next »

[livefreeordie2]

Funny, I wonder what the pro gun people over on the gun control thread think about the rights of the mentally ill. Are they totally libertarian about all rights, or just some?

What do you mean?  What rights are you speaking about?  What rights are the mentally ill being denied?  It would seem to me, in this specific case, an awful lot of people would have benefited by a little less consideration for Cho and a little more concern for the safety of the college community.

[helpful]

Funny, I wonder what the pro gun people over on the gun control thread think about the rights of the mentally ill. Are they totally libertarian about all rights, or just some?

What do you mean?  What rights are you speaking about?  What rights are the mentally ill being denied?  It would seem to me, in this specific case, an awful lot of people would have benefited by a little less consideration for Cho and a little more concern for the safety of the college community.

But I thought your stand was all about individual rights?

[livefreeordie2]

Funny, I wonder what the pro gun people over on the gun control thread think about the rights of the mentally ill. Are they totally libertarian about all rights, or just some?

What do you mean?  What rights are you speaking about?  What rights are the mentally ill being denied?  It would seem to me, in this specific case, an awful lot of people would have benefited by a little less consideration for Cho and a little more concern for the safety of the college community.

But I thought your stand was all about individual rights?

Stand?  What "stand?"  Individual rights?  What the hell are you talking about?  It sounds like you are suggesting that mentally ill people who scare the living hell out of their professors, fellow students, roomates, and apparently, even parents, should have the right to do so and remain on the loose until after they kill people.  Is that what you mean by taking a stand for individual rights?  Because if it is, you are clearly not a serious person. . .you would be, as they say in other venues, simply a troll.  Is that what you are?  If so, I won't bother responding to you in the future.

[helpful]

Funny, I wonder what the pro gun people over on the gun control thread think about the rights of the mentally ill. Are they totally libertarian about all rights, or just some?

What do you mean?  What rights are you speaking about?  What rights are the mentally ill being denied?  It would seem to me, in this specific case, an awful lot of people would have benefited by a little less consideration for Cho and a little more concern for the safety of the college community.

But I thought your stand was all about individual rights?

Stand?  What "stand?"  Individual rights?  What the hell are you talking about?  It sounds like you are suggesting that mentally ill people who scare the living hell out of their professors, fellow students, roomates, and apparently, even parents, should have the right to do so and remain on the loose until after they kill people.  Is that what you mean by taking a stand for individual rights?  Because if it is, you are clearly not a serious person. . .you would be, as they say in other venues, simply a troll.  Is that what you are?  If so, I won't bother responding to you in the future.

Cool down. I was just saying that your stance on freedom, to private property , to own and use guns, is a stance on individual rights. But, as you point out, there are limits to these individual rights, like dealing with the mentally ill against their will. So I am just saying that there is a limit to gun ownership. Or would you say that everyone , mentally ill or not, have the right to own guns? If so, just say it. Otherwise, you should be advocating for a registration or permit system linked to the mental health system in some way.

Please clarify what your stance is on limiting people like Cho, in advance of us knowing he would kill, from owning a gun, and being able, in Virginia, to purchase one gun a month! (and don;'t throw out the red herring about him being a non-citizen; there is always the possiblity of a citizen from 10 generations of Americans of going 'ballistic' because they have a Cho-like mental episode).

So what about it?

[livefreeordie2]

Cool down. I was just saying that your stance on freedom, to private property , to own and use guns, is a stance on individual rights. But, as you point out, there are limits to these individual rights, like dealing with the mentally ill against their will. So I am just saying that there is a limit to gun ownership. Or would you say that everyone , mentally ill or not, have the right to own guns? If so, just say it. Otherwise, you should be advocating for a registration or permit system linked to the mental health system in some way.

Please clarify what your stance is on limiting people like Cho, in advance of us knowing he would kill, from owning a gun, and being able, in Virginia, to purchase one gun a month! (and don;'t throw out the red herring about him being a non-citizen; there is always the possiblity of a citizen from 10 generations of Americans of going 'ballistic' because they have a Cho-like mental episode).

So what about it?

We are individuals who live in a society.  There is a natural tension that develops between individual rights and the rights of society.  Without safeguards, the rights of society can overwhelm and destroy the rights of the individual.  That is precisely why the framers went back and added the Bill of Rights.

I believe the individual has obligations to society as well as rights.  For example, I would favor a return to some kind of national service for two years.  Not strictly a military draft like existed when I was younger, but some program that would mandatorily require individuals to "give back." An individual has an obligation to be responsible for himself.  An individual has an obligation to obey society's laws and when an individual fails to obey the law, he or she forfeits certain rights.

I also think that society has an obligation to the individuals who live in that society.  One of those obligations is to reasonably protect from harm.  Obviously, individuals must make their own efforts in that area because police, for example, can't be everywhere all the time.  But when it's clear that there is a potential threat - like TB, for example - a society must protect it's people.  Mental illness obviously provides challenges, but when people suspect that a mentally ill person could pose a threat, there needs to be some kind of mechanism for them to be evaluated and treated. . .to remove the threat.  Convicted felons should not be allowed to own weapons. . .and the same goes for people with diagnosed mental illness. 

Do I believe a patient has a right to privacy?  Of course.  But the tension between the rights of society and the rights of the individual remain.  And while some people are fond of pointing to guns as the problem, it would be prudent to remember that for every school shooting one hears about, there is a person or persons holding the gun who might have been stopped had there been a mechanism for intervention.

Does that answer your question?

[prytania3]

 Convicted felons should not be allowed to own weapons. . .and the same goes for people with diagnosed mental illness. 

Oh wait a minute. I've been diasgnosed with a mental illness, and I own a Charles Daly. But it's okay for YOU to own a gun, but not me?

[livefreeordie2]

 Convicted felons should not be allowed to own weapons. . .and the same goes for people with diagnosed mental illness. 

Oh wait a minute. I've been diasgnosed with a mental illness, and I own a Charles Daly. But it's okay for YOU to own a gun, but not me?

Okay.  Poorly worded.  If you look back at what I wrote, I was speaking of those whose diagnosis includes posing a threat to society.  "Mental Illness" covers a lot of ground. . .I'm not a health care professional and I'm not drafting legislation. . .

[helpful]

Cool down. I was just saying that your stance on freedom, to private property , to own and use guns, is a stance on individual rights. But, as you point out, there are limits to these individual rights, like dealing with the mentally ill against their will. So I am just saying that there is a limit to gun ownership. Or would you say that everyone , mentally ill or not, have the right to own guns? If so, just say it. Otherwise, you should be advocating for a registration or permit system linked to the mental health system in some way.

Please clarify what your stance is on limiting people like Cho, in advance of us knowing he would kill, from owning a gun, and being able, in Virginia, to purchase one gun a month! (and don;'t throw out the red herring about him being a non-citizen; there is always the possiblity of a citizen from 10 generations of Americans of going 'ballistic' because they have a Cho-like mental episode).

So what about it?

We are individuals who live in a society.  There is a natural tension that develops between individual rights and the rights of society.  Without safeguards, the rights of society can overwhelm and destroy the rights of the individual.  That is precisely why the framers went back and added the Bill of Rights.

I believe the individual has obligations to society as well as rights.  For example, I would favor a return to some kind of national service for two years.  Not strictly a military draft like existed when I was younger, but some program that would mandatorily require individuals to "give back." An individual has an obligation to be responsible for himself.  An individual has an obligation to obey society's laws and when an individual fails to obey the law, he or she forfeits certain rights.

I also think that society has an obligation to the individuals who live in that society.  One of those obligations is to reasonably protect from harm.  Obviously, individuals must make their own efforts in that area because police, for example, can't be everywhere all the time.  But when it's clear that there is a potential threat - like TB, for example - a society must protect it's people.  Mental illness obviously provides challenges, but when people suspect that a mentally ill person could pose a threat, there needs to be some kind of mechanism for them to be evaluated and treated. . .to remove the threat.  Convicted felons should not be allowed to own weapons. . .and the same goes for people with diagnosed mental illness. 

Do I believe a patient has a right to privacy?  Of course.  But the tension between the rights of society and the rights of the individual remain.  And while some people are fond of pointing to guns as the problem, it would be prudent to remember that for every school shooting one hears about, there is a person or persons holding the gun who might have been stopped had there been a mechanism for intervention.

Does that answer your question?

Yes, it does. So you believe in some sort of registration or licensing process that would determine who can and cannot own a gun? In other words, in Cho/Virginia's case, there should be some sort of system that is linked to the mental health system? And when someone purchases a gun and he/she is not mentally ill, but, say, 6 months later, they have a nervous breakdown and are diagnosed as being a threat to society, there should be some form of re-licensing process on a regular basis to ensure that those with mental illness have to give up their guns? (I feel we are getting somewhere in this discussion...finally)

[prytania3]

Here is a link to pictures of students and professors who died at VT (with short bios). It is really sad. I feel so sorry for their families. I can't imagine what it must be like for them to go through this.

[prytania3]

Here is a link to pictures of students and professors who died at VT (with short bios). It is really sad. I feel so sorry for their families. I can't imagine what it must be like for them to go through this.

I forgot the link.

http://wcbstv.com/slideshows/photoalbum_slideshow_107105400

[livefreeordie2]

So you believe in some sort of registration or licensing process that would determine who can and cannot own a gun? In other words, in Cho/Virginia's case, there should be some sort of system that is linked to the mental health system? And when someone purchases a gun and he/she is not mentally ill, but, say, 6 months later, they have a nervous breakdown and are diagnosed as being a threat to society, there should be some form of re-licensing process on a regular basis to ensure that those with mental illness have to give up their guns? (I feel we are getting somewhere in this discussion...finally)

The short answer is yes. . . of course.  We live in an information age with instant communication.  We require health care professionals to report certain things and requiring a report of mental illness that poses a threat is a no-brainer.  

The longer answer is that there should be safeguards to protect the individual. . . for example.  A person who is denied should have the right of appeal.  Once in the system, there should be a review process, etc.

[prytania3]

The short answer is yes. . . of course.  We live in an information age with instant communication.  We require health care professionals to report certain things and requiring a report of mental illness that poses a threat is a no-brainer.  

And illegal. Or do you want to suspend the last shred of privacy we have so you can own a gun?

[helpful]

So you believe in some sort of registration or licensing process that would determine who can and cannot own a gun? In other words, in Cho/Virginia's case, there should be some sort of system that is linked to the mental health system? And when someone purchases a gun and he/she is not mentally ill, but, say, 6 months later, they have a nervous breakdown and are diagnosed as being a threat to society, there should be some form of re-licensing process on a regular basis to ensure that those with mental illness have to give up their guns? (I feel we are getting somewhere in this discussion...finally)

The short answer is yes. . . of course.  We live in an information age with instant communication.  We require health care professionals to report certain things and requiring a report of mental illness that poses a threat is a no-brainer. 

The longer answer is that there should be safeguards to protect the individual. . . for example.  A person who is denied should have the right of appeal.  Once in the system, there should be a review process, etc.

OK. Just to pursue this a little longer. This means that there should be a registration and licensing process for all people, because you never know who might be in a mental state where they shouldn't own a gun. So the government or some agency should have a list of who owns guns (and what guns they own?) and where they live and there should be some system connected to mental health professionals that would ensure that if someone is unfit to own a gun later on, their registration or license will be pulled. Somehow this system has to be set up.

Do you know if Virginia has such a system now?

[livefreeordie2]

So you believe in some sort of registration or licensing process that would determine who can and cannot own a gun? In other words, in Cho/Virginia's case, there should be some sort of system that is linked to the mental health system? And when someone purchases a gun and he/she is not mentally ill, but, say, 6 months later, they have a nervous breakdown and are diagnosed as being a threat to society, there should be some form of re-licensing process on a regular basis to ensure that those with mental illness have to give up their guns? (I feel we are getting somewhere in this discussion...finally)

The short answer is yes. . . of course.  We live in an information age with instant communication.  We require health care professionals to report certain things and requiring a report of mental illness that poses a threat is a no-brainer. 

The longer answer is that there should be safeguards to protect the individual. . . for example.  A person who is denied should have the right of appeal.  Once in the system, there should be a review process, etc.

OK. Just to pursue this a little longer. This means that there should be a registration and licensing process for all people, because you never know who might be in a mental state where they shouldn't own a gun. So the government or some agency should have a list of who owns guns (and what guns they own?) and where they live and there should be some system connected to mental health professionals that would ensure that if someone is unfit to own a gun later on, their registration or license will be pulled. Somehow this system has to be set up.

Do you know if Virginia has such a system now?

Let me go back and correct.  I'm talking about the process of purchasing weapons, not registering or licensing them.  I oppose the idea of registering or licensing. . .I support the idea of checking, thoroughly checking at the time of purchase.  That system is in place already, but could and obviously should be strengthened, especially in the area of mental illness that poses a threat.  Licensing and registration of gun owners is a prelude to confiscation. 

How do you deal with those diagnosed who already own guns?  The same way you deal with those convicted of a felony who own guns.

As for your concept of, "because you never know who might be. . .", that's not how we do things in this country, is it?  Nor should it be.  Living in a free society engenders risks. . .

[merce]

...Living in a free society engenders risks. . .

I don't think freedom is a thing a lot of people understand or respect.
I think that is unfortunate.