• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump action made it easier for mentally ill to buy guns

Moon said:
Don't know what you mean by box.

In one of your first posts (might have been your first) your comment regarding due process reads as though you don't think it matters or should apply in the case presented by the OP.
Click to expand...

I don't know what I mean by box either. I was multitasking when I posted that. I think it should say "that".

My comment regarding due process was about the due process the dead children and teachers didn't get.

If someone is deemed mentally ill, why should that person have access to a gun? "Mental health" has been the talking point from the GOP and the President since Wednesday. So why are they pinning this on mental health at the same time they make it easy for someone with mental health issues to even get this kind of firepower? They can't have it both ways.
 
Goshin said:
Ban assault rifles and mags-over-10. Ok. Leaving aside that millions would not be turned in and continue in circulation in secret.... Next mass shooter brings two semi-auto handguns and twenty loaded mags. Ok well you ban semi-auto handguns, leaving just revolvers.
Click to expand...

3D printers are cheap these days, as are springs.
 
tres borrachos said:
I don't know what I mean by box either. I was multitasking when I posted that. I think it should say "that".

My comment regarding due process was about the due process the dead children and teachers didn't get.

If someone is deemed mentally ill, why should that person have access to a gun? "Mental health" has been the talking point from the GOP and the President since Wednesday. So why are they pinning this on mental health at the same time they make it easy for someone with mental health issues to even get this kind of firepower? They can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...
People murdered by other people were not killed due to government action, so due process really isn't a valid topic in that regard.

The issue with the SS registry is that it's a bureaucratic, administrative list, and not one arrived at through the court system. If the government wants to take someone's rights away, the burden is on the government to prove that the person has done something to warrant that action.

Were these people notified by the government that they had lost their rights? Were they afforded the opportunity to challenge that loss in court before the government took action against them?

Government action against the citizens and residents of this country should be held to a much higher bar than your name being included on a list by a bureaucrat.
 
Moon said:
People murdered by other people were not killed due to government action, so due process really isn't a valid topic in that regard.

The issue with the SS registry is that it's a bureaucratic, administrative list, and not one arrived at through the court system. If the government wants to take someone's rights away, the burden is on the government to prove that the person has done something to warrant that action.

Were these people notified by the government that they had lost their rights? Were they afforded the opportunity to challenge that loss in court before the government took action against them?

Government action against the citizens and residents of this country should be held to a much higher bar than your name being included on a list by a bureaucrat.
Click to expand...

You and I have posted well together for years, so this concept that you're attributing things to me that I neither said nor implied is odd. I never said that people murdered by other people were not killed due to government action. No idea where that one is coming from.

"Were these people notified by the government that they had lost their rights? Were they afforded the opportunity to challenge that loss in court before the government took action against them?"

I haven't got the slightest clue, nor does that relate to my post. If someone has a mental illness, he or she should not have access to an AR. That doesn't change whether it's the people on this SS list we're talking about, an 18 year old in Florida, or me.
 
tres borrachos said:
You and I have posted well together for years, so this concept that you're attributing things to me that I neither said nor implied is odd. I never said that people murdered by other people were not killed due to government action. No idea where that one is coming from.

"Were these people notified by the government that they had lost their rights? Were they afforded the opportunity to challenge that loss in court before the government took action against them?"

I haven't got the slightest clue, nor does that relate to my post. If someone has a mental illness, he or she should not have access to an AR. That doesn't change whether it's the people on this SS list we're talking about, an 18 year old in Florida, or me.
Click to expand...


I have a mental illness. I am subject to anxiety attacks, and probably have some PTSD from my time in law enforcement.

I manage my issues mainly with self-discipline, breathing and meditation exercises. If it gets really bad I have some doctor-issued chill pills.

I'm no danger to any innocent person. There is no evidence that I am.

Am I unfit to own an AR? Well, I do own one. Never shot anyone with it. Never will, unless forced to in defense of my home and peeps.


See here's that problem: DEFINE "mental illness". It's a spectrum, and millions of people with minor problems are no threat to anyone.
 
Goshin said:
I have a mental illness. I am subject to anxiety attacks, and probably have some PTSD from my time in law enforcement.
Click to expand...

Thank you for sharing.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
 
Goshin said:
I have a mental illness. I am subject to anxiety attacks, and probably have some PTSD from my time in law enforcement.

I manage my issues mainly with self-discipline, breathing and meditation exercises. If it gets really bad I have some doctor-issued chill pills.

I'm no danger to any innocent person. There is no evidence that I am.

Am I unfit to own an AR? Well, I do own one. Never shot anyone with it. Never will, unless forced to in defense of my home and peeps.


See here's that problem: DEFINE "mental illness". It's a spectrum, and millions of people with minor problems are no threat to anyone.
Click to expand...

Have you asked Speaker Ryan to define mental illness? President Trump? They're the ones who are using it as the focal point of the discussion to be had, not me.

But as far as my opinion, which isn't at all relevant because I'm on a message board, is that anyone who has been diagnosed with a mental illness that makes him dangerous, such as schizophrenia, shouldn't have a gun. I'm not talking about something like anorexia, which is also a mental illness

If you want schizophrenics to have access to ARs, then just come out and say so. I'll disagree all day with that.
 
tres borrachos said:
Have you asked Speaker Ryan to define mental illness? President Trump? They're the ones who are using it as the focal point of the discussion to be had, not me.

But as far as my opinion, which isn't at all relevant because I'm on a message board, is that anyone who has been diagnosed with a mental illness that makes him dangerous, such a schizophrenic, shouldn't have a gun. Bulimia is a mental illness. I'm not talking about anorexia, which is also a mental illness

If you want schizophrenics to have access to ARs, then just come out and say so. I'll disagree all day with that.
Click to expand...


Nope. I don't want people who are dangerously mentally ill to have access to guns, as long as we're being reasonable and careful about how we define that.


But I have to point out that the only way to be sure they have no access is to institutionalize them. It's not like felons have any trouble getting guns illegally; functional psychopaths can get them too.
 
Goshin said:
Nope. I don't want people who are dangerously mentally ill to have access to guns, as long as we're being reasonable and careful about how we define that.


But I have to point out that the only way to be sure they have no access is to institutionalize them. It's not like felons have any trouble getting guns illegally; functional psychopaths can get them too.
Click to expand...

I also don't want people who are dangerously mentally ill to have access to ARs. I never implied I wanted people who suffered from bulimia to not have access to an AR. I'm pretty sure we both know what we were talking about.
 
tres borrachos said:
I also don't want people who are dangerously mentally ill to have access to ARs. I never implied I wanted people who suffered from bulimia to not have access to an AR. I'm pretty sure we both know what we were talking about.
Click to expand...


Ok. I just think we need to be careful with terms that could be broad-brushed to include harmless people... because it is already being done.

With that said, we need to rebuild the mental healthcare system that was gutted in the 1980s and that may do more to help the problem than any other single thing, other than putting armed guards everywhere which for some reason turns lots of people off.
 
Goshin said:
Ok. I just think we need to be careful with terms that could be broad-brushed to include harmless people... because it is already being done.

With that said, we need to rebuild the mental healthcare system that was gutted in the 1980s and that may do more to help the problem than any other single thing, other than putting armed guards everywhere which for some reason turns lots of people off.
Click to expand...

I get all that. But in the interim, I keep seeing pictures of the funerals for these teenagers that started today. That is right now the most important thing in this story.

The government is yapping about "mental health" - Trump Ryan etc. And you know what? We've heard that song played before. They won't do a damn thing. Not one thing.
 
tres borrachos said:
I get all that. But in the interim, I keep seeing pictures of the funerals for these teenagers that started today. That is right now the most important thing in this story.

The government is yapping about "mental health" - Trump Ryan etc. And you know what? We've heard that song played before. They won't do a damn thing. Not one thing.
Click to expand...


I'm not interested in the partisan aspects and decline to address them.

I'm more interested in making a real impact on the problem.

The single biggest "thing we can do RIGHT NOW" that would have a major impact is putting security barriers and armed guards in all schools.

Do that and there will be fewer attempts and those that do will not get to inflict nearly so much harm.

It's practical, inarguably useful and can be implemented immediately, if we're willing to pay for it.... yet many resist the idea.
 
Goshin said:
With that said, we need to rebuild the mental healthcare system that was gutted in the 1980s and that may do more to help the problem than any other single thing, other than putting armed guards everywhere which for some reason turns lots of people off.
Click to expand...

It wasn't exactly gutted so much as reprioritized, often incompletely to this day, but substantial progress has been made in many ways.

The biggest problem from the last half century remains: a lack of community-based services; too much reliance on institutionalization and some gaps even on that end.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
 
Goshin said:
I'm not interested in the partisan aspects and decline to address them.

I'm more interested in making a real impact on the problem.

The single biggest "thing we can do RIGHT NOW" that would have a major impact is putting security barriers and armed guards in all schools.

Do that and there will be fewer attempts and those that do will not get to inflict nearly so much harm.

It's practical, inarguably useful and can be implemented immediately, if we're willing to pay for it.... yet many resist the idea.
Click to expand...

My sons' school has an armed resource officer. The school is three storeys and holds about 1500 kids. If someone came in and was shooting on the 3rd floor, and the officer was on the 1st floor and was on the other side of the building, I'm curious how it would help.
 
Fiddytree said:
It wasn't exactly gutted so much as reprioritized, often incompletely to this day, but substantial progress has been made in many ways.

The biggest problem from the last half century remains: a lack of community-based services; too much reliance on institutionalization and some gaps even on that end.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...



Big gaps on the institutional end... as in gaping abyss gaps. Back when I was in LE we had lots of people in jail who really needed to be in an institution, but there was no where to put them. No room in the inn.
 
tres borrachos said:
What? I posted a "rebuttal", which was me asking a question. Why is it bad?

Sandy Hook isn't a non-sequitur to this discussion. Adam Lanza was mentally ill. And he had access to guns. And the argument now is "Guns don't kill - the mentally ill do".

If someone has a mental illness, why do you want that person to have access to a gun that can kill 2 rooms filled with 7 year olds?
Click to expand...

Lets interject some facts into this discussion.

WASHINGTON — In a study of crimes committed by people with serious mental disorders, only 7.5 percent were directly related to symptoms of mental illness, according to new research published by the American Psychological Association.

Researchers analyzed 429 crimes committed by 143 offenders with three major types of mental illness and found that 3 percent of their crimes were directly related to symptoms of major depression, 4 percent to symptoms of schizophrenia disorders and 10 percent to symptoms of bipolar disorder.

“When we hear about crimes committed by people with mental illness, they tend to be big headline-making crimes so they get stuck in people’s heads,” said lead researcher Jillian Peterson, PhD. “The vast majority of people with mental illness are not violent, not criminal and not dangerous.”
Click to expand...
 
tres borrachos said:
My sons' school has an armed resource officer. The school is three storeys and holds about 1500 kids. If someone came in and was shooting on the 3rd floor, and the officer was on the 1st floor and was on the other side of the building, I'm curious how it would help.
Click to expand...


First, they need security barriers and procedures (like my local podunk schools have) where it is improbable that someone could get to the 3rd floor and start shooting without being challenged first.

Next, frankly if it has three floors then it needs three armed guards, minimum. Five or six would be better. Training and arming willing and qualified staff members would be the cheapest solution, but so many people resist that idea, so pay for the guards and the kids will be a lot safer.

It's doable practical and useful, and can be done right away. But it won't be done because people are squeamish or don't want to pay.
 
Goshin said:
Big gaps on the institutional end... as in gaping abyss gaps. Back when I was in LE we had lots of people in jail who really needed to be in an institution, but there was no where to put them. No room in the inn.
Click to expand...
The biggest, biggest gaping holes are in regular community treatment. That's why the Olmstead decision was made. Generally speaking the first resort has always been institutionalization or prison.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
 
Goshin said:
First, they need security barriers and procedures (like my local podunk schools have) where it is improbable that someone could get to the 3rd floor and start shooting without being challenged first.

Next, frankly if it has three floors then it needs three armed guards, minimum. Five or six would be better. Training and arming willing and qualified staff members would be the cheapest solution, but so many people resist that idea, so pay for the guards and the kids will be a lot safer.

It's doable practical and useful, and can be done right away. But it won't be done because people are squeamish or don't want to pay.
Click to expand...

A student can walk into a school with a gun in his backpack.

Three armed guards? How about something else. No, it isn't doable and practical. In 2015 there were 98,200 public schools in this country. It isn't a case of being squeamish or not wanting to pay. It's logistically impossible.

And how do we address the shootings at outdoor concerts like the one in Las Vegas - armed guards on every floor of every hotel and building that overlooks every outdoor concert venue? How about the shootings in churches, like the one in Texas and the one visited by Dylann Roof? Armed guards inside every house of worship in the entire country?
 
tres borrachos said:
A student can walk into a school with a gun in his backpack.

Three armed guards? How about something else. No, it isn't doable and practical. In 2015 there were 98,200 public schools in this country. It isn't a case of being squeamish or not wanting to pay. It's logistically impossible.

And how do we address the shootings at outdoor concerts like the one in Las Vegas - armed guards on every floor of every hotel and building that overlooks every outdoor concert venue? How about the shootings in churches, like the one in Texas and the one visited by Dylann Roof? Armed guards inside every house of worship in the entire country?
Click to expand...


Oh you will NEVER stop ALL mass shootings... forget about it.


Not with the best mental health system in the world.... not with the most draconian gun bans you can enact... not with anything.


But armed security is very doable, practical and effective. Competent armed guards can be had for $11-15/hr, or cheaper if you train and arm willing staff. Nothing stops a mass shooter quicker than an armed defender, and nothing deters them more than thinking they'll get shot before "accomplishing" much.

It would make a BIG and immediate impact, but no nothing will ever stop them all.
 
tres borrachos said:
My sons' school has an armed resource officer. The school is three storeys and holds about 1500 kids. If someone came in and was shooting on the 3rd floor, and the officer was on the 1st floor and was on the other side of the building, I'm curious how it would help.
Click to expand...

Well.. having a security guard would possibly deter the shooter from choosing your son's school at all. Generally it appears that these shooters want easy targets where they know they won't be stopped for quite some time.

Secondly.. having a security guard on the 1st floor.. especially who knows the teachers etc.. is going to be a LOT faster at identifying the shooter, and getting to an area to protect your son.. much faster than if the local police are all that's there.

Third.. having security barriers that could be put in place.. could end up limiting and confining the shooter to one area so that other children would be safer. Presumably there would be training and it would be possible that if a shooter started shooting, then staff could evacuate kids and close barriers behind them trapping the shooter from following.
 
tres borrachos said:
A student can walk into a school with a gun in his backpack.

Three armed guards? How about something else. No, it isn't doable and practical. In 2015 there were 98,200 public schools in this country. It isn't a case of being squeamish or not wanting to pay. It's logistically impossible.

And how do we address the shootings at outdoor concerts like the one in Las Vegas - armed guards on every floor of every hotel and building that overlooks every outdoor concert venue? How about the shootings in churches, like the one in Texas and the one visited by Dylann Roof? Armed guards inside every house of worship in the entire country?
Click to expand...

Right.. a student can walk into school with a gun in his backpack.

What stops that student because he has a mental health disorder? How Obama's regulation stop that same student?
 
jaeger19 said:
Well.. having a security guard would possibly deter the shooter from choosing your son's school at all. Generally it appears that these shooters want easy targets where they know they won't be stopped for quite some time.

Secondly.. having a security guard on the 1st floor.. especially who knows the teachers etc.. is going to be a LOT faster at identifying the shooter, and getting to an area to protect your son.. much faster than if the local police are all that's there.

Third.. having security barriers that could be put in place.. could end up limiting and confining the shooter to one area so that other children would be safer. Presumably there would be training and it would be possible that if a shooter started shooting, then staff could evacuate kids and close barriers behind them trapping the shooter from following.
Click to expand...

If the shooter is a student, he will be there anyway. If he knows the resources officer is in the bathroom, or counseling some student in the principal's office, or eating lunch, it won't deter him. People who want to kill many people at one time and possibly go out in a blaze of glory by suicide, like the Columbine killers or Adam Lanza did, won't care.
 
jaeger19 said:
Right.. a student can walk into school with a gun in his backpack.

What stops that student because he has a mental health disorder? How Obama's regulation stop that same student?
Click to expand...

Yes, have a student can even walk into a school with a rifle under his coat, as the victims of Columbine can tell you.

I didn't know that Obama's "regulation" stopped anyone from doing anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom