New York is first, who is next???

unlikely, if not impossible. Guns require respect,knowledge, and care for safe use. All three were absent in this case.

 

it's okay. I just like to argue sometimes.
we need planes
we need cars
we need the sun
We need full auto weapons in the public theater?

 

Who decides what mental conditions are unsafe? If the mental condition is under control through medication, can the right be restored?
I don't like the idea of a select few doctors (probably on the payroll of a few large pharma companies) deciding what mental condition is bad enough for me to not be able to protect myself. You can't prevent a few horrific incidents by blaming a few chemical imbalances. I feel the same way about the TSA (has anyone seen their proud collection of things they've caught?)
It's becoming easier to be a parent...

 

Thats odd, Thinking about other peoples safety, not my own personal wants, is narrow minded now? Maybe you should observe your mirror when declaring that. I don't mind making an insignificant sacrifice for others, I do it all the time. It's not all about me you see. I wish others thought this way.

 

No. The reasoning is the medication is mostly the problem.
http://www.tacomaworld.com/forum/guns-hunting/258318-new-york-first-who-next-6.html#post6288608

 

Okay, I am pooped now. I 'm out.

 

So who determines if you are mentally fit? Alot of people view gun owners as crazy to begin with, so I think this is a very slippery slope.

 

Meds help some, but in others it can lead to worse conditions yes. I think my point is still valid, who decides? What Meds are ok? How many mgs? And if that list is ever agree on and passed, how many people will then decide to not go see a physiatrist in order to avoid being put on a med they might actually need?
Like I said, I think it's easier to become a parent. No tests, no questions, no income study, or psych test. Just find someone to screw. Then when the kid is four and starving because you don't feed him, maybe child services is called and maybe the kid doesn't die. There is an actually frightening number of kids who die to neglect.

 

I understand what you're saying.... Just do me a favor, tell me you disagree with holding the Colorado Theater shooter's Psychologist accountable to any degree, so that you can't be accused of being a hypocritical.

 

^ Bingo

In my opinion we are going to further alienate our mental health patients. Seeking help for depression could result in consequences, totally violating our patient/doctor confidentiality rights. It's going to prevent the average gun owner who is depressed or suicidal from seeking treatment or talking to anyone.

 

I'm more about getting rid of the "brain control" drugs they give kids. Or making it more strict to put kids on them, such as extreme cases. Half the kids on these drugs don't need them. My brother had severe ADD. He couldn't focus in school, and had horrible grades. He made it through HS without a single problem besides always being at arms (not firearms mind you... )with my dad and me.

 

True... it's a tough call... but how then, do we keep firearms out of the hands of people who may trip offline ? Which I think pretty clearly needs to be done.

 

The phychologist is and should be responsible for the mishandling of a patient. I can't prove correlation proves causation, and the rational thinker cant either. It's a fallacious argument, but a good point. Doctors should be more cautious with their prescriptions. They should be challenged as much as possible, and should lose their license when they commit an act worthy of it.
I think these horrific events are almost impossible to control, and as for the doctors, it should be looked into on a case by case basis.

 

But then you're saying that Dr. needed to make a judgement call which could have infringed on that patient's rights, which you just said you had a hard time with. See what I mean ?

 

I don't think that's true. I don't view gun owners as crazy.

I view paranoid people who feel the need to defend themselves against possible tyranny by their own democratically elected government; who believe that UN forces at the ready to move into their State; who think gun restrictions lead to wholesale weapon confiscation; who think about how to defend against a probable Hollywood-style home invasion, involving room to room fire and movement; who think the world will collapse, and in such a great state as the Union, will no doubt have to start fending off their own neighbors; who also feel like the big sheepdog (not to be confused with hero syndrome ), ready to protect the rest of the populous to stupid to own a firearm.

I view those people as crazy... and so will a psych test.

Frank

 

Oh it's not easy. There probably isn't a good right answer.

 

What he said

 

That's one hell of a position to put a psychologist in... They're trying to HELP people with mental or psychological issues, and now you're FORCING them to make a decision that may affect lifestyle for the rest of a person's life.

However, I do think if they question a person's stability, they could put them on an anti-firearms list or something to that affect.

It's a tough situation, I definitely agree to that.

 

While I agree these people may be strange, they aren't shooting anyone, so they have every right to say and collect whatever. America is America for a reason. As for tyranny, we aren't exactly 'free' right now. To what point is debatable, but just because some are further down the spectrum doesn't make their view wrong. A phychologist would view many of them as sane. I dont think libertarianism is insane at all. Id say it's the most rational.

 

Doctors make decisions affecting lives of others every day.