82 replies to this topic

[Nonny]

JMJ49, on 21 January 2013 - 12:47 AM, said:

I personally know no one who has killed themselves with a gun.

My dad, WWII veteran.

Quote

By the way, probably 90 % of those who claim to be combat vets or Vietnam vets are phonies.

I was surprised as anyone that the VVA welcomes all who served during the era, since the VFW doesn't.  I identify myself as a Vietnam Era veteran.  But does that 90% hold for both combat and Vietnam veterans?  As I recall, aircraft maintenance had pretty much moved to Thailand, Taiwan, Okinanwa and the PI, but medical and other support troops were still there.

[gsmonks]

JMJ49, on 20 January 2013 - 02:35 PM, said:

To Tree Psychiatrist:
Your comments are insightful and I think, spot on. I taught school for 30 years after leaving the Corps and find them to be a disgrace in so many ways. There are of course good teachers, even great ones, and I am sure there are good schools. As a whole our schools are a failure. The big question is are our schools a failure because of society or is our society failing because of our schools? Probably a lot more complex than this.

As to other comments about war: some are true, some are bs. Every warrior experiences war in different ways. Another complex issue. I have stormed enemy positions, I have defended friendly positions, I have had chronic diarrhea, and been covered with insect bites, leeches, and crabs. i have drank water from bomb craters filled with oil and napalm residue. I have chewed on grass when water wasn't available, I have humped hills with 50-80 pounds of gear on by back praying a sniper would put a bullet in my head and put me out of my misery. I have survived ambushes and bobby traps. I have watched my fellow marines get blown to pieces and carried living and dead bodies back to base camp. When I was hit multiple times on a hill near the DMZ on June 18, 1968. I lay there crying, seeing my life pass in front of me, when the corpsman came I pleaded over and over again that I "wanted to go home". War is a horrible thing, beyond description. When my son was sent to Iraq I lived in 10 months of anguish and terror.

Following orders is also a complex issue: under good leadership it can save you, under bad leadership it can kill you. Marines and soldiers sometimes decide what orders to follow and which to ignore.

Keep in mine when you join a fighting force such as the USMC, you need to except that death is a real possibility. For me as an 18 year old trying to escape a two bedroom apartment with 8 kids in the Bronx, it seemed like it was a good choice at the time.

I wish we were all sitting in a livingroom, around a table, with a good pot of coffee brewing. This is such a big, complex subject, and despite all the time we have, sitting in front of our computers, we're STILL all coming across like we're trying to get our short sound-bytes in.

The "problem" I keep trying to address is not a simple, single, tanglible thing that can be put down on paper in so many words.

Quote

The big question is are our schools a failure because of society or is our society failing because of our schools? Probably a lot more complex than this.

Excellent insight, right on the money! It's both, in fact. Our schools are a failure because they don't address society's needs, and our society is failing because it has zero insight into itself and awareness of where it was, is, and should be going.

The simple answer is that, if you were to go back into the 19th century, around, say, 1840, people back then could tell you pretty much where things were going to end up. After the War of 1812, the Industrial Revolution raised the prospects of the masses to the point where the middle classes had taken shape.

Why this matters to us now, and what this has to do with the present conversation, is that this is where it all started. This is where the modern house came from, the modern neighbourhood, the modern economy. If you or I were to land plop in the middle of that world, we would know just what to do: find a place to live, find a job, keep working and keep on doing the consumer thing.

People at the time had a very strong sense of where things were going. Why? Because everything we know today was set in motion back then. With the advent of the modern novel, people were soon turning their minds to the future and making predictions. Mary Shelley wrote "The Modern Promethius", aka "Frankenstein". Jules Verne wrote "20,000 Leagues Under The Sea". And these people were rubbing shoulders with Burns and the Brontes, Walter Scott and Dickens. A good many famous 19th century authors, poets and classical composers knew one another and hung out together. They had a sense of the ultra-modern, and the ultra-modern showed up in writing, in art and architecture, and was very much a part of the public consciousness.

If you think progress is happening fast now, it was happening INCREDIBLY fast back then. The world we know came into being after 1812. Rural peasants eking a living out on the land were suddenly moving into the city centres to be near the factories of the Industrial Revolution. Their standard of living increased exponentially, as did their level of social awareness and education. Books, especially novels, became hugely popular as a result of literacy, which had previously been in short supply.

Roads and rail lines sprang up almost over night, replacing horse-trails and country lanes. Cities and homes were being lighted at night. Dance bands and dance halls were a new source of entertainment. The waltz itself was contrived to mimic the rhythm and meshed gears of industrial machinery.

But from the beginning there was also a sickness, an evil at work. To keep the brand-new Middle Classes' minds off politics (there was a lot of violence and there were huge riots after the war of 1812, starting with the Corn Laws and a bunch of other stuff I won't bore you with here- suffice it to say that the early 19th century was very much like the 1960's), a "bread and circuses" approach was taken.

Being a brass musician and historian, I can tell you a lot about this subject. The skinny is that brass musical instruments were made possible because of mining technology. Bluhmel was a sheet-metal worker, Stolzel designed valves for oil, water and steam, and together they invented the valved French horn in 1818. Mining and factory owners, in cahoots with government, in both the UK and in the US, created "work bands". Brass and concert bands became a very popular form of entertainment, but their true purpose was to keep the masses amused, and disinterested in social reform.

This situation continued unabated for the next century, with the Middle Classes trying to improve the world they lived in, and the monied interests working behind the scene, like a warren of snakes, trying their level best to keep the Middle Classes down.

Things eventually came to a head during the Trade Union Movement, when the Middle Classes had had enough, and through riots and social upheaval and a lot of bloodshed, finally gave the Old World an ungodly kick in the nuts, and forced it to back off for a time.

Enter the 1930's- another watershed era:

The REALLY modern world, a world that is completely recogniseable to us today, is the 1930's. The 20's looks very old-fashioned, as does everything that came before, but the 1930's was different. Everything about the 30's looks modern: movie theaters with sound, cars, radios, neon signs, street lights, traffic lights, modern buildings and indoor plumbing, drive-in's, sunglasses, outdoor jazz concerts, modern shoes and modern-looking clothing styles, bubble gum and name brand products, restaurant chains and movie theatres. It's all there.

The thing is, though, that people in the 1830's and 1930's had something we don't have today: a clear sense of themselves and a clear sense of where things are going. And they knew back then that things weren't headed in a good direction, because they had nightmares about the future and where modern society was headed. They sensed that bad things were coming.

One of those "bad things" was of course the "old world", aka the behind-the-scenes snakes that had never gone away. One way to get them to show themselves is by looking at what happens when soldiers and first-responders want to be given their due. Why is there this cloying stick-in-the-mud reaction to something so obviously fair, and in the interest of people who deserve their due?

As I mentioned earlier, there is the matter of certain things being politicised. Once something has been politicised, you can kiss your arse goodbye when it comes to effecting change. And what kinds of things are politicised? Here it is: Old World things, things like prisons, the way our laws are made and processed, things like capital punishment and caring for veterans. Speaking of veterans, they were screwed after the War of 1812, they were screwed in the 1930's during the Bonus March, they were screwed after Korea and Vietnam and the Gulf War, and they're still being screwed today.

The point being that the fabric of our society is sick, and always has been. And today differs from 1812 and 1918. Back then people were very much aware of the strangling tentacles of the behind-the-scenes monied interests. Today, people aren't aware of much of anything. They don't realise that when they're watching the morning news on television, that the S & P index is a piece of this Old World filth that is manipulating markets, not reporting their present state. Michael Cain dutifully regurgitates their evil spew on BNN without the least awareness (to the best of my knowledge) that their market advice is a sham and an insidious poison.

It is this poison that has curdled the underlying psyche of Western Society. It is the reason the future no longer has any clear direction. It is the reason that progress can't be realised, because social vision itself has been corrupted. It is the reason that whole entire cities are sickening and dying, stricken with an invisible, insidious cancer that can't be clearly identified and dealt with. It is the reason for teenage suicide and murderous rampages. And unless we can divest ourselves and reinvent ourselves, things will only devolve and get worse over time.

Edited by gsmonks, 21 January 2013 - 10:40 AM.

[gsmonks]

Here is a rare example of Standard & Poor's getting caught doing what they do best:

http://www.ft.com/cm...l#axzz2IcqVAGK2

[gsmonks]

Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cm...l#ixzz2IcrJRGas



S&P misled investors, court finds

By Neil Hume in Sydney
Standard & Poor’s misled investors by awarding its highest rating to a complex derivative product that collapsed in value less than two years after it was created by ABN Amro’s wholesale banking division, an Australian judge has ruled, in a landmark case that could pave the way for legal action in Europe.
In a damning verdict, the Federal Court of Australia ruled S&P and ABN Amro had “deceived” and “misled” 12 local councils that bought triple-A rated constant proportion debt obligations (CPDOs) from an intermediary in 2006.

High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cm...l#ixzz2IcrSX6NS

The court said a “reasonably competent” rating agency could not have given a triple A rating to the securities, which were described as “grotesquely complicated”. S&P and ABN’s wholesale banking arm, which is now owned by RBS, also published information and statements that were either “false” or involved “negligent misrepresentations”, Justice Jayne Jagot found.
The 1,500-page ruling marks the first time a rating agency has stood a full trial over a structured finance product.
The Australian ruling led some investors to reassess their previously sanguine view of the legal landscape for the rating agencies. In New York trading, S&P’s parent McGraw-Hill closed 4 per cent weaker, versus a broadly flat equity market. Moody’s fell 3 per cent.
“This is a major blow to the rating agencies, which for years have had the benefit of profiting from the assignment of these ratings without ever being accountable to investors for those opinions,” said Amanda Banton, the lawyer representing the councils.
“No longer will rating agencies be able to hide behind disclaimers to absolve themselves from liability.”
John Walker, executive director of IMF Australia, the listed litigation company that funded the action by the local authorities, said the Australian ruling was likely to pave the way for “significant recoveries” in Europe.
Nevertheless following Monday’s ruling, lawyers outside of Australia were sceptical about how easy it would be to pursue similar claims in the US or Europe.
In the US and other jurisdictions, rating agencies have been largely successful in batting away dozens of legal cases claiming that they should be held liable for inaccurate ratings on derivatives and other securities that fell in value during the financial crisis. The agencies have successfully argued that their ratings are just opinions, protected by the US Constitution’s free speech guarantee and by disclaimers in their published reports.
In one important outstanding case, however, Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank and a group of other investors have been granted a trial to decide claims that Moody’s and S&P were party to a fraud because they did not believe their ratings on a structured investment vehicle marketed by Morgan Stanley.
The councils in New South Wales were assured the CPDOs purchased in late 2006 from Local Government Financial Services, a municipal adviser, had only a small chance of defaulting. But less than two years later the securities, which were linked to credit default swaps on investment grade companies, were liquidated as spreads rose and the cash backing the notes fell to dangerously low levels.
The councils lost more than 90 per cent of the A$17m they invested in the securities, also known as the “Rembrandt” notes. A 13th council, which sued separately, lost almost A$1m.
Following Monday’s ruling, the councils stand to receive A$16m in damages but the total cost of the case including legal fees and interest could reach A$30m, according to Mr Walker.
LGFS, which counter sued ABN Amro and S&P, has been told that it is also entitled to compensation for the A$16m loss it incurred on the sale of the notes to its parent company. LGFS purchased A$45m of the securities from ABN Amro, reselling A$18.5m to the councils and keeping the rest.
S&P, a division of publishing company McGraw-Hill, said it planned to appeal. “We are disappointed with the court’s decision, we reject any suggestion our opinions were inappropriate and we will appeal the Australian ruling, which relates to a specific CPDO rating,” S&P said in a statement. RBS said in a statement it was “studying this long and complex judgment”.
During the trial S&P argued that the councils had not done any work to try and understand the investments, relying on advice from LGFS. S&P claimed its role was limited to the issuing of an opinion about the creditworthiness of the notes and had not been subject to any undue influence from ABN Amro.
This article is subject to a correction and has been amended.
Additional reporting by Stephen Foley in New York and Mary Watkins in London

[Nonny]

How about adding some other conditions to the discussion?  Should schizophrenia and bipolar disorder exclude gun ownership?  Should this guy have been allowed to purchase guns?  How long should it take to take them away?

http://www.usatoday....rderer/1566414/

Convicted killer found with 13 guns, ammo in Minn.

Quote

... After being convicted of killing his mother, Christian Oberender lived in treatment centers, some of them with prisonlike security, until he was 21. He then spent a year in a halfway house, according to an Associated Press report from 10 years ago. At the time, Oberender's doctor reported that the youth had severe mental problems, including potential schizophrenia.
Oberender is in jail now on $1 million bond because Sheriff Jim Olson remembered the 1995 case when he saw that a woman had filed a complaint accusing Oberender of posting pictures of himself with guns on Facebook, Kamerud said.
Investigators who arrested Oberender say they found an alarming note, written recently, in his bedroom:
"I feel the good part of me fade away. I don't know how long I can hold it in for. I think about killing all the time," the note said. "The monster want out. I know what happens when he comes out. He only been out one time and someone die. ... The monster want to hurt people. There is so much pain in my heart and soul. Me want others to feel it."

[Mark]

Nonny, on 21 January 2013 - 01:23 PM, said:

How about adding some other conditions to the discussion?  Should schizophrenia and bipolar disorder exclude gun ownership?  Should this guy have been allowed to purchase guns?  How long should it take to take them away?

http://www.usatoday....rderer/1566414/

Convicted killer found with 13 guns, ammo in Minn.

Quote

... After being convicted of killing his mother, Christian Oberender lived in treatment centers, some of them with prisonlike security, until he was 21. He then spent a year in a halfway house, according to an Associated Press report from 10 years ago. At the time, Oberender's doctor reported that the youth had severe mental problems, including potential schizophrenia.
Oberender is in jail now on $1 million bond because Sheriff Jim Olson remembered the 1995 case when he saw that a woman had filed a complaint accusing Oberender of posting pictures of himself with guns on Facebook, Kamerud said.
Investigators who arrested Oberender say they found an alarming note, written recently, in his bedroom:
"I feel the good part of me fade away. I don't know how long I can hold it in for. I think about killing all the time," the note said. "The monster want out. I know what happens when he comes out. He only been out one time and someone die. ... The monster want to hurt people. There is so much pain in my heart and soul. Me want others to feel it."

Mark: I've been diagnosed with bipolar disorder in the past. I can assure you, I'm no more likely to shoot someone as anyone who hasn't been diagnosed with it, and are considered "normal".
I can't speak for schizophrenia, however, schizophrenics to my understand, have hallucinations. I'm not certain I want a schizophrenic shooting at non-existent things in my vicinity. Again, I think the final word would have to come from a a qualified psychiatrist. Without individual evaluations, nobody can know the extent of any mental problems someone may have, including bi-polar disorder or schizophrenia. What about all those people who have never had a psychological evaluation? Some (not all) of those people are the most closed-off, closed-minded people on Earth...many of them social introverts.

I'm all for giving psychological tests to potential gun owners, however...to give a sweeping directive that nobody with bi-polar disorder, and/or possibly schizophrenia, or other mental problems (like depression) can own or buy a firearm, would be a gross injustice to people like myself. I've handled guns my whole life, and never felt the need or desire to harm anyone with them. Currently the only weapon I own is a pellet gun, however, my grandfather has made it clear that he intends to pass down his shotguns to me. I've had access to those weapons my entire life, and have used them many times for target practice. It would be a shame if some law were passed that wouldn't allow me to inherit the firearms my grandfather intends for me to have, wouldn't it? At least I think so.

Edited by Mark, 21 January 2013 - 02:20 PM.

[gsmonks]

Nonny, on 21 January 2013 - 01:23 PM, said:

How about adding some other conditions to the discussion?  Should schizophrenia and bipolar disorder exclude gun ownership?  Should this guy have been allowed to purchase guns?  How long should it take to take them away?

That's not a simple question to address.

I suffer from depressed serotonin levels and take a serotonin reuptake inhibitor (say that five times really fast!), which makes me normal. It's like taking insulin for diabetes (which I also do), and in fact is a very similar condition, in its way.

In my particular case, I don't experience the psychiatric symptoms often associated with wacky serotonin levels. Some people experience bi-polar disorder from having depressed serotonin levels, some people experience depression, some experience hypomania, and so on.

Because the root cause doesn't present the same way in every person, this in itself creates a problem. Some are pretty much normal, others are downright loopy and can't be trusted with pointy objects.

This kind of situation effectively hamstrings the law, because the law is built on absolutes. The basic tool of law is Logic, which is used to construct arguments and to sequence ideas and evidence. The terms "chain of custody" and "chain of evidence" are quite literal, and refer to "logical progressions", which are things or matters that fit nicely together in linear fashion.

You can't build a cohesive argument using variable constituents. The "if, then" signals that an argument is taking place don't work in a variable situation. For example, "If bi-polar people are violent, then they should be denied access to firearms." The problem here is that bi-polar people don't follow one predictable pattern of behaviour.

This creates the present situation, where you have to deal with each case individually. Unfortunately, this also means that a legal solution is pretty much impossible.

[Lin731]

Wow this has has turned out to be a thread that far exceeded my hopes. To be sure all these issues feed into it, from education to our poor mental health services to people having guns and not being properly trained in their safe handling to a stressed population in general.

A few things off the top of my head that I agree with. I DO beleive that gun safety classes should be required for a license. I DO beleive mental health screening should take place on a regular basis. I DO beleive there should be stiff penalities for accidental fire incidents and any incident where improper use or storage leads to injury.

My whole premise in posting this thread was what side we err on? What lines do we draw on these issues given the limited options? In a perfect world we would do a case by case on mental issues of all sorts but in reality, we know that's not going to happen. So for this thread we only have what is likely, not what is ideal to work from. I wanted to get a sense of what people thought in that narrower scope. I'd personally like these issues dealt with on a case by case basis but I don't beleive that's likely to happen due to the costs involved. Someone upthread mentioned those short employment tests some companies use to evaluate potential employees being used to evaluate potential gun owners. I've taken a few of those employment tests and honestly, they're meaningless fluff. Anyone of moderate intelligence can figure out how to respond to those.

[Mark]

Mark: Surely anybody that wants to own a firearm badly enough would be willing to pay for the psych-screening. Why do we think government should pay for everything?
Along with the psych-testing, I suppose background checks (where friends and family are questioned regarding the applicants history of violence or non-violence etc...etc...) are probably too in-depth to hope for...although if it weren't too costly and time-consuming, I'd be all for that too. Gun safety classes should be a no-brainer. Anyone owning a firearm should be willing to take a safety class, and pay (at their own expense) for the proposed psych-screening. The applicant would not be allowed to choose their own psychiatrist, however. That burden would fall on the government issuing the gun licenses.

I also don't understand why the general public demands to have the right to own assault weapons. Their whole purpose is to kill PEOPLE, and do the most damage possible. They have nothing to do with legitimate hunting, or protecting home and family. If people want to fire assault weapons, there should be gun ranges that allow their rental for limited-use ONLY at the firing range.

Magazine capacity of weapons for public use is another topic for discussion, in my opinion. That opens-up a whole new can of worms. However, again I don't understand why ordinary citizens think they have to own magazines that hold more ammo than the military uses on a regular basis. That's just ridiculous.

We need to keep the following statement in-mind when it comes to entertaining the idea of implementing new gun laws...especially in regard to people's mental health.

"There can be no justice as long as laws are absolute." ---Jean Luc Picard

Edited by Mark, 21 January 2013 - 08:47 PM.

[gsmonks]

Lin731, on 21 January 2013 - 08:13 PM, said:

Wow this has has turned out to be a thread that far exceeded my hopes. To be sure all these issues feed into it, from education to our poor mental health services to people having guns and not being properly trained in their safe handling to a stressed population in general.

A few things off the top of my head that I agree with. I DO beleive that gun safety classes should be required for a license. I DO beleive mental health screening should take place on a regular basis. I DO beleive there should be stiff penalities for accidental fire incidents and any incident where improper use or storage leads to injury.

My whole premise in posting this thread was what side we err on? What lines do we draw on these issues given the limited options? In a perfect world we would do a case by case on mental issues of all sorts but in reality, we know that's not going to happen. So for this thread we only have what is likely, not what is ideal to work from. I wanted to get a sense of what people thought in that narrower scope. I'd personally like these issues dealt with on a case by case basis but I don't beleive that's likely to happen due to the costs involved. Someone upthread mentioned those short employment tests some companies use to evaluate potential employees being used to evaluate potential gun owners. I've taken a few of those employment tests and honestly, they're meaningless fluff. Anyone of moderate intelligence can figure out how to respond to those.

I don't know that it's possible to create a meaningful written test. A person's mental state is assessed on a one-on-one basis with a mental health professional. The professional in question has to see the subject in order to make some sort of assessment, and a proper assessment isn't something that can be done in one session. The mental health professional has got to get to know the individual in question, if only because cursory impressions are pretty much useless and meaningless. A written test, by comparison, just doesn't cut it. An intelligent sycopath intent on doing harm will simply say whatever the tester wants to hear.

That's another thing- even people suffering from extreme mental illness can and do pretend to be normal, and thereby escape detection. Mentally ill people do this as a matter of course, because they continually have to adapt to living in a world of people who aren't mentally ill.

And if you try to ferret out those who are mentally ill in any given population, you'll inadvertantly start a witch-hunt. Any time a character-clash is present, you run the risk of an antagonist branding someone whose behaviour he doesn't like as a candidate for mental illness.

[Mark]

gsmonks:

Quote

And if you try to ferret out those who are mentally ill in any given population, you'll inadvertantly start a witch-hunt. Any time a character-clash is present, you run the risk of an antagonist branding someone whose behaviour he doesn't like as a candidate for mental illness.

'

Mark: I'm afraid of that very same thing happening. Perhaps a psych-evaluation is too complicated to ever be used satisfactorily. Maybe the background check is a more cost-efficient means of finding out what a person is really like on a day-to-day basis? I'm not sure. Again, someone with psychiatric experience would be much more qualified than we are to make that decision.

[Bobby]

Lin731, on 21 January 2013 - 08:13 PM, said:

Wow this has has turned out to be a thread that far exceeded my hopes. To be sure all these issues feed into it, from education to our poor mental health services to people having guns and not being properly trained in their safe handling to a stressed population in general.

A few things off the top of my head that I agree with. I DO beleive that gun safety classes should be required for a license. I DO beleive mental health screening should take place on a regular basis. I DO beleive there should be stiff penalities for accidental fire incidents and any incident where improper use or storage leads to injury.

My whole premise in posting this thread was what side we err on? What lines do we draw on these issues given the limited options? In a perfect world we would do a case by case on mental issues of all sorts but in reality, we know that's not going to happen. So for this thread we only have what is likely, not what is ideal to work from. I wanted to get a sense of what people thought in that narrower scope. I'd personally like these issues dealt with on a case by case basis but I don't beleive that's likely to happen due to the costs involved. Someone upthread mentioned those short employment tests some companies use to evaluate potential employees being used to evaluate potential gun owners. I've taken a few of those employment tests and honestly, they're meaningless fluff. Anyone of moderate intelligence can figure out how to respond to those.

Yeah, I love those tests!  I've taken them in the past for retail and restaurant jobs.  The last one I took was when I got part-time job waiting tables a few years ago, the test was so silly, it would ask you the same questions three or four times in different ways.

Should bi polar people have guns?  I've been diagnosed as bi polar and have tried to commit suicide before, spent 4 days in a mental hospital, five if you count the day I spent in the regular hospital on an IV getting my system flushed before the cop drove me to the nut house in the back of a cop car.  I've never wanted a gun because they make me cringe.  The only time I ever used one was a shot gun and that was skeet shooting with my sisters exhusband in their backyard.  I was horrible at it and my nearsighted self with a gun would be disaster.

Some people who are severly mentally ill will in some cases give signals or "leakage" that something isn't right.  Part of living in a free society is accepting the risks and understanding that crazy people are out there.  There are a lot of cases where things could have been prevented if our protocols for how to treat people were changed.  If it's true that James Holmes told his psychiatrist he was having fantasies about killing people, which it's been documented that his psychiatrist did break confidentiality and tell the campus police his name to do a background check but didn't commit him because he didn't have a record and was leaving the university, then something definitely needs to change.  In a case like that they can and should change laws, because if someone is knowingly telling someone something like that, knowing that the person can lock them up, they are already on the crazy train.  I think it's similar to the Andrea Yates case, she drowned her own children, no gun needed.  She tried to get help and she even had a history of mental illness on record yet couldn't get the help she needed.

There was a boy who was apparently going to shoot up a Wal-Mart after he killed his family:

http://www.thedenver...t-report-claims

Quote

Nehemiah Griego, 15, is accused of gunning down Greg Griego, 51, Sara Griego, 40, and three of their children: a 9-year-old boy, Zephania Griego, and daughters Jael Griego, 5, and Angelina Griego, 2.
According to the Albuquerque Journal, investigators believe the teen shot and killed his mother, young brother and two young sisters about 1 a.m. Saturday. They think he then lay in wait for five hours before ambushing his father when he came home.
The Journal also reported that authorities believe Nehemiah then put several loaded weapons, including the assault rifle, in the family van with the plan to drive to the nearest Walmart, gun down more people and eventually die in a shootout with police.

But Nehemiah called a friend first, who talked him into meeting at Calvary church, where Nehemiah’s father had been a pastor, the Journal reports.

Not that it needs to be said but this puts all the "religion being taken out of schools, parent's not teaching their kids" b.s. to pot.  I don't know if this kid had mental issues, but odds are he does.  That's the thing about mental illness, it is a MEDICAL condition, not a flaw of personality or some other failing.  People should work to control their impulses and mentally ill people do every day, but people still like to trot out the same tired reasoning that people weren't taught how to deal by their parents.

You do have to worry about mental health professionals abusing their power and people's families lying to get them committed, it has happened in the past.  A one size fits all solution won't work.   I do think all soldiers should have to get counseling after they come back from a war zone, military suicides are very high so that's something that should be within their purview, they can send them off to kill so they should be willing to make sure they are ok when they come home.

You said in another thread that guns won't be going anywhere because they are too much a part of American culture, Lin, and you are right.  The crazies already have guns by the boatloads, there is a real paranoia among some gun owners, not all, but it's almost pathological in some cases.   Who is out to get them?  Michael Moore blamed it on racism in his Bowling for Columbine movie, but it's much more foundational than that.  Our country was founded in rebellion of government tyranny and a good portion of people are Ruby Ridge types who will die fighting before they give up their guns.   An interesting statistic says that states that DON'T have the death penalty have lower murder rates.  Maybe it's something on a more subconscious level but when the government has the authority to kill you, it just feeds right on into that paranoia someone is gonna get you.  

I actually don't believe they should post "gun free zones" that's like advertising "Hey, easy pickins!"  I also don't believe people with conceal and carry permits should be allowed to carry a gun anywhere they want either though.

Back to the original question, yes, people with PTSD should be allowed to own guns.

Edited by Bobby, 21 January 2013 - 11:02 PM.

[JMJ49]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
Mark;
I also don't understand why the general public demands to have the right to own assault weapons. Their whole purpose is to kill PEOPLE, and do the most damage possible. They have nothing to do with legitimate hunting, or protecting home and family. If people want to fire assault weapons, there should be gun ranges that allow their rental for limited-use ONLY at the firing range.


Magazine capacity of weapons for public use is another topic for discussion, in my opinion. That opens-up a whole new can of worms. However, again I don't understand why ordinary citizens think they have to own magazines that hold more ammo than the military uses on a regular basis. That's just ridiculous.

The second amendment was not written so people could hunt and target shoot, it was written to secure a free state. That being said, the populace would need to be armed with weapons that would be able to defend the state, and a bolt action rifle would not do that. Also as to not being needed for personal protection, that may be true at the moment but look back on history and see the surprises that popped up. Kinda bet the Jews of Warsaw wished they had "assault rifles" or the people of Pol Pots' Cambodia, or for that matter the Native Americans. No good to be complacent. Finally this whole thing about assault rifles, what is an assault rifle? because it has a flash suppressor, a bayonet lug, a hand grip. That's all silly stuff, none of those characteristics removed from an AR 15 would change a thing. Ar 15s are not really assault rifles, they just look scary, probably because they're black.

I can't stand to watch movies any more. They all are the same formula of chase, chase, chase, and kill, kill, kill. Same thing with video games. Even prime time TV shows are full of graphic violence. The media teaches us that violence is good and solves problems and at the same time desensitizes us with regards to violence. Look at some of the roles played by Hollywoods' anti gun crowd. Look at our own anti-gun president who has a personal kill list and has murdered US citizens abroad and taken out dozens of innocent children as collateral damage in drone strikes and he is a hero for it.

Guns are not the problem, why they are occasionally used by a extremely tiny portion of the population in a horrific way is the question that needs to be answered.

[Mark]

Mark: A well-regulated militia, and private citizens, are two different things, completely! That militia thing is a sad old excuse for us to allow people to own weapons that can kill tens or hundreds of people before law enforcement has time to arrive.
I ask you, JMJ49...how many people could someone with deadly intent kill (in an overcrowded environment) in 10 minutes, using an AR 15 (in semi-auto, or full-auto mode). *I'm guessing it usually takes the police about 10 minutes to arrive on a scene after they get dispatched.* Because mass murders are what we're trying to prevent here, right? We can't prevent someone from killing someone else...but we may be able to slow them down long enough to keep casualties to minimum and allow law enforcement to arrive and stop them.

I'm not afraid of citizens owning AR 15' s in a single shot, or perhaps even semi-auto configurations...as long as the magazines they can obtain are no larger than your average consumer-grade hunting rifle, and they cannot easily convert them to full automatic. Then if we're able to do that, how do we keep people from getting those HUGE magazines that hold way too many bullets for your average deer to deal with? However, I thought everyone knew AR 15's can be somewhat easily upgraded to full automatic configuration, and magazines that hold way too many rounds can be obtained through the Internet. In that configuration, the AR 15 IS an assault rifle. I've heard way too many many average Joe's boasting about how they've upgraded their AR 15's to what is equal to, or better than it's M-16 counterpart. Given that knowledge, where do we as a society draw the line? Should we allow people to obtain grenades for their "well regulated militia"? Perhaps to satisfy you or someone else s definition of an "armed, well-regulated militia", we need to allow them to have tanks, jets, artillery, and orbiting communication satellites. Again, where do we draw the line. Perhaps they need nuclear missiles to be considered "armed"?

In my mind, our local police forces across the United States ARE our well regulated militia. They are necessary for the security of our free State. They are generally armed well enough to keep our free State secure. I also highly doubt that any of my military friends would be willing to conduct operations of hostilities within their own homeland...even if our government became as corrupt as Hitler's did. If our massive military cannot protect us, we have our National Guard. If they cannot protect us, we have our own local, state and national police forces. It's not like we don't have the best protection the world has ever known. Are you suggesting we need protection from our own protection, JMJ49?

Why do our average citizens who cannot be easily well-regulated (as we've noted by how difficult it would be to regulate who should qualify for a gun license) need military grade firearms for their personal arsenal?
When our average citizens have firearms and are out in-force, they call them a mob, not a well-regulated militia.

It's not that AR 15's look scary, JMJ49, it's that in their original form, they were designed to be used by the United States military and our trained professional soldiers...not average citizens. Isn't that a correct assessment? As I've already pointed out, with enough money and motivation, average citizens can upgrade their AR 15's into assault weapons. Again, isn't that a correct assessment?  It doesn't matter if those people are mentally unstable and intend to kill everyone they see with their weapon, or are just someone with a nice collection of historical firearms wishing to complete their collection with the gun of choice of the U.S. military since the 1960's. Heck, I'd love to own an AR 15, too...but it's just completely unnecessary in the world we live in. Avid anti-gun control advocates would have us believe we are in constant danger and need these weapons as a matter of rights. I just don't buy into that line of thinking.

No matter though...lets make sure every American gets their AR 15's! It's their right as a free citizen of the United States to be part of that well-regulated militia! Heck, let's make sure all those good people know where to get the best deal to upgrade their weapons to full-automatic, and make certain they at least get a free 200 round magazine for their interest, and trouble.
You know, while we're at it, little Johnnie is nearly 12 years old now...I bet he'd love to get an AR 15 for Christmas this year so he can go huntin' with his Dad and Uncle! Let's make sure he gets one with the stainless steel barrel upgrade...you know how he leaves his BB-gun and .22 out in the rain. He's such a forgetful boy, sometime.

BTW, what prey does an AR 15 work best on again?

Edited by Mark, 22 January 2013 - 05:20 PM.

[Mark]

Mark: BTW, I do support the notion that we as citizens should have a right to keep and bear arms...just within certain limitations. I'm not someone who has jumped on the gun control band wagon because of the recent school shooting. I've always had my own ideas of what sort of regulations would make owning firearms safer for all of us.
I just think we need better regulation and control over the types of guns citizens may legally own...or legally purchase and/or trade in the future. It doesn't take much training to spray bullets into a crowd of people (as a fully automatic gun allows). With that in mind, we probably need to completely restrict the sale and legal ability for our society to purchase automatic weapons, or rather, weapons that can easily be converted into a fully automatic firearm.

As we've already discussed...there are many citizens that (for whatever reasons) have no business being able to purchase and wield firearms (of any kind). However, for the vast majority of us, being able to purchase and have those weapons is probably just fine. Our society has lived that way for centuries. We just need to make certain we're doing all we can to keep our citizens as safe as possible...whether that means restricting those permitted to purchase a weapon to those that qualify, or on the other extreme, even passing out weapons to qualified individuals in case of a military invasion of some sort.

[JMJ49]

MARK: I won't get into an argument with you, it's not worth the time. Just keep in mind that there are countless examples of societies, including modern ones where the people depended on the police to be their well regulated militia and died regretting it.

As to upgrading their AR 15's into assault rifles, I assume that you mean full automatic. This is virtually impossible on today's AR 15s.

Ar 15s to many enthusiasts (not the people who buy them at Walmart) are popular because they can be modified into many different configurations. There are hundreds of custom parts for people to interchange and shape there own fire arm, much like people modifying their cars (esp. in the 50's and 60"s.

I have a hunting lease on 6000 acres of cattle ranch in south Florida and we use Are 15's for varmints that threaten the herd. Including coyotes, sure there are other choices, but that is one we like.

[gsmonks]

The bottom line is that a lot of people who own guns shouldn't, and this lot includes normal people and mentally ill people.

There is no good reason for the militias to exist. A non-existent enemy or a possible enemy is the purview of the nutter. The logic is no different from wearing a coil of garlic around your neck to dissuade vampires.

Our modern militias in their present form came into being for the worst possible reasons, and not one of those reasons are those given, such as constitutional amendments or rights of any kind. That kind of talk is a case of bootstrapping, because those are not the reasons our present-day militias were formed. In fact, you'd have to rewrite history for any of their talking-points to be true.

[JMJ49]

Too bad a perfectly good discussion has to be ruined my an egomaniac who when out of logical things to say has to make references to coils of garlic and vampires. So sad, actually pathetic.

[gsmonks]

JMJ49, on 22 January 2013 - 10:57 AM, said:

Too bad a perfectly good discussion has to be ruined my an egomaniac who when out of logical things to say has to make references to coils of garlic and vampires. So sad, actually pathetic.

Ah, I expect this type of nonsense (insults and digression) from those that want to avoid inconvenient things like historical facts, which were also mentioned. That's what's really pathetic here.

If you want to stoop this low, that's your affair. If you actually want to present some form of argument, bring it on!

Edited by gsmonks, 22 January 2013 - 11:59 AM.

[JMJ49]

No, you are the one who initiated the insults and digression. So vain as to not recognize yourself. If your message did contain any historical facts, which I doubt, you debased them yourself. I wonder if you actually wear garlic and have your ceiling covered in tin foil. No more time to waste on fools.