I helped take a man's guns away. [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : I helped take a man's guns away.


runcible68
01-26-2012, 13:33
I'm a gun owner. I also have worked in mental health, on and off, for twenty years. A little while ago, I was talking to a man who had voluntarily signed himself into the psych unit for depression and suicidal ideation. This guy really wanted to die, but had enough sense to understand he wasn't thinking clearly.

During the course of our conversation, he told me that he owned several guns. I asked him if his suicidal thinking involved the use of firearms. He replied that the thought had crossed his mind.

I relayed this conversation to the psych doc who called the family. They had not mentioned the man's gun collection when he was admitted. The police were contacted and the man's guns were removed from his house. The patient was eventually discharged to aftercare. I do not know if he ever got his guns back but, because he tried to sign himself out while actively suicidal, he was involuntarily committed for the rest of his stay, so I doubt it.

I felt bad, but I'd do it again in a heartbeat.

Having seen just how disturbed people can be over the years, I'm a firm believer in not letting the severely mentally ill have access to firearms. It's unsafe for everyone. I do NOT, however, advocate that stance for people suffering non suicidal depressions, anxiety or manageable bi-polar illness. Everyone needs help from time to time. And if we restricted gun rights just because a person was in therapy, half the cops in this country would be on the bow and arrow squad. I would also hate to see non suicidal/homicidal people not avail him or herself of medication/therapy just because they were afraid they'd lose their gun rights.

What say you?

IhRedrider
01-26-2012, 20:35
What say you?

I would have to ask, what right do you have in taking someone's, who has violated no one's rights, rights away? A man was honest about his FEELINGS and you judge what he MAY do and take from him what is RIGHTFULLY his. I would not want to be you when THE judgement comes down. If YOU or anyone else was truly honest about the depression and violent thoughts that pass through you or their heads, everyone would be horrified. And if "they" followed what I would guess is your rationale, no one would be free or have any means to defend themselves. I don't think you would be happy if someone took something from you based upon what you felt. What say you?

Misty02
01-26-2012, 20:47
A person in my husband’s family has attempted suicide a multitude of times. She has tried to cut her wrists, taken pills, and a bunch of other things. To my knowledge, she’s never tried a firearm.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Anyone that wants to harm/kill themselves or others would work around and find other equitable methods. It is difficult to stop intent and determination.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
He just won’t posses a tool known to be effective for self-defense. <o:p></o:p>

.

John Rambo
01-26-2012, 21:07
Ya know, I read this earlier, thought on it, then came back...thought on it some more. And now I'm here a third time. And for what its worth, I don't think theres any way for you to be the 'good guy' here. It was a hard decision - its always a hard decision when you decide that somebody must be protected from themselves.

Personally, if I had a guarantee that they were only going to off themselves, I'd let them keep their guns. But what he could do to others on his way out the door is what would worry me.

So, if you let him keep his guns and he decides to mow people down...you're the bad guy and maybe even liable in some ass-backwards court. And if you take the guns from him you're the bad guy because now you're the gun-grabbing gestapo.

I suspect you won't get much sympathy here, but if you're looking for a right or wrong affirmation...well...you'll have to look to a much smarter man than me for that.

Dukeboy01
01-26-2012, 21:08
You did the right thing. Don't expect any further acknowledgement of that from anyone else around here and you'll be fine.

Mental illness is one of the areas of life where reality punches ideology in the nuts and takes it's lunch money.

esh325
01-26-2012, 21:21
It's a difficult choice. I would have done the same.

CaptTurbo
01-26-2012, 21:30
A suicide often claims more victims then the one who takes their own life. Usually there will be friends and family who would be devastated. I can't say that you didn't do the right thing.

IhRedrider
01-26-2012, 21:40
You did the right thing.

I know this is your opinion, but how can you defend this?

I was talking to a man who had voluntarily signed himself into the psych unit for depression and suicidal ideation. This guy really wanted to die,

I would say that this statement conflicts with itself. If he voluntarily checked himself into a psych unit, he was looking for help and did not really want to die. If he REALLY wanted to die, and he had firearm access, I would say that the coroner would be dealing with him not you in the psych ward.

The more I read the OP, the more it looks like a liberal troll for "reasonable gun control for our safety". What say I to this? I'm not interested in trading rights for safety.

Gunhaver
01-27-2012, 03:46
I would have to ask, what right do you have in taking someone's, who has violated no one's rights, rights away? A man was honest about his FEELINGS and you judge what he MAY do and take from him what is RIGHTFULLY his. I would not want to be you when THE judgement comes down. If YOU or anyone else was truly honest about the depression and violent thoughts that pass through you or their heads, everyone would be horrified. And if "they" followed what I would guess is your rationale, no one would be free or have any means to defend themselves. I don't think you would be happy if someone took something from you based upon what you felt. What say you?

Spot on. Especially the part about being honest about the things that go through our heads sometimes. We all have the right to live and to check out if we make that decision. Some of us are strong enough to pull through it, just another form of natural selection if you ask me. I've been down so bad before that I've thought about it. I always bounce back stronger than the last time. I remember breaking down right before my divorce and setting the safe combo up to change and asking my ex to punch in a new number and never tell me what it was until we worked out all the ugly details. That's the only unquestioned cooperation I can remember from that woman.

Danger to others is such a non-issue. The vast overwhelming majority of suicides do not involve homicides, they're just looking for a way out. I don't see where another has the right to close that door on someone. Talk them away from it, sure, but not close it. You have to realize that you're working with a system that is looking to take someone's guns and doesn't care if it's for life, a system that values CYA and safety over freedom of choice every time. All it takes is a slight shift in the already ill-defined standard of who's sane and for how long before someone can take your rights... for your own good. For THEIR definition of your own good.

id1otbox
01-27-2012, 03:53
I believe that if someone truly wants to kill them self they will get it done sooner or later.

Is living a life of misery really living?

Choosing how you die is your right. People should be offered help and counseling but if they really want to get it done they shouldn't be stopped. God forbid, if I ever felt the need to end my life I hope that no one around me takes all the quick painless avenues away from me.

Misty02
01-27-2012, 05:59
Ya know, I read this earlier, thought on it, then came back...thought on it some more. And now I'm here a third time. And for what its worth, I don't think theres any way for you to be the 'good guy' here. It was a hard decision - its always a hard decision when you decide that somebody must be protected from themselves.

Personally, if I had a guarantee that they were only going to off themselves, I'd let them keep their guns. But what he could do to others on his way out the door is what would worry me.

So, if you let him keep his guns and he decides to mow people down...you're the bad guy and maybe even liable in some ass-backwards court. And if you take the guns from him you're the bad guy because now you're the gun-grabbing gestapo.

I suspect you won't get much sympathy here, but if you're looking for a right or wrong affirmation...well...you'll have to look to a much smarter man than me for that.

You are right, on things of this sort there is no way to win, so a person has to do what they believe is right. There are consequences to both taking action and not taking action that would require a lot of thought be given. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
There may be cases where an evaluation of the issues, not just those that are short term but long term consequences, are not part of the equation because an individual has a legal responsibility to take action.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Either way, we have to live with the consequences of our own actions (or lack thereof). When you ask for opinions after the fact, assuming there was a choice in what to do, please do expect those opinions to be from one side of the spectrum to the other.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
The only question that matters (unless you are asking before doing something to evaluate the pros and cons): Do I believe I did the right thing and for the right reasons? If I can answer that question satisfactorily to myself, then the opinion of others would be of little importance. Asking would be only to validate what we did, in our own mind, because we don’t feel completely comfortable with the action we took. I know having doubt happens and it’s human, but too late to do anything about it now.<o:p></o:p>

*********<o:p></o:p>
Question (general, not just to you John): Would you also work toward having his driver’s license suspended? A person with suicidal tendencies is just as dangerous behind a multi-thousand pound vehicle. If they decided to ram their vehicle against a tree or other inanimate object where innocent people won’t be harmed it would be the same as you mention, but what if they decide to go for a head-on collision with another vehicle?<o:p></o:p>

.

eracer
01-27-2012, 06:27
My opinion has always been that the Founders understood that 'The People' meant 'functional, law-abiding, members of society.'

Gunnut 45/454
01-27-2012, 12:05
My one and only question- did the state pay the man for his property they stole? Removing the tools of suicde is all well a good. But to steal a mans property with out compensation is totally wrong! In most states that do this the guns are destroyed. Why not find a compotent relative to remove the guns?:whistling:

TexasFats
01-27-2012, 12:50
I have had to help deal with the aftermath of a suicide where I teach. One student committed suicide at a time when six of the eight students in my summer class were close friends. I say that the OP did the right thing, and, perhaps, the legally required thing. Having said that, we do need to be careful. The gun grabbers would love nothing else than to classify 99% of the population as "potential suicides", and will do so if they can.

runcible68
01-27-2012, 13:56
Actually I was legally bound to tell the psychiatrist about the patient's gun ownership. Also, if the man had gone home and killed himself, I'd have to live with that on my conscience.

It is true that most suicidal people are not homicidal. However, the chance exists. Is that some thing you'd risk if confronted with the same situation? Depression often has an anger component to it. And is the man was on the mood disorder spectrum, he could have entered a delusional state where he'd not be thinking clearly with regards to the consequences of his actions.

I am not surprised that a few posters said I was a "liberal troll" or the Gestapo. There are quite a few inflexible 2cd Amendment fanatics on these forums. Having guns is a right, yes. But when a person's life is in jeopardy, limits on that right are appropriate. We do so in other cases with other rights to more or lesser degrees. Thanks to posters who left supportive comments. I'm glad I posted this. The reactions were most illuminating.

Best Wishes

IhRedrider
01-27-2012, 15:17
I am not surprised that a few posters said I was a "liberal troll"

Is NOT what I said. I said....

The more I read the OP, the more it looks like a liberal troll

I did not say YOU were a liberal troll, I said it (the post not the poster) LOOKS like a liberal troll. And that is my opinion, which says far more about me than you. I was not trying to offend you or make claims that you are or said something you are not or did not say. IF you posted this to gain support for gun control for safeties sake, then I would say that you are a liberal troll. And you will never get support from me. If you posted this for reassurance that you did the right thing, then I would say that you already feel you did the wrong thing If you feel you did the right thing you would have just not said anything, especially on this forum. If you feel it was not quite right to take a free mans rights away, you will get no support from me. Now these are only a few reasons for the OP, if none of these where your reasons. Then you should probably be clear to others what you want from them instead of asking, What say you. When you ask a question like this in this type of forum, you will get may opinions. All that said, I would ask you. What were you looking for when you posted your original post?

Jerry
01-27-2012, 16:00
If had someone’s firearms take away I’d be so proud of fact that I’d post about it too. :upeyes: :faint:

runcible68
01-27-2012, 16:57
I'm not proud of the fact I was instrumental taking that man's guns away. It saddened me. But then again I'm happier if he lives

"The more I read the OP, the more it looks like a liberal troll for "reasonable gun control for our safety". What say I to this? I'm not interested in trading rights for safety."

We can argue semantics all you want, but you called me a liberal troll. You used the old Socratic gambit, "I will not say that Mr. X is a despicable man. That's far from me to judge." Don't kid yourself. And why did I write the post? For the same reasons most people do in these forums - to see what people think. You are entitled to your opinion, as much as I disagree with it. Other people agreed with me.

If people started using the public health angle, saying guns cause suicides and they must be banned/curtailed I'd fight that tooth and nail. But, despite my championing of 2cd Amendment rights, there are compelling and limited cases when those rights must be taken away. It does not follow that taking a suicidal man's guns away will open the portal to more gun control. Not everything leads to a slippery slope, not matter what the monthly crisis fund raising alarums the NRA sends out all the time. Sometimes, in limited cases, people's rights are curtailed in the interest of public safety. We deprive people of freedom when they are a menace to society. Sometimes, we have to limit 2cd Amendment rights to ensure a suicidal man's safety. It saddens me, but it happens.

Safety versus gun rights is part of the gun control debate raging in this country. We have had our gun rights upheld in the courts. The 2cd Amendment isn't going anywhere and CCW will probably stand well against legal challenges.

The conflict will never cease until the gun community tries to understand the fears of the non-gun owning public and make some kind of offering that does not infringe on our rights to bear arms. Why aren't we agitating to keep guns out of the hands of crazies? Is making stringent background checks at gun shows a good thing? What about really cracking down of straw purchasers and dishonest gun dealers? Is the one gun a month thing so terrible? Isn't that a concession we could make? I can see having a loophole for collectors of historical weapons. but do any of us really need to buy one gun every 30 days?

I don't have all the answers. I'd love to have a discussion on what we could do to try and make peace with the non gun owning community. Sure, there will be the zealots with whom we will never be able to reason. But there are people like that on our side to. What can we do to make things better? Or will it be a never ending cycle of conflict, a conflict that might do us harm.

And to anyone who thinks a person should be able to go home and "take himself out" shame on you. If you have seen the results of suicide, as I have, the effects on family and friends, you might have a more nuanced and human take on things.

Javelin
01-27-2012, 17:02
If had someone’s firearms take away I’d be so proud of fact that I’d post about it too. :upeyes: :faint:

I would be standing on my roof with a bullhorn and going to Denny's telling anyone that sat down at the counter about it.

Fact is the Government is doing everything it can to take away gun rights. Hell the VA is voluntarily submitting documentation to the ATF to ban veterans from owning weapons even though they were never given due course and in most cases without their knowledge.

This whole big brother thing is becoming too much to be honest.

Jerry
01-27-2012, 17:38
I would be standing on my roof with a bullhorn and going to Denny's telling anyone that sat down at the counter about it.

Fact is the Government is doing everything it can to take away gun rights. Hell the VA is voluntarily submitting documentation to the ATF to ban veterans from owning weapons even though they were never given due course and in most cases without their knowledge.

This whole big brother thing is becoming too much to be honest.



I hear that if they (the government) don’t get enough medical people to turn people in they’re going to start using Precogs. The Precogs have told me I should lock this thread because it’s going to turn ugly, but I don’t believe in punishing people until they actually do something wrong. Just call me crazy! Holy moley did I just say that? Please don’t tell them they’ll come “steal” my stuff. But after that boating accident and my donation to the homeless I really don’t have any guns left. :whistling:

Javelin
01-27-2012, 17:41
I hear that if they (the government) don’t get enough medical people to turn people in they’re going to start using Precogs. The Precogs have told me I should lock this thread because it’s going to turn ugly, but I don’t believe in punishing people until they actually do something wrong. Just call me crazy! Holy moley did I just say that? Please don’t tell them they’ll come “steal” my stuff. But after that boating accident and my donation to the homeless I really don’t have any guns left. :whistling:

I know you are joking? I had to wikipedia Precog by the way. :supergrin:

Glock 1
01-27-2012, 17:48
You did the right thing for a fellow human being in need. You did not take away his guns or even help. He was asking you for help inadvertently. All you did was listen. He knew why you were asking.

There is a difference in violating someone's right and protecting them from themselves at their request.

Let me ask you this, if he had said yes I have guns and no don't you dare take them because I won't use them on myself, would you have left it at that? Or would you have done the same thing you did?

rotjovi
01-27-2012, 17:53
He did the right thing...... Don't feel guilty.

Misty02
01-27-2012, 17:59
Runcible68, you are just digging a bigger whole! Learn when it is time to quit. If you did what you thought was right, are aware of the unintended consequences (present and future) to all those involved, then there is nothing to explain to anyone.

Be thankful some people fed your need for validation in a positive manner. Where you are treading now, I believe, could lead to loss of previously offered support by some. There are many forms of self-destruction; suicide is not the only one, although the one that is permanent.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>

I wish you well and pray that if you ever voluntarily seek help from another, that they don’t negatively impact the remainder of the years you have on this earth and that of your family.<o:p></o:p>

I'm not proud of the fact I was instrumental taking that man's guns away. It saddened me. But then again I'm happier if he lives

"The more I read the OP, the more it looks like a liberal troll for "reasonable gun control for our safety". What say I to this? I'm not interested in trading rights for safety."

We can argue semantics all you want, but you called me a liberal troll. You used the old Socratic gambit, "I will not say that Mr. X is a despicable man. That's far from me to judge." Don't kid yourself. And why did I write the post? For the same reasons most people do in these forums - to see what people think. You are entitled to your opinion, as much as I disagree with it. Other people agreed with me.

If people started using the public health angle, saying guns cause suicides and they must be banned/curtailed I'd fight that tooth and nail. But, despite my championing of 2cd Amendment rights, there are compelling and limited cases when those rights must be taken away. It does not follow that taking a suicidal man's guns away will open the portal to more gun control. Not everything leads to a slippery slope, not matter what the monthly crisis fund raising alarums the NRA sends out all the time. Sometimes, in limited cases, people's rights are curtailed in the interest of public safety. We deprive people of freedom when they are a menace to society. Sometimes, we have to limit 2cd Amendment rights to ensure a suicidal man's safety. It saddens me, but it happens.

Safety versus gun rights is part of the gun control debate raging in this country. We have had our gun rights upheld in the courts. The 2cd Amendment isn't going anywhere and CCW will probably stand well against legal challenges.

The conflict will never cease until the gun community tries to understand the fears of the non-gun owning public and make some kind of offering that does not infringe on our rights to bear arms. Why aren't we agitating to keep guns out of the hands of crazies? Is making stringent background checks at gun shows a good thing? What about really cracking down of straw purchasers and dishonest gun dealers? Is the one gun a month thing so terrible? Isn't that a concession we could make? I can see having a loophole for collectors of historical weapons. but do any of us really need to buy one gun every 30 days?

I don't have all the answers. I'd love to have a discussion on what we could do to try and make peace with the non gun owning community. Sure, there will be the zealots with whom we will never be able to reason. But there are people like that on our side to. What can we do to make things better? Or will it be a never ending cycle of conflict, a conflict that might do us harm.

And to anyone who thinks a person should be able to go home and "take himself out" shame on you. If you have seen the results of suicide, as I have, the effects on family and friends, you might have a more nuanced and human take on things.

Misty02
01-27-2012, 18:15
You did the right thing for a fellow human being in need. You did not take away his guns or even help. He was asking you for help inadvertently. All you did was listen. He knew why you were asking.

There is a difference in violating someone's right and protecting them from themselves at their request.

Let me ask you this, if he had said yes I have guns and no don't you dare take them because I won't use them on myself, would you have left it at that? Or would you have done the same thing you did?

You may wish to read the OP again. The OP didn’t ask. The gentleman that voluntarily went for help because he didn’t think things were right was having a conversation with someone that worked there (apparently not his doctor) and mentioned he owned firearms.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
My question to the OP, what position did you hold in this mental health facility at the time you had the conversation with this patient? Did your position grant you access to his medical records and that is how you knew he was suicidal or was the patient having a conversation with you where he revealed his condition (along with letting you know he owned firearms? During this conversation, who first brought the subject of firearms and how? Were you playing the firearm enthusiast and that led him to think he found another enthusiast to share something the two of you had in common?<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
I'm a gun owner. I also have worked in mental health, on and off, for twenty years. A little while ago, I was talking to a man who had voluntarily signed himself into the psych unit for depression and suicidal ideation. This guy really wanted to die, but had enough sense to understand he wasn't thinking clearly. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
During the course of our conversation, he told me that he owned several guns. I asked him if his suicidal thinking involved the use of firearms. He replied that the thought had crossed his mind. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
I relayed this conversation to the psych doc who called the family. They had not mentioned the man's gun collection when he was admitted. The police were contacted and the man's guns were removed from his house. The patient was eventually discharged to aftercare. I do not know if he ever got his guns back but, because he tried to sign himself out while actively suicidal, he was involuntarily committed for the rest of his stay, so I doubt it. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
I felt bad, but I'd do it again in a heartbeat. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Having seen just how disturbed people can be over the years, I'm a firm believer in not letting the severely mentally ill have access to firearms. It's unsafe for everyone. I do NOT, however, advocate that stance for people suffering non suicidal depressions, anxiety or manageable bi-polar illness. Everyone needs help from time to time. And if we restricted gun rights just because a person was in therapy, half the cops in this country would be on the bow and arrow squad. I would also hate to see non suicidal/homicidal people not avail him or herself of medication/therapy just because they were afraid they'd lose their gun rights. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
What say you?<o:p></o:p>

What is the definition of “severely mentally ill”? Are you a mental health doctor? If you are, was this your patient?

.<o:p></o:p>

Jerry
01-27-2012, 18:48
I know you are joking? I had to wikipedia Precog by the way. :supergrin:

Actually I was being sarcastic but it wasn’t directed at you.

Whenever I hear that something is being done in the name of “prevention” The Minority Report comes to mind. I truly wonder how many times people that wouldn’t do anything wrong get screwed in the name of stopping them from doing something they really wouldn’t do anyway.

What follows is just a general rant. :supergrin:

AND! Someone says they are thinking about suicide so the “government” “STEALS” their firearms. Why aren’t they given to a relative, wife, son, daughter, father, mother, brother, sister etc. etc. that wants them? Instead the gummymnet just “STEALS” them. But it’s for the persons on good so we must understand. Hog Wash! If it was really about stopping the person from harming themselves or others why aren’t all the knives, baseball bats, matches, gasoline etc. ect. also “STOLEN” from their home? Because it’s about getting the guns period. And they have the medical community brainwashed and or helping out of fear of government repercussions. :steamed:

I don’t own any more damn guns I gave them all to homeless people. :tongueout:

G30Mike
01-27-2012, 18:56
Ill say this, if I went in for help for something like this and I went home to all of my guns missing, that would just give me one more reason to off myself right then and there.
There are a LOT more ways to commit suicide than putting a gun in your mouth.

Also, who's to say he doesn't have a couple stashed somewhere other than his safe?

How would you feel if because of him losing his guns he doesn't just go rent a U-Haul and ram it into your building after he drives it through a crowd of people? There are plenty of things that will take out multiple people besides guns.

IhRedrider
01-27-2012, 19:12
We can argue semantics all you want, but you called me a liberal troll.

I will not argue semantics. I said what I meant and I meant what I said. I you believe that my intention was to call you a liberal troll, you are wrong. Be wrong if you want, I care not.

Other people agreed with me.

Yea for you. I would not judge whether I was right by the fact that some people on the internet agree with me. But if that is what you need or were looking for I guess I'm glad you found it.

Sometimes, we have to limit 2cd Amendment rights to ensure a suicidal man's safety.

I think that this is the heart of your intention when you posted. To rally support for gun control for specific circumstances (for now). I do not support that, in case you were wondering where I stand. Now that you have presented your stance, and you asked what we think. I'll pull on some loose threads.

You said "we". Who is the "we" in your statement? Where do they derive their authority yo take a free man's right? What standard are they suppose to use to determine who's rights need revoking? Where and how does this standard that they are to use derive it's authority to limit rights as documented in the highest legal document of the US?

You said "to ensure a suicidal man's safety". Where in the Constitution does it document rights can be revoked for safety?

The conflict will never cease until the gun community tries to understand the fears of the non-gun owning public and make some kind of offering that does not infringe on our rights to bear arms.

How does my understanding or lack of understanding of another man's fears change or affect any of the bill of rights?

Just what exactly would you recommend as an "offering" that will help the non-gun owning public's fears and not infringe upon free men's rights?

I can see having a loophole for collectors of historical weapons. but do any of us really need to buy one gun every 30 days?

I thought loopholes were bad. What makes a "collector" special? for that matter what does it take to obtain said "collector" status to take advantage of said loophole? What is a historical weapon? One that has a place in history? I think they would all qualify. The biggest problem with this statement is qualifying a right with a need. Who's to decide what free men need? Where would they derive their authority to regulate a free man's rights? What standard would they use to decide what is a need?

Misty02
01-27-2012, 19:15
Ill say this, if I went in for help for something like this and I went home to all of my guns missing, that would just give me one more reason to off myself right then and there.
There are a LOT more ways to commit suicide than putting a gun in your mouth.

Also, who's to say he doesn't have a couple stashed somewhere other than his safe?

How would you feel if because of him losing his guns he doesn't just go rent a U-Haul and ram it into your building after he drives it through a crowd of people? There are plenty of things that will take out multiple people besides guns.

You have now entered the world of unintended consequences and the innumerable list of alternatives available to all.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
I wonder if the gentleman attempted to sign himself out (let’s not forget he went there voluntarily) before or after finding out that his means of self-defense and protecting his family were taken away. All because he had a conversation with the wrong person, at the wrong time and in the wrong place.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Whether the outcome is good or bad, there is usually something others can learn. Thank you for the lesson.

.

Gunhaver
01-27-2012, 20:13
Did they take his car keys to make sure he didn't drive off a bridge? Get the drain cleaner out from under the sink so he wouldn't drink it? Take all the sharp instruments that could cut a wrist? Remove all items that one could hang themselves with? How stupid to say, "We'll just take the most noisy and messy option away from him, the one with a stigma attached to it... but it has nothing to do with that."

If not then it wasn't about his safety, just about taking guns. Rationalize your part of the blame away however you like but some things are so simple and obvious that you are just going to have to be OK with lying to yourself.

Brucev
01-27-2012, 20:16
Re: OP. Good call. When dealing with persons expressing suicidal tendencies it is common sense to find out if they have a plan... if they have a means (knife, razor, gun, drugs, etc.). Depending on the nature of ones employment, one can be responsible to take action and can face serious consequences for failure to act. Concerns about personal freedom, etc. are not relevant.

NMG26
01-27-2012, 20:22
Did they take his car keys to make sure he didn't drive off a bridge? Get the drain cleaner out from under the sink so he wouldn't drink it? Take all the sharp instruments that could cut a wrist? Remove all items that one could hang themselves with? How stupid to say, "We'll just take the most noisy and messy option away from him, the one with a stigma attached to it... but it has nothing to do with that."

If not then it wasn't about his safety, just about taking guns. Rationalize your part of the blame away however you like but some things are so simple and obvious that you are just going to have to be OK with lying to yourself.


Last week a guy cut his own throat in my town. They arrested a guy he was with for murder, but the evidence was that the guy cut his own throat.

IhRedrider
01-27-2012, 21:12
Concerns about personal freedom, etc. are not relevant.

And this is how we lose our rights and freedoms.

If this is how you feel and you wish to trade your rights for security, I guess that is your business. But if you wish for others to adopt this line of reasoning, you are mistaken to think that is going to happen.

Maybe just my opinion, but only a coward would trade THEIR rights and freedoms for safety and security. and only a thug would want ME to trade my freedoms and rights for safety and security

runcible68
01-27-2012, 21:33
You're right Misty. Time to ride off into the sunset!

Javelin
01-27-2012, 22:48
Actually I was being sarcastic but it wasn’t directed at you.

Whenever I hear that something is being done in the name of “prevention” The Minority Report comes to mind. I truly wonder how many times people that wouldn’t do anything wrong get screwed in the name of stopping them from doing something they really wouldn’t do anyway.

What follows is just a general rant. :supergrin:

AND! Someone says they are thinking about suicide so the “government” “STEALS” their firearms. Why aren’t they given to a relative, wife, son, daughter, father, mother, brother, sister etc. etc. that wants them? Instead the gummymnet just “STEALS” them. But it’s for the persons on good so we must understand. Hog Wash! If it was really about stopping the person from harming themselves or others why aren’t all the knives, baseball bats, matches, gasoline etc. ect. also “STOLEN” from their home? Because it’s about getting the guns period. And they have the medical community brainwashed and or helping out of fear of government repercussions. :steamed:

I don’t own any more damn guns I gave them all to homeless people. :tongueout:

Good points. I too am scared of the intentions of a few being inflicted on so many. To be honest I am still in disbelief that in 2008-present the VA gave out medical records to the ATF without medical release forms and the ATF went ahead and banned 150,000 Veterans from purchasing firearms without any notice given (Thank you GW Bush btw).

And then Janet Napolitano stating that war veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan are to be declared possible Terror Suspects in 2009 and never apologized. And then in 2011 on Christmas Eve (you know when George Washington crossed the Delaware and had severe symptoms of PTSD until the day he died because of that fight) our current POTUS signed away the right to due process and that at anytime someone can bust in your door and take you to GITMO, torture you and your family for a year, and nothing can be done about it and you get no lawyer or anything in the matter. Nothing.

Officer do-good probably doing the 'best they know' with 'good intentions' ... well the road to Hell as they say. The Road To Hell :steamed:

:tongueout: :wavey:

Misty02
01-28-2012, 06:28
And this is how we lose our rights and freedoms.

If this is how you feel and you wish to trade your rights for security, I guess that is your business. But if you wish for others to adopt this line of reasoning, you are mistaken to think that is going to happen.

Maybe just my opinion, but only a coward would trade THEIR rights and freedoms for safety and security. and only a thug would want ME to trade my freedoms and rights for safety and security

He was being sarcastic, IhRedrider. At times, the only card left to play. Some of us play it more often than others though; I too am guilty of that one. Thankfully, no one has yet determined that is a sign of being mentally deficient (I think) or we would be in serious doo doo.

.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>

Misty02
01-28-2012, 06:32
You're right Misty. Time to ride off into the sunset!

What a wonderful world this would be if we were all able to determine when that time was, runcible68. Wouldn’t it? We would be able to avoid so much unnecessary conflict, drama and harm. It is sad it doesn’t occur to us all more often.

.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>

IhRedrider
01-28-2012, 07:41
He was being sarcastic, IhRedrider.

Oops, my bad. I don't know Bruce and I didn't see the sarcasm coming.

Misty02
01-28-2012, 08:12
Oops, my bad. I don't know Bruce and I didn't see the sarcasm coming.

I don’t either, but taking the post in whole I took it as sarcasm. Perhaps I’m wrong, but the “knife, razor” comment (which are things found in nearly every household) led me down that path. If he had thrown in “vehicle” I would have known beyond any reasonable doubt. :)<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
I can see how easy it would be to misinterpret sarcasm in a thread like this, it is rightfully charged with emotions due to the life-long impact the actions of one person can have on another person (and their family).

.<o:p></o:p>

Glock 1
01-28-2012, 10:00
After reading all the posts it occurs to me that I like some others thought you were a medical professional treating this patient. Were you?

Lady Glock
01-28-2012, 12:18
My one thought on this...many people who commit suicide take others with them. Mothers who believe no one else can care for her children as she would, kills them before killing herself since she can't bear to leave them behind to be cared for by another. A husband gets angry, kills his wife and then himself. A crazy lunatic who goes to a public gathering, opens fire, kills several people and manages to shoot himself...still doesn't lessen the impact of the loss to the families of his victims.

AA#5
01-28-2012, 12:27
A person in my husband’s family has attempted suicide a multitude of times. She has tried to cut her wrists, taken pills, and a bunch of other things. To my knowledge, she’s never tried a firearm.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Anyone that wants to harm/kill themselves or others would work around and find other equitable methods. It is difficult to stop intent and determination.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
He just won’t posses a tool known to be effective for self-defense. <o:p></o:p>

.

You are correct that someone who is determined to die will find a way, but drugs, cutting wrists, & "a bunch of other things" have a much higher survival rate than a bullet in the brain.

Misty02
01-28-2012, 12:50
My one thought on this...many people who commit suicide take others with them. Mothers who believe no one else can care for her children as she would, kills them before killing herself since she can't bear to leave them behind to be cared for by another. A husband gets angry, kills his wife and then himself. A crazy lunatic who goes to a public gathering, opens fire, kills several people and manages to shoot himself...still doesn't lessen the impact of the loss to the families of his victims.

Valid concern. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
However, you mention people who actually commit suicide. Would it be fair to state that many others have had a fleeing thought about it, were concerned with it and sought help? Shouldn’t we be as concerned (if not more) about those that have even worse thoughts and don’t seek help? Do we start punishing people for having “thoughts” before they commit any crimes (against themselves or others)?<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
My knowledge of mental health is extremely limited and since I’ve never had such thoughts I’m not able to relate to what other things could cross the mind of such individuals. That; however, doesn’t prevent me from giving thought to what said person might have to go through and relate to that. Mental illness or ending up with a felony for being ignorant about a certain law could bar an individual from ever being able to carry, own or possess a weapon (not just a firearm).<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
The individual mentioned in the OP voluntarily sought help. Based on what I’ve read that is not enough to terminate your rights to carry, own and possess a weapon. If we assume the OP reflects an accurate time-line, the patient was discharged to aftercare (whatever that means). He then tried sign himself out while “actively suicidal” (I guess that means before swearing he no longer had those kind of thoughts or someone not believing him if he said it?). Is it possible that the attempt to sign himself out was due to someone taking away the tools he had for the defense of his family and his own? (I don’t know). Because he tried to sign himself out while “actively suicidal” he was involuntarily committed. That involuntary commitment is likely to change the whole game, possibly for the remainder of this gentleman’s life.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Understanding your concerns, which are valid; what would be your opinion if you were in this gentleman’s place?<o:p></o:p>

.

Misty02
01-28-2012, 13:08
You are correct that someone who is determined to die will find a way, but drugs, cutting wrists, & "a bunch of other things" have a much higher survival rate than a bullet in the brain.

I don’t dispute that; although I attribute the survival rate less to the tool/method used and more to the person’s commitment to do proper research and being committed in achieving their goals. I could provide at least one case where a person failed to achieve their goals by putting a bullet in the brain (found it the other day).
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
Ironically, many serious accidents involving drunk drivers result in death of others and not that of the drunk driver himself. Is that supposed to prove that driving while intoxicated doesn't result in that person’s death?<o:p></o:p>

.

Jerry
01-28-2012, 13:59
My one thought on this...many people who commit suicide take others with them. Mothers who believe no one else can care for her children as she would, kills them before killing herself since she can't bear to leave them behind to be cared for by another. A husband gets angry, kills his wife and then himself. A crazy lunatic who goes to a public gathering, opens fire, kills several people and manages to shoot himself...still doesn't lessen the impact of the loss to the families of his victims.

What I love about that line of thinking, that “EXCUSE”, for the government “stealing” peoples firearms is just emotional flimflam to take guns. Take what you’ve just stated; insert automobile, sward or machete etc. etc. for the emotionally charged word gun then tell me why only firearms are taken. Also tell me why they are “stolen” and not left in the custody of a willing relative. Tell me why in almost every case the owner or family nver get the firearms back. :dunno:

Javelin
01-28-2012, 14:09
What I love about that line of thinking, that “EXCUSE”, for the government “stealing” peoples firearms is just emotional flimflam to take guns. Take what you’ve just stated; insert automobile, sward or machete etc. etc. for the emotionally charged word gun then tell me why only firearms are taken. Also tell me why they are “stolen” and not left in the custody of a willing relative. Tell me why in almost every case the owner or family nver get the firearms back. :dunno:

I didn't realize that they almost never get their property back. What do the Policia do with them? :faint:

Clay1
01-28-2012, 15:02
To the original OP, thanks for helping the guy through a tough time.

A suggestion for next time around though: think about talking with the family to have the firearms removed from the home to a different relatives. Think about the investment that the family has in those firearms. Many of us old guys who have been growing a collection for years and years; that collection represents a sizeable investment. Even if the guns had to be sold one day, better than the state having them.

Misty02
01-28-2012, 15:32
To the original OP, thanks for helping the guy through a tough time.

A suggestion for next time around though: think about talking with the family to have the firearms removed from the home to a different relatives. Think about the investment that the family has in those firearms. Many of us old guys who have been growing a collection for years and years; that collection represents a sizeable investment. Even if the guns had to be sold one day, better than the state having them.

Your comment has led me to a question I don’t know the answer to. Some people do, in fact, have considerable amount of money invested in firearms. This is not a case where the firearms are retained as evidence in connection with a crime. In a case like this one, if the firearms are taken away by the police, are there recourses available to the family to claim them?

.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>

Clay1
01-28-2012, 15:54
Your comment has led me to a question I don’t know the answer to. Some people do, in fact, have considerable amount of money invested in firearms. This is not a case where the firearms are retained as evidence in connection with a crime. In a case like this one, if the firearms are taken away by the police, are there recourses available to the family to claim them?

.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>

If it did happen to me, since I am an NRA benefactor life member, I would tell my family to contact the NRA's legal department and ask about my families options to recover my property. Those who are not NRA members (first - you should join now) second contact your attorney.

Not a great answer but will be listening to other's resplies.

Javelin
01-28-2012, 15:56
If it did happen to me, since I am an NRA benefactor life member, I would tell my family to contact the NRA's legal department and ask about my families options to recover my property. Those who are not NRA members (first - you should join now) second contact your attorney.

Not a great answer but will be listening to other's resplies.

You think the NRA is going to help you>? Serious question :wavey:

Clay1
01-28-2012, 16:05
You think the NRA is going to help you>? Serious question :wavey:

They have helped many before get their guns back. http://www.ohioccw.org/200603183558/nra-negotiates-agreement-for-return-of-confiscated-firearms.html

If nothing else they would be a resource to point me in the right direction. So yes, I think that they are a good resource.

Jerry
01-28-2012, 17:21
I didn't realize that they almost never get their property back. What do the Policia do with them? :faint:

Depends on the local. They are held in a property room for some length of time. If a person goes to the DA, judge. Court and proves they are stable, (kind of hard to do if one has had them take because one admitted to wanting to commit seaside) they “can” get them back. In most cases after a set time (different in different places) they are usually destroyed. Here they used to be dumped is a pass (Pass Regalese) between Lake Pontchartrain and the Gulf of Mexico in 90 feet of salt water. I don’t know how they destroy them now.

:arg: The guns that were “stolen” by LEOs during Katrina were kept in the NOPD property room where most rusted beyond repair. If yours were “stolen” by LEOs and you could “PROVE” that it/they belonged to you a law suit brought by GOA then carried on by the NRA forced NOPD to return them. Some were kept by the CHP and Illinois police that “stole” them while supposedly helping “The People” of New Orleans. Probably being used as thrown down guns till this day.

Jerry
01-28-2012, 17:38
To the original OP, thanks for helping the guy through a tough time.

A suggestion for next time around though: think about talking with the family to have the firearms removed from the home to a different relatives. Think about the investment that the family has in those firearms. Many of us old guys who have been growing a collection for years and years; that collection represents a sizeable investment. Even if the guns had to be sold one day, better than the state having them.

One reason the government “stealing” someone’s firearms and people helping, even supporting them doing so really, I mean really upsets me is… I have firearms that belonged to my father. Some were gifts from my deceased mother. Some were gifts from my brother. They have sentimental value that no amount of money can replace. All it takes is for some Dr. or even a neighbor to say; Hey that guys crazy. Then I’d have the fight of my life trying to get them back. Chances are if I ever did they would be a pile of junk. See my post about those “stolen” during Katrina. That is what I think about when I hear of other having theirs take. :steamed:

Rally Vincent
01-28-2012, 17:39
Terrible. Just terrible. People who want to kill themselves do it.
I can't imagine the loops this poor guy is going to have to jump through to get his firearms back. Hopefully they won't rust up or "vanish" in some store room somewhere before he can do that.

Misty02
01-28-2012, 17:48
I just remembered a story I read some time ago and was able to find it: http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2010-07-15/news/fl-aclu-sues-for-seized-weapons-20100715_1_aclu-petitions-court-guns-sheriff (http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2010-07-15/news/fl-aclu-sues-for-seized-weapons-20100715_1_aclu-petitions-court-guns-sheriff)<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>


Content of the article deleted, just in case. The link provided has the whole thing.

<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
I wonder if he ever got his firearms back or if he was ever allowed to buy a replacement. Does anyone know?<o:p></o:p>

ETA: Should have searched more. Thankfully he did! Interesting articles too. :)
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2010-07-22/news/fl-gun-guy-wins-20100721_1_mr-weinstein-guns-seized

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/state/pompano-beach-man-85-gets-back-pistols-seized-814982.html
.

Jerry
01-28-2012, 18:19
I just remembered a story I read some time ago and was able to find it: http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2010-07-15/news/fl-aclu-sues-for-seized-weapons-20100715_1_aclu-petitions-court-guns-sheriff (http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2010-07-15/news/fl-aclu-sues-for-seized-weapons-20100715_1_aclu-petitions-court-guns-sheriff)<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
I wonder if he ever got his firearms back or if he was ever allowed to buy a replacement. Does anyone know?<o:p></o:p>

ETA: Should have searched more. Thankfully he did! Interesting articles too. :)
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2010-07-22/news/fl-gun-guy-wins-20100721_1_mr-weinstein-guns-seized

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/state/pompano-beach-man-85-gets-back-pistols-seized-814982.html
.

I was getting ready to post… I wonder how many $$$$ is cost him to get them? Then I saw that the ACLU helped and was going to say that I couldn’t believe that. So I read the other piece before posting. “An ACLU spokesman said he believes this is the first time in the organization's 90-year history that it has helped a gun owner retrieve his weapons from law enforcement.” That I DO believe but still can't believe the ACLU actually helped him. Is Hell expecting snow?

Misty02
01-28-2012, 18:33
I was getting ready to post… I wonder how many $$$$ is cost him to get them? Then I saw that the ACLU helped and was going to say that I couldn’t believe that. So I read the other piece before posting. “An ACLU spokesman said he believes this is the first time in the organization's 90-year history that it has helped a gun owner retrieve his weapons from law enforcement.” That I DO believe but still can't believe the ACLU actually helped him. Is Hell expecting snow?

That day, it probably did. It is not often that people in South Florida get to wear boots and winter attire, two blessings from a single occurrence. :supergrin:

.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>

Berto
01-28-2012, 18:52
A mental adjudication/committal is damn near impossible to remove once its done.
I have friend who has been trying to get his guns back for almost a decade.

Gunnut 45/454
01-28-2012, 21:14
Misty02
Not true there are alot of states, NY,NJ,MA,IL, CA off the top of my head, that have destroy laws on the books- all firearms collected must be destroyed! Unless they have a valid evidentail purpose. And they will not give them to anyone but the OWNER once police have custody.

Javelin
01-28-2012, 23:31
Misty02
Not true there are alot of states, NY,NJ,MA,IL, CA off the top of my head, that have destroy laws on the books- all firearms collected must be destroyed! Unless they have a valid evidentail purpose. And they will not give them to anyone but the OWNER once police have custody.

So they give them back right? This crap where the Policia come in and take property and destroy property that is worth a hell of a lot of money is ridiculous. It expensive property. They give it back once the case is cleared right????

Misty02
01-29-2012, 04:41
Misty02
Not true there are alot of states, NY,NJ,MA,IL, CA off the top of my head, that have destroy laws on the books- all firearms collected must be destroyed! Unless they have a valid evidentail purpose. And they will not give them to anyone but the OWNER once police have custody.

I’m not sure which part you are stating is not true; I don’t know which state have laws that require the destruction of firearms seized. I also don’t know if a family member can claim them, that is why I asked what recourses the family would have to claim seized property that would have a monetary value assigned. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
You mean to tell me that firearms not considered evidence in a crime but seized because the owner is no longer qualified to possess them are destroyed, even when there are living family members that may not reside in the same household claiming them and they are legally able to possess them? (This is what I was inquiring about)<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
We should probably stick to most other normal states, the ones you mentioned are totally in left field and unlikely to be the norm everywhere else.<o:p></o:p>

.

Misty02
01-29-2012, 04:51
So they give them back right? This crap where the Policia come in and take property and destroy property that is worth a hell of a lot of money is ridiculous. It expensive property. They give it back once the case is cleared right????

He may never be cleared to own or possess again, Javelin; that is why I wanted to know if a family member could claim them. In my mind it would work much as if the person was deceased, their property would be given to the next of kin. I don’t know if firearms of an individual that is living but no longer qualified to own and posses is treated the same way.

I guess it behooves a person seeking mental health assistance to give all their firearms to a family member as a gift before they go in, just in case? If all goes well they can be given back as a gift? I don’t know. Of course, that might only work if the person goes in voluntarily, otherwise there might be no time to get rid of them in advance.

I would sure be upset if my kids didn’t get an opportunity to keep them and they be destroyed.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>.<o:p></o:p>

Gunnut 45/454
01-29-2012, 11:45
Misty02
Yep unless the ownership was transfered to another family member prior to Pych detention/courts mandated ruling - those guns will not be given to anyone. But destroyed without compensation. I suggest you all do a search of your state laws, ask your AG on this as each state will be different. This was in OR right? I do believe OR is also a sate that destroys the firearms. This is all the work of the anti-gun folks one of there little backdoor actions that go under the radar to remove guns. Remember there push last year to have ederly folks get rid of there guns- by having there children declear them unfit to own. Same crap.

Misty02
01-29-2012, 11:58
Misty02
Yep unless the ownership was transfered to another family member prior to Pych detention/courts mandated ruling - those guns will not be given to anyone. But destroyed without compensation. I suggest you all do a search of your state laws, ask your AG on this as each state will be different. This was in OR right? I do believe OR is also a sate that destroys the firearms. This is all the work of the anti-gun folks one of there little backdoor actions that go under the radar to remove guns. Remember there push last year to have ederly folks get rid of there guns- by having there children declear them unfit to own. Same crap.

The case I posted happened in Florida. A little check in the OP’s past posts, where he mentions his Florida CHL (which is not called that, but whatever), leads me to believe what he mentioned may have happened in FL as well.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
In an attempt to personalize a similar situation, I’m thinking……. There are 4 firearm owners in my home, 3 of which are licensed to carry. Good luck trying to determine what belongs to whom; although, they do seem to be all mine when it’s time to clean them. :crying:<o:p></o:p>

.

Jerry
01-29-2012, 13:36
The case I posted happened in Florida. A little check in the OP’s past posts, where he mentions his Florida CHL (which is not called that, but whatever), leads me to believe what he mentioned may have happened in FL as well.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
In an attempt to personalize a similar situation, I’m thinking……. There are 4 firearm owners in my home, 3 of which are licensed to carry. Good luck trying to determine what belongs to whom; although, they do seem to be all mine when it’s time to clean them. :crying:<o:p></o:p>

.



I really doesn’t matter which one’s are yours and which ones belong to others. If someone, anyone in the household says the wrong thing to the wrong person they’ll take them all. Like what started this thread, they “must” protect “the person from themselves” :upeyes: and the entire world from them. Sooooooo, sorry “we’re taking them all. If you want them back we’ll see you in court. :puking:

Misty02
01-29-2012, 14:04
I really doesn’t matter which one’s are yours and which ones belong to others. If someone, anyone in the household says the wrong thing to the wrong person they’ll take them all. Like what started this thread, they “must” protect “the person from themselves” :upeyes: and the entire world from them. Sooooooo, sorry “we’re taking them all. If you want them back we’ll see you in court. :puking:


You’re not telling me what I want to hear, so I’m not liking you very much at this moment, Jerry! :rant::honkie::miff:<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
(j/k…kinda ... :embarassed: )<o:p></o:p>

MedicOni
01-29-2012, 14:44
I say you did the right thing. I lost the girl I loved to a firearm related suicide, my firearm... If I had been told that I could give up all of my guns, or someone asked me to give them up because she showed signs of being that depressed and unhappy, I would have done it in a heartbeat.
I have also seen more than my fair share when PD didn't take a suicide threat seriously and left weapons at the victims house, when they got back, they used them on themselves.

Misty02
01-29-2012, 15:14
I say you did the right thing. I lost the girl I loved to a firearm related suicide, my firearm... If I had been told that I could give up all of my guns, or someone asked me to give them up because she showed signs of being that depressed and unhappy, I would have done it in a heartbeat.
I have also seen more than my fair share when PD didn't take a suicide threat seriously and left weapons at the victims house, when they got back, they used them on themselves.

I’m truly sorry for your loss, MedicOni. I cannot begin to imagine what you have gone through. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
While it may be difficult for you to see, she was ill and would have likely found another way had your removed her access to your firearms. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
It is not the tool that is the issue, it is the desire and the will to end one’s life or that of another that is. Unless you lock someone in a padded room or have that person under watch 24/7 it would be difficult (if at all possible) to impose on their will.<o:p></o:p>

.

Jerry
01-29-2012, 15:59
You’re not telling me what I want to hear, so I’m not liking you very much at this moment, Jerry! :rant::honkie::miff:<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
(j/k…kinda ... :embarassed: )<o:p></o:p>

That’s the story of my life. :crying:


;)

Misty02
01-29-2012, 16:09
That’s the story of my life. :crying:


;)

I get over things quickly (most times), you’re forgiven. :supergrin:

Jerry
01-29-2012, 17:12
I get over things quickly (most times), you’re forgiven. :supergrin:

:jumpingjacks: Do I get a hug? :smootchie:

Misty02
01-29-2012, 18:05
:jumpingjacks: Do I get a hug? :smootchie:

It is funny you said that….If you only knew! :embarassed:<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
My mother spent most of her life apologizing to others (until I got married and moved out) for being what she called “antisocial” because I wouldn’t hug and kiss people (even family –not those that lived under the same roof).<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
One of the many reasons I love this country is because I’m not so weird here. In Spain it is not only customary to hug and kiss everyone but to kiss both cheeks (including people you don’t know)!
<o:p></o:p>
Perhaps this is the wrong thread to make such confessions; you never know who is reading and what can end up costing you your firearms.
:alex:<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
I guess an internet hug would be ok though. :supergrin::hugs:

.<o:p></o:p>

Jerry
01-29-2012, 20:27
It is funny you said that….If you only knew! :embarassed:<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
My mother spent most of her life apologizing to others (until I got married and moved out) for being what she called “antisocial” because I wouldn’t hug and kiss people (even family –not those that lived under the same roof).<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
One of the many reasons I love this country is because I’m not so weird here. In Spain it is not only customary to hug and kiss everyone but to kiss both cheeks (including people you don’t know)!
<o:p></o:p>
Perhaps this is the wrong thread to make such confessions; you never know who is reading and what can end up costing you your firearms.
:alex:<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
I guess an internet hug would be ok though. :supergrin::hugs:

.<o:p></o:p>

Around here everyone hugs everyone. Everyone except my best friend that is. He’s a little homophobic so I keep threatening to kiss him. :rofl: Everyone in the family hugs even the guys. The ladies all get hugs and kisses. :supergrin:

Oh! Almost forgot... ((((HUG))))

John Rambo
01-29-2012, 22:56
It is funny you said that….If you only knew! :embarassed:<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
My mother spent most of her life apologizing to others (until I got married and moved out) for being what she called “antisocial” because I wouldn’t hug and kiss people (even family –not those that lived under the same roof).<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
One of the many reasons I love this country is because I’m not so weird here. In Spain it is not only customary to hug and kiss everyone but to kiss both cheeks (including people you don’t know)!
<o:p></o:p>
Perhaps this is the wrong thread to make such confessions; you never know who is reading and what can end up costing you your firearms.
:alex:<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
I guess an internet hug would be ok though. :supergrin::hugs:

.<o:p></o:p>

I've got friends who do that. Latin types kiss on one cheek. I don't mind it, because its always women. But some of those from across the ocean, they really start with those kisses. Which begs the question...how many kisses can you give them before it starts to become weird by their standards?

Misty02
01-30-2012, 02:43
Around here everyone hugs everyone. Everyone except my best friend that is. He’s a little homophobic so I keep threatening to kiss him. :rofl: Everyone in the family hugs even the guys. The ladies all get hugs and kisses. :supergrin:

Oh! Almost forgot... ((((HUG))))


:rofl: Shame on you!!! Poor guy! <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
I can relate though, the ongoing joke and threats from anyone that knows me (my best friends are the worst on this). “Fine, I’ll just HUG you then!” worse threat? “I’ll put my arms around you and KISS you!

On my birthday, at work, a group hid downstairs waiting for me to come out. I ran all over the parking lot trying to escape them until I gave up and braced myself for the inevitable. It was either that or never get to my vehicle and be allowed to leave. :scared:

.<o:p></o:p>

Misty02
01-30-2012, 02:59
I've got friends who do that. Latin types kiss on one cheek. I don't mind it, because its always women. But some of those from across the ocean, they really start with those kisses. Which begs the question...how many kisses can you give them before it starts to become weird by their standards?

:rofl: Let’s see, at a minimum, that would be TWO kisses when you first meet (one for each cheek) and TWO more kisses when you are leaving. BUT, there is a catch! If you stand too long by the door still talking, then there would be TWO more kisses when you leave for real because the prior two have expired!<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Now, tell me that is not just plain awful!<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
My husband and boys are just as mushy, which is fine, I enjoy hugging and kissing them most of the time too. My daughter is just like me though. When she was little people (mostly family) would ask why I allowed her to be so rude as she too has the 3 foot personal space rule (she doesn’t come into people’s space, she doesn’t let others come into hers). They would pause for a second and remember "Oh, right, YOU are no better!"
<o:p></o:p>
Men that have similar issues are not looked upon favorably in our culture, but for a woman to be anti-hug and an anti-kiss? Oh boy! She’ll be labeled with all sort of anti-social names.

.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>

SpringerTGO
01-30-2012, 13:01
A suicidal man commits himself, and has his weapons taken away. Sounds right to me. Sure, there are other ways to kill himself, but at least it won't be with a gun. And the stuff about letting the guy "off himself" is ignorant. The guy went looking for help. Part of the help is taking away his simple means of suicide. Somehow I tend to think the guy would prefer keeping his life to keeping his guns. He did check himself in.

Are people here so narrow minded as to insist that mentally ill people should not lose their 2a rights?

All of the stuff about 2a rights is a weak argument at best. When are people on this forum going to get used to the fact that having a "right" is rarely having an "unregulated right"? We have the right to free speech, but try yelling "fire" in a theater. You might own property, but you can't just build whatever you want on it. I could give 100's of examples.

Jerry
01-30-2012, 13:45
A suicidal man commits himself, and has his weapons taken away. Sounds right to me. Sure, there are other ways to kill himself, but at least it won't be with a gun. And the stuff about letting the guy "off himself" is ignorant. The guy went looking for help. Part of the help is taking away his simple means of suicide. Somehow I tend to think the guy would prefer keeping his life to keeping his guns. He did check himself in.

Are people here so narrow minded as to insist that mentally ill people should not lose their 2a rights?

All of the stuff about 2a rights is a weak argument at best. When are people on this forum going to get used to the fact that having a "right" is rarely having an "unregulated right"? We have the right to free speech, but try yelling "fire" in a theater. You might own property, but you can't just build whatever you want on it. I could give 100's of examples.

No! What is stupid is one believing its ok for the government to “steal” people’s property. They don’t contact family members to offer them the property they would inherit if he had indeed offed himself. In fact if he had committed suicide they more than likely would seized his firearms anyway. Would you be so agreeable about them seizing his automobile? How about just taking his home? After all he could use the gas or electricity to harm himself.

It’s not the idea that they are trying to stop him from committing suicide or harming others. It's the idea that they use it as an EXCUSE to STEAL property. If it were really about protecting they would take anything and everything that could be used to harm him or others. Then everyone would call it what it is… THEFT. The argument isn't about the 2nd. It's about THEFT. Seems that concept is a little hard for some to comprehend.

SpringerTGO
01-30-2012, 14:29
Sorry Jerry, but I disagree as far as mental illness goes.

Depression often goes along with other serious mental illness.
I have a very close friend whose son is bipolar. Perfect grades in school, college, etc. Physics and math. Chess club, soccer team, etc. Perfect son.
He had is first psychotic break when he was 21. Multiple stays in psych wards, because as is typical, he doesn't believe he is bipolar, and refuses his meds.
He is living at home with his family. When he is "normal", he's great to be around. When he goes through a "break", he's scarey. The police recommended a lock box for the kitchen knives.
One of the first symptoms this kid exhibited was depression.

There is absolutely no way this guy should be able to own (or have access to) guns.

As to the government stealing property, they do it every day. Try not paying taxes. They can steal clothing, furniture, whatever. Try not paying registration on your car and driving it.
Our "rights" only go so far. We basically rent everything we think we own. And we only have rights as long as we follow the guidelines "our government" insists we follow.

Misty02
01-30-2012, 16:34
Sorry Jerry, but I disagree as far as mental illness goes.

Depression often goes along with other serious mental illness.
I have a very close friend whose son is bipolar. Perfect grades in school, college, etc. Physics and math. Chess club, soccer team, etc. Perfect son.
He had is first psychotic break when he was 21. Multiple stays in psych wards, because as is typical, he doesn't believe he is bipolar, and refuses his meds.
He is living at home with his family. When he is "normal", he's great to be around. When he goes through a "break", he's scarey. The police recommended a lock box for the kitchen knives.
One of the first symptoms this kid exhibited was depression.

There is absolutely no way this guy should be able to own (or have access to) guns.

As to the government stealing property, they do it every day. Try not paying taxes. They can steal clothing, furniture, whatever. Try not paying registration on your car and driving it.
Our "rights" only go so far. We basically rent everything we think we own. And we only have rights as long as we follow the guidelines "our government" insists we follow.

The kid you mention in your anecdote is mentally ill as such disqualified. By your description he sounds dangerous and perhaps even violent. It sounds as if his family is doing well by locking all the knives; I hope they hide the car keys and it seems he wouldn’t qualify to own guns.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Now, how is that even remotely similar to someone that feels depressed/down, had some thoughts (there is a difference between thinking about it and actually doing it) about suicide and voluntarily sought help from professionals? That’s akin comparing a knee scrape with an aneurism.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
No one is suggesting that people that are mentally ill and violent or dangerous should not continue to be disqualified. <o:p></o:p>

.

SpringerTGO
01-30-2012, 16:48
The kid you mention in your anecdote is mentally ill as such disqualified. By your description he sounds dangerous and perhaps even violent. It sounds as if his family is doing well by locking all the knives; I hope they hide the car keys and it seems he wouldn’t qualify to own guns.<!--?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /--><o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Now, how is that even remotely similar to someone that feels depressed/down, had some thoughts (there is a difference between thinking about it and actually doing it) about suicide and voluntarily sought help from professionals? That’s akin comparing a knee scrape with an aneurism.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
No one is suggesting that people that are mentally ill and violent or dangerous should not continue to be disqualified. <o:p></o:p>

.

Misty,
Everyone has "thoughts" like that at one time or another in our lives, and some of us even seek counseling. But that is a far cry from checking into a psych hospital. Because of my friends illness, I've learned first hand a lot more about mental illness than I ever wanted to.
As far as I'm concerned, if someone checks into a psych unit, and the professionals say "take away his guns", I'm fine with that. You can't have it both ways. If you are too ill to take care of yourself, and have to check into a psych unit, you should have to fight to have a gun when you get out.

Look at what mentally ill people have cost legitimate gun owners in recent times. The Brady Bill for one thing. Almost all of the political assassinations (and attempts) in the U.S. in recent times, almost always followed by anti gun legislation.

IhRedrider
01-30-2012, 17:31
When are people on this forum going to get used to the fact that having a "right" is rarely having an "unregulated right"?

The people on this forum who understand what I RIGHT is will never give up those RIGHTS for anything. "Unregulated right" is there any other kind? If it is regulated then it is a privilege. What needs to be regulated is Illegal behavior. That is behavior that infringes upon other peoples RIGHTS.

We have the right to free speech, but try yelling "fire" in a theater.

You have the RIGHT to yell fire in a theater, however if by your actions someone suffers loss and it is determined in a court of law that you were negligent or malicious, then you will be held accountable. That is the deference between a RIGHT and a regulated behavior

As far as I'm concerned, if someone checks into a psych unit, and the professionals say "take away his guns", I'm fine with that.

I would venture to say that the only people that think it is acceptable for you to be "fine" with taking away another mans right would be other liberty hating, rights stealing, bullying cowards. That's my opinion, might even be other people opinion.


you should have to fight to have a gun when you get out.

I'll do you one better, I'm ready right now to do what it takes to protect my RIGHTS. Are you?

SpringerTGO
01-30-2012, 17:42
The people on this forum who understand what I RIGHT is will never give up those RIGHTS for anything. "Unregulated right" is there any other kind? If it is regulated then it is a privilege. What needs to be regulated is Illegal behavior. That is behavior that infringes upon other peoples RIGHTS.



You have the RIGHT to yell fire in a theater, however if by your actions someone suffers loss and it is determined in a court of law that you were negligent or malicious, then you will be held accountable. That is the deference between a RIGHT and a regulated behavior



I would venture to say that the only people that think it is acceptable for you to be "fine" with taking away another mans right would be other liberty hating, rights stealing, bullying cowards. That's my opinion, might even be other people opinion.




I'll do you one better, I'm ready right now to do what it takes to protect my RIGHTS. Are you?

Wow, I didn't know there were tough talking guys on the internet. You are a guy, right? Let me guess... older than 12 chronologically, but still a little slow.

Just to be perfectly clear, I AM 100% FOR DISARMING MENTALLY ILL PEOPLE.

Misty02
01-30-2012, 18:14
Misty,
Everyone has "thoughts" like that at one time or another in our lives, and some of us even seek counseling. But that is a far cry from checking into a psych hospital. Because of my friends illness, I've learned first hand a lot more about mental illness than I ever wanted to.
As far as I'm concerned, if someone checks into a psych unit, and the professionals say "take away his guns", I'm fine with that. You can't have it both ways. If you are too ill to take care of yourself, and have to check into a psych unit, you should have to fight to have a gun when you get out.

Look at what mentally ill people have cost legitimate gun owners in recent times. The Brady Bill for one thing. Almost all of the political assassinations (and attempts) in the U.S. in recent times, almost always followed by anti gun legislation.

That isn’t quite what happened here based on the OP’s account, which I can neither confirm nor deny. By the sound of it, the patient sought help for the thoughts he had been having as he didn’t consider them normal. The OP, appears to have befriended him, in what appears to be a capacity other than his doctor, both shared a conversation where firearms came up. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Going by the timeline as posted, it appears the gentleman tried to check himself out, likely after finding out that the private conversation he had with another enthusiast led to the confiscation of his firearms.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
What I don’t know is the outcome; did a judge determine that this gentleman posed no danger to himself or others? Were his weapons returned to him or to another family member? <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Does it not disturb you that a conversation with a total stranger can lead to the confiscation of your property without due process and intervention of the courts? Do you know how simple it is to Baker Act someone and have them involuntarily locked up for 72 hours? All it takes is a call, and it can be done by someone that doesn’t like you without having to provide any evidence. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
I understand that you, and us all, know of some cases where people that were mentally ill got a hold of weapons and committed terrible acts (whether personally or from news stories); however, how many of those have truly mental chemical imbalances and how many are just plain evil and playing the system? Innocent until proven guilty applies more than to just crimes, or at least it should when the freedom and rights of an individual are involved.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
BTW “everyone” doesn’t have thoughts about committing suicide. It is either not normal, or I’m not normal for not having them.<o:p></o:p>

.

Gunhaver
01-30-2012, 18:20
Wow, I didn't know there were tough talking guys on the internet. You are a guy, right? Let me guess... older than 12 chronologically, but still a little slow.

Just to be perfectly clear, I AM 100% FOR DISARMING MENTALLY ILL PEOPLE.

And if the people who set the standard for what is mentally ill also happen to be notoriously anti-gun then I suppose you'd be alright with that as well? I think the fact that they came to this guy's house focusing only on his guns is very telling of their opinion of guns.

It's an easy call when someone is sitting in a pool of urine blabbering to themselves about mind control chemicals in jet exhaust or shrugging off bean bag rounds while swing a sword at cops. As you know there's plenty of push to have that definition expanded to people who have been diagnosed with PTSD or had a bad turn of events cause a bout of depression. I wouldn't be surprised if they classified gun ownership itself a mental illness. You know there are plenty who would say it is.

IhRedrider
01-30-2012, 18:23
Just to be perfectly clear, I AM 100% FOR DISARMING MENTALLY ILL PEOPLE.

And you're just the man to determine who qualifies as a mentally ill person? I think that if it was up to me, I would consider you mentally ill based upon your posts. Want to give up your guns?

Wow, I didn't know there were tough talking guys on the internet. You are a guy, right? Let me guess... older than 12 chronologically, but still a little slow.

You are in over your head. If you wish to sling insults, PM me and we can find a better venue if that is what you want. If you're close enough we could even get together and discuss it in person. On second thought let's not waste time typing insults.

Misty02
01-30-2012, 18:29
Wow, I didn't know there were tough talking guys on the internet. You are a guy, right? Let me guess... older than 12 chronologically, but still a little slow.

Just to be perfectly clear, I AM 100% FOR DISARMING MENTALLY ILL PEOPLE.

Please define “mentally ill”. If you can’t, who can? Would you say that a veteran that suffers from PTSD who prefers to be alone and suffers from nightmares is “mentally ill”? Would a person that is sad and labeled as "depressed" be considered "mentally ill"?
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
We throw around the label of “mentally ill” without knowing what it means. I am ok with not allowing those who have displayed violent behavior/acts toward themselves or others to not have certain freedoms. They actually should either be in jail or a mental institution, but what do I know? We let rapists out of prison to roam around free to harm others. A child is disobedient and no one looks at the parent’s ability to parent, instead the child is labeled with ADD and medicated.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Please do define “mental illness” for me and which kind of mental illness would qualify to have a person’s rights removed by the rest of us.

.<o:p></o:p>

SpringerTGO
01-30-2012, 18:30
That isn’t quite what happened here based on the OP’s account, which I can neither confirm nor deny. By the sound of it, the patient sought help for the thoughts he had been having as he didn’t consider them normal. The OP, appears to have befriended him, in what appears to be a capacity other than his doctor, both shared a conversation where firearms came up. <!--?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /--><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Going by the timeline as posted, it appears the gentleman tried to check himself out, likely after finding out that the private conversation he had with another enthusiast led to the confiscation of his firearms.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
What I don’t know is the outcome; did a judge determine that this gentleman posed no danger to himself or others? Were his weapons returned to him or to another family member? <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Does it not disturb you that a conversation with a total stranger can lead to the confiscation of your property without due process and intervention of the courts? Do you know how simple it is to Baker Act someone and have them involuntarily locked up for 72 hours? All it takes is a call, and it can be done by someone that doesn’t like you without having to provide any evidence. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
I understand that you, and us all, know of some cases where people that were mentally ill got a hold of weapons and committed terrible acts (whether personally or from news stories); however, how many of those have truly mental chemical imbalances and how many are just plain evil and playing the system? Innocent until proven guilty applies more than to just crimes, or at least it should when the freedom and rights of an individual are involved.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
BTW “everyone” doesn’t have thoughts about committing suicide. It is either not normal, or I’m not normal for not having them.<o:p></o:p>

.

OK Misty, I'll grant that not everyone has suicidal thoughts at one time or another, but it is not uncommon.

Bipolar, schitzo, and any number of similar disorders are what I would consider mental illness. In the case of bipolar and schitzo, even doctors have a hard time telling them apart. Even some of the "lower level" mental illnesses are being linked to those. And depression is one of the symptoms. There is also an extremely high suicide risk to those.
I doubt that the OP (on his own) could possibly have had the patients guns taken, unless the OP is the patients primary psychiatrist. He might have said something to the psychiatrist, but ultimately it takes a heck of a lot to take away someones rights.
Not even a psychiatrist can keep someone in a hospital who is not a danger to himself or others. LEO's can't arrest someone who is completely psychotic unless he is a danger to himself or others.
If a hospital tries to keep someone locked up, they have what amounts to a patient court, where the same criteria has to be met.

So as far as taking away rights from a psychiatric patient, it's not quite as simple as the OP is making it out to be.
If they took his weapons, and if he is unable to get them back, they have serious cause.

Misty02
01-30-2012, 18:39
Here is the thing, gentlemen. If you tell me that someone is “mentally ill” and not competent to own tools known to be effective for self-defense; then as citizen whose life is in danger from that individual, I demand that he/she not be allowed to ever get behind a wheel, never be allowed to touch a drop of alcohol, never be allowed to be exposed to others where in a fit of rage they can use any object at their disposal to harm innocents. If they are too dangerous to be allowed to protect themselves, then they are too dangerous to be around me and my family, period!<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>

.

Gunnut 45/454
01-30-2012, 18:55
SpringerTGO
Here's how easy it is to get your guns! I can file a complaint with Social services that you are suicidal! They come out and interview you- you make one verbal mistake and guess what you are now going to be involuteerly put in the mental ward -you have just lost your right to ever own a firearm again. Never mind someone made a false statement about you just the fact you were involunteerly put there makes you unable to own. How you going to feel then? To know your guns are gone and you can't get them back. Your not going to get paid for them-nothing! Oh don't forget they have the other law as well- piss off your wife or live-in GF and all she has to do is say you hit her - By By guns!

Misty02
01-30-2012, 19:00
OK Misty, I'll grant that not everyone has suicidal thoughts at one time or another, but it is not uncommon.

Bipolar, schitzo, and any number of similar disorders are what I would consider mental illness. In the case of bipolar and schitzo, even doctors have a hard time telling them apart. Even some of the "lower level" mental illnesses are being linked to those. And depression is one of the symptoms. There is also an extremely high suicide risk to those.
I doubt that the OP (on his own) could possibly have had the patients guns taken, unless the OP is the patients primary psychiatrist. He might have said something to the psychiatrist, but ultimately it takes a heck of a lot to take away someones rights.
Not even a psychiatrist can keep someone in a hospital who is not a danger to himself or others. LEO's can't arrest someone who is completely psychotic unless he is a danger to himself or others.
If a hospital tries to keep someone locked up, they have what amounts to a patient court, where the same criteria has to be met.

So as far as taking away rights from a psychiatric patient, it's not quite as simple as the OP is making it out to be.
If they took his weapons, and if he is unable to get them back, they have serious cause.

Red – I wouldn’t bet on that one.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Blue – not true. I became aware of a case where a mother-in-law called the police to report her daughter-in-law for having mentioned she was suicidal and also wanted to harm the children. The police immediately picked her up and Baker Acted her, she was held in a mental institution for the 72 hours allowed by law. Her children were removed and placed under the custody of the mother-in-law.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Shortly after her release the daughter-in-law got a lawyer and started suing everyone involved. It turns out that although being mighty ticked off this lady wasn’t crazy, suicidal or a danger to her children. BTW, she had to get other opinions, invest on doctors and lawyers to get her kids back. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
I don’t know the lady but something tells me that while she might not have been suicidal before the straw that broke the camel’s back, she was highly likely to be at least a bit homicidal after. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Her mother-in-law had no money so she really couldn’t hurt her financially much, others involved did have deeper pockets and everyone paid some. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
If that woman had owned any firearms, would it be your opinion that her firearms should have been taken away as well?<o:p></o:p>

Read a little about the Florida Baker Act. Remember that it is quite possible the OP's case took place in FL, as did the news story link I provided of the gentleman that had his firearms taken away after the death of his wife when out of frustration he said something wrong.
.

SpringerTGO
01-30-2012, 19:08
SpringerTGO
Here's how easy it is to get your guns! I can file a complaint with Social services that you are suicidal! They come out and interview you- you make one verbal mistake and guess what you are now going to be involuteerly put in the mental ward -you have just lost your right to ever own a firearm again. Never mind someone made a false statement about you just the fact you were involunteerly put there makes you unable to own. How you going to feel then? To know your guns are gone and you can't get them back. Your not going to get paid for them-nothing! Oh don't forget they have the other law as well- piss of your wife or live-in GF and all she has to do is say you hit her - By By guns!

That is total B.S.

A completely psychotic person cannot even be arrested or kept in a mental institution, unless they are a danger to themselves or others. An LEO can place someone in an institution for a 3 day observation, but they have to be released unless they meet that criteria. Even if a doctor believes they are a danger to themseves or others, they get a hearing in front of a panel that is basically on their side, and the doctors have to prove they meet that criteria.

In the case of my friends son, they could not even keep him. He is of legal age, and no threat to anyone if left on his own. The problem is, that if left on his own, he will be homeless, un-medicated, and psychotic. The danger is trying to house him and get him to take his meds.

What do you think the parents of the guy who shot Gifford went through?

IhRedrider..... you seem to take personal offense at all this talk about mental illness.
Perhaps you are off your meds? It's ok., nobody is going to hurt you. Go to your safe place.

ColdSteelNail
01-30-2012, 19:22
If I come to your mental health facility and you find I'm suicidal please have them take my guns.

Jerry
01-30-2012, 19:31
Sorry Jerry, but I disagree as far as mental illness goes.

The police recommended a lock box for the kitchen knives.

There is absolutely no way this guy should be able to own (or have access to) guns.

As to the government stealing property, they do it every day. Try not paying taxes. They can steal clothing, furniture, whatever. Try not paying registration on your car and driving it.
Our "rights" only go so far. We basically rent everything we think we own. And we only have rights as long as we follow the guidelines "our government" insists we follow.

Let me see if I understand your logic(?). They recommend a lock box for the knives but they could not recommend the same for any guns that should go to the family rather than them being STOLEN. And you justify their STEALING property by saying they STEAL everyday. If that line of thinking wasn't so scary it would be :rofl:

IhRedrider
01-30-2012, 20:06
IhRedrider..... you seem to take personal offense at all this talk about mental illness.
Perhaps you are off your meds? It's ok., nobody is going to hurt you. Go to your safe place.

Mental illness is not something that offends me. Thieves who try to steal men's rights offend me.

I'm not on med's, you can't speak to whether anyone is going to hurt me, I have guns and live in a safe place. And finally, my offer to you still stands, that is if you are man enough to take it.

Jerry
01-30-2012, 20:36
If y,ALL don’t want the thread locked and or infractions issued the personal attacks WILL stop.

SpringerTGO
01-31-2012, 00:19
Let me see if I understand your logic(?). They recommend a lock box for the knives but they could not recommend the same for any guns that should go to the family rather than them being STOLEN. And you justify their STEALING property by saying they STEAL everyday. If that line of thinking wasn't so scary it would be :rofl:

First off, Misty......
I said in my prior post, that if the police decide that you are a danger to yourself or others, they can keep you in the hospital for 3 days. But they can't keep you just for being psychotic.
As to whether her firearms should have been taken away, of course not. She wasn't mentally ill. They determined that at the hospital and released her. She's suing everyone.

Jerry...... I said the government steals ever day. I didn't say it was right, only that they do so.
We don't know the facts about how the guns were taken, or whether the suicidal man tried to get them back. We also don't know the policy of the state in which the guns were taken. Just because they were taken doesn't mean they wouldn't be returned.
Personally, I have family members who I wouldn't want to handle my property if I was in such a vulnerable place as a psych unit.

IhRedrider, I don't know why I am bothering, but in the interest of Glocktalk, I'll give it one more try. Then you can come to Utah to beat me up. I'll even type this slowly for you.
Where in any of my posts did I say I should have the authority to determine who is mentally ill?
I did say that doctors have to make that determination, and the patient has to be a danger to himself or others.
I also said that even after a doctor makes that determination, the patient gets a hearing in front of a citizen advocate group, which basically is looking out to make sure that the patient isn't being unfairly held.

Now if you really want to come to Utah because you disagree with me, have at it.

Jerry
01-31-2012, 01:05
Jerry...... I said the government steals ever day. I didn't say it was right, only that they do so.

Actually what you did was try to use the fact that they do as justification for them doing it with firearms.


We don't know the facts about how the guns were taken, or whether the suicidal man tried to get them back. We also don't know the policy of the state in which the guns were taken. Just because they were taken doesn't mean they wouldn't be returned.

I don’t know what dream world you live in but it is obvious you don’t know about what happens or how firearms seized are handled in just about “every” state. I can tell you that if they are seized because of mental issues its virtually imposable for that person to get them back. It’s just as hard for a family member to get them because they weren’t “the original owner”. In "most cases" it takes $$$$ to fight the system and usually it's a waste of time and $$$$.

Personally, I have family members who I wouldn't want to handle my property if I was in such a vulnerable place as a psych unit.

But you'd want the government to. :upeyes: Because YOU wouldn’t want something are would want something means everyone should follow suit?

I take it from your replies that you are ok with the government taking anything and everything from anyone if someone in government deems it “necessary”. Your sense of right and wrong is :toilet: Our forefathers fought a war over the government STEALING from the people.

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." William Pitt, 1783

Lastly!

IhRedrider, I don't know why I am bothering, but in the interest of Glocktalk, I'll give it one more try. Then you can come to Utah to beat me up. I'll even type this slowly for you.

Now if you really want to come to Utah because you disagree with me, have at it.

I posted a warning. Keep pushing you won’t like the outcome. Last warning!

Misty02
01-31-2012, 06:27
First off, Misty......
I said in my prior post, that if the police decide that you are a danger to yourself or others, they can keep you in the hospital for 3 days. But they can't keep you just for being psychotic.
As to whether her firearms should have been taken away, of course not. She wasn't mentally ill. They determined that at the hospital and released her. She's suing everyone.

Jerry...... I said the government steals ever day. I didn't say it was right, only that they do so.
We don't know the facts about how the guns were taken, or whether the suicidal man tried to get them back. We also don't know the policy of the state in which the guns were taken. Just because they were taken doesn't mean they wouldn't be returned.
Personally, I have family members who I wouldn't want to handle my property if I was in such a vulnerable place as a psych unit.

IhRedrider, I don't know why I am bothering, but in the interest of Glocktalk, I'll give it one more try. Then you can come to Utah to beat me up. I'll even type this slowly for you.
Where in any of my posts did I say I should have the authority to determine who is mentally ill?
I did say that doctors have to make that determination, and the patient has to be a danger to himself or others.
I also said that even after a doctor makes that determination, the patient gets a hearing in front of a citizen advocate group, which basically is looking out to make sure that the patient isn't being unfairly held.

Now if you really want to come to Utah because you disagree with me, have at it.

We actually do agree, to an extent. What I’ve seen happening is that the precautionary steps of removing children and/or firearms (we’ll stick to firearms since that is what this forum deals with) is done immediately without a court decision or actual foundation (in this case facts). It then becomes the burden of the citizen (financial, mental and emotional) to fight the courts to regain rights that should have not been lost in the first place. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Here is where it gets way too gray for me; I obviously don’t want anyone to be harmed. Should a person truly be a danger to themselves or others allowing them to proceed and do it would be reckless. The fine line and the one I object to loudly is when that isn’t the case. People say they are going to do many things, often said out of anger or frustration that they don’t really mean.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
The case of the gentleman I posted a link to is a clear example of that. His statement was one of frustration after 3 weeks of his wife’s ashes not showing up at the funeral. His firearms were taken away and it was an up-hill battle for him to get them back. Neither a doctor or a court had declared this man mentally ill or even suicidal, all he did was make the wrong comment at the wrong time, to the wrong person. Should this gentleman have had to go through all that?<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Those are the cases I’m mostly talking about, where a court has not stripped an individual of their rights but they are taken away anyway at someone’s whim, where without a lengthy and costly battle you cannot regain those rights.<o:p></o:p>

.

SpringerTGO
01-31-2012, 09:12
We actually do agree, to an extent. What I’ve seen happening is that the precautionary steps of removing children and/or firearms (we’ll stick to firearms since that is what this forum deals with) is done immediately without a court decision or actual foundation (in this case facts). It then becomes the burden of the citizen (financial, mental and emotional) to fight the courts to regain rights that should have not been lost in the first place. <!--?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /--><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Here is where it gets way too gray for me; I obviously don’t want anyone to be harmed. Should a person truly be a danger to themselves or others allowing them to proceed and do it would be reckless. The fine line and the one I object to loudly is when that isn’t the case. People say they are going to do many things, often said out of anger or frustration that they don’t really mean.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
The case of the gentleman I posted a link to is a clear example of that. His statement was one of frustration after 3 weeks of his wife’s ashes not showing up at the funeral. His firearms were taken away and it was an up-hill battle for him to get them back. Neither a doctor or a court had declared this man mentally ill or even suicidal, all he did was make the wrong comment at the wrong time, to the wrong person. Should this gentleman have had to go through all that?<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Those are the cases I’m mostly talking about, where a court has not stripped an individual of their rights but they are taken away anyway at someone’s whim, where without a lengthy and costly battle you cannot regain those rights.<o:p></o:p>

.

No doubt Misty, the system is far from perfect.
From my experience, it has actually been difficult to get a very ill person the help he needs. I've dealt with psychiatrists, hospital admins, LEO's, etc.
I would be willing to bet that the family of Loughner (Giffords attacker) went through similar things.
The U.S. is somehow leading the world with mental illness, and close to 7% of our population is dealing with some form of it.
Bipolar commonly doesn't show up until a person is an adult.
Ask the LEO's here, especially ones who deal with homeless, about the state of mental illness in this country, and ask even the most pro 2a LEO's on Glocktalk about whether these people should be carrying guns.
RhRider, you don't have to worry about all those guns being taken away though. We have neither the facilities or insurance to deal with it. So these people will quite often be able to hang on to their weapons.

Jerry
01-31-2012, 11:33
Bipolar commonly doesn't show up until a person is an adult.
Ask the LEO's here, especially ones who deal with homeless, about the state of mental illness in this country, and ask even the most pro 2a LEO's on Glocktalk about whether these people should be carrying guns.

That statement shows the problem with your reasoning(?) or reading comprehension(?) or I’m not quite sure what. No one has said that mentally ill people should be walking around carrying guns. What we have said over and over in many different ways, which for some reason doesn’t seem to be sinking in is… We have a problem with the government taking them without compensation. We have a problem with them being taken rather than being turned over to a “willing” relative. We have the same problem with the government taking anything from anyone that has committed no crime or done anything wrong. I thought I made that clear when I talked about the government taking their automobile or home. Evidently that wasn’t clear enough. :brickwall:

Javelin
01-31-2012, 11:44
That statement shows the problem with your reasoning(?) or reading comprehension(?) or I’m not quite sure what. No one has said that mentally ill people should be walking around carrying guns. What we have said over and over in many different ways, which for some reason doesn’t seem to be sinking in is… We have a problem with the government taking them without compensation. We have a problem with them being taken rather than being turned over to a “willing” relative. We have the same problem with the government taking anything from anyone that has committed no crime or done anything wrong. I thought I made that clear when I talked about the government taking their automobile or home. Evidently that wasn’t clear enough. :brickwall:

I just spoke with a friend of mine who has had some problems coming back from Iraq was told this week via a VA Rating decision that he is supposed to adhere to Brady Bill Public Law 103-159 second 924 A-2. What this means for him I have no clue.

He has had no felony convictions nor has he beat his wife... he's a good kid and served 2 tours in Iraq. He just went to the VA for treatment because he was a Marine. Now guess what? Apparently - per this little letter he received he and his young wife possibly cannot have any firearms? They live way out in Texas hill country.

Where was the trial? Where was the due process?

Seriously - how is this even legal or Constitutionally viable or even hold by the rights afforded by the Supreme Court to being able to be presented with the charges and being able to defend against those charges? Maybe someone can help him? Maybe he gets a lawyer I don't know.

:steamed:

SpringerTGO
01-31-2012, 11:44
That statement shows the problem with your reasoning(?) or reading comprehension(?) or I’m not quite sure what. No one has said that mentally ill people should be walking around carrying guns. What we have said over and over in many different ways, which for some reason doesn’t seem to be sinking in is… We have a problem with the government taking them without compensation. We have a problem with them being taken rather than being turned over to a “willing” relative. We have the same problem with the government taking anything from anyone that has committed no crime or done anything wrong. I thought I made that clear when I talked about the government taking their automobile or home. Evidently that wasn’t clear enough. :brickwall:
Jerry,
Since you're a mod I can't question your reading comprehension or reasoning, because that would be insulting.
I haven't said anything about the government taking guns without compensation.
Likewise, I have said that I have plenty of relatives who I would not want to take possession of any of my belongings, if I was hospitalized.
So while I agree with you in principle, who decides what relatives get the guns?
Are the guns definately going to be sold by the government? If so, who determines the value, and can the mentally ill person make a claim against the government for the proceeds?
What if it's just a cheap gun, and the government has to send 2 police officers over, place an indigent on 72 hour hold, then commit the person for a month of treatment at taxpayers expense? I know this can easily bill out at over $35,000.

Gunnut 45/454
01-31-2012, 11:47
SpringerTGO
You go ahead and keep your head in the sand - the truth is if a cop "Thinks" your a danger to yourself or others they can and will involunteerly commit you! All it takes is one misstated word from you. Anyone can file for a protection order for DV against you just by there word -no proof of any thing actually happening. I suggest you go read your laws on the matter and you see how easy it is to get someone commited, or under a DV protection order.

Jerry
01-31-2012, 12:15
Jerry,
Since you're a mod I can't question your reading comprehension or reasoning, because that would be insulting.
You can question. What you can’t do is say someone is stupid, is an idiot or offer to fighte them.
I haven't said anything about the government taking guns without compensation.

You most certainly have. You tried to make a case for the government doing it by saying they do it every day. See the second to last paragraph in post # 79.

Likewise, I have said that I have plenty of relatives who I would not want to take possession of any of my belongings, if I was hospitalized.

And again I’ll tell you. Just because “you” would rather the government have your firearms for FREE rather than being compensated for them or having a relative “hold” them in trust doesn’t mean THE REST OF US SHOULD HAVE TO.

So while I agree with you in principle, who decides what relatives get the guns? Chain of inheritance. Closest relative first.

Are the guns definately going to be sold by the government? If so, who determines the value, and can the mentally ill person make a claim against the government for the proceeds?

Current market value. Actually they should not be sold or destroyed. The family of an adjudicated mentally ill person gets to make all decisions concerning ALL property. Funny how they get to do that already with everything “EXCEPT” firearms.

What if it's just a cheap gun, and the government has to send 2 police officers over, place an indigent on 72 hour hold, then commit the person for a month of treatment at taxpayers expense? I know this can easily bill out at over $35,000.

Value of proper is irrelevant. Again I’ll ask… do they take his/her automobile or knives. Do they have the gas and electricity turned off? Do they lock down the house? If they are holding him/her for 72 hours why would it even be necessary to take something (firearms) the person has no access to?

SpringerTGO
01-31-2012, 14:59
SpringerTGO
You go ahead and keep your head in the sand - the truth is if a cop "Thinks" your a danger to yourself or others they can and will involunteerly commit you! All it takes is one misstated word from you. Anyone can file for a protection order for DV against you just by there word -no proof of any thing actually happening. I suggest you go read your laws on the matter and you see how easy it is to get someone commited, or under a DV protection order.

Gunnut, I have had more than my share of experience "trying to get someone commited", and trying to get them treated, against their will.
A cop can't commit anyone longer than 3 days, and if a cop shows up to a hospital with a "normal" person, the hospital won't keep him.
I'm very clear on the laws concerning this, because both of the parents of the person who are dealing with this bipolar person I know are in the legal profession, with some serious clout at that.

Jerry, I don't remember asking anyone to fight. I do see plenty of posts where RhRedrider offered to fight me, called me a coward, etc. If anything I still tried to reason with him.

Also, I wasn't making a case for the government by saying they do it every day. I think the government has way too strong a reach in that respect. I only said they do it every day, because they do, and we not only tolerate it, we empower them to do it.

My argument as far as the government taking arms away from mentally ill people goes has been way taken out of context.
I started my post by saying I was fine with taking the guns away from a suicidal person checking himself into a psych ward. As to "the chain of command" goes, it's way more complex an issue than just saying "give them to the family, government, whatever.
There are plenty of mentally ill people on the streets who should not be armed. They are homeless, and good luck tracking down their families.
Likewise, there are legal issues in just handing over weapons to the next of kin, not that I am against that. But it isn't always practical. What if the next of kin is a felon? Mentally ill? Homeless?
What if the mentally ill person has a $100,000 hospital bill and the hospital wants his assets?

I don't recall ever saying they should just take someones weapons while they are being observed. If they are truly mentally ill (not 72 hour observation) they shouldn't have guns. That's one of the boxes you check when you buy a gun in the first place.

Jerry
01-31-2012, 18:28
Jerry, I don't remember asking anyone to fight. I do see plenty of posts where RhRedrider offered to fight me, called me a coward, etc. If anything I still tried to reason with him.

Perhaps you remember my first warning said y’ALL. All means everyone so RhRedrider was warned also. You probably have not noticed he took heed. However AFTER I posted that warning YOU posted…

IhRedrider, I don't know why I am bothering, but in the interest of Glocktalk, I'll give it one more try. Then you can come to Utah to beat me up. I'll even type this slowly for you.

Now if you really want to come to Utah because you disagree with me, have at it.

Don’t tell me that isn’t a veiled invitation to fight. Unlike you I do don’t forget what I’ve read in less than a day’s time and if I’m not sure I reread the post. Perhaps you should reread what you’ve posted before continuing the argument’s you are presenting.



Also, I wasn't making a case for the government by saying they do it every day. I think the government has way too strong a reach in that respect. I only said they do it every day, because they do, and we not only tolerate it, we empower them to do it.

Actually anyone that reads what I've posted and your replis will conclude that is exactly what you WERE doing.

Again you really need to reread this entire thread. You’ll find those that have disagreed with you don’t want to tolerated it on any level. EPICALLY ME!!!!!!!!!!



Actually you are the one saying we should tolerate it.

Reading comprehension is a must if you are going to continue. Please, please, please show me what you have misinterpreted and came up with that fallacy.


My argument as far as the government taking arms away from mentally ill people goes has been way taken out of context.
I started my post by saying I was fine with taking the guns away from a suicidal person checking himself into a psych ward. As to "the chain of command" goes, it's way more complex an issue than just saying "give them to the family, government, whatever.


There are plenty of mentally ill people on the streets who should not be armed. They are homeless, and good luck tracking down their families.


So now you're saying that you were/are referring to mentally ill people that have guns on them when they admit themselves? Or is it homeless people that are mentally ill walking the streets with guns on them? See you’ve deviated from the OP to make this argument fit your views rather than debating what the rest of have been. :upeyes:




Likewise, there are legal issues in just handing over weapons to the next of kin, not that I am against that. But it isn't always practical. What if the next of kin is a felon? Mentally ill? Homeless?


According to your own words you have at least 72 hours to find a non felon, non mentally ill relative. Now I know this isn’t practical in EVERY case. However according to you STEALING property is easier so we should all just go with that. :faint:


What if the mentally ill person has a $100,000 hospital bill and the hospital wants his assets?


They can do the same thing you want to force the person and or the family to do to get his/her STOLEN property back. Go through the court system.



I don't recall ever saying they should just take someones weapons while they are being observed. If they are truly mentally ill (not 72 hour observation) they shouldn't have guns.


Perhaps this will refresh your memory. You’re original statement post # 77.
A suicidal man commits himself, and has his weapons taken away. Sounds right to me. Sure, there are other ways to kill himself, but at least it won't be with a gun. And the stuff about letting the guy "off himself" is ignorant. The guy went looking for help. Part of the help is taking away his simple means of suicide. Somehow I tend to think the guy would prefer keeping his life to keeping his guns. He did check himself in.

He was committed! Exactly how was he going to get to his gun(s)?


That's one of the boxes you check when you buy a gun in the first place.

Funny… when I buy a firearm from an individual I don’t check any boxes. The box you speak of is an unconstitutional attack on our right. Now we can start talking the 2nd. if you wish. Start another thread if you wish to pursue it.

IhRedrider
01-31-2012, 18:29
Springer

I do see plenty of posts where RhRedrider offered to fight me, called me a coward, etc.

If you meant IHRedrider, then. You are wrong on every one of these points. I also challenge you to quote me where I did any of these things that you claim. If you meant RhRedrider, nevermind, I don't know him.

Now back to the issue at hand:

You believe in gun control through legislation of RIGHTS. This mode of thinking is what Hitler, Stalin and other world leaders espouse. The results speak for them selves.

I believe in gun control through personal responsibility and the legislation of behavior. This is the mode of rationale employed by George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and other founding fathers. The results spoke for themselves. I say spoke because, we as a country, have fallen so far from where we started.

Jerry
01-31-2012, 18:37
Springer



If you meant IHRedrider, then. You are wrong on every one of these points. I also challenge you to quote me where I did any of these things that you claim. If you meant RhRedrider, nevermind, I don't know him.





Oops! I missed that. My bad! :embarassed:

SpringerTGO
01-31-2012, 18:41
Jerry,
This is obviously too difficult a topic to discuss with you without really pissing you off.
So on that note I'll drop it.

Jerry
01-31-2012, 18:48
Jerry,
This is obviously too difficult a topic to discuss with you without really pissing you off.
So on that note I'll drop it.

I’m not pissed off. I’m a matter of fact kind of guy. I often, quite often, come across and being mad. I’m not! We’re having a discussion/debate. If we met in person I’d be honored to shake your hand and have a drink with you.

Misty02
01-31-2012, 19:58
I just spoke with a friend of mine who has had some problems coming back from Iraq was told this week via a VA Rating decision that he is supposed to adhere to Brady Bill Public Law 103-159 second 924 A-2. What this means for him I have no clue.

He has had no felony convictions nor has he beat his wife... he's a good kid and served 2 tours in Iraq. He just went to the VA for treatment because he was a Marine. Now guess what? Apparently - per this little letter he received he and his young wife possibly cannot have any firearms? They live way out in Texas hill country.

Where was the trial? Where was the due process?

Seriously - how is this even legal or Constitutionally viable or even hold by the rights afforded by the Supreme Court to being able to be presented with the charges and being able to defend against those charges? Maybe someone can help him? Maybe he gets a lawyer I don't know.

:steamed:

Similar case posted here: http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1395684

He wasn't even informed he had become an ineligible person until he went to renew his carry license.

.

Gunnut 45/454
01-31-2012, 20:23
SpringerTGO

"A cop can't commit anyone longer than 3 days, and if a cop shows up to a hospital with a "normal" person, the hospital won't keep him."

There you go and once your on record as being commited your done!

Jerry
01-31-2012, 20:25
I just spoke with a friend of mine who has had some problems coming back from Iraq was told this week via a VA Rating decision that he is supposed to adhere to Brady Bill Public Law 103-159 second 924 A-2. What this means for him I have no clue.

He has had no felony convictions nor has he beat his wife... he's a good kid and served 2 tours in Iraq. He just went to the VA for treatment because he was a Marine. Now guess what? Apparently - per this little letter he received he and his young wife possibly cannot have any firearms? They live way out in Texas hill country.

Where was the trial? Where was the due process?

Seriously - how is this even legal or Constitutionally viable or even hold by the rights afforded by the Supreme Court to being able to be presented with the charges and being able to defend against those charges? Maybe someone can help him? Maybe he gets a lawyer I don't know.

:steamed:

I’m sometimes accused of being pissed off when I’m not. That sort of thing pisses me off. :steamed:

Javelin
01-31-2012, 21:11
Similar case posted here: http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1395684

He wasn't even informed he had become an ineligible person until he went to renew his carry license.

.

I can't see the post because I don't have enough access. But I have read that as many as 150,000 former military have been placed on the Firarms Ban list, many of whom never even have any official charges against them.

The VA merely took it upon themselves to send documents (without medical release forms signed by the patient mind you) to the BATFE and they took the liberty of canceling their ability to pass a NICS check.

How lucky is that? Go to war, serve your country, come home and you lose your constitutional rights because what you had to do over there caused you to want to seek treatment. It is not like all of these cases were because they were committed. Most you will find were voluntarily asking for help with PTSD & TBI related issues. It is called the Veterans Disarmament Act. And it is sad that this type of mistreatment is happening and no one but a very few are doing anything to assist. I guess people figure if it is not their problem it won't be their problem when in fact the ATF is trying to turn even our heros into zeros and criminals under the falsehood of law that they are making up as they go along.

Javelin
01-31-2012, 21:17
I’m sometimes accused of being pissed off when I’m not. That sort of thing pisses me off. :steamed:

Right there with you brother. Makes me a little pissed off at the treatment of our Soldiers. And it is becoming more and more prevalent that those in charge want to disarm every single American and are using creative tools to do so.

Have been involved in a grizzly car accident? Been in a bad shootout because you're a COP doing your job and had a hard time getting over the reality of seeing innocent people die? Guess what you could be diagnosed with PTSD and now you don't get your 2nd Amendment rights. Yeah - it is easy for folks to call it mentally ill but some serious precautions need to be taken immediately to stop this rampant abuse of the system.

I know you agree Jerry that if someone is to lose their rights to firearms they at least need their day in court. I don't think anyone would disagree with that as the least the citizens of this country can ask for is proper due process. But that's obviously something that the BATFE wants off the table and has been sidestepping by using helpless Veterans as a target because they probably figure that there is nothing they can do about it.

And you know what? I think they are right. There is nothing a Veteran can do about it except get the letter and turn in their guns. Wonder who is next?

EDIT:

Jerry, I honestly do not think that most folks care until it happens to them. And then by that time it will be an "I Told You So" moment and nothing can be done about it especially when very very few are protecting our Veterans & War Hero's does anyone truly believe that anyone will protect the common COP, citizen, or average working class person?

Very sad indeed.

Jerry
01-31-2012, 22:28
Jerry, I honestly do not think that most folks care until it happens to them. And then by that time it will be an "I Told You So" moment and nothing can be done about it especially when very very few are protecting our Veterans & War Hero's does anyone truly believe that anyone will protect the common COP, citizen, or average working class person?

Very sad indeed.

Most, as you say, don’t care until it happens to them. What really rips my guts out is firearm owners, many right here on GT, blindly, unquestioningly support it.

"Posterity: you will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it." (John Quincy Adams)

Not only don’t they know, they could care less. Today the cowards are more worried about someone else keeping them safe than with freedom. And they aren’t reall safe from criminals, imbeciles or the government.

SpringerTGO
01-31-2012, 22:38
I’m not pissed off. I’m a matter of fact kind of guy. I often, quite often, come across and being mad. I’m not! We’re having a discussion/debate. If we met in person I’d be honored to shake your hand and have a drink with you.

Thanks Jerry,
And if you ever make it out to Utah I'd be honored to shake your hand and have a drink with you too.

This topic is a little too close to me, as I have been dealing with a great guy who has severe mental illness for almost 2 years now.

I've owned guns for over 35 years, have been off and on with the NRA, shoot weekly, reload, and have a CCW.
I consider myself extremely pro gun. If it doesn't appear that way, I'm not necessarily the best at writing my thoughts.

Lady Glock
01-31-2012, 22:38
Most, as you say, don’t care until it happens to them. What really rips my guts out is firearm owners, many right here on GT, blindly, unquestioningly support it.



Not only don’t they know, they could care less. Today the cowards are more worried about someone else keeping them safe than with freedom. And they aren’t reall safe from criminals, imbeciles or the government.

I hope I don't come across as supporting it. I didn't say outright, but I support the family getting "custody" of the firearms until he is out of danger. Too often you hear of people who take their loved ones with them when they decide it's time for them to go...I get sick of hearing about parents who kill their children because "nobody else can care for them like I do"...well that's true, if you consider that your care is killing them and nobody else (in their right mind) would do that to an innocent child!

It bothers me (alot) that the police can take your property and not give you proper consideration for that property. If they are going to take it, you should be compensated for your loss so when you are better, you can replace it!

Jerry
01-31-2012, 23:29
Thanks Jerry,
And if you ever make it out to Utah I'd be honored to shake your hand and have a drink with you too.

This topic is a little too close to me, as I have been dealing with a great guy who has severe mental illness for almost 2 years now.

I've owned guns for over 35 years, have been off and on with the NRA, shoot weekly, reload, and have a CCW.
I consider myself extremely pro gun. If it doesn't appear that way, I'm not necessarily the best at writing my thoughts.

I’m glad to hear that you are pro gun. I hope you understand where I’m coming from when it comes to government seizing property. Not just firearms but any property, without due process. I do understand that sometimes distasteful things must be done but in most cases government DOES abus power.

I’ve see the government do to many things to, too many people for too many years in the name of safety. I also know that people have allowed this country to go down the tubes in the name of being protected.

”They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” [Benjamin Franklin, 1759]





I hope I don't come across as supporting it. I didn't say outright, but I support the family getting "custody" of the firearms until he is out of danger. Too often you hear of people who take their loved ones with them when they decide it's time for them to go...I get sick of hearing about parents who kill their children because "nobody else can care for them like I do"...well that's true, if you consider that your care is killing them and nobody else (in their right mind) would do that to an innocent child!

It bothers me (alot) that the police can take your property and not give you proper consideration for that property. If they are going to take it, you should be compensated for your loss so when you are better, you can replace it!

I have read many of your posts for some time now and NO I don’t believe you fit into that category.

Javelin
01-31-2012, 23:34
Hey Jerry... thought you might find this sort of humorous....

-- Veterans Disarmament Act Approved by President --
"To me, this is the best Christmas present I could ever receive" -- Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), CBS News, December 20, 2007

Misty02
02-01-2012, 05:07
I hope I don't come across as supporting it. I didn't say outright, but I support the family getting "custody" of the firearms until he is out of danger. Too often you hear of people who take their loved ones with them when they decide it's time for them to go...I get sick of hearing about parents who kill their children because "nobody else can care for them like I do"...well that's true, if you consider that your care is killing them and nobody else (in their right mind) would do that to an innocent child!

It bothers me (alot) that the police can take your property and not give you proper consideration for that property. If they are going to take it, you should be compensated for your loss so when you are better, you can replace it!

I believe I understood what you meant; there are in fact people out there who are so ill that they shouldn’t have access to firearms or anything else they can hurt themselves and others with. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
The problem comes when we try to develop boiler plate reactions and take action without considering the individual case and without providing recourse to the affected person. Criminals often get more consideration and protection than a person that has committed no crime, that is not right. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
If the court decides (and there are dangers in this one too, but not within the context of this thread) the person is a danger to themselves or others, then allow that person to will them to another (temporarily or permanently). I don’t personally own any but there are some out there that have antique firearms with great monetary value, others have some with sentimental value that has been passed down for generations. Don’t just take them away and never give them back or make it costly for a person to gain them back by having to fight the system. If the person prefers to give them to the state to be destroyed, then that should be the person’s option as well. If they have been declared mentally incompetent, then such decision should be made by the person assigned by the court to make other important decisions for that person.<o:p></o:p>

.

Misty02
02-01-2012, 05:27
Thanks Jerry,
And if you ever make it out to Utah I'd be honored to shake your hand and have a drink with you too.

This topic is a little too close to me, as I have been dealing with a great guy who has severe mental illness for almost 2 years now.

I've owned guns for over 35 years, have been off and on with the NRA, shoot weekly, reload, and have a CCW.
I consider myself extremely pro gun. If it doesn't appear that way, I'm not necessarily the best at writing my thoughts.
It often happens when we are too close to a particular issue, SpringerTGO. It is human nature. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
It happened to me with homeschooling, the one case I originally had personal knowledge of was disastrous. The mother’s first language wasn’t English, she couldn’t write or speak a coherent sentence and I felt it was an unjust disservice to the child. I was so disgusted by the whole thing that this single case set my opinion on homeschooling. It took a lot of people’s opinion, explanations and arguing with me, as well as me seeing the results of other homeschooled children, to finally understand that I was not looking at the bigger picture. I was basing my opinion on a single case where the results were bad and negatively impacted a child for the rest of their life. I was wrong, not about that particular case, but about homeschooling as a whole. Mind you, it took several verbal and emotional beatings before it got through my thick skull; thankfully, it worked. I still don’t believe that some parents are qualified, it is a shame they don’t realize that on their own. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
In a free country you have to take the good with the bad. No system is perfect, but when it starts to trample over the rights of law-abiding citizens it is enough of an alert for us to refuse to accept it and do what we can to prevent it from happening.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
.

OldCurlyWolf
02-04-2012, 15:19
Remember this:

If you ever have need of psychological help, NEVER admit to owning anything more dangerous than a spoon.

Misty02
02-04-2012, 16:50
Remember this:

If you ever have need of psychological help, NEVER admit to owning anything more dangerous than a spoon.

…. and careful with the conversation you have with others there, even if they seem friendly or show interest in something you enjoy.

.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>

gringogigante
02-24-2012, 21:56
You did the right thing. Don't expect any further acknowledgement of that from anyone else around here and you'll be fine.

Mental illness is one of the areas of life where reality punches ideology in the nuts and takes it's lunch money.

Amen. There's no easy way to apporach this. If I was his doc, I'd prbably have the family take posession of his guns for a while. It's not permanent and he was, after all begging for help because he was SUICIDAL. I'd also make sure, at least for a little while, make sure he was monitored until the meds and professional help diminished his suicidal thoughts.

My instinct is to praise him for seeking help. That's an enormous first step. My second instinct is to help him by helping to facilitate as smooth of a "comeback" as I can. I'm not a doc, but i'd assume that meant meds, counseling, and removing any obvious hurdles in his path (like guns, samurai swords, random nooses laying around).

Good luck though. He'll be in my prayers.

dalegates
02-25-2012, 08:26
Sometimes the right thing to do is not a fun thing to do.

IhRedrider
02-25-2012, 13:48
Maybe, sometimes the right thing to do is violate other people Rights, just to protect them. Like they say at work, "Safety First"

Jerry
02-25-2012, 16:18
Maybe, sometimes the right thing to do is violate other people Rights, just to protect them. Like they say at work, "Safety First"

It's for the children. :whistling: :faint:

MoneyMaker
02-27-2012, 09:04
So are you a Medical Specialist in the field of Mental Health?

larry_minn
03-05-2012, 16:28
Just reading first few posts. THIS is reason folks don't want to talk about their problems. If you admit you MIGHT have a problem...........

I have had to warn folks NOT TO TALK to "experts" who might be able to help because of the harm it could do. Which is wrong.

I delt with mental health folks when I spent two months in hospital. (was almost less then one day but I lived) I hit a low point and decided to talk to them. Thankfully they were busy and night nurse had a chat with me. When they showed up I told them to leave and NEVER come back....