Firearms. Who or what is dangerous?

Or better yet, shall we go the way of Hitler and get rid of the mentally infirm using a more permanent method?

I didn't expect Godwin's law out of you Es?

Or better yet, shall we go the way of Hitler and get rid of the mentally infirm using a more permanent method?

I didn't expect Godwin's law out of you Es?

So, you're saying Hitler (or Stalin) made no such attempts?
Sorry, but most times, Godwin's Law probably applies. There are, however, times when the response is germane to the conversation.

P.S.-when I asked you a few weeks back or so what experience you had with the mentally ill, and you responded with passing by them on the streets often enough (though I wonder if homeless and drunk or whatever is enough to make that designation), I meant what experience with family members or friends suffering a mental illness (to whatever degree).

Or better yet, shall we go the way of Hitler and get rid of the mentally infirm using a more permanent method?

I didn't expect Godwin's law out of you Es?

I was driven to it because what you were suggesting was so appalling...I am sure you are aware I wouldn't invoke a Hitler comparison lightly. Sometimes it is appropriate.

I simply replaced the word GUN with CRAZY in the strident calls for gun control I hear. You are right that the thought process behind such bans is appalling.

I do see Obama addressed some of the Crazy recognition issues with his batch of orders. I also forgive you for not realizing in the USA how screwed up we are because of HIPAA and other such medical privacy laws in assessing crazies. Without the ability to share information -- never mind a requirement to do so -- on crazies it becomes impossible to evaluate them. Say there are 10 acts a person has done, but treated by 10 different professionals. Without the professionals permitted to share the 10 acts, each might assume that the person isn't crazy, just having a really bad day. Put them together and the picture may be "a clear and present danger to himself or others." That is the reason that it requires police action before many crazies are diagnosed and by the time the police become involved it is already too late.

How do you classify people as crazy?
And if you do find a test that fits the hypothesis how will it work out?

Go see if you can watch a BBC Horizon program called "Are you good or Evil" and see if you idea's are valid. I very much doubt it, you would end up locking up 1000's just to stop a couple of "crazies". Amongst those you would lock up would be "Captains of Industry" and Scientists.

http://bilstonjay.wordpress.com/2011/09/07/bbc-horizon-are-you-good-or-evil-i-don%E2%80%99t-know-any-more-after-watching-your-documentary-maybe%E2%80%A6/

edit] Also go look up the warrior gene.

You really are seriously talking about legislating people and tracking them rather than legislating and tracking guns?

WK, if the titans of the Banks would have been locked up, then it sounds like it is sorting correctly.

____________

You really are seriously talking about legislating people and tracking them rather than legislating and tracking guns?

You want to lock guns up. Fine. Who gets the key? Suddenly we are back to people. It always has been about people. We might as well quit beating around the bush and accept that it is a people control/tracking issue.

Well said Esme.
____________
Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

Its not the honest gun owner. Its the crazys and the hoods. Take Chicago. Toughest gun lasw in the nation and yet they have more killed than in Afganastan every year. Why you ask. Because the state lets the perps walk. The police can frisk you on no cause and if they find weapons , they either dont prosacute or just wack your wrist and let you walk.

How about any person who is found to have an illegal weapon , or uses one in a crime, or buys one for a known felon or a crazy gets 10 years right off the bat with no parole.

A big step would be for a federal penalty not a state crime. Another thing that is BS is that you cant bring up a perps past criminal history when he goes to trial again. So the jury never knows that poor little Johnny has 10 prior arrests for using a gun in armed robberies.
____________

Ok, completely off topic, but...are you serious with that screen name, Guy??
____________

Ok, completely off topic, but...are you serious with that screen name, Guy??

Ok, completely off topic, but...are you serious with that screen name, Guy??

Perhaps he should change it to David Koresh?

I am sure that you don't consider it unreasonable to be expected to have a license to drive a car, or have to take a test to drive that car. After all, sometimes we have to take a bit of hit to protect others. If those others are children, then it really is a no brainer.