Psychological capacity to own a gun?

There isn't a test to distinguish a killer or not. Completely sane people have a lapse a judgment and kill people all the time. We just need to focus on making mental health centers more accessible and affordable. I know there's plenty of psychology majors without work that could help with that.

Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc

Stop saying children should have guns...makes you sound like an idiot. We already have minimum age laws.

Which is essentially an indirect psychological capacity law in my opinion. It ensures a minimum level of development, physical and psychological. What else does it do?

Originally Posted by mkodama

Which is essentially an indirect psychological capacity law in my opinion. It ensures a minimum level of development, physical and psychological. What else does it do?

So work to change the law. Get a law passed that will allow police, feds, whoever to commit anyone they see fit (or unfit in this case)....and then the problem will go away....until the day that the government will start committing "weird people"...payed for by the taxpayer of course.

Look, we have a system. It isn't a perfect system, but its the best we have. We have a right to own guns. Citizens with no felonies and with clean DOCUMENTED mental health can own guns. We also have laws that protect people from being thrown into a mental clinic for no real reason. This isn't Russia...where if you don't agree with the government, they throw you into the looney bin...we are a free people that are free to go about our day provided we don't break laws.

Originally Posted by CollinsE90

There isn't a test to distinguish a killer or not. Completely sane people have a lapse a judgment and kill people all the time. We just need to focus on making mental health centers more accessible and affordable. I know there's plenty of psychology majors without work that could help with that.

But then like JJ said, once you seek any help (even talking about your girlfriend and relationship) will earn you a record of "mental help" and might disqualify you from owning a gun. Not everyone who seeks "mental help" is unfit to own a gun. IMHO, they are weak, but not crazy.

Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc

So work to change the law. Get a law passed that will allow police, feds, whoever to commit anyone they see fit (or unfit in this case)....and then the problem will go away....until the day that the government will start committing "weird people"...payed for by the taxpayer of course.

Look, we have a system. It isn't a perfect system, but its the best we have. We have a right to own guns. Citizens with no felonies and with clean DOCUMENTED mental health can own guns. We also have laws that protect people from being thrown into a mental clinic for no real reason. This isn't Russia...where if you don't agree with the government, they throw you into the looney bin...we are a free people that are free to go about our day provided we don't break laws.

That's the point of this thread, to define and discuss the sentence in bold and whether people agree with it.

Originally Posted by mkodama

You should look at your own comment where you call my post ridiculous with no reasoning first, before you bring up the adult conversation card.

Originally Posted by mkodama

In your first post you said:

So you are saying diagnosed chemical imbalance depression patients, mentally handicapped, and young children can have guns, since your only requirement was for people to be out of jail to own a gun?

Define "chemical imbalance"? People with ADD or ADHD suffer from "chemical imbalances" as do people with diabetes. Depression? People that lost a loved one and are sad? They don't have a right to defend themselves? Sh!t 80% of the country is medicated

Where is the source stating you can't go see a psychologist and buy a gun after?

Originally Posted by mkodama

That's the point of this thread, to define and discuss the sentence in bold and whether people agree with it.

No one, including JJ would want a gun in the hands of some loon. However, the point is simple....that is not the guideline for our laws. We have no way of knowing (legally) who is a loon and who isn't. Someone being a weirdo doesn't qualify and the government cannot force someone to get "checked out." As a result, we do the best we can with what we got, and that is, if you are clean, you get a gun. Hopefully if one of these "clean" people goes nuts, there will be another person armed that will deal with them.

Originally Posted by CollinsE90

Where is the source stating you can't go see a psychologist and buy a gun after?

I meant I don't want it to BECOME like that...that anyone who seeks any form of "mental help" will be deemed as a nut by the libs.

Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc

No one, including JJ would want a gun in the hands of some loon. However, the point is simple....that is not the guideline for our laws. We have no way of knowing (legally) who is a loon and who isn't. Someone being a weirdo doesn't qualify and the government cannot force someone to get "checked out." As a result, we do the best we can with what we got, and that is, if you are clean, you get a gun. Hopefully if one of these "clean" people goes nuts, there will be another person armed that will deal with them.

ding ding
I wouldn't say "acceptable" but close... more like "realistic" that some people WILL cause harm and do bad things. You shouldn't blanket sweep everyone cause of a few bad apples (which you'll miss anyways)

Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc

No one, including JJ would want a gun in the hands of some loon. However, the point is simple....that is not the guideline for our laws. We have no way of knowing (legally) who is a loon and who isn't. Someone being a weirdo doesn't qualify and the government cannot force someone to get "checked out." As a result, we do the best we can with what we got, and that is, if you are clean, you get a gun. Hopefully if one of these "clean" people goes nuts, there will be another person armed that will deal with them.

Well said, and politely said at that.

The impression I was getting from JonJon is that the "loons" not in jail should get guns too. He can verify this if it's true.

Originally Posted by mkodama

Well said, and politely said at that.

The impression I was getting from JonJon is that the "loons" not in jail should get guns too. He can verify this if it's true.

define loon

When you go to take away someones innate rights and ability to defend their life.... you need to be explicitly specific

What's the scale of measurement?
Who is in charge of setting the scale parameters, operating it and also calibrating it?

Originally Posted by mkodama

Well said, and politely said at that.

The impression I was getting from JonJon is that the "loons" not in jail should get guns too. He can verify this if it's true.

His point is simple....these "loons" are loons by opinion, not by law. We have no legal way of classifying them as loons, thus, they cannot be stripped on their rights. It is a catch 22 almost...to have freedom from oppression, you must deal with the fallout (ie loons running around.) The core point of the NRA, JJ, myself is also simple...the loons will always find a way to loon, as will the criminals...the only countermeasure (equalizer) is guns in the hands of non-loons.

Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc

His point is simple....these "loons" are loons by opinion, not by law. We have no legal way of classifying them as loons, thus, they cannot be stripped on their rights.

Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc

It is a catch 22 almost...to have freedom from oppression, you must deal with the fallout (ie loons running around.) The core point of the NRA, JJ, myself is also simple...the loons will always find a way to loon, as will the criminals...the only countermeasure (equalizer) is guns in the hands of non-loons.

See sig:
I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery

With any large sample of people, there will be outliers, it's statistics. You have two choices. 1. You can ban all guns, and deal with criminals with access to 330 million newly confiscated weapons. Or 2, you can remove most gun control laws and deal with the outliers.

I have to assume JonJon is being a little factious and I wanted to bring this back down to earth. I know people in real life that are mentally unstable and have a medical history of being so. But they aren't locked up for life because they aren't serious criminals and because this is America and we shouldn't lock up all sick people.

There are cases where a person clearly shouldn't be able to own a gun but has no justification to be "locked up for life". That's unrealistic and even if it wasn't morally wrong, we don't have the money to lock up all mentally unstable people.

All that being said, I'm VERY hesitant when it comes to laws on this. I remember people being up in arms on Calguns because of a "pro gun" measure that someone presented that was so open ended it would essentially remove the 2nd amendment right from anyone who had ever been diagnosed as depressed. Any proposed law that could be left to that kind of interpretation is obviously unacceptable.

I think that's the real problem. Not that all mentally ill people should either be in jail or have guns, but what methods do we have to legally recognize who should lose their 2nd amendment rights. If people are need to seek treatment for any number of issues are afraid to do so because of fear of losing their rights, the law will accomplish nothing and we'll end up with more sick people with guns not being treated.

Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc

His point is simple....these "loons" are loons by opinion, not by law. We have no legal way of classifying them as loons, thus, they cannot be stripped on their rights. It is a catch 22 almost...to have freedom from oppression, you must deal with the fallout (ie loons running around.) The core point of the NRA, JJ, myself is also simple...the loons will always find a way to loon, as will the criminals...the only countermeasure (equalizer) is guns in the hands of non-loons.

I would think anyone that was legally required to seek mental help would be a way of classifying people as loons.

Originally Posted by mkodama

I would think anyone that was legally required to seek mental help would be a way of classifying people as loons.

Ok but what's the barometer for "loon" then? Since we have confidentiality laws in terms of doctor patient privilege....is the guy who seeks help getting over the death of his wife the same as the guy like dexter that talks about his urges to kill children? Remember, both conversations are "sealed." All that we will know is that both men went to the same doctor for some "mental help."

Originally Posted by JonJon

define loon

When you go to take away someones innate rights and ability to defend their life.... you need to be explicitly specific

What's the scale of measurement?
Who is in charge of setting the scale parameters, operating it and also calibrating it?

We aren't talking about their right to defend themselves, just their right to bare arms.

Originally Posted by mkodama

I would think anyone that was legally required to seek mental help would be a way of classifying people as loons.

"Anyone"? That's a pretty broad stroke

Originally Posted by mkodama

We aren't talking about their right to defend themselves, just their right to bare arms.

Are they allowed to vote? Get married? Write a paper on political issues?
Own knives, swords, fertlizer, gun power, fireworks, matches, drive a car?

Please define for me the boundaries. You need to be very specific

Originally Posted by Devious21

I have to assume JonJon is being a little factious and I wanted to bring this back down to earth. I know people in real life that are mentally unstable and have a medical history of being so. But they aren't locked up for life because they aren't serious criminals and because this is America and we shouldn't lock up all sick people.

I'm not saying that there aren't people that shouldn't have guns. I'm simply asking what the measurement is
Who decides?