Yay, GUNS!

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I should also point out other loopholes. California, for instance, bans removable magazines on assault rifles if they're used in conjunction with certain other features, the idea being that removable magazines make it easier to quickly reload and shoot lots of people. Detachable magazines are only allowed if you have to detach them with tools, instead of a button.

 

However, "tools" is loosely defined, so California-legal guns are now made with a magazine release button that can only be pressed with something long and pointy, like a bullet. It requires a tool, so it's not a detachable magazine, but you have the tool already and it takes about five seconds.

 

Whoops.

 

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2012/05/20/cbs-5-story-inspires-new-legislation-to-ban-bullet-button/

 

It also turns out that banning 30-round magazines is hard. AR-15 magazines are a NATO standard design so they can be easily interchangeable with those of other assault rifles. Some manufacturers make modified AR-15s chambered for .458 SOCOM, a much bigger bullet than the .223 usually fired, but the bullets fit nicely in NATO standard magazines, ten to a magazine. So, if you sell 10-round .458 magazines, they're not officially high-capacity magazines, but you can put them in your ordinary .223 AR-15 and have thirty rounds.

 

Gun laws are hard.

[iNow]

Browning has just reported that they've sold 3 years worth of high-capacity magazines in just 3 days amid talks of possible bans.

[MonDie]

Oh the irony

 

Looks might matter. Maybe partly legislate to discourage the sale of weapons that look like army weapons. Just a thought. I'm thinking of perception and how it may bestow a certain 'macho' image in the eyes of some people on others and perhaps this might not be a good thing for societal health.

Let's make all guns available in either hot pink or rainbow. It will be easier for security guards to spot them. Edited December 24, 2012 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[Bill Angel]

There is an issue summarized as "Federal law trumps State law". If States pass laws banning assault weapons, would such laws be overturned by the Federal courts because of an individual's rights to own guns under the 2nd Amendment?

[MonDie]

wasn't thinking about the "don't ask don't tell" stuff when I made that last post. Sorry about that.

 

I'm thinking about things that could be useful for defending a crowd without being useful to somebody that wants to attack a crowd. It can be done. Moontanman brought up the bright laser pointer early in the thread. For crowd defense, we could make it a super bright flashlight. It might temporarily blind the innocent people, but that's fine as long as the attacker is temporarily blinded. I also heard something about a bean bag gun from my brother, which might have been able to knock over Holmes.

The root of the problem is that the trait of being useful to an attacker and the trait of being useful as an attacker supressant tend to go together. If we could design things with the latter trait but not the former, we would have true "good guy" weapons. The key to effectiveness would be variety, so an attacker doesn't know what they'll be up against. Even something similar to tear gas, as long as it's not lethal, could be a good guy weapon.

Another problem is that it mustn't be easy to alter them into being bad guy weapons, otherwise an altered weapon could confuse people about who the good guys are.

Edited December 24, 2012 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[Bill Angel]

Even something similar to tear gas, as long as it's not lethal, could be a good guy weapon.

That's a good idea, especially if the tear gas could be deployed by one of those small robots such as are used by the police for bomb disposal. A small robotic device could scoot in close to the ground and release the canister of tear gas. It would also distract the shooter, giving the shooter's potential victims an opportunity to flee.

[iNow]

There is an issue summarized as "Federal law trumps State law".

It's called the Supremacy Clause, and is found under Article 6 Clause #2 of the constitution.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

If States pass laws banning assault weapons, would such laws be overturned by the Federal courts because of an individual's rights to own guns under the 2nd Amendment?

It depends entirely on how the law is written and how the judges of the SCOTUS rule.

Edited December 24, 2012 by iNow

[zapatos]

There is an issue summarized as "Federal law trumps State law". If States pass laws banning assault weapons, would such laws be overturned by the Federal courts because of an individual's rights to own guns under the 2nd Amendment?

The fact that a federal law was able to ban assault weapsons indicates that a state law banning assault weapons would not be unconstitutional under the second amendment. If it was, the federal law would have also been unconstitutional.

 

In addition to New York (see above), Massachusetts and New Jersey have enacted similar bans. Cook County of Illinois has enacted a similar, more restrictive ban, but has since repealed it. California enacted one of the first bans on semi-automatic rifles in 1989, adding stricter measures to the law several times since. Connecticut has enacted a partial ban that focuses on assault weapons with certain characteristics. Hawaii and Maryland have assault pistol bans pertaining to assault weapon characteristics only and pistols.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

[rigney]

 

 

yes, you are correct, i am a total poser.... Sneak into my house in the middle of the night and find out...

Poser? Ain't no way i'll try sneaking into your house! And using jug was a joke, Way too dainty for a real hick like you.

Edited December 25, 2012 by rigney

[iNow]

An informative chart:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/26/guns-kill-people-in-one-chilling-graph/

 

You know that line, “guns don’t kill people, people kill people?” It’s true, so far as it goes. But in the United States, when people decide to kill people, or kill themselves, they typically reach for a gun.

[MonDie]

I know there are a lot of damning statistics regarding the rate of firearm related death in the U.S. Nonetheless, that chart doesn't give any specific numbers. It could easily be biased.

1) The shading of a box only changes if the number is over 1k, 15k, or 30k. Why not 5k, 15k, and 25k, or why not 10k, 20k, and 30k? Lindeman could have intentionally chosen a categorization scheme that would make the chart impactful.

2) How did they define the categories of death such as "suffocation" and "Fire/Burn?" For example, what if some categories included death in the hospital, whereas other categories only included a death if it was immediately following the event?

 

 

And this particular line is awfully suggestive.

The Washington Post’s Todd Lindeman picked through the data on the cause of violent deaths by age and illustrated the results.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/26/guns-kill-people-in-one-chilling-graph/

Edited December 27, 2012 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[waitforufo]

Browning has just reported that they've sold 3 years worth of high-capacity magazines in just 3 days amid talks of possible bans.

 

Is this a surprise? If the feds were taking about reenacting the prohibition of alcohol, wouldn’t most people purchase liquor? Wouldn’t the distilleries be running at capacity 24/7 until the talk stopped or the prohibition was enacted? If you want people to purchase something get politicians to start talking about banning that thing. It’s a tried and true method.

 

These gun control laws are a waste of time. It’s like believing that passing a law to ban abortion would stop abortion. We tried that too and it didn’t work.

 

If you want to reduce gun ownership you need to appeal to people’s moral sense. You need to make people social outcasts for owning guns. Use the smoking model.

 

If you want to stop mentally ill people who are a danger to themselves and others from committing mass murder you need to lock such people up, particularly if they have a demonstrated risk of not taking there meds when outside of supervision.

[iNow]

Is this a surprise?

Not at all. Thought about going to Cabela's to buy a few myself, actually.

If the feds were taking about reenacting the prohibition of alcohol, wouldn’t most people purchase liquor? Wouldn’t the distilleries be running at capacity 24/7 until the talk stopped or the prohibition was enacted? If you want people to purchase something get politicians to start talking about banning that thing. It’s a tried and true method.

Indeed.

These gun control laws are a waste of time. It’s like believing that passing a law to ban abortion would stop abortion. We tried that too and it didn’t work.

 

If you want to reduce gun ownership you need to appeal to people’s moral sense. You need to make people social outcasts for owning guns. Use the smoking model.

 

If you want to stop mentally ill people who are a danger to themselves and others from committing mass murder you need to lock such people up, particularly if they have a demonstrated risk of not taking there meds when outside of supervision.

We seem to agree on much of this. I'm not willing to say that nothing can be done or that intelligent steps are unavailable to us, but I find myself pretty closely aligned with you on this. Here's something else I read earlier today that struck a chord with me:

"I've been giving the " gun ban law" some thought. And here it is: this person steals guns, (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), shoots and kills his own mother (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), transports these guns loaded (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), brings guns onto school property (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), breaks into the school (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), discharges the weapons within city limits (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), murders 26 people (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW), and commits suicide (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW)."

 

"And there are people in this country that somehow think passing ANOTHER LAW banning guns would protect us from someone like this.

I think it misses the point that a specific law focused on the correct specific thing(s) could very much protect us, but the sentiment is right. We're focused on scapegoats... security theater akin to limiting us to 3oz of liquid on airplanes, for example.

[john5746]

 

Is this a surprise? If the feds were taking about reenacting the prohibition of alcohol, wouldn’t most people purchase liquor? Wouldn’t the distilleries be running at capacity 24/7 until the talk stopped or the prohibition was enacted? If you want people to purchase something get politicians to start talking about banning that thing. It’s a tried and true method.

People who like to drink or want to possibly make a profit would, but maybe not "most".

These gun control laws are a waste of time. It’s like believing that passing a law to ban abortion would stop abortion. We tried that too and it didn’t work.

Oh yeah, laws are stupid. Anarchy is utopia. Who knew?

 

If you want to reduce gun ownership you need to appeal to people’s moral sense. You need to make people social outcasts for owning guns. Use the smoking model.

Not even sure reducing gun ownership is being considered. Maybe a better analogy would be trying to control type of cigarette or % alcohol, instead of banning outright. Placing limits.

If you want to stop mentally ill people who are a danger to themselves and others from committing mass murder you need to lock such people up, particularly if they have a demonstrated risk of not taking there meds when outside of supervision.

Wait, you want to pass a LAW? I think people who want to have an arsenal to maybe fight their government are mentally ill. They should be locked up. And if you disagree, well maybe you are mentally ill.

 

Yeah, now I see why the mother had guns.

Edited December 27, 2012 by john5746

[MonDie]

Oh yeah, laws are stupid. Anarchy is utopia. Who knew?

 

Perhaps the law of marginal utility can be applied to how law enforcement is focused. That is, a little investment in the enforcement of gun laws would go a long way, whereas further spending on "the war on drugs" would do virtually nothing, because the latter is already strongly enforced.

 

 

For anyone who wants to understand the term, the quote below explains marginal utility.

The marginalist explanation is as follows: The total utility or satisfaction of water exceeds that of diamonds. We would all rather do without diamonds than without water. But almost all of us would prefer to win a prize of a diamond rather than an additional bucket of water. To make this last choice, we ask ourselves not whether diamonds or water give more satisfaction in total, but whether one more diamond gives greater additional satisfaction than one more bucket of water. For this marginal utility question, our answer will depend on how much of each we already have. Though the first units of water we consume every month are of enormous value to us, the last units are not. The utility of additional (or marginal) units continues to decrease as we consume more and more.

 

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Marginalism.html

Edited December 27, 2012 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[waitforufo]

People who like to drink or want to possibly make a profit would, but maybe not "most".

 

Oh yeah, laws are stupid. Anarchy is utopia. Who knew?

 

Not even sure reducing gun ownership is being considered. Maybe a better analogy would be trying to control type of cigarette or % alcohol, instead of banning outright. Placing limits.

 

Wait, you want to pass a LAW? I think people who want to have an arsenal to maybe fight their government are mentally ill. They should be locked up. And if you disagree, well maybe you are mentally ill.

 

Yeah, now I see why the mother had guns.

 

If you pass a law contrary to the culture of the people subjected to that law, that law is a waste of time. That is why the prohibition of alcohol and laws prohibiting abortion are both a waste of time. That is why gun control in the US is a waste of time. Also, be practical, there are way too many firearms in circulation in the United States. Many of those firearms are only cosmetically different from the AR15. So the only law that has a chance of passing at the moment is a law very similar to the one currently in effect in Connecticut. The same law under which Nancy Lanza legally purchased her Bushmaster AR15. Yes, you may be able to pass a law to remove flash suppressors and bayonet lugs from firearms you find unattractive, but to what end? Zero.

 

Like I said you have to look at the smoking model. It took a long time to go from smoking nearly anywhere at any time to banning smoking in public places. Culture had to be changed. Perhaps Sandy Hook can shock people into a culture change but I doubt it. The 7^th circuit court of appeals just ruled that Illinois has to pass a concealed carry law and gave the state 180 days to get it done. Americans love firearms. I could be wrong but my guess is nothing will change that. Also, recent Supreme Court decisions have only strengthened gun rights.

 

With regard to passing laws regarding the mentally ill what I’m suggesting is nothing different to how we handled the mentally ill in the United States back in the 70’s. You know those bad old days of Jimmy Carter. Back then if you were found to have a mental condition that made you a danger to yourself or others you were committed to a mental hospital, treated, and released when your mental state adequately improved. The third time you were committed however you were generally committed for life. Yes there were exceptions, particularly if new more effective medications were developed but generally you were committed for life. Why? Most that were recommitted stopped taking there meds. Likely they only needed to skip them once or they reduced the dose to avoid side effects. In either case that was enough to make them think the meds were causing their problems and they stop taking them all together. Within a few weeks they are recommitted. Do that twice and you wouldn’t be set free. The ACLU however got involved because while committed and medicated these patients were mentally stable and sued to be set free. So now if you need a third commitment you are turned away. Why waste resources on people who have demonstrated that they will quit taking the meds? Why protect the populous when the courts make that protection impossible?

[Moontanman]

This topic has brought out some interesting cultural differences in other wise rather similar people. John Cuthber who I seldom disagree with, whose opinion I respect greatly, to me seems almost like an alien from another planet in his views on guns. He has caused me to inspect my own views on this and I found my views to be somewhat less than rational in comparison. I don't know why but the fact my own views are somewhat less than rational doesn't seem to effect my own rationalization for owning a quite deadly weapon in the least.

 

I consider myself to be a reasonable man, virtually no one is in any real danger of being killed by me with my gun, John has convinced me that my need for a gun is less than realistic but yet i have no intention of destroying my gun (selling it would simply pass the buck) in fact my wife has almost talked me into buying her a new pistol for Valentines Day. That last one illustrates how deeply ingrained into the culture of the southern US guns really are... or that we are nucking futs...

 

Why can I not be rational about this? It's quite easy for me to see the folly of guns being readily available in a rational society, why is it so difficult for me to include myself in the set of people who do not own guns?

 

The idea that what a gun looks like has anything to do with how deadly they are is not logical but appearances seem to be the main thrust of gun control so far by the people we elect to represent us and most people seem to be behind this idea of what a gun looks like is more important than what it does.

 

 

All of us seem to understand that something needs to be done, either make everyone own a gun or at least every house hold should have a gun... or no one should have a gun for any reason... in almost any other case I would say that surely there is a middle ground but for guns there really doesn't seem to be a middle ground, not in the USA, are we, the people of the USA really that different than the rest of the world?

 

 

In the southern USA guns are more than just an important part of our culture, they represent freedom, safety, independence, individuality, strength. At one time guns were as necessary as an automobile is now but they have become comparable to vestigial organs, no longer necessary for survival but still with us and as impossible to get rid of as whale leg bones. The whale doesn't need them but removing them would still kill the whale...

 

 

 

[StringJunky]

This topic has brought out some interesting cultural differences in other wise rather similar people. John Cuthber who I seldom disagree with, whose opinion I respect greatly, to me seems almost like an alien from another planet in his views on guns. He has caused me to inspect my own views on this and I found my views to be somewhat less than rational in comparison. I don't know why but the fact my own views are somewhat less than rational doesn't seem to effect my own rationalization for owning a quite deadly weapon in the least.

 

I consider myself to be a reasonable man, virtually no one is in any real danger of being killed by me with my gun, John has convinced me that my need for a gun is less than realistic but yet i have no intention of destroying my gun (selling it would simply pass the buck) in fact my wife has almost talked me into buying her a new pistol for Valentines Day. That last one illustrates how deeply ingrained into the culture of the southern US guns really are... or that we are nucking futs...

 

Why can I not be rational about this? It's quite easy for me to see the folly of guns being readily available in a rational society, why is it so difficult for me to include myself in the set of people who do not own guns?

 

The idea that what a gun looks like has anything to do with how deadly they are is not logical but appearances seem to be the main thrust of gun control so far by the people we elect to represent us and most people seem to be behind this idea of what a gun looks like is more important than what it does.

 

 

All of us seem to understand that something needs to be done, either make everyone own a gun or at least every house hold should have a gun... or no one should have a gun for any reason... in almost any other case I would say that surely there is a middle ground but for guns there really doesn't seem to be a middle ground, not in the USA, are we, the people of the USA really that different than the rest of the world?

 

 

In the southern USA guns are more than just an important part of our culture, they represent freedom, safety, independence, individuality, strength. At one time guns were as necessary as an automobile is now but they have become comparable to vestigial organs, no longer necessary for survival but still with us and as impossible to get rid of as whale leg bones. The whale doesn't need them but removing them would still kill the whale...

 

 

 

 

Nice to see you attempt to objectivise the status of guns Moon. I know, given that guns are deeply ingrained in the American psyche, that's not an easy thing for you to do...I hope your thoughts are being replicated amongst many other intelligent and thoughtful Americans like you. I hope a more respectful and discriminating protocol and general attitude can be borne out of all the recent tragedies.

Edited December 28, 2012 by StringJunky

[Moontanman]

 

Nice to see you attempt to objectivise the status of guns Moon. I know, given that guns are deeply ingrained in the American psyche, that's not an easy thing for you to do...I hope your thoughts are being replicated amongst many other intelligent and thoughtful Americans like you. I hope a more respectful and discriminating protocol and general attitude can be borne out of all the recent tragedies.

 

 

It's confusing to me, i cannot understand the whys behind gun violence, violence in general confuses me, this has to be deeper than guns are simply available, to me it looks more like insanity than gun ownership is the major driver in this...

 

I don't think there's any question that having a gun in your home while dealing with a home intruder problem results in your family members being more at risk. Many intruders are unarmed burglars willing to risk getting caught stealing but not willing to risk being caught with a weapon, or they're simply thieves and not murderers. In these cases, any harm from a gun to your family is going to come from you.

 

I don't see how you can assert this with any real certainty, are you saying that when an intruder comes into your home you are more likely to shoot one of your family members than the intruder? Also are you saying that having a gun and having an intruder has only the one option of shooting the intruder? I agree that killing someone over property is unacceptable but assuming they are not going to harm you is just as unacceptable... The middle ground is holding the intruder at gun point while the police are making their way to you...

 

 

I simply don't trust the concept of using a gun against an intruder. The odds that he's there to kill us are dwarfed by the odds that it's a teenager breaking in to steal something, and I don't think I could ever justify killing someone over some insured electronics just because he MIGHT be a murderer instead of a burglar. If you're protecting your home on the grounds that EVERY intruder is a possible threat to your lives, you're very much more likely to shoot and then sort things out later.

 

 

Isn't it more reasonable to use the gun as a threat instead of shoot first and ask questions later? I don't see use of a gun as a shoot first thing, in fact in my state if you do shoot an unarmed intruder you have some explaining to do to say the least. You can't shoot someone who is trying to get away either... A gun can be used effectively as a threat, as in put your hands up or I'll shoot type thing. The sound of a 12 gauge pump chambering a round is quite effective in intimidating an intruder, any intruder who has any desire to live.

 

I just don't see it as an either or thing, there are more options than kill the intruder... Possibly my own gun training plays into this, I was taught to never shoot at anything I didn't know exactly what it was and to never shoot first and ask questions later, always give the other guy a spoken warning at least, if you see him first i can't imagine not telling him to stand down or be shot.. this of course implies you have the drop on him, if you do not then he has the option of killing you and you have no options... Simply shooting someone who is in your home is not an option for me...

 

LOL! Noooo!

 

Scroll down to Licensing and Legislation:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom

 

Subject to meeting standard criteria, I think it's straightforward to own shotguns but you have to meet stringent rules to own a firearm:

 

.To obtain a firearm certificate, the police must be convinced that a person has "good reason" to own each firearm, and that they can be trusted with it "without danger to the public safety or to the peace". Under Home Office guidelines, firearms licences are only issued if a person has legitimate sporting, collecting, or work-related reasons for ownership. Since 1968, self-defencehas not been considered a valid reason to own a firearm. The current licensing procedure involves: positive verification of identity, two referees of verifiable good character who have known the applicant for at least two years (and who may themselves be interviewed and/or investigated as part of the certification), approval of the application by the applicant's own family doctor, an inspection of the premises and cabinet where firearms will be kept and a face-to-face interview by a Firearms Enquiry Officer (FEO) also known as a Firearms Liaison Officer (FLO). A thorough background check of the applicant is then made by Special Branch on behalf of the firearms licensing department. Only when all these stages have been satisfactorily completed will a license be issued, which must be renewed every 5 years.

 

I wonder how much of this could be applied in the US?

 

 

 

 

So no pepper spray or tasers?

 

 

• Any weapon of whatever description designed or adapted for the discharge of any noxious liquid gas or other thing. This would generally include stun guns, or electric shock devices, and CS gas. Cattle prods would not generally be included, but it would depend on the type.

 

[swansont]

If you want to stop mentally ill people who are a danger to themselves and others from committing mass murder you need to lock such people up, particularly if they have a demonstrated risk of not taking there meds when outside of supervision.

 

How do you show they are a danger to themselves or others? Without too many false-positives?

[ydoaPs]

There is an issue summarized as "Federal law trumps State law". If States pass laws banning assault weapons, would such laws be overturned by the Federal courts because of an individual's rights to own guns under the 2nd Amendment?

The 2nd amendment doesn't give anyone the unrestricted right to any type of weapon they like. In fact, it uses the phrase "well-regulated". Let's get on that regulation part. If you can go into a gun show and buy an assault riffle with cash with no background check and not even a record of your name, there is absolutely no regulation.

 

 

How do you show they are a danger to themselves or others? Without too many false-positives?

You could require a few psychiatric sessions to actually judge that to get a license instead of just taking the person's word for it. And maybe yearly check-ups required.

Edited December 28, 2012 by ydoaPs

[ParanoiA]

With regard to passing laws regarding the mentally ill what I’m suggesting is nothing different to how we handled the mentally ill in the United States back in the 70’s. You know those bad old days of Jimmy Carter. Back then if you were found to have a mental condition that made you a danger to yourself or others you were committed to a mental hospital, treated, and released when your mental state adequately improved. The third time you were committed however you were generally committed for life. Yes there were exceptions, particularly if new more effective medications were developed but generally you were committed for life. Why? Most that were recommitted stopped taking there meds. Likely they only needed to skip them once or they reduced the dose to avoid side effects. In either case that was enough to make them think the meds were causing their problems and they stop taking them all together. Within a few weeks they are recommitted. Do that twice and you wouldn’t be set free. The ACLU however got involved because while committed and medicated these patients were mentally stable and sued to be set free. So now if you need a third commitment you are turned away. Why waste resources on people who have demonstrated that they will quit taking the meds? Why protect the populous when the courts make that protection impossible?

 

How do you deal with the issues that meds create? In the case of my son, he can either take the meds, which slows him way down and prevents him from getting any kind of work (he looks and talks like he's stoned), which makes him a leech on society. He can't take care of himself because of how he is perceived. That, of course, triggers more depression and intensifies the symptoms. And it dooms my wife and I to a lifetime of care for a grown man. So much for spending our lives together in peace, that shit's over.

 

If he doesn't take the meds, he can function, find work and take care of himself. But then the "voice" is stronger, and if anything were to happen, then his refusal to take meds would be "the cause" and blah blah blah.

 

He cannot win. We cannot win. This is a problem for anyone with mental issues that needs medications. The worse the side effects, the more this is a problem.

 

Everyone "cares" about mental issues, but no one will hire anyone with mental issues. They have to hide it, and they are chained to the insurance-employer arrangement (that Americans love so much and refuse to change despite the problems it causes), and live in fear of lapses in coverage.

 

Someone being a danger to themselves and others just doesn't carry any weight, anywhere, anymore. They are not "dealt" with, rather they are bounced around and processed dysfunctionally until they eventually just "go away".

 

I mean come on, my son believed(s) I was going to murder the family and slept with a bow and arrow next to his bed and that was revealed just 2 months ago as a resident in a psychiatric facility...since his release with "stable meds" no one has even called about him. They wait for them to go away and disappear into the woodwork because they are powerless to do anything. They don't know if he's taking his medications, and they don't have the capacity to care. The consequences are fatal. But, nothing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[iNow]

You could require a few psychiatric sessions to actually judge that to get a license instead of just taking the person's word for it. And maybe yearly check-ups required.

Agreed. I would also say that we need to move away from "locking them up," and instead find ways to treat them and help them as they are identified. Punishment does not ameliorate mental issues. Rehabilitation can. Unfortunately, healthcare in our nation has for too long been a privilege of the wealthy and often not available to those most in need.

[rigney]

 

Agreed. I would also say that we need to move away from "locking them up," and instead find ways to treat them and help them as they are identified. Punishment does not ameliorate mental issues. Rehabilitation can. Unfortunately, healthcare in our nation has for too long been a privilege of the wealthy and often not available to those most in need.

If she could, I believe Mrs. Lanza would disagree with your latest statements most vehemently,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 28, 2012 by rigney

[iNow]

If she could, I believe Mrs. Lanza would disagree with your latest statements most vehemently,

I don't see why. Elaborate.