35 PM
link   
I am one who agrees that alot of people need to be taken off the streets. I sure everyone here is aware that alot of the homeless people are mentally ill and unable to take care of themselves. I also believe though that they should be treated with dignity.

If someone goes to a doctor and tells them that they feel like taking a rifle to the top of a clock tower and shooting innocent people(Charles Whitman). They should be sent away for awhile.

People need to stop and realize that the majority of these shooters have serious problems that others around them can easily see.



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by MajorMayhem
 


smacks of eugenics.....the mentally ill are not banned firearms ownership based on being mentally ill alone (this is the 5th time ive had to post this comment) to be banned from firearms ownership you either need to be committed against your will to a mental institution on a 5150 or be ruled a threat to your self or others(ruled adjudicated mentally defective is the term they use) and again i will quote one of my favorite quotes from an anonymous poster from NAMI

To discriminate against someone for what they haven't done, but may do, mentally ill or not sets a dangerous precedent. No one should be denied their guarenteed Constitutional Rights, if they haven't done anything. Not everyone with a mental health issue is violent. Including those people who are diagnosed with PTSD, Bipolar, or Antisocial Personality Disorder. Only if a person has a history of violence, not a single incendent, but a history of violence. This should include everyone, not only the mentally ill. It should include anyone with a history of violence. We can not allow our fears and misunderstandings of a particular section of our population, dictate the Contistional Rights of others. Years ago, something similar was done to the poor, uneducated and those that others deemed to be SLOW. If you were considered to be slow (mentally deficient) or poor and/or uneducated, people in positions of power, could and did with frightning frequency, have them rendered infertal. It was done primarily to women, but it could be done to anyone. So many innocent people were stripped of their ability to have a child, against their will. They hadn't done anything wrong, but socsiety deemed them unfit. To deny anyone their Constitutional Rights because they may, SOME DAY, do something harmful to themselves or to someone else, would be a travisty no matter what the diagnoses. A dianoses of a mental health condition is not a predition of or a forgone conclusion of a violent future. In fact, in many cases (not all)of gun violence, there was no previous history of mental illness. We need to improve our mental health care and provide early intervention for people, with or without a mental health diagnoses



www.jaapl.org... Federal Firearms Laws is the area of the article that talks about what i was saying and this is the key and vague portion of the law

“adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution,”


not to mention the mentally ill are a federally protected class of people in the usa so kind of hard to just lock them all up for not committing a crime other then being born with a genetic disease

www.ncsl.org... relevent state and local laws on the issue notice the key part is COMMITTED to AGAINST their will
edit on 5-2-2013 by RalagaNarHallas because: add links


and to add how do you get to know who is mentally ill? Hipaa protects medical records from access www.gunsandammo.com...


Under the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, mental health records may only be released to medical professionals, health insurance workers and quality-control personnel. Ohio’s attorney general has not yet determined how to gain access to the medical records needed to process CCW applications. Because Ohio has a relatively new CCW law, sheriffs are being asked to assist temporarily in checking courthouse records for involuntary-commitment orders. This exercise is both time-consuming and labor-intensive. It’s also unlikely to produce all of the information needed to verify the accuracy of answers provided on Ohio CCW permit applications. Although federal and state laws establish involuntary commitment as a prohibiting factor for gun purchases, mental health professionals contend that there is no scientific basis for this prohibition. According to Dr. Paul Applebaum, vice president of the American Psychiatric Association (APA), “checking for involuntary commitments…doesn’t make sense because past mental illness does not predict future violence.” Read more: www.gunsandammo.com...
edit on 5-2-2013 by RalagaNarHallas because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by anton74
I am one who agrees that alot of people need to be taken off the streets. I sure everyone here is aware that alot of the homeless people are mentally ill and unable to take care of themselves. I also believe though that they should be treated with dignity.


In principle I agree with this entirely, but the way the system is run right now... Dignity isn't really part of the equation, money is. It is a corrupt system designed to abuse and take advantage of the vulnerable. However, the escalation in these "lone nut" violent people can be potentially correlated with the escalating shut down of state run mental health institutions. Scary places, prone to abuse and neglect, but fewer of the truly insane on the streets. Things won't change unless WE change it.


Originally posted by anton74
If someone goes to a doctor and tells them that they feel like taking a rifle to the top of a clock tower and shooting innocent people(Charles Whitman). They should be sent away for awhile.


Agreed.


Originally posted by anton74
People need to stop and realize that the majority of these shooters have serious problems that others around them can easily see.


Yup. And when those other around them look around for help they hit a wall. Either they don't have the financial ability to get the help that they need, they run into a red-tape maze, or they realize that the system will abuse their loved one and try to go it alone rather than risk it.

There is no perfect system, but what we have right now is a mess, and one that could very easily be twisted to become a tool for the State to effectively illegitimate and/or incarcerate those that aren't so much insane as merely dissenting. I think I would rather take my chances with the random crazies, but that's me.
edit on 5-2-2013 by redhorse because: stupid quote boxes



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Locking up people who have dangerous personality disorders and forcing treatment on them against their will, will not work. Treatment only works on people who are willing to get better. The ones who resist treatment would just be locked up and most likely medicated and to me that sounds like a lot of people would have their freedom taken from them simply because they resisted treatment. The arguement "it's for their own good" yes..I've heard that excuse before, and it violates free will, something that is just as destructive to freedom as taking people's guns.



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by redhorse

Originally posted by anton74
I am one who agrees that alot of people need to be taken off the streets. I sure everyone here is aware that alot of the homeless people are mentally ill and unable to take care of themselves. I also believe though that they should be treated with dignity.


In principle I agree with this entirely, but the way the system is run right now... Dignity isn't really part of the equation, money is. It is a corrupt system designed to abuse and take advantage of the vulnerable. However, the escalation in these "lone nut" violent people can be potentially correlated with the escalating shut down of state run mental health institutions. Scary places, prone to abuse and neglect, but fewer of the truly insane on the streets. Things won't change unless WE change it.


Originally posted by anton74
If someone goes to a doctor and tells them that they feel like taking a rifle to the top of a clock tower and shooting innocent people(Charles Whitman). They should be sent away for awhile.


Agreed.


Originally posted by anton74
People need to stop and realize that the majority of these shooters have serious problems that others around them can easily see.


Yup. And when those other around them look around for help they hit a wall. Either they don't have the financial ability to get the help that they need, they run into a red-tape maze, or they realize that the system will abuse their loved one and try to go it alone rather than risk it.

There is no perfect system, but what we have right now is a mess, and one that could very easily be twisted to become a tool for the State to effectively illegitimate and/or incarcerate those that aren't so much insane as merely dissenting. I think I would rather take my chances with the random crazies, but that's me.
edit on 5-2-2013 by redhorse because: stupid quote boxes


I agree, after the school shooting I was one of those on here and everywhere else saying that we need to fix Mental Healthcare in America. It makes me sad to see people living on the street and knowing that the only way they can get better or have a semi-decent life is if someone takes away their rights. Not to derail the thread but, I feel that mental illness is a much bigger issue than guns.



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by MajorMayhem
 


Please clarify, are you advocating eugenics?

I can't tell if this post is satire or not, if it is, add some smileys or something. If not, guaranteedreplies.jpg



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 03:16 PM
link   
dailyanarchist.com... (i know interesting source name but its a pretty good read)

TextStep Four: Final analysis With 15 incidents stopped by police with a total of 217 dead that’s an average of about 14.29. With 17 incidents stopped by civilians and 45 dead that’s an average of 2.33. The first point I want to draw your attention to is that roughly half of shooting rampages end in suicide anyway. What that means is that police are not ever in a position to stop most of them. Only the civilians present at the time of the shooting have any opportunity to stop those shooters. That’s probably more important than the statistic itself. In a shooting rampage, counting on the police to intervene at all is a coin flip at best. Second, within the civilian category 11 of the 17 shootings were stopped by unarmed civilians. What’s amazing about that is that whether armed or not, when a civilian plays hero it seems to save a lot of lives. The courthouse shooting in Tyler, Texas was the only incident where the heroic civilian was killed. In that incident the hero was armed with a handgun and the villain was armed with a rifle and body armor. If you compare the average of people killed in shootings stopped by armed civilians and unarmed civilians you get 1.8 and 2.6 but that’s not nearly as significant as the difference between a proactive civilian, and a cowering civilian who waits for police.

so it seems your statistically more likely to be saved by an armed or even unarmed civilian then police at least according to that source.
gunowners.org... interesting info on statistics of what guns were used in what crimes and what type of people committed said crimes a very long but very interesting read

i know its slightly off topic but as this thread was gun control related i figured that it was relevant to the discussion
edit on 5-2-2013 by RalagaNarHallas because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join