Judge ruled abusive ex-husband could keep weapons, now ex-wife dead

[Max Rockatansky]

This is tragic, but obviously the ex had mental issues. Want to stop crime? Increase both mental health care and legislation to back it up.

I support taking guns away from the mentally ill and criminals, but due process must be followed.

For fuck sakes! Anyone remember the last time a Republican ran on a platform and executed a political vision of mental health reform?

Also, curious, even after that, how do you keep still mentally ill people from having weapons? Also, is misogyny a mental illness?

Straw man argument. What do Republicans have to do with my post?

We already have background checks. The problem is Doctor-patient confidentiality. If a patient is suicidal, how does that information get entered into the system to prevent them from buying a gun? More importantly, if they recover, how does their name get removed off that list?

 

[Max Rockatansky]

Evidence? Are you saying people who commit domestic violence are completely sane? Mentally fit?

Most are sane and mentally fit. Having a bad temper and being unwilling to learn to control it or to deal with strong emotions in a productive manner is not a mental illness.

I'd like to see data on that. "Bad tempers" indicate a person who is impulsive and unable to control themselves. What is the line between "normal" behavior and "mental illness"? It's a matter of degrees. It's not like being pregnant, where either you are or aren't.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This is tragic, but obviously the ex had mental issues. Want to stop crime? Increase both mental health care and legislation to back it up.

I support taking guns away from the mentally ill and criminals, but due process must be followed.

For fuck sakes! Anyone remember the last time a Republican ran on a platform and executed a political vision of mental health reform?

Also, curious, even after that, how do you keep still mentally ill people from having weapons? Also, is misogyny a mental illness?

Straw man argument. What do Republicans have to do with my post?

We already have background checks. The problem is Doctor-patient confidentiality. If a patient is suicidal, how does that information get entered into the system to prevent them from buying a gun? More importantly, if they recover, how does their name get removed off that list?

What does your post have to do with your post? You said we need better mental health care but then acknowledge that people that should not get guns will still be able to.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What you seem to be missing is any sense of decency that it is preferable, at least in some cases, to remove firearms and other weapons from the possession of someone who is threatening (or accused of threatening) another person than it is to allow such an individual to maintain possession of the means to easily end the life of another person. Someone can always have his guns returned. You cannot give someone his or her life back.

Somehow, I feel as though if it were generally women who took guns to men they were angry with, you'd be all for confiscating firearms from any woman who was accused of looking cross eyed at a man or even harboring harsh thoughts.

1) The system already works the way you are saying it should. There's no burden of proof on a temporary restraining order. There is on a permanent. Please note how you said "at least in some cases"--which is how it works, provide adequate evidence in the hearing for the permanent and they don't get their guns back for years.

2) It's not like taking guns has no cost to the person they're taken from. You just don't like guns so you don't see this cost.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

Straw man argument. What do Republicans have to do with my post?

We already have background checks. The problem is Doctor-patient confidentiality. If a patient is suicidal, how does that information get entered into the system to prevent them from buying a gun? More importantly, if they recover, how does their name get removed off that list?

What does your post have to do with your post? You said we need better mental health care but then acknowledge that people that should not get guns will still be able to.

I said due process must be followed. It's not the same thing.

 

[laughing dog]

What you seem to be missing is any sense of decency that it is preferable, at least in some cases, to remove firearms and other weapons from the possession of someone who is threatening (or accused of threatening) another person than it is to allow such an individual to maintain possession of the means to easily end the life of another person. Someone can always have his guns returned. You cannot give someone his or her life back.

Somehow, I feel as though if it were generally women who took guns to men they were angry with, you'd be all for confiscating firearms from any woman who was accused of looking cross eyed at a man or even harboring harsh thoughts.

1) The system already works the way you are saying it should. There's no burden of proof on a temporary restraining order. There is on a permanent. Please note how you said "at least in some cases"--which is how it works, provide adequate evidence in the hearing for the permanent and they don't get their guns back for years.

2) It's not like taking guns has no cost to the person they're taken from. You just don't like guns so you don't see this cost.

And in this case, the cost of not taking this murderer's gun away is a life. That should always be factored into a judge's decision.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Straw man argument. What do Republicans have to do with my post?

We already have background checks. The problem is Doctor-patient confidentiality. If a patient is suicidal, how does that information get entered into the system to prevent them from buying a gun? More importantly, if they recover, how does their name get removed off that list?

What does your post have to do with your post? You said we need better mental health care but then acknowledge that people that should not get guns will still be able to.

I said due process must be followed. It's not the same thing.

Due process, got it. So umm... how do you due process the patient-doctor thing? The question is rhetorical.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

I said due process must be followed. It's not the same thing.

Due process, got it. So umm... how do you due process the patient-doctor thing? The question is rhetorical.

Meaning you don't want it answered. Got it. The least you could have done was apologize for your previous false accusation.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I said due process must be followed. It's not the same thing.

Due process, got it. So umm... how do you due process the patient-doctor thing? The question is rhetorical.

Meaning you don't want it answered. Got it.

Rhetorical questions have answers that are already understood. That is what makes them "rhetorical". The answer is, "You can't", which means the whole doctor-patient thing is near impossible to breach, meaning the whole "improve" mental health care isn't going to stop shootings.

And this ignores the whole, most people in these cases aren't mentally ill, they are just really angry and feel self-entitled to acting like an executioner.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What you seem to be missing is any sense of decency that it is preferable, at least in some cases, to remove firearms and other weapons from the possession of someone who is threatening (or accused of threatening) another person than it is to allow such an individual to maintain possession of the means to easily end the life of another person. Someone can always have his guns returned. You cannot give someone his or her life back.

Somehow, I feel as though if it were generally women who took guns to men they were angry with, you'd be all for confiscating firearms from any woman who was accused of looking cross eyed at a man or even harboring harsh thoughts.

1) The system already works the way you are saying it should. There's no burden of proof on a temporary restraining order. There is on a permanent. Please note how you said "at least in some cases"--which is how it works, provide adequate evidence in the hearing for the permanent and they don't get their guns back for years.

2) It's not like taking guns has no cost to the person they're taken from. You just don't like guns so you don't see this cost.

And in this case, the cost of not taking this murderer's gun away is a life. That should always be factored into a judge's decision.

The "right to life" isn't in the Bill of Rights... only the right to a gun, so clearly the Founding Fathers disagreed.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What you seem to be missing is any sense of decency that it is preferable, at least in some cases, to remove firearms and other weapons from the possession of someone who is threatening (or accused of threatening) another person than it is to allow such an individual to maintain possession of the means to easily end the life of another person. Someone can always have his guns returned. You cannot give someone his or her life back.

Somehow, I feel as though if it were generally women who took guns to men they were angry with, you'd be all for confiscating firearms from any woman who was accused of looking cross eyed at a man or even harboring harsh thoughts.

1) The system already works the way you are saying it should. There's no burden of proof on a temporary restraining order. There is on a permanent. Please note how you said "at least in some cases"--which is how it works, provide adequate evidence in the hearing for the permanent and they don't get their guns back for years.

2) It's not like taking guns has no cost to the person they're taken from. You just don't like guns so you don't see this cost.

And in this case, the cost of not taking this murderer's gun away is a life. That should always be factored into a judge's decision.

Anything to save one life is always wrong.

And you're basically saying guilty unless proven innocent.

- - - Updated - - -

And in this case, the cost of not taking this murderer's gun away is a life. That should always be factored into a judge's decision.

The "right to life" isn't in the Bill of Rights... only the right to a gun, so clearly the Founding Fathers disagreed.

But the 6th says innocent until proven guilty. You guys want to skip this little detail, her accusation is enough to get guns taken away and perhaps cost him his career.

 

[laughing dog]

Anything to save one life is always wrong.

Straw man #1.

And you're basically saying guilty unless proven innocent.

Straw man #2.

You are saying the possible of cost of taking away a possible abuser's guns exceeds the possible cost of the abuser killing someone.
One could reasonably infer that you dramatically undervalue life.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

Meaning you don't want it answered. Got it.

Rhetorical questions have answers that are already understood. That is what makes them "rhetorical". The answer is, "You can't", which means the whole doctor-patient thing is near impossible to breach, meaning the whole "improve" mental health care isn't going to stop shootings.

And this ignores the whole, most people in these cases aren't mentally ill, they are just really angry and feel self-entitled to acting like an executioner.

Incorrect. There are several instances where doctor-patient, attorney-client and clergy-believer are breached. A common one is where the patient/client are a danger to themselves or others. The problem is there is a disconnect between a doctor recognizing that a patient is suicidal or planning on murder and getting that information out to gun dealers. Gun dealers don't have to know why a person is on a "do not sell" list, they just need to know a buyer is on the list. There needs to be legislations making this happen and also legislation to get people off the list.

Nicholas Cruze, James Holmes and Jarod Loughner were well know to be mentally ill yet they were able to buy guns and ammo because their names never popped up on a background check. Why?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Anything to save one life is always wrong.

Straw man #1.

And you're basically saying guilty unless proven innocent.

Straw man #2.

You are saying the possible of cost of taking away a possible abuser's guns exceeds the possible cost of the abuser killing someone.
One could reasonably infer that you dramatically undervalue life.

The problem is that you are making it a one-to-one situation.

In reality you're going to take away guns from an awful lot of innocent people in order to take them from one guilty person. And in doing so you'll wreck a lot of careers.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Incorrect. There are several instances where doctor-patient, attorney-client and clergy-believer are breached. A common one is where the patient/client are a danger to themselves or others. The problem is there is a disconnect between a doctor recognizing that a patient is suicidal or planning on murder and getting that information out to gun dealers. Gun dealers don't have to know why a person is on a "do not sell" list, they just need to know a buyer is on the list. There needs to be legislations making this happen and also legislation to get people off the list.

Nicholas Cruze, James Holmes and Jarod Loughner were well know to be mentally ill yet they were able to buy guns and ammo because their names never popped up on a background check. Why?

Yup. I'm not opposed to taking guns from those who are a danger to others. I am opposed with how the left keeps trying to go about it.

1) The cops should not have access to the details, only a yes/no and the identity of the person who put them on the list.

2) It should not be based on "mental illness", but on specific mental issues that pose a threat. Most mental illness is irrelevant for gun ownership.

3) I'm not sure the suicidal ones should be on the list.
3a) There are plenty of suicides that are due to health issues. I definitely think such people should not be on the list. Forcing someone to accept a slow, unpleasant death rather than a quick death is a form of sadism in my book. If you want to play S&M games with a consenting person, fine, but you don't get to do it to those who don't consent.
3b) Even amongst those who don't have medical reasons for it there's the problem that the reportability of suicide means people will be very reluctant to tell a therapist they are suicidal.

4) There needs to be a system by which a person on the list can challenge it and get themselves off if the reasons aren't good enough.

 

[laughing dog]

Straw man #1.
Straw man #2.

You are saying the possible of cost of taking away a possible abuser's guns exceeds the possible cost of the abuser killing someone.
One could reasonably infer that you dramatically undervalue life.

The problem is that you are making it a one-to-one situation.

No, I am not.

In reality you're going to take away guns from an awful lot of innocent people in order to take them from one guilty person.

But even if your handwaved estimatesis true, you saying the possible of cost of taking away a possible abuser's guns exceeds the possible cost of the abuser killing someone. One could reasonably infer that you dramatically undervalue life.

And in doing so you'll wreck a lot of careers.

Where do you come up with this nonsense?

 

[Max Rockatansky]

Incorrect. There are several instances where doctor-patient, attorney-client and clergy-believer are breached. A common one is where the patient/client are a danger to themselves or others. The problem is there is a disconnect between a doctor recognizing that a patient is suicidal or planning on murder and getting that information out to gun dealers. Gun dealers don't have to know why a person is on a "do not sell" list, they just need to know a buyer is on the list. There needs to be legislations making this happen and also legislation to get people off the list.

Nicholas Cruze, James Holmes and Jarod Loughner were well know to be mentally ill yet they were able to buy guns and ammo because their names never popped up on a background check. Why?

Yup. I'm not opposed to taking guns from those who are a danger to others. I am opposed with how the left keeps trying to go about it.

1) The cops should not have access to the details, only a yes/no and the identity of the person who put them on the list.

2) It should not be based on "mental illness", but on specific mental issues that pose a threat. Most mental illness is irrelevant for gun ownership.

3) I'm not sure the suicidal ones should be on the list.
3a) There are plenty of suicides that are due to health issues. I definitely think such people should not be on the list. Forcing someone to accept a slow, unpleasant death rather than a quick death is a form of sadism in my book. If you want to play S&M games with a consenting person, fine, but you don't get to do it to those who don't consent.
3b) Even amongst those who don't have medical reasons for it there's the problem that the reportability of suicide means people will be very reluctant to tell a therapist they are suicidal.

4) There needs to be a system by which a person on the list can challenge it and get themselves off if the reasons aren't good enough.

1) Agreed. There also has to be due process to be removed from such a list. That's why Obama's plan to put anyone on the "no fly list" on a "no gun buy" list was unjust and anti-Constitutional. There are kids and innocent people on the "no fly list" and it's very difficult to be removed.

2) Agreed there are levels of mental illness. It's one thing to be a little OCD or neurotic, it's another to be a paranoid schizophrenic with violent tendencies.

3) Suicides would be tricky. In part because I think it's a right to choose. There's a difference between someone my age who ends up with a terminal illness and a young person who is depressed because their college roommate committed suicide. As noted above, there has to be a means of being removed from any lists. People who are mentally ill, especially where depression is concerned, are irrational when it comes to deciding to end their life or not. Someone in their 60s who is facing a terminal but very costly and painful disease or a quick, painless exit can be completely rational in their decision-making.

4) Absolutely agreed. This is the main point and the part where Congress has to get off their fat asses and start doing their job.