I'm sorry, but one of the the most inescapable facts of life is that you and everyone else will die at some point. I'm just not getting the whole "if we curtail and control every dangerous aspect of life until you can't even open a champagne bottle because that cork flying about could conceivable put an eye out, then we will all live forever" mentality. It's not going to happen folks! You're not omnipotent, you'll never be able to presage all the crazies. All you do is curtail rights for the rest of us. This belief that stricter and stricter controls on everything is going to make it all safer, make it all better is nuts. Everyone always wants to make new laws for every little thing "thousands of people died last year because of old age, we should really have a law to prevent that kind of thing!" And refine the laws after they're made? What laws already out there has this tact worked with? I have to paraphrase Ben Franklin, as nuts as he may have been, I'll take my freedom over security any day.
===================================================================== meh there are checks and balances to life get over it in order tog et a gun tis not to unreasonable to be checked to make sure you are neither crazy or a criminal.
Suicidal,clinical depression and metal disorder that evolve voices and reality issues like schizophrenia, anti social or sociopaths dont fall into it unless they break the law or become "mentally broken",being a anti people ass dose not make you crazy merely smarter than your average sheeple besides its not what I think the way it works a law is made then if enough dislike it it will be removed or altered look at the evolution of gun laws and criminals.
Yeah, I wish it worked like that. Unfortunately laws today are made according to political lobbies and who has the most money and/or power. Do you really think that there was an overwhelming amount of people here in California who said "Yeah, a seat belt law would be a fantastic thing!". No, legislation decided to use it as a vehicle in order to generate more revenue for the state via fines and to please a few of their more rabid voters at the same time.
=============================================================== seat belt and "proof of insurance" laws are fou tax schemes to drain the citizen of more money there a bit different than gun laws, you forget the gun lobby has enough power to make sure the basics of mental health are checked I doubt they would siczo and ban everyone who goes to a shrink weekly to bitch about mother. . they are goign to start with the mentally insane and then most likely the depressed or anxious. I wonder when they will ban drunks from cars....cars need protecting too you know! LOL
I'm on the fence about background checks and also how it relates to mental health. On the one hand, mental health checks potentially will do as much if not more good than criminal checks: It's the kooks who go out and commit mass-killings ala Virginia Tech, etc. On the other hand, there's a lot weighing against them. For one, mental health is largely the subjective opinion of a single individual e.g. a psychiatrist and your rights therefore depend on the opinion of only one person. Moreover, historically, it's foolish to think, as some have suggested, that disqualification under the guise of "mental health" will only be limited to extreme cases; history has told us, time and again (and especially with gun control matters), that the definitions of who should be disqualified from owning firearms will eventually be broadened to include much less threatening people, perhaps those with no appreciable disability at all. We've already seen well-intentioned laws to prevent violent felons from getting guns expanded to non-violent felons and even relatively minor misdemeanor offenses. With that history (as well as a laundry list of other cases of gun control has being expnaded far beyond their original intent), it is foolish to think that lawmakers will simply bar "the really dangerous nuts" and no move on to other, unthreatening groups. Historically, there are always folks who are not willing to settle on a modest, common-sense laws, but who are willing to pust the limit and enact - often, subtly - even-exoanding definitios of what makes a person mentally unfit.
Dunker wrote: That was, at least for the most part, my point. What constitues a "public danger" when it comes to mental illness? @Pac...I disagree with you on a number of points: sure, men are more likely to commit suicide with a firearm than women, but it's not all that common among people who actually do commit suicide. Yes, the are people who jump in front of trains, jump off buildings and bridges, slit their wrists, put a gun in their mouth or temple etc. but the majority opt for more calculated and less painful methods; not having a weapon is not going to stop anyone. "Sociopaths", however, are the most dangerous people on the planet. They are, for lack of a better explanation, people without a conscience; they know what the law and society says is right and wrong but their understanding is purely on an intellectual level whith no understand whatsoever as to "why" its wrong. @Pulsar ... nice to see you again guy!
Sociopaths are asses if they can behave then they should be able to get guns. When it comes to mental health a turn down for a permit would be sevier depression,anxiety or a broken metal state (schizophrenia,multi persona disorder,ect,ect) I would like it to have a repeal process where you can go to a shrink and have them re-evaulte you for the all clear for the other mental disorders I dont think there should be any reason they should be premited to own a gun.
Zippy, you're referring to the most dangerous of the human animals. If you make a sociopath angry, don't ever allow yourself alone with it or in a situation where they can get you. Even though you see cutting one off in traffic as a daily occurence, were you caught alone and appeared powerless or they could gain an advantage, they wouldn't care to kill you for the offense. The only care they have for social mores is how to keep from being caught when breaking them. I'll disagree with Gerry. Many of them know what is wrong on an intellectual level. They don't care about moral behavior and the idea of right and wrong as set forth by society. Sociopaths should be at the top of the list of those not allowed a firearm. Gerry You're going to have to work harder showing them. I don't remember saying much about firearms and suicide. In some cultures a person goes quietly while in others they try to take out everyone they can as a statement. A person bent on killing will often get it done. No disagreement on sociopaths either. They're the most dangerous animal, as I mentioned. I don't see where the disagreements are unless you point them out. So far you haven't voiced one except when you implied gun ownership was wrong because inter-city gangstas were doing a lot of shooting. It's more difficult to do a drive by with a knife, but back in the day, they still got the job done. Until the government assigns 3 cops to every home for 24 hour protection (overlapping 12 hour shifts), I think owning a gun for protection is justifiable. As often pointed out, if a person can't protect themselves, all the police do is inspect a crime scene.
What is a psychopath? A psychopath has no concern for the feelings of others and a complete disregard for any sense of social obligation. They seem egocentric and lack insight of any sense of responsibility or consequence. Their emotions are thought to be superficial and shallow, if they exist at all. They are considered callous, manipulative, and incapable of forming lasting relationships, let alone showing any kind of meaningful love. They typically never perform any action unless they determine it can be beneficial for themselves. Since psychopaths cause harm through their actions, it is assumed that they are not emotionally attached to the people they harm; however, according to the PCL-R Checklist, psychopaths are also careless in the way they treat themselves. They frequently fail to alter their behavior in a way that would prevent them from enduring future discomfort. Dr. Joseph Newman contends that the behavior displayed by psychopaths is the result of "an inability to process contextual cues." [23] It is thought that any emotions which the primary psychopath exhibits are the fruits of watching and mimicking other people's emotions. They show poor impulse control and a low tolerance for frustration and aggression. They have no empathy, remorse, anxiety or guilt in relation to their behavior. In short, they truly are devoid of conscience. However, they understand that society expects them to behave in a conscientious manner, and therefore they mimic this behavior when it suits their needs. Most studies of psychopaths have taken place among prison populations. This remains a limitation on its applicability to a general population but that has not prevented fiction writers from popularizing psychopaths in the movies. link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociopath
My point of view is that sociopaths are born while psychopaths are formed. No amount of treatment will make a difference with a true sociopath. Depending on the degree of psychosis, not all people exhibiting psychopathic behavior are untreatable.
=========================================================== there are a lot of people under the right circumstance would would hurt another with a gun,Sociopaths who follow the law should get a pass because they are not 80%+ likely to gun down a crowd, evil is ok as long as it abids by the law, insanity however is not.
sociopaths are lesser psychopath from my understanding they care about them selfs at the least thus they are not goign to do anythign to foolish ,because they tend to be violent from the get go they tend to rack up a criminal record thus they are already "limited". Psychopathy is a complete disregard for everything and they should be automatically baned. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy#Sociopathy
Zippy I think we're just bouncing around a difference of definition. The dictionary gives the same definition for sociopath and psychopath. Note Wikipedia discusses psychopathic disorders under Sociopathy. There happens to be a difference of opinion in some circles. A true sociopath is born without the mental function to be a properly functioning member of society. They are born preditors. These are the kids who torture pets and don't mind doing the same to family, associates or strangers. Only as long as others are useful are they safe. A psychopath is thought of as being a product of events and developing a treatable psychological illness. For a psychopath there are those who think there is hope. Sociopathic behavior is what a full blown psychopath mimics. Sociopaths need to be housed away from the general public and psychopaths held and treated until they are capable of functioning in society. If you want to think of sociopaths and pychopaths as being the same or different, that's okay. Either problem should be reason to deny ownership of a deadly weapon or to allow access to them.
OK ENOUGH OF THIS DRIVEL. Simply put, "If you're a NUT JOB you don't need a dang gun or weapon for that matter." And the way I see it, if you are labeled as such you are screwed for the rest of your life. UNFORTUNATELY that is what will happen and you guys know it. Well that should stir up the pot a little. LOL. ....gm Where's gerry1, he and I could have some fun here.
Ireland, Gerry, Zippy and I were discussing a serious situation. I regret you take it lightly. Being a "Nut Job" is the stigma that current laws are trying to protect people with mental problems from. However, I do agree that real "Nut Jobs" shouldn't have firearms. Therein lies the problem. How far does the law go in protecting society from "Nut Jobs" while trying to protect the "Nut Jobs" from society? As far as psychological problems, the law should go farther in screening those wanting to own a deadly weapon. If a person has a severe psychological problem, it should be reported. If a person doesn't want a psych problem brought up, they shouldn't try to buy a firearm. I don't want more gun laws at present. I'd like to see what we have enforced first to see how that works. I could live with the addition of increased screening for those with psychological problems though. Gun discussions usually don't change many opinions. Some are adamant that any laws are too many while others will only accept a total ban. Then you have those who move somewhere between. I've stated my opinion in the most civil manner I could. I'll leave the discussion to Greensman and the rest of you who wish to continue.
@PacMan, I in no way shape or form intended you take my comments the wrong way and therefore see you leave the discussion. I just thought that a little HUMOR brought into a situation that was coming to a possible head needed a somewhat mellower tone for conversations sake. I think that the parties involved in this have been more than amiable to a degree but I also think all of you were "arguing" a mute point. In other words the "definition" of a certain term shouldn't be beaten like a smelly dead horse. I will go out on my little limb here, well a LARGE one to hold me actually, and say that more gun laws are almost ludicrous at this point. Like someone said, maybe PacMan, let's enforce the ones that we have and see what happens. Honestly the only guns that I own are SoftAir Pistols by whoever makes them and that's all I want at this point. My kiddies are more important to me than a serious mistake that may be beyond anyone's control. I've seen it first hand and have friends that have lost children in "accidents" beyond their parents control. Maybe "nut job" was a little insensitive but hey you are what you are, RIGHT? I'm a large man and admit it freely, 300 plus lbs. I'm sure the rest of you have faults too but who really needs a shoulder to cry on here? NOT me, my wife and kiddies love me the way I am and that's good with me. PacMan please don't leave the discussion or find this insulting. I think we all are on the same side here. All we want is less unnecessary death caused by the "criminals" that use guns as a homicidal weapon. There will always be the "accidental" death from a car, a boat, football game, rock climbing, a gun, or whatever you can find as a way someone dies unintentionally. OK my little post of seriousness is over and I go back into blissful humor. ....gm
@greensman...I am both a sociopath and a psychopath depending on which of my multiple personalities chooses to make a fashionable emergence. I also have a third personality who is actually Sigmund Freud reincarnated. He always manages to smooth things out between my multiple personalities until they're all chummy again. Since I like folk music and camping, Sigmund seems to think that I'm really a lesbian trapped in a man's body which explains why I have a short, cropped and masculine hair cut instead of french curls like Shirley Temple @Pac ... I enjoyed our discussions but I did rather drag the thread in a totally different direction and that pragmatic lesbian trapped in a man's body gets really irritated at the lack of continuity. j/k and being really silly.
one of them (sociopath/psychopath, i might have confused them so witch ever is the "lesser") is like depression just because you suffer from it dose not mean its a automatic fail,for sociopath/psychopath the key is to stay out of jail/trouble without a criminal recored or mental record of "abusing" others theres no need to block them just because they got hit with a label, this is my connsern anyway we should focus on thos that have trouble with reality, sever depression(that can blur reailty),suicidal (5 years limitation,life can suck and get then get better),stalking obsessive/abusive with people, if you go by the basics you wont have to take out large swipes of the populace just because they are "labeled" ....uhg smack me if I have gone PC....give me a quick death eh?
