🇺🇸 Discussion: Guns, The Second Amendment, NRA - Part II

US News
Saying you are for UHC without details or substance is just as good as an unfulfilled campaign promise. I don’t see successful State run mental health facilities in Democrat run States. Why? They don’t want to pay for it. When you realize that career politicians (Right or Left) don’t care about us...you’ll see the light.

Then what’s the point of talking about mental illness if you have no intentions to do anything about it? It seems like nothing more than a distraction, like calling out violence in video games.
 
It's all we've got. There's no machine that exists (or possibly will ever exist) that can scan your brain and go, "uh oh, there's the violence gene, no gun for you." Even if such a thing existed, it'd fall into pre-crime and I wouldn't support it.
It makes sense to want a short cut, but there is none. The only way to tell if a person is a danger to others is to evaluate them through conversation, and then to have a professional make a judgement. It takes time... weeks, months, years.

Luckily, psychoanalysis does give us way to find these people. If physically and sexually abused kids were able to be spotted early and partnered with a government provided therapist, it's very possible that it could have very positive results. Again, folks are predictable... now we know thanks to psychoanalysis. A college grad who grew up in a loving home is simply not going to turn all of sudden into a homicidal maniac. A high school dropout who never had a real family home on the other hand... bingo... that's the kind of person who is susceptible to mental health issues, and should be highlighted as someone who could need our help before it becomes a problem.

I think if we’re talking about taking certain people’s rights away, we have to base on a history of committing acts of violence instead of going by psychological profiles. Keep in mind that if this is enough to take away someone’s rights.
 
It's all about prevention. I don't think it'd be right to take a 30 year old into a therapist office, and then 30 minutes later, he's declared unable to carry a weapon.

It's more like we search for certain traits in our youth, and get them into counseling early. Our generation is baked in, but the future generation can be bettered if we just pay closer attention to at-risk children.

Because I'm a believer in psychoanalysis, I believe that all major growth is between ages 0-10, give or take. The older you get, the more the trauma seeps into your personality. After you hit your 20s, you're basically you. And you'll be you till the day you die. For example, I'm always going to have trouble with bullies... it's who I am, developed by my childhood. I could take therapy and try to manage that aspect of my personality (how not to act out against bullies, etc), but those instincts will always be there. They're baked into my personalty now, and forevor. Same thing for folks who have violent childhoods.
 
Last edited:
It's all about prevention. I don't think it'd be right to take a 30 year old into a therapist office, and then 30 minutes later, he's declared unable to carry a weapon.

It's more like we search for certain traits in our youth, and get them into counseling early. Our generation is baked in, but the future generation can be bettered if we just pay closer attention to at-risk children.

Because I'm a believer in psychoanalysis, I believe that all major growth is between ages 0-10, give or take. The older you get, the more the trauma seeps into your personality. After you hit your 20s, you're basically you. And you'll be you till the day you die. For example, I'm always going to have trouble with bullies... it's who I am, developed by my childhood. I could take therapy and try to manage that aspect of my personality (how not to act out against bullies, etc), but those instincts will always be there. They're baked into my personalty now, and forevor. Same thing for folks who have violent childhoods.

I get what you’re saying, but it would be a scary world if we could take formal actions to take peoples rights away because they fit a psychological profile.
 
Keep in mind, that if it were me, we'd ban semi-automatic weapons and amend the constitution to update the 2nd amendment to modern times.

Even talking about mental health solutions as an answer to gun violence is an olive branch to the other side. I'm willing to say that therapeutic, mental health solutions would be a practical step. Not to fix today, but to fix tomorrow. I wish those on the conservative side of things were equally willing to work on the gun regulation side.
 
What is the general consensus for those who are both for & against guns for having the US Bill of Rights, in particular obviously the Second Amendment, updated to suit the times?

I'd love to know what type of firearms were available when it was struck up compared to today.
 
Keep in mind, that if it were me, we'd ban semi-automatic weapons and amend the constitution to update the 2nd amendment to modern times.

Even talking about mental health solutions as an answer to gun violence is an olive branch to the other side. I'm willing to say that therapeutic, mental health solutions would be a practical step. Not to fix today, but to fix tomorrow. I wish those on the conservative side of things were equally willing to work on the gun regulation side.

I’m actually fine with banning semi automatic weapons, or even getting rid of the 2nd amendment altogether. My main gripe is how we’re essentially villainizing people with mental illnesses & talking about taking away their rights. Sadly, the United States has a history of mistreating the mentally ill, so much so that it was an inspiration to Adolf Hitler.
 
What is the general consensus for those who are both for & against guns for having the US Bill of Rights, in particular obviously the Second Amendment, updated to suit the times?

I'd love to know what type of firearms were available when it was struck up compared to today.

To me, gun rights are like abortion. They’re not something I’m a fan of, but I’ve accepted that they aren’t going anywhere.
 
Then what’s the point of talking about mental illness if you have no intentions to do anything about it? It seems like nothing more than a distraction, like calling out violence in video games.

It’s typical political pivoting. They don’t want to really do anything but they try to say the right thing to keep voters voting for them.
 
It’s typical political pivoting. They don’t want to really do anything but they try to say the right thing to keep voters voting for them.

I agree, but it’s more dangerous than that if we start villainizing the mentally ill.
 
It’s typical political pivoting. They don’t want to really do anything but they try to say the right thing to keep voters voting for them.

Pretty much. There are enough distractions these days so that the masses can bicker about several things (opposing or unopposing) that it's really hard to get a majority on the same page so sweeping reforms in anything can be enacted.

See when the voting age was lowered from 21 to 18. I doubt anything like that could ever happen again even though it is technically possible.

I agree, but it’s more dangerous than that if we start villainizing the mentally ill.

You seem to be forgetting that people actually afflicted with mental illness are vastly outnumbered by gun owners/gun enthusiast who will happily throw them under the bus to keep gun laws open as they are now.
 
Pretty much. There are enough distractions these days so that the masses can bicker about several things (opposing or unopposing) that it's really hard to get a majority on the same page so sweeping reforms in anything can be enacted.

See when the voting age was lowered from 21 to 18. I doubt anything like that could ever happen again even though it is technically possible.



You seem to be forgetting that people actually afflicted with mental illness are vastly outnumbered by gun owners/gun enthusiast who will happily throw them under the bus to keep gun laws open as they are now.

Pretty much everything I’ve posted here stresses the point that the mentally ill will be thrown under the bus. They’re always thrown under the bus. They’re the easiest people in society to abuse & discriminate against.
 
Pretty much everything I’ve posted here stresses the point that the mentally ill will be thrown under the bus. They’re always thrown under the bus. They’re the easiest people in society to abuse & discriminate against.
Or you know, trying to save the life of people who need help.

http://www.mdmag.com/conference-coverage/apa-2017/guns-mental-illness-and-suicide-a-close-look

“Suicide is now the 10th leading cause of death in the US, with over 40,000 people dying by suicide each year, at a cost of about $44B annually,” said Jose Maldonado MD, Stanford University, CA.

Maldonado’s presentation at the annual APA meeting in San Diego described factors linking suicide, mental illness, and firearms. In 2012, nearly two-thirds of all firearm deaths were suicides, meaning that Americans were far more likely to kill themselves with guns than each other.

Relating a key feature of firearms as they relate to suicide, Maldonado said, “Guns aren’t the most common way to attempt suicide, but they are the most lethal. About 90% of firearm suicide attempts are fatal versus less than 3% for the other commonly used methods.”

Maldonado detailed a few other methods. “Suicide attempts involving guns are 45 times more fatal than overdose, 30 times more fatal than self-cutting or stabbing, and even 3 times more fatal than jumping.” There are stark gender differences in suicide preferences, where guns are the overwhelming suicide method of choice for men – the extreme lethality of firearms skews the numbers to some extent.

Risk of firearm suicide varies greatly by age, sex, and race, increasing significantly with age, but is much more prevalent in men than in women at any age. While women attempt suicide up to 3 times more often than men, men are 4 times more likely to die by suicide than women.

Access to firearms is a key component of suicide rates. According to Maldonado, “The strongest single factor predictive of suicide is a prior history of attempted suicide, and the strongest predictor of how likely a person is to die from suicide is access to a gun.” It is the combination of lethality and accessibility that makes firearms the most common mode of suicide in the US.

“The presence of a gun in the home increases the likelihood of suicide, regardless of the method of storage, type of gun, or the number of guns in the home,” explained Maldonado. According to the data, if a gun is not available in the home, a gun is rarely used as the method of suicide.

Maldonado added that firearm suicide rate in states that do not require a waiting period for gun sales has been twice as high as the rate in states that do require a waiting period. Furthermore, while some suicide attempts are carefully planned, most are impulsive. Some studies of survivors of suicide have revealed that as many as two-thirds of the attempters did not plan their attempt, with about a quarter attempting suicide within 5 minutes of having suicidal thoughts, about half within 20 minutes, and nearly three-quarters within an hour of suicidal ideation.

Immediate stressors often trigger suicidal crises, with most survivors reported having made their attempt within 24 hours of a crisis. However, the urge to act is short-lived, typically lasting a few minutes to a few hours.

Maldonado said, “Intervention during the time of acute risk is key to saving lives. Most people who attempt suicide don’t really want to die, they are just so overwhelmed by their emotions that they feel unable to cope. A systematic review of 70 studies following patients after a non-fatal attempt found that on average only 7% eventually died by suicide, whereas 70% did not reattempt.”

No one rational thinks this will save every issue. But it is one step, that will help along with others. And the idea that you must do one all in encompassing thing that will fix everything, or you can't do it is just silly.
 
Or you know, trying to save the life of people who need help.

http://www.mdmag.com/conference-coverage/apa-2017/guns-mental-illness-and-suicide-a-close-look



No one rational thinks this will save every issue. But it is one step, that will help along with others. And the idea that you must do one all in encompassing thing that will fix everything, or you can't do it is just silly.

Until now, no one on this thread brought up suicide. This has been purely about mass shootings & domestic violence.
 
Pretty much everything I’ve posted here stresses the point that the mentally ill will be thrown under the bus. They’re always thrown under the bus. They’re the easiest people in society to abuse & discriminate against.

That's because serious mental illness only affects about 4% of Americans. That number isn't even significant enough to have 3 degrees of separation to the average American so they tend to base their opinions on what the see from tv/movies instead of having actually experienced it or no family member/close friend that does.

Scapegoating 101. America and by proxy, politicians favorite pastime.
 
That's because serious mental illness only affects about 4% of Americans. That number isn't even significant enough to have 3 degrees of separation to the average American so they tend to base their opinions on what the see from tv/movies instead of having actually experienced it or no family member/close friend that does.

Scapegoating 101. America and by proxy, politicians favorite pastime.

It’s also because they’re the most vulnerable & people tend to take advantage of the vulnerable.
 
Until now, no one on this thread brought up suicide. This has been purely about mass shootings & domestic violence.
I did:

If someone is mentality ill and considering hurting themselves or others, they shouldn't have access to guns. If someone is not willing to take their meds and is delusion, they should not have access to weapons.

You are making it sound like it applies to everyone who has a mental issue. It clearly doesn't. Protecting those that pose a danger to themselves and others as diagnosed by a doctor is discrimination now? Is it discrimination when someone is placed in a facility to protect them from doing harm to themselves or others?

So did Krypton:

So private companies should never be allowed to stop someone from being in their employment if they are diagnosed with a severe mental illness? Would this be your standard for pilots, heavy machinery operators or surgeons? This isn't an attack on the mentally ill, nor am I stating this as a one size fits all thing. We aren't talking about someone going to the psychiatrist for anything ranging from intimacy issues to addictions. We are talking about those that could well truly be a danger to themselves and others. There is a spectrum.

If you think that private companies should have policies that infringe on a person's ability to be employed, for the sake of public safety then I fail to see the issue with keeping guns out of their hands. No one said such screening would be 100% or that it would always be fair, but like those companies that don't want people with diagnosed mental ailments that might put others at risk it is erring on the side of caution and responsibility.

So up or down, yes or no... Should an airline employ someone that is mentally unstable to act as a pilot? Would you be comfortable knowing that an airline didn't have any policy regarding the mental fitness of it's pilots?
 
Cool, but the talk about mental illnesses didn’t stem from suicides, it came from mass shootings. Anyways, if you guys want to fall for the NRA’s deflection strategy & go after the mentally ill, be my guest.
No, you are deflecting. You have been deflecting the entire time, ignoring what others have been writing. There is no one here who wants to stigmatize the mentally ill and it is a strawman to ignore the real issue.

I want to give people who need help, help. And that includes protecting them. Did you just ignore what was posted and what attempting suicide with a gun leads to in comparison to every other method, including jumping?

Does this mean I want assault rifles sold to the public? Nope. Does this mean I don't want a federal database for gun ownership and sales? Nope. Does this mean I don't want to make sure we keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers? Of course not.
 
No, you are deflecting. You have been deflecting the entire time, ignoring what others have been writing. There is no one here who wants to stigmatize the mentally ill and it is a strawman to ignore the real issue.

I want to give people who need help, help. And that includes protecting them. Did you just ignore what was posted and what attempting suicide with a gun leads to in comparison to every other method, including jumping?

Does this mean I want assault rifles sold to the public? Nope. Does this mean I don't want a federal database for gun ownership and sales? Nope. Does this mean I don't want to make sure we keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers? Of course not.

No, unlike you, I actually know what psychotherapy entails, and what you’re proposing has little to nothing to do with how mental competency is evaluated. If you want to go after people with a criminal history of violence, I’m all for that. But if you want to take someone’s rights based on what some shrink says, then you’re opening the door to fascism.
 
So, its cool for them to take kids away, but not their guns.

Cool.
 
I fail to see the difference in being able to identify the signs of abuse vs the signs of mental illness.
 
I fail to see the difference in being able to identify the signs of abuse vs the signs of mental illness.

It’s the difference between fitting a profile to commit a certain act and actually committing the act. Unless we establish a system like they had in Minority Report, we shouldn’t be punishing people for what they might do.
 
This would probably be a whole lot easier if we broke this "mental illness" term up a bit, because it is a pretty wide and diverse category.

There are all kinds of mental health conditions in which the victim shouldn't have a gun:

Bipolar Disorder
Depression
Dissociation
Psychosis
Schizophrenia
Post Traumatic Stress

These conditions are by and large able to be diagnosed.

There are also Mental health conditions that shouldn't affect one's ability to own a gun.

ADHD
Autism
Eating Disorders
Obsessive compulsive

I'm sure we can develop these categories to protect folks who can still safely carry a gun.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"