Mental Problem Not Gun Problem

[M14 Shooter]

the fact still remains that guns can kill people

Of course. That's why he have them - and that's why our right to have them is protected by the most powerful words to that effect in the Constitution.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Sometimes sane, law abiding people do insane things.

Yes. But to try to stop those people is a form of prior restaint.
Constitutionally, prior restraint is forbidden.

 

[boedicca]

Because he had done done anything yet and he passed the gun law's.
Had he been but in a health care center in June 2010, he would not have been able to get a gun in Nov. 2010.

So no one bothers to perform a psychological or psychiatric evaluation on someone purchasing a gun, whether they've been committed or treated for it or not?

AZ requires both state and federal background checks to purchase a gun.

Loughner's behavior, while bizarre and resulting in the police being called to handle five separate incidents at his JC, did not cause anything to be placed in his law enforcement files that would eliminate him in a background check.

We have a choice. We can create a faux sense of security by putting more restrictions on people who would never commit such a crime; or we can accept that the world is a place in which random acts performed by sick or malintentioned person occur.

History has shown, however, that destroying the liberty of a people does not prevent such random acts.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If it's a mental problem not a gun problem, could anyone tell me how he, a schizophrenic, got a gun in the first place?

Until you are judged mentally infirm, you have every right to buy a gun.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Because he had done done anything yet and he passed the gun law's.
Had he been but in a health care center in June 2010, he would not have been able to get a gun in Nov. 2010.

So no one bothers to perform a psychological or psychiatric evaluation on someone purchasing a gun, whether they've been committed or treated for it or not?

Of course not. That would violate the Constitution.

 

[peach174]

It's not a violation of the constitution to get help for the mentally ill if they are a threat to society.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It's not a violation of the constitution to get help for the mentally ill if they are a threat to society.

No, its not.
But as far as gun control goes, that's not the issue here.

 

[Sallow]

Sometimes sane, law abiding people do insane things.

Yes. But to try to stop those people is a form of prior restaint.
Constitutionally, prior restraint is forbidden.

Constitutionally..the right to bear arms..is still not quite settled.

And the "Constitution is not a suicide pact" has been used on several occasions to restrict Free speech.

 

[peach174]

M14,
You did not read what I said. It's not about gun control or speech, it's about getting the mentally ill help. If he would have been put in a mental health facility in June 2010, he would not have been able to buy that gun in Nov. Go back and read what I put up on the board.
Think of all the new job's it would create. Buiding new faclity's,jobs for health care workers, janitor's, office personel.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Sometimes sane, law abiding people do insane things.

Yes. But to try to stop those people is a form of prior restaint.
Constitutionally, prior restraint is forbidden.

Constitutionally..the right to bear arms..is still not quite settled.

No... but prior restraint is.
As is the individual nature of the fundamental right.

 

[peach174]

We have at least 3 or four bills that will be coming up on Wed, at least 2 so far are gun control, (both Dems) another on speech. None on getting help for these type of people before they do harm to themselve's or other's.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Here we go again with more gun laws or speech laws.
Why do the left keep trying to make more gun laws instead of getting right to the problem,which is this guy has a mental problem.
It is not a gun problem, it's a mental disorder and gun laws will not keep guns out of their hands. They need to be sent to a Mental Health facility.
He is a schizophrenic.

I think you're right.

I've heard several people talking-about-him (& his symptoms), over the last hour-or-so, and he does seem to have fairly classic symptoms.

Friends have suggested he'd deteriorated, pretty rapidly, over the last 4-or-5 years. He's at that age, when schizophrenia rears-it's-head; late-teens/early-20s. The fact he's been gettin' "high", on a pretty-consistant-basis, suggests self-medication; very typical. From what neighbors have suggested, his Father sounds like the type who'd be more-than-indifferent to his Son's mental-health....but, that's all heresay, to-date.

I think you could (easily) be correct.

I just heard some Republican-congressman (interviewed, on T.V.) throwin'-out all the madman/evil-rhetoric. If we were livin' in the Dark Ages, the kid would (probably) have been burned (at-the-stake), years-ago.​

"McGahee said Loughner sometimes shook, blurted things out in class and appeared to be under the influence of drugs at times, McGahee said."

Shooting rampage suspect set to make first court appearance - CNN.com​

 

[NYcarbineer]

I get the feeling these proclamations of his mental illnesses will lose much of their charm if his lawyers employ an insanity defense.

 

[FreedomEagle]

This arugment is the same as it always has been.

Here are the facts:

Until you are deemed mentally unfit to own a gun, then it's your Constitutionally guaranteed right, AS AN AMERICAN to bear arms.

It's a true tragedy what happened in AZ, and my thoughts are prayers are with all the victims. But this can't be turned into an issue of gun control. Please. Just don't.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

It's looking like his parents as damn near as whacko as he is.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I get the feeling these proclamations of his mental illnesses will lose much of their charm if his lawyers employ an insanity defense.

IF????

Dude, it's a given. I'm certain a competency hearing is in this guy's immediate future.

 

[uscitizen]

Mental Problem Not Gun Problem

Agreed but,
The gun problem might be a mental problem.

 

[52ndStreet]

the fact still remains that guns can kill people

People with mental disorders with guns Kill, not the Gun by itself.
We have a People control problem, not a gun control problem.!!

 

[geauxtohell]

It is not a gun problem, it's a mental disorder and gun laws will not keep guns out of their hands. They need to be sent to a Mental Health facility.

To my knowledge, Lougher had not done anything that would have warranted involuntary commitment.

He is a schizophrenic.

I can't find that Lougher has been diagnosed with schizophrenia anywhere. Most schizophrenics would lack the ability to concoct and carry out a plan of assassination. Their thought process is too disordered. Instead, Schizophrenics tend to act in the moment based on their delusions and hallucinations, which can make them a danger to themselves (mostly) or others (rarely).

Where do you get that he was schizoprhenic?

If we had Health Centers all across the nation, the college he went to could have gotten him into one of those places and away from the public.

That's not how it works. We just don't lock away people at the first sign of oddness.

Pima College has, as all schools and colleges, social workers and psychologist's.
If congress passed a law for schools, college's,hospital's so on and so forth to have more clout at assesing these type of mental problems, they could be sent to theses type of facalities and have gotten him away from harming anyone.

Which creates a dangerous precedent and gives extraordinary power to a group of people who might not be trained to use them. As it stands, only a physician can involuntarily commit somebody. And they do so knowing that they will have to appear before a judge and explain their decision.

In other words, Make a law to protect the public from the mentality ill.
Not gun laws ,not speech laws.

Guns in the hands of the mentally ill (which I certainly think Lougher is) is a problem. Period.

 

[dilloduck]

It is not a gun problem, it's a mental disorder and gun laws will not keep guns out of their hands. They need to be sent to a Mental Health facility.

To my knowledge, Lougher had not done anything that would have warranted involuntary commitment.

He is a schizophrenic.

I can't find that Lougher has been diagnosed with schizophrenia anywhere. Most schizophrenics would lack the ability to concoct and carry out a plan of assassination. Their thought process is too disordered. Instead, Schizophrenics tend to act in the moment based on their delusions and hallucinations, which can make them a danger to themselves (mostly) or others (rarely).

Where do you get that he was schizoprhenic?



That's not how it works. We just don't lock away people at the first sign of oddness.

Pima College has, as all schools and colleges, social workers and psychologist's.
If congress passed a law for schools, college's,hospital's so on and so forth to have more clout at assesing these type of mental problems, they could be sent to theses type of facalities and have gotten him away from harming anyone.

Which creates a dangerous precedent and gives extraordinary power to a group of people who might not be trained to use them. As it stands, only a physician can involuntarily commit somebody. And they do so knowing that they will have to appear before a judge and explain their decision.

In other words, Make a law to protect the public from the mentality ill.
Not gun laws ,not speech laws.

Guns in the hands of the mentally ill (which I certainly think Lougher is) is a problem. Period.

stop the nonsense-----anything can be dangerous in the hands of a psychotic person.