Guns and "mental illness"
Since I have some personal knowledge of this, I can tell you guys this situation is heading south very fast.
My mother's sister had a different biological father than my mother did... and I'll admit my half aunt was never quite right in the head. Perhaps she passed on some her genes to her daughter... my cousin who know lives in South Dakota.
Point being, she took her daughter to some shrinks when she was like 5 years old, because she didn't like some of the things she saw. That little decision and mistake on my aunt's part, took away many opportunities in my cousin's life... and we're not talking about guns here since she never went to a mental hospital.
If congress passes a law that people with so called "mental illness" can't own guns, you know what's gonna happen? When one of your co-workers who is a member of the brady campaign, sees you crying because your spouse died last week, they are gonna run to your boss, tell them you have severe depression, are suicidal, and that the cops and shrinks need to be called to confiscate your guns and drag you off...
If Regan wasn't a former president and still alive, they'd chase after his guns for having Alzheimer's. Same thing with Charlton Heston.
I think the shrinks that abused my cousin are a bunch of quacks. At most she is a little eccentric... but I would not go so far as to call her mentally ill. These psychologist go to school for 8 years to learn things based on the teachings of sigmund frued - the same nut job that thinks it is perfectly normal and healthy for 4 year old girls to want to have sex with their biological fathers...
I'll tell you why this is really dangerous. Not just because if someone accuses you of having a mental illness and it's not true. But because this is leading towards personality screening of prospective gun buyers. If congress passes a law that you have to see a shrink before buying a gun, and that shrink works for rebecca peters... guess what? Nobody except LE is going to be buying guns in your town anymore.
They'll start making up excuses like "Subject had an excessive unkept beard, therefore is an uneducated redneck and cannot safely handle a gun" Or simply lie in the report by saying "Subject used profanity during evaluation, this shows signs of aggression... cannot be trusted".
If you can see where this is heading, I would encourage you guys to ask your senators and reps to vote against gun control measures in regards to "mental illness".
If this cho guy from VT was so quiet and strange, the FFL himself shouldn't have sold him the guns. He should have seen with his own eyes what this guy was about. FLL's have the personal right to refuse sales... I know that if I had a gun shop, and saw some person walk in, mumbling to themselves and unable to fill out the 4473 without drawing cartoons on it, I damn sure wouldn't sell them a gun.
My mother's sister had a different biological father than my mother did... and I'll admit my half aunt was never quite right in the head. Perhaps she passed on some her genes to her daughter... my cousin who know lives in South Dakota.
Point being, she took her daughter to some shrinks when she was like 5 years old, because she didn't like some of the things she saw. That little decision and mistake on my aunt's part, took away many opportunities in my cousin's life... and we're not talking about guns here since she never went to a mental hospital.
If congress passes a law that people with so called "mental illness" can't own guns, you know what's gonna happen? When one of your co-workers who is a member of the brady campaign, sees you crying because your spouse died last week, they are gonna run to your boss, tell them you have severe depression, are suicidal, and that the cops and shrinks need to be called to confiscate your guns and drag you off...
If Regan wasn't a former president and still alive, they'd chase after his guns for having Alzheimer's. Same thing with Charlton Heston.
I think the shrinks that abused my cousin are a bunch of quacks. At most she is a little eccentric... but I would not go so far as to call her mentally ill. These psychologist go to school for 8 years to learn things based on the teachings of sigmund frued - the same nut job that thinks it is perfectly normal and healthy for 4 year old girls to want to have sex with their biological fathers...
I'll tell you why this is really dangerous. Not just because if someone accuses you of having a mental illness and it's not true. But because this is leading towards personality screening of prospective gun buyers. If congress passes a law that you have to see a shrink before buying a gun, and that shrink works for rebecca peters... guess what? Nobody except LE is going to be buying guns in your town anymore.
They'll start making up excuses like "Subject had an excessive unkept beard, therefore is an uneducated redneck and cannot safely handle a gun" Or simply lie in the report by saying "Subject used profanity during evaluation, this shows signs of aggression... cannot be trusted".
If you can see where this is heading, I would encourage you guys to ask your senators and reps to vote against gun control measures in regards to "mental illness".
If this cho guy from VT was so quiet and strange, the FFL himself shouldn't have sold him the guns. He should have seen with his own eyes what this guy was about. FLL's have the personal right to refuse sales... I know that if I had a gun shop, and saw some person walk in, mumbling to themselves and unable to fill out the 4473 without drawing cartoons on it, I damn sure wouldn't sell them a gun.
0
-
quote:Originally posted by spryor
Wonder how this'll play out on the masses that are jumping on the "Bi-Polar" train.
You read my mind! [:D]0 -
Check out this post,
http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=244941
It worries me!0 -
quote:Originally posted by Clarentavious
quote:Originally posted by Slow_Hand
Carolyn McCarthy is clearly the extreme of this and given her family's history with it, I can't say I blame her completely BUT I absolutely don't agree with her either.
She's one seriously skewed voice and from what I've read so far since the VT shootings, she's in a minority.
Change is inevitable but I believe that the change has to be in the laws governing the disclosure of a patient's mental condition IF that patient is not safely confined (institutionalized) AND deemed dangerous to society by professionals.
Yeah, but do you really want shrinks calling the shots on that? Especially brady campaign shrinks who don't want ANY of their patients to be able to possess a gun (just like every other american), no matter how dolice they may be.
I don't think that shrinks want to manipulate the system and control guns just by pronouncing their patients as "dangerous", thereby forever labelling them in society's eyes.
I think there have been enough violent acts - shootings, stabbings, butcherings, bludgeonings, strangualtions, pushing folks off train platforms in front of on-coming trains, throwing people down elevator shafts, biting, mauling, slashing, etc., etc. - where the perpetrator was found to have had a very serious mental disorder that had been previously diagnosed. He or she was assessed to be dangerous, slipped through the cracks and was then ignored completely.
The fact that this person's serious disorder and possible danger to society might be listed in a National FBI database - not a marketing or mailing or private one - does several positive things IMO and may even ultimately help keep the individual alive longer, i.e. not killed by LEO's.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Slow_Hand
quote:Originally posted by Clarentavious
quote:Originally posted by Slow_Hand
Carolyn McCarthy is clearly the extreme of this and given her family's history with it, I can't say I blame her completely BUT I absolutely don't agree with her either.
She's one seriously skewed voice and from what I've read so far since the VT shootings, she's in a minority.
Change is inevitable but I believe that the change has to be in the laws governing the disclosure of a patient's mental condition IF that patient is not safely confined (institutionalized) AND deemed dangerous to society by professionals.
Yeah, but do you really want shrinks calling the shots on that? Especially brady campaign shrinks who don't want ANY of their patients to be able to possess a gun (just like every other american), no matter how dolice they may be.
I don't think that shrinks want to manipulate the system and control guns just by pronouncing their patients as "dangerous", thereby forever labelling them in society's eyes.
I think there have been enough violent acts - shootings, stabbings, butcherings, bludgeonings, strangualtions, pushing folks off train platforms in front of on-coming trains, throwing people down elevator shafts, biting, mauling, slashing, etc., etc. - where the perpetrator was found to have had a very serious mental disorder that had been previously diagnosed. He or she was assessed to be dangerous, slipped through the cracks and was then ignored completely.
The fact that this person's serious disorder and possible danger to society might be listed in a National FBI database - not a marketing or mailing or private one - does several positive things IMO and may even ultimately help keep the individual alive longer, i.e. not killed by LEO's.
So again, A law must be passed regarding medical records privacy, not firearms ownership.
Don0 -
quote:Originally posted by dongizmo
So again, A law must be passed regarding medical records privacy, not firearms ownership.
Don
+10 on that Don.
I said that very same thing several times already. Looking back on the VT tragedy, it's clear - at least to me - that the real problem was Cho's serious mental illness, not guns. Had his name been the database and had he been denied a firearm, there's no telling what other method or route he might have settled on next to accomplish his task. But at the very least, the FBI would have known he was deemed dangerous, not institutionalized, looking to buy a gun and fully out and about in society. The red flag as it were would have popped up.0 -
"...every nut in America should not be able to buy a new gun,"
Only USED guns ??
Poor attempt at levity.
Doug0 -
In this case it was the *court and legal* system that failed to notify NICS. cho had been adjudicated as a danger... But to my knowledge, shrinks don't send *all* of their pateints before a judge to see if they should be committed - only the ones they think are truly wacko's.
If judges are supposed to be the ones making the determination here, then the courts need to be the ones to update NICS - not the shrinks.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Clarentavious
In this case it was the *court and legal* system that failed to notify NICS. cho had been adjudicated as a danger... But to my knowledge, shrinks don't send *all* of their pateints before a judge to see if they should be committed - only the ones they think are truly wacko's.
If judges are supposed to be the ones making the determination here, then the courts need to be the ones to update NICS - not the shrinks.
Where's a good bullseye emoticon when ya need one?[:)]0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
38 comments