E46 BMW Social Directory E46 FAQ 3-Series Discussion Forums BMW Photo Gallery BMW 3-Series Technical Information E46 Fanatics - The Ultimate BMW Resource BMW Vendors General E46 Forum The Tire Rack's Tire Wheel Forum Forced Induction Forum The Off-Topic The E46 BMW Showroom For Sale, For Trade or Wanting to Buy

Welcome to the E46Fanatics forums. E46Fanatics is the premiere website for BMW 3 series owners around the world with interactive forums, a geographical enthusiast directory, photo galleries, and technical information for BMW enthusiasts.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Go Back   E46Fanatics > Everything Else > The Off-Topic > Political Talk

Political Talk
You may discuss anything regarding politics in this forum ONLY. If you cannot respect others opinions, your access to this forum will be removed.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 03-12-2013, 08:39 PM   #21
rdsesq
ouroboros autorotica
 
rdsesq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Cali...the only state that matters
Posts: 1,452
My Ride: 2002 330i
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xcelratr View Post
With regards to having your gun ownership/access rights revoked on the basis of mental "instability", is a 72 hour hold some legal standard?
It is a legal standard in Cali that so far has not been overturned as unconstitutional. Also, I believe it is referring to an involuntary 72 hour hold. Which, as was mentioned, is difficult to do and generally can only be done when there is a clear and present danger criteria. Also, as I understand it, it is usually 72 hours as the thought is that if someone is being affected by some chemical agent, it should be processed out within 72 hours. So a fair evaluation of that person in a "non-doped" state can be made.

The precise legal requirements of "insanity" or indefinite hold, I do not know.
__________________
"The existence of life is a highly overrated phenomenon."
-- Dr Manhattan

quis custodiet ipsos custodes
rdsesq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2013, 10:39 PM   #22
Zell
Registered User
 
Zell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: wow such city
Posts: 5,788
My Ride: Has no throttle
Here's my thing.

If someone has a seizure, they lose the privilege to drive for 6 months. They are dangerous to be driving on the road. I have a friend that this happened to a few times. It was very unfortunate.

If someone has a severe mental breakdown that requires hospitalization, attempts to commit suicide and required hospitalization, tried to rob someone, tied to kill someone outside of self defense, etc., then they are dangerous to own a gun. They should lose the right to own a gun, until proven otherwise.

I don't care if the Constitution says "The right to bear arms." It is not logical to let someone who has been deemed dangerous to own a gun, just like it is not logical to let someone who has been deemed dangerous to drive.
__________________

Last edited by Zell; 03-12-2013 at 10:39 PM.
Zell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2013, 02:42 AM   #23
kaput
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Carlisle, PA
Posts: 748
My Ride: 2002 M3 SMG
Send a message via AIM to kaput
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zell View Post
Here's my thing.

If someone has a seizure, they lose the privilege to drive for 6 months. They are dangerous to be driving on the road. I have a friend that this happened to a few times. It was very unfortunate.

If someone has a severe mental breakdown that requires hospitalization, attempts to commit suicide and required hospitalization, tried to rob someone, tied to kill someone outside of self defense, etc., then they are dangerous to own a gun. They should lose the right to own a gun, until proven otherwise.

I don't care if the Constitution says "The right to bear arms." It is not logical to let someone who has been deemed dangerous to own a gun, just like it is not logical to let someone who has been deemed dangerous to drive.
While I can see where you are coming from, the issue I find is that a person that has committed a crime, or is planning on committing a crime armed or not should also not be able to own a gun... We call them criminals, and no one is stopping them. I understand you can't stop someone based on their thoughts, but we should start creating more severe punishments for gun related crimes, BEFORE going after those that are law abiding, even if they have a "mental condition".

I agree with the abuse claim, and I agree with documented mental health issues (visited a hospital/attempted suicide or a violent crime against others) but to say that a person who has minor or even moderate depression and is on meds should not be able to own or purchase/keep a firearm.

Where do we draw the line? Therapy? That would cover the batman shooting. Age? Covers Sandy hook. Not sure what we are hoping to accomplish with these new laws, when we can't even effectively enforce those already on the books.
__________________

2002 M3
kaput is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2013, 04:53 AM   #24
rdsesq
ouroboros autorotica
 
rdsesq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Cali...the only state that matters
Posts: 1,452
My Ride: 2002 330i
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaput View Post
While I can see where you are coming from, the issue I find is that a person that has committed a crime, or is planning on committing a crime armed or not should also not be able to own a gun... We call them criminals, and no one is stopping them. I understand you can't stop someone based on their thoughts, but we should start creating more severe punishments for gun related crimes, BEFORE going after those that are law abiding, even if they have a "mental condition".

I agree with the abuse claim, and I agree with documented mental health issues (visited a hospital/attempted suicide or a violent crime against others) but to say that a person who has minor or even moderate depression and is on meds should not be able to own or purchase/keep a firearm.

Where do we draw the line? Therapy? That would cover the batman shooting. Age? Covers Sandy hook. Not sure what we are hoping to accomplish with these new laws, when we can't even effectively enforce those already on the books.
In the case of Cali, one of those lines is that the person has been subject to an involuntary 72 hour hold. It is probably highly low that a mild or moderately depressed person who is on meds is going to qualify for a 72 hour hold seems...remote.

These aren't news laws, at least in Cali. They have been on the books for sometime. Cali merely has one of the highest positive action rates taken of any state in the union. In fact this is the inverse of new gun control regs. It shows that active implementation of existing gun control laws can help to resolve some of the issues that some of this "new fanggled" gun laws hope to try and fix. They might need to be "fixed", we just might need to do better at enforcing what we already have. That is a start I am all for....and once again Cali leads the way.
Enforcement of existing laws are not full of media hype and pound the CNN/MCNBC/FoxNews tables. So they don't have the appeal to the DNC or GOP since it is not a soapbox to stand on by which they can stand upon and shout "Our party is really making America safe!!" while the rest of us upchuck into our collective vomit bags
__________________
"The existence of life is a highly overrated phenomenon."
-- Dr Manhattan

quis custodiet ipsos custodes
rdsesq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2013, 09:11 AM   #25
Zell
Registered User
 
Zell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: wow such city
Posts: 5,788
My Ride: Has no throttle
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaput View Post
Where do we draw the line? Therapy?
In my personal opinion, I think it's dependent upon what a therapist determines. While they supposed to be confidential, there are certain things that people say that will raise red flags.

I have dealt directly with a few friends that have been sent to the hospital due to attempted suicide, or they get checked into a hospital to require care due to their mental state.

Now we start boiling down to the issue of mental health reform in the United States. How do we figure out if someone is mentally unstable? How do we provide easier care for them? How do we securely and discretely record this information in a database such that it can be accessed by specific industries? How do we reform laws like that?

I think that really is the solution in this case. Mental health access in the United States is more difficult to easily obtain than physical. There are 24 hour emergency rooms that will help you if you break a bone, but what about 24 hour therapists that will talk to you? Having another human interface with you during a time of personal crisis that will just listen is an incredible, incredible help. Not only this, but it can also get someone the help they need if they do need it.

One great example of this is this good cop here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2278973.html

This random police officer has saved hundreds of lives from being ended by jumping off the Golden Gate bridge just by simply talking to them. It's very powerful when someone just listens to you as one human to another.
__________________
Zell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2013, 01:52 AM   #26
MPOWERD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 7
My Ride: E46 M3 Vert
To all those that "pat Cali on the back" this is the same state that plea bargains down offenses that would ban criminals from gun ownership. So instead of blocking potential violent crimes they instead enabled them. The direct result of this same state's action was the 1989 Stockton schoolyard shooting by Patrick Purdy who had a life long criminal record and who had many felonies plea bargained down to misdemeanors. He shot 35 school children, 1 teacher, and then himself.

All of which would have been prevented had the State or California done its job and convicted Patrick Purdy. He passed a background check to obtain the weapons he used to kill.

Quote:
Why could Purdy, an alcoholic who had been arrested for such offenses as selling weapons, selling drugs, and attempted armed robbery, walk into a gun shop iand leave with an AK-47 under his arm? In addition he was able to purchase a 9mm handgun after a background check in Stockton that he later used in the shooting. Purdy was able to purchase the weapons because the judicial system had not convicted him of any crime that prevented him from purchasing firearms. This was due to all of the felony charges filed against Purdy being plea bargained. Neither had Purdy been adjudicated mentally ill, another disqualifying factor.
MPOWERD is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Censor is ON





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
(c) 1999 - 2011 performanceIX Inc - privacy policy - terms of use