Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 17, 2024 10:29:16 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2018 2:05:23 GMT
Departments of Homeland Security, Education and Justice have been called on to coordinate school safety efforts and provide grant money for schools to assess their ability to prevent and respond to attacks. Unfortunately, the proposed FED budget includes reductions of monies for school security, mental health among many other things that have been discussed here in the last week or 2 or 3....... Well, now they'll need to amend that.
|
|
Just T
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,565
Jun 26, 2014 1:20:09 GMT
|
Post by Just T on Feb 21, 2018 2:08:05 GMT
Wow They are a "fish in a barrel" because of people like you who think that common sense gun control laws violate your rights to own whatever the hell weapons you want with no restrictions at all. I am just shocked that your answer to the problem is to put armed military in schools. Well, not really shocked at all. They are fish in a barrel because of deranged shooters, of which I am not one. Your personal attacks accusing me of being the cause of children getting shot are not conducive to rational, civil discussion. I'm looking for solutions to kids dying. I am not accusing you personally for children being shot. What other solution do you have other than hiring armed military people to work in little children's schools? Because that solution is not acceptable. It's bullshit! You shoot down pretty much every suggestion that anyone has and say that it won't work What is your answer??? I ask this seriously. What is your answer to the problem of deranged individuals who can buy these weapons that NO ONE NEEDS other than to KILL, who buy them and then kill?
|
|
|
Post by pierkiss on Feb 21, 2018 2:12:11 GMT
Unfortunately, the proposed FED budget includes reductions of monies for school security, mental health among many other things that have been discussed here in the last week or 2 or 3....... Well, now they'll need to amend that. They won’t. They do not see value in the things they are cutting, as they do not directly benefit big business or their own political interests.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Feb 21, 2018 2:13:12 GMT
Trumpsters are gobbling up the claim that the high schoolers were actors. They are posting it all over Trump's twitter page. It's disgusting. Trumpsters or Russian bots? Here ya go.... Full article on page 9.......... A staffer for Florida state Rep. Shawn Harrison (R) said that the two high schoolers who survived the tragedy pictured in a Tampa Bay Times story about the students criticizing Rubio and other lawmakers are "not students here but actors that travel to various crisis when they happen." Claiming some of the students on tv after #Parkland are actors is the work of a disgusting group of idiots with no sense of decency. — Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) February 20, 2018 Harrison later said in a tweet of his own that the staffer, who was acting on his own, has been placed on leave:
I was just made aware that my aide made an insensitive and inappropriate allegation about Parkland students today. I have spoken to him and placed him on leave until we determine an appropriate course of action. I do not share his opinion and he did so without my knowledge.
— Shawn Harrison (@shawnfor63) February 20, 2018
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Feb 21, 2018 2:18:34 GMT
Well, now they'll need to amend that.Bg They won’t. They do not see value in the things they are cutting, as they do not directly benefit big business or their own political interests. The list of cuts with the damage they do to kids and families is rather extensive. Big business prevails at the expense of ordinary hard working people.
|
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Feb 21, 2018 2:18:58 GMT
When I first started teaching, all of the many doors in the school were unlocked. By a couple years later, all the doors were locked and we all had been issued what the principal called "recess keys," but we all darkly called our "Laurie Dann" keys. She's Google-able.
I've been waiting for a solution, or even a step in the right diirection, since then.
I was issued that key in 1988.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 17, 2024 10:29:16 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2018 2:20:33 GMT
I named several things in my first response to you. I don't want guns to get into the wrong hands, but I also don't agree that asking people to undertake a mental health exam is the way to go. Are we going to demand that of all citizens in general or only when they want to exercise a right? All rights or only the ones you disagree with? So you think that ordinary citizens should not have guns? Realizing there's more than one way to do that.
|
|
|
Post by pierkiss on Feb 21, 2018 2:26:18 GMT
I named several things in my first response to you. I don't want guns to get into the wrong hands, but I also don't agree that asking people to undertake a mental health exam is the way to go. Are we going to demand that of all citizens in general or only when they want to exercise a right? All rights or only the ones you disagree with? So you think that ordinary citizens should not have guns? Realizing there's more than one way to do that. Why is it so bad to ask people who want to buy an item that is used for killing to take a mental health exam to make sure they are stable and fit to own one? Why is it so wrong to only want weapons in the hands of those who can handle the awesome responsibility that comes with them? Why should mentally unstable be permitted to legally buy items that kill? We all have the right to life in this country. Why is the right to own a gun more important than everyone’s right to life? (We are not talking about fetuses right now, just so we are clear).
|
|
|
Post by pierogi on Feb 21, 2018 2:33:08 GMT
Good news. A Dem in Kentucky just reclaimed a seat in House District 49. This district went heavily for Trump. The best thing? Her name is Linda Belcher.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Feb 21, 2018 2:34:26 GMT
I named several things in my first response to you. I don't want guns to get into the wrong hands, but I also don't agree that asking people to undertake a mental health exam is the way to go. Are we going to demand that of all citizens in general or only when they want to exercise a right? All rights or only the ones you disagree with? So you think that ordinary citizens should not have guns? Realizing there's more than one way to do that. And entirely predictably, you have an objection to anything we might suggest. Your suggestion is to spend millions on armed guards - basically just giving up and accepting the status quo. We can't afford books, or fine arts, or to pay teachers a living wage, but we can afford armed guards while we're waiting for lawmakers with the balls to shake off the NRA shackles and do the right thing. And you see nothing wrong with that. I think if you want a gun - something whose primary design is to kill people quickly and efficiently - you should have to prove you can own it responsibly. You should have to go through a thorough background check and mental health examination. You should have to do this every four years or so to get or renew a gun owners' license, which is required for any purchase of guns or ammunition. The minimum age of purchase should be 21 instead of 18. You should have to take a thorough training course in safety and proper use for any weapon you purchase. All guns and ammunition purchased should be registered to their owners so they can be accurately removed from the homes of people who commit crimes or whose mental health status changes after purchase. I like David French's idea of a Gun Violence Restraining Order in addition to these measures. People who actually care about saving lives, and who have no criminal past or dangerous mental health issues themselves, should have no problem with this. They still get their guns. We can add other laws around safe storage to encourage people to stop keeping their loaded guns in their bedside drawers or under the seat in their car. Our rights do not come without responsibility. These measures would promote responsibility and - dare I say it - the general welfare.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Feb 21, 2018 2:35:32 GMT
I don't want guns to get into the wrong hands, but I also don't agree that asking people to undertake a mental health exam is the way to go. Are we going to demand that of all citizens in general or only when they want to exercise a right? All rights or only the ones you disagree with? So you think that ordinary citizens should not have guns? Realizing there's more than one way to do that. Why is it so bad to ask people who want to buy an item that is used for killing to take a mental health exam to make sure they are stable and fit to own one? Why is it so wrong to only want weapons in the hands of those who can handle the awesome responsibility that comes with them? Why should mentally unstable be permitted to legally buy items that kill? We all have the right to life in this country. Why is the right to own a gun more important than everyone’s right to life? (We are not talking about fetuses right now, just so we are clear). Gia's argument, to which you responded, is a total red herring. She's not willing to consider anything that might inconvenience people in purchasing as many weapons as they like as quickly as possible, so she's going to deflect as usual. When people start moaning about background checks and mental health checks being a violation of their rights, I start wondering if they'd actually pass these checks, KWIM?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 17, 2024 10:29:16 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2018 3:03:09 GMT
I don't want guns to get into the wrong hands, but I also don't agree that asking people to undertake a mental health exam is the way to go. Are we going to demand that of all citizens in general or only when they want to exercise a right? All rights or only the ones you disagree with? So you think that ordinary citizens should not have guns? Realizing there's more than one way to do that. And entirely predictably, you have an objection to anything we might suggest. Your suggestion is to spend millions on armed guards - basically just giving up and accepting the status quo. We can't afford books, or fine arts, or to pay teachers a living wage, but we can afford armed guards while we're waiting for lawmakers with the balls to shake off the NRA shackles and do the right thing. And you see nothing wrong with that. I think if you want a gun - something whose primary design is to kill people quickly and efficiently - you should have to prove you can own it responsibly. You should have to go through a thorough background check and mental health examination. You should have to do this every four years or so to get or renew a gun owners' license, which is required for any purchase of guns or ammunition. The minimum age of purchase should be 21 instead of 18. You should have to take a thorough training course in safety and proper use for any weapon you purchase. All guns and ammunition purchased should be registered to their owners so they can be accurately removed from the homes of people who commit crimes or whose mental health status changes after purchase. I like David French's idea of a Gun Violence Restraining Order in addition to these measures. People who actually care about saving lives, and who have no criminal past or dangerous mental health issues themselves, should have no problem with this. They still get their guns. We can add other laws around safe storage to encourage people to stop keeping their loaded guns in their bedside drawers or under the seat in their car. Our rights do not come without responsibility. These measures would promote responsibility and - dare I say it - the general welfare. Do you not see that you are doing the same? I do too. I think you should have to go through proper use and safety training. Are you willing to go through that before you vote? Before you're allowed to speak? Although I believe you have pure motives, I completely disagree with allowing that. The objection to gun registration is that it could be a precursor to confiscation. It starts out with the best intentions and then it doesn't work as planned and they "have to" expand the ban. It's not paranoid to consider the possibility. We've already seen the IRS abuse it's power and the DOJ against reporters doing their job, the NSA issues, the SSA trying to ban those who need help managing finances, the No Fly List abuse, just to name a few. So we know it has major potential for being abused and gun owners aren't willing to give them the opportunity. What happens when the people in power do that to rights you DO agree with? I've shown why they do, but nice use of "if you don't agree with THIS solution,then you don't care if people die". I haven't done that to you.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 17, 2024 10:29:16 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2018 3:10:11 GMT
Why is it so bad to ask people who want to buy an item that is used for killing to take a mental health exam to make sure they are stable and fit to own one? Why is it so wrong to only want weapons in the hands of those who can handle the awesome responsibility that comes with them? Why should mentally unstable be permitted to legally buy items that kill? We all have the right to life in this country. Why is the right to own a gun more important than everyone’s right to life? (We are not talking about fetuses right now, just so we are clear). Gia's argument, to which you responded, is a total red herring. She's not willing to consider anything that might inconvenience people in purchasing as many weapons as they like as quickly as possible, so she's going to deflect as usual.When people start moaning about background checks and mental health checks being a violation of their rights, I start wondering if they'd actually pass these checks, KWIM? Horseshit! It has nothing to do with being inconvenienced or deflecting. I'm concerned about not stripping away the rights of law abiding citizens in order to ban something that will only leave other tools for deranged people to use. Why aren't YOU? And I'm all FOR background checks which will catch those who should not own a gun.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Feb 21, 2018 3:25:56 GMT
Ive said it before...
Nickolas Cruz Adam Lanza Las Vegas shooters were all law abiding citizens, until they weren’t.
Funny that the military vets people for depression, and other mental issues. Why is that?
Because it matters.
It’s pure gaslighting, red herring and propaganda speak (and completely ridiculous) to toss in “are you willing to go through that before you vote? Before you speak?” It’s just fear mongering and paranoia.
Yes, people buying guns should absolutely go through mental checks.
They should be required to register their weapons.
They should be required to hold liability insurance.
Doing nothing is not working.
Neither is the fear mongering—
|
|
|
Post by crazy4scraps on Feb 21, 2018 3:25:58 GMT
Why is it so bad to ask people who want to buy an item that is used for killing to take a mental health exam to make sure they are stable and fit to own one? Why is it so wrong to only want weapons in the hands of those who can handle the awesome responsibility that comes with them? Why should mentally unstable be permitted to legally buy items that kill? We all have the right to life in this country. Why is the right to own a gun more important than everyone’s right to life? (We are not talking about fetuses right now, just so we are clear). Especially since some people LIE when they fill out the paperwork to purchase a gun. Especially since law enforcement and other agencies that should be flagging these folks currently don’t seem to be doing a very good job of communicating with each other so that people who SHOULD fail the background check actually DO fail the background check. And especially since the current administration has already rolled back some regulations that could potentially keep weapons out of the hands of those who may not be mentally fit enough to own them responsibly. I know people personally where that last point is a real life concern, not some made up hypothetical situation.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 17, 2024 10:29:16 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2018 3:31:23 GMT
And entirely predictably, you have an objection to anything we might suggest. Your suggestion is to spend millions on armed guards - basically just giving up and accepting the status quo. We can't afford books, or fine arts, or to pay teachers a living wage, but we can afford armed guards while we're waiting for lawmakers with the balls to shake off the NRA shackles and do the right thing. And you see nothing wrong with that. I think if you want a gun - something whose primary design is to kill people quickly and efficiently - you should have to prove you can own it responsibly. You should have to go through a thorough background check and mental health examination. You should have to do this every four years or so to get or renew a gun owners' license, which is required for any purchase of guns or ammunition. The minimum age of purchase should be 21 instead of 18. You should have to take a thorough training course in safety and proper use for any weapon you purchase. All guns and ammunition purchased should be registered to their owners so they can be accurately removed from the homes of people who commit crimes or whose mental health status changes after purchase. I like David French's idea of a Gun Violence Restraining Order in addition to these measures. People who actually care about saving lives, and who have no criminal past or dangerous mental health issues themselves, should have no problem with this. They still get their guns. We can add other laws around safe storage to encourage people to stop keeping their loaded guns in their bedside drawers or under the seat in their car. Our rights do not come without responsibility. These measures would promote responsibility and - dare I say it - the general welfare. Do you not see that you are doing the same? I do too. I think you should have to go through proper use and safety training. Are you willing to go through that before you vote? Before you're allowed to speak? The last time I checked the act of voting does not kill people. Although history has shown us people have been killed so they couldn’t vote.Although I believe you have pure motives, I completely disagree with allowing that. The objection to gun registration is that it could be a precursor to confiscation. Is your car registered in the state you live in? If so do you see that as a precursor for the state coming to take away your car? Do you have any fear that the state will take away your car or cars? My guess is no but I may be wrong. The only people that believe the government is coming for their guns are paranoid and that makes a strong case that maybe they shouldn’t have guns. Unless you think it’s a good idea for paranoid folks to have a gun or guns. It starts out with the best intentions and then it doesn't work as planned and they "have to" expand the ban. It's not paranoid to consider the possibility. We've already seen the IRS abuse it's power and the DOJ against reporters doing their job, the NSA issues, the SSA trying to ban those who need help managing finances, the No Fly List abuse, just to name a few. So we know it has major potential for being abused and gun owners aren't willing to give them the opportunity. What happens when the people in power do that to rights you DO agree with? I've shown why they do, but nice use of "if you don't agree with THIS solution,then you don't care if people die". I haven't done that to you.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 17, 2024 10:29:16 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2018 4:08:48 GMT
Why is it so bad to ask people who want to buy an item that is used for killing to take a mental health exam to make sure they are stable and fit to own one? Why is it so wrong to only want weapons in the hands of those who can handle the awesome responsibility that comes with them? Why should mentally unstable be permitted to legally buy items that kill? We all have the right to life in this country. Why is the right to own a gun more important than everyone’s right to life? (We are not talking about fetuses right now, just so we are clear). Especially since some people LIE when they fill out the paperwork to purchase a gun. Especially since law enforcement and other agencies that should be flagging these folks currently don’t seem to be doing a very good job of communicating with each other so that people who SHOULD fail the background check actually DO fail the background check. And especially since the current administration has already rolled back some regulations that could potentially keep weapons out of the hands of those who may not be mentally fit enough to own them responsibly. I know people personally where that last point is a real life concern, not some made up hypothetical situation. Not quite. "House Vote 77 - Repeals Rule Restricting Gun Sales to Severely Mentally Ill" The rule in question does NOT, in fact, "keep guns from the severely mentally ill," and repealing it will not allow the severely mentally ill access to firearms. Not being able to handle your finances is not a measure of whether you should be allowed to protect yourself or not. They are very different determinations. INDIVIDUALS should be determined to be a risk to themselves and others, not a blanket determination by the Social Security Administration, which does not allow due process. There's a reason the ACLU and dozens of mental health groups have urged the repeal of the law Obama put in place.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 17, 2024 10:29:16 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2018 4:26:18 GMT
Do you not see that you are doing the same? I do too. I think you should have to go through proper use and safety training. Are you willing to go through that before you vote? Before you're allowed to speak? The last time I checked the act of voting does not kill people. Although history has shown us people have been killed so they couldn’t vote.Although I believe you have pure motives, I completely disagree with allowing that. The objection to gun registration is that it could be a precursor to confiscation. Is your car registered in the state you live in? If so do you see that as a precursor for the state coming to take away your car? Do you have any fear that the state will take away your car or cars? My guess is no but I may be wrong. The only people that believe the government is coming for their guns are paranoid and that makes a strong case that maybe they shouldn’t have guns. Unless you think it’s a good idea for paranoid folks to have a gun or guns. It starts out with the best intentions and then it doesn't work as planned and they "have to" expand the ban. It's not paranoid to consider the possibility. We've already seen the IRS abuse it's power and the DOJ against reporters doing their job, the NSA issues, the SSA trying to ban those who need help managing finances, the No Fly List abuse, just to name a few. So we know it has major potential for being abused and gun owners aren't willing to give them the opportunity. What happens when the people in power do that to rights you DO agree with? I've shown why they do, but nice use of "if you don't agree with THIS solution,then you don't care if people die". I haven't done that to you. If you're required to have a mental health check to exercise one right, you should require a mental check to exercise all of your rights. I mean you might put someone in office like Donald Trump and we all know how deadly that's going to be. I mean it's so scary that people are divorcing husbands, ending long time friendships, avoiding family functions, making protesting a part time job in order to resist the tyranny, death and destruction to come. So you need a mental health check before you exercise your right to vote because we can't let that happen again. Same with speaking, you might say things that get people to vote for someone like Trump. The next one could be even worse, now that we've opened that door. So you need to register and get a mental health check before exercising that right too. I mean, rights come with responsibilities. No, because oddly enough, even though people are killing people with their vehicle (drunk drivers, terrorists, white supremacists) no one is looking to ban the tool in THOSE cases. Funny how that works.
|
|
|
Post by crazy4scraps on Feb 21, 2018 4:33:33 GMT
Not quite. "House Vote 77 - Repeals Rule Restricting Gun Sales to Severely Mentally Ill" The rule in question does NOT, in fact, "keep guns from the severely mentally ill," and repealing it will not allow the severely mentally ill access to firearms. Not being able to handle your finances is not a measure of whether you should be allowed to protect yourself or not. They are very different determinations. INDIVIDUALS should be determined to be a risk to themselves and others, not a blanket determination by the Social Security Administration, which does not allow due process. There's a reason the ACLU and dozens of mental health groups have urged the repeal of the law Obama put in place. One of the first signs we had that my mom was having issues with Alzheimer’s was that she was unable to maintain her checkbook register. My brother noticed that her normally meticulously maintained register was a scratched out, scribbled up mess that hadn’t been balanced in months, and he told me (I had POA). I took over paying her bills and mentioned it to her doctor who started the process of assessing her for Alzheimer’s. By then, it was already affecting her memory and judgement and as time went on she got increasingly anxious and paranoid too. My mom wasn’t a gun owner but knowing how irate she got just when we had to take away the car keys, I would really hate to see how out of sorts someone with Alzheimer’s might get if their kids had to take away their guns. I know someone dealing with this right now. The elderly person in question also has a history of schizophrenia and domestic violence and this person is taking care of another vulnerable disabled elderly person and their kids know there are loaded guns somewhere in the house. It’s scary.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 17, 2024 10:29:16 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2018 4:40:41 GMT
Not quite. "House Vote 77 - Repeals Rule Restricting Gun Sales to Severely Mentally Ill" The rule in question does NOT, in fact, "keep guns from the severely mentally ill," and repealing it will not allow the severely mentally ill access to firearms. Not being able to handle your finances is not a measure of whether you should be allowed to protect yourself or not. They are very different determinations. INDIVIDUALS should be determined to be a risk to themselves and others, not a blanket determination by the Social Security Administration, which does not allow due process. There's a reason the ACLU and dozens of mental health groups have urged the repeal of the law Obama put in place. One of the first signs we had that my mom was having issues with Alzheimer’s was that she was unable to maintain her checkbook register. My brother noticed that her normally meticulously maintained register was a scratched out, scribbled up mess that hadn’t been balanced in months, and he told me (I had POA). I took over paying her bills and mentioned it to her doctor who started the process of assessing her for Alzheimer’s. By then, it was already affecting her memory and judgement and as time went on she got increasingly anxious and paranoid too. My mom wasn’t a gun owner but knowing how irate she got just when we had to take away the car keys, I would really hate to see how out of sorts someone with Alzheimer’s might get if their kids had to take away their guns. I know someone dealing with this right now. The elderly person in question also has a history of schizophrenia and domestic violence and this person is taking care of another vulnerable disabled elderly person and their kids know there are loaded guns somewhere in the house. It’s scary. Yes, she should not be using a gun. But that's a determination on an individual basis. Not everyone that needs help handling their finances is because their brain doesn't work in other areas.
|
|
|
Post by dewryce on Feb 21, 2018 5:18:28 GMT
I have bipolar disorder. I have never been violent, but I had rages in my 20s where I did not feel in control of my emotions. It made me understand the description "seeing red" and "blood boiling." It's calmed down a lot, but still there underneath. Never tried to die by suicide. Never had a psychotic episode, though some with bipolar do. But just knowing the uncontrollable rage I once felt? Not worth the risk to myself or others. Let my name be the first on the list.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Feb 21, 2018 11:39:56 GMT
If you're required to have a mental health check to exercise one right, you should require a mental check to exercise all of your rights. I mean you might put someone in office like Donald Trump and we all know how deadly that's going to be. I mean it's so scary that people are divorcing husbands, ending long time friendships, avoiding family functions, making protesting a part time job in order to resist the tyranny, death and destruction to come. So you need a mental health check before you exercise your right to vote because we can't let that happen again. Same with speaking, you might say things that get people to vote for someone like Trump. The next one could be even worse, now that we've opened that door. So you need to register and get a mental health check before exercising that right too. I mean, rights come with responsibilities. No, because oddly enough, even though people are killing people with their vehicle (drunk drivers, terrorists, white supremacists) no one is looking to ban the tool in THOSE cases. Funny how that works. No, you shouldn't have to have a mental health check to exercise all of your rights - only the ones that allow you to quickly and easily kill dozens of people in a few seconds. Obviously. It's not logical in other cases. I didn't mention banning guns. I mentioned a licensing system and several ways to keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have them. We do take drivers' licenses away from people who show they cannot use their cars responsibly. We should definitely enact tougher penalties for drunk driving - I'd support losing your license permanently and impounding your car the first time you are caught. Zero tolerance. The 'slippery slope' argument for registration is getting old and tired. Yes, it is paranoid. I don't think we should be basing gun legislation that affects everyone on the whims and fears of paranoid survivalists, who are generally the ones who display that kind of thinking. If you are mentally ill and need to have your guns removed for your own safety, how can we possibly remove guns we don't know you have?
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Feb 21, 2018 13:13:35 GMT
You have insurance to drive that vehicle if you injure someone with that vehicle... not do with if injuring someone if you shoot them.
And it is a fear mongering tactic to start throwing in all the “losing your right for speech, voting, etc. because many want to talk about gun control.
The teachers I know are against having guns in the schools.
|
|
|
Post by jeremysgirl on Feb 21, 2018 13:45:50 GMT
I have bipolar disorder. I have never been violent, but I had rages in my 20s where I did not feel in control of my emotions. It made me understand the description "seeing red" and "blood boiling." It's calmed down a lot, but still there underneath. Never tried to die by suicide. Never had a psychotic episode, though some with bipolar do. But just knowing the uncontrollable rage I once felt? Not worth the risk to myself or others. Let my name be the first on the list. Thank you for saying that. I am in 110% agreement. My DH owns guns. They are looked in a gun safe when they are not on his person. I have no idea how to access that safe. I have had moments of paranoia, psychotic episodes, and mixed state rages. They aren't frequent. But I know exactly how it is to feel very out of control how you are functioning. If you met me face to face, you would never know this. I can purchase a gun at any time. I have long believed mental health professionals should be able to add our names to a prohibited list. I volunteer to be added. I do not need a gun. And I wish absolutely there was a way to add my son to this list. He doesn't need a gun either.
|
|
|
Post by jenis40 on Feb 21, 2018 15:04:51 GMT
Not quite. "House Vote 77 - Repeals Rule Restricting Gun Sales to Severely Mentally Ill" The rule in question does NOT, in fact, "keep guns from the severely mentally ill," and repealing it will not allow the severely mentally ill access to firearms. Not being able to handle your finances is not a measure of whether you should be allowed to protect yourself or not. They are very different determinations. INDIVIDUALS should be determined to be a risk to themselves and others, not a blanket determination by the Social Security Administration, which does not allow due process. There's a reason the ACLU and dozens of mental health groups have urged the repeal of the law Obama put in place. One of the first signs we had that my mom was having issues with Alzheimer’s was that she was unable to maintain her checkbook register. My brother noticed that her normally meticulously maintained register was a scratched out, scribbled up mess that hadn’t been balanced in months, and he told me (I had POA). I took over paying her bills and mentioned it to her doctor who started the process of assessing her for Alzheimer’s. By then, it was already affecting her memory and judgement and as time went on she got increasingly anxious and paranoid too. My mom wasn’t a gun owner but knowing how irate she got just when we had to take away the car keys, I would really hate to see how out of sorts someone with Alzheimer’s might get if their kids had to take away their guns. I know someone dealing with this right now. The elderly person in question also has a history of schizophrenia and domestic violence and this person is taking care of another vulnerable disabled elderly person and their kids know there are loaded guns somewhere in the house. It’s scary. This link shows how the SSA determines capability to manage benefits; secure.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0200502020 Of note, this from the website: Consider the following when assessing the need for capability development: Does the individual have difficulty answering questions, getting the evidence or information necessary to pursue the claim, or understanding explanations and reporting instructions? This not someone I want handling guns despite a prior poster‘s protests that not being able to handle finances shouldn’t be a determining factor. If a person doesn’t have the capacity to handle money, why the hell would we trust them with a gun? I posted this in another thread. I don’t agree with Gia and the ACLU that people who have difficulty understanding and explaining things as noted above should have guns. I also don’t think these folks should be driving either.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 17, 2024 10:29:16 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2018 16:56:54 GMT
You have insurance to drive that vehicle if you injure someone with that vehicle... not do with if injuring someone if you shoot them. And it is a fear mongering tactic to start throwing in all the “losing your right for speech, voting, etc. because many want to talk about gun control. The teachers I know are against having guns in the schools. I read the Forbes article you posted about why gun owners should buy liability insurance. Any type of liability insurance for gun owners will be stand alone. There is no way insurance companies will write a homeowners policy that will extend to gun owners liability. Because the real possibility the claims submitted on this liability policy will be at limits it’s doubtful very many insurance companies will offer the coverage. If there are markets the premiums and deductibles will be high and I suspect only minimum limits will be offered. The insurance companies will demand certain conditions be met before writing the insurance for any gun owner. If the policy is issued and there is a claim and those agreed upon conditions weren’t met coverage will be denied. When I was working some of the most spirited debates I was involved in were between my clients and the insurance companies and what was required from the client to place/renew the insurance. And we all know how testy some gun owners can be when it comes to telling them what they do with their guns. That being said even there are insurance companies willing to write the coverage and if a gun owner are willing to pay high premiums and meet all the conditions imposed by the insurance companies what is that going to solve? One of the reasons for Insurance is to transfer risk and the monetary cost associated with it. Ok, but how does that stop the problem of requiring armed guards at schools? I did read that one gun organization offers some sort of liability insurance to its members at what is to me a too cheap of price for the exposure. Which makes me think it’s not what it’s cracked up to be. Also known as junk insurance. But without looking at the policy I can’t say for sure. And if one thinks requiring insurance will somehow change gun owners behavior, if that was the case there wouldn’t be as many car accidents as there are. I’m not against requiring gun owners to get liability insurance I just don’t see how it changes anything.
|
|
|
Post by missfrenchjessica on Feb 21, 2018 17:11:43 GMT
As a teacher, I want to know: how much more is going to be asked of me? As it is, I am sometimes a parent to these kids - I help them plan for college and I get on them to get their homework done so they can pass their classes. I encourage them when they need it and I give them a stern talking to when they slack off. I do a lot of that, because many parents don't seem to care. I know that they love their children, they just don't have the time at the end of the day to check grades, or they don't have a computer and can't log in to the system like I can. As it is, I am sometimes a nurse to these kids - I supply them with bandaids, feminine pads, kleenex and remind them to wash their hands and use the sanitizer. As it is, I am sometimes a counselor to these kids - I listen to them when they have a problem that they don't know how to deal with and don't know who to talk to. I spend money out of my own pocket to buy books, pencils, fun stuff for the classroom. I spend time out of my evenings and weekends looking for new ideas, best practices, and ways to get them motivated. I have given them food from my own lunch when they were hungry. Always, I am an advocate for these kids. I will speak up for them when they are being treated badly, I will write letters of recommendation, I will give them hugs and cheer like you wouldn't believe when I watch them march across the stage in May. And now I am being asked to become an armed guard for them. There was always the expectation that if the unthinkable happened, I would be the one who goes in the hall and locks the door. I'm the one who turns off the lights and makes sure the kids have the safest, best hiding places. I'm the one who has thought about the angles that are visible from the hall and whether or not it's safer to stay in the classroom, or to try to get into the interior workroom with an extra door in the way. Now it's going to be my job to have a weapon, secure the weapon, train with the weapon, and learn when and when not to shoot the weapon? I'm going to be the one who locks my kids in the room and then goes searching for the bad guy? That's the point at which I draw the line. I'm not Superman, I'm only a teacher. BRAVA!!!! This was exactly what I was thinking when I heard about the proposal to arm teachers. I do SO much already that is NOT teaching the curriculum and now we're assuming teachers can take on another task--and not just ANY old task. The task of protecting their lives by potentially using a fire arm? NO! No, I will NOT! No! I CANNOT! No. I don't want this to be the end of my career in education, but if they make me be armed in class, it will be.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 17, 2024 10:29:16 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2018 18:20:31 GMT
If you're required to have a mental health check to exercise one right, you should require a mental check to exercise all of your rights. I mean you might put someone in office like Donald Trump and we all know how deadly that's going to be. I mean it's so scary that people are divorcing husbands, ending long time friendships, avoiding family functions, making protesting a part time job in order to resist the tyranny, death and destruction to come. So you need a mental health check before you exercise your right to vote because we can't let that happen again. Same with speaking, you might say things that get people to vote for someone like Trump. The next one could be even worse, now that we've opened that door. So you need to register and get a mental health check before exercising that right too. I mean, rights come with responsibilities. No, because oddly enough, even though people are killing people with their vehicle (drunk drivers, terrorists, white supremacists) no one is looking to ban the tool in THOSE cases. Funny how that works. No, you shouldn't have to have a mental health check to exercise all of your rights - only the ones that allow you to quickly and easily kill dozens of people in a few seconds. Obviously. It's not logical in other cases. I didn't mention banning guns. I mentioned a licensing system and several ways to keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have them. We do take drivers' licenses away from people who show they cannot use their cars responsibly. We should definitely enact tougher penalties for drunk driving - I'd support losing your license permanently and impounding your car the first time you are caught. Zero tolerance. The 'slippery slope' argument for registration is getting old and tired. Yes, it is paranoid. I don't think we should be basing gun legislation that affects everyone on the whims and fears of paranoid survivalists, who are generally the ones who display that kind of thinking. If you are mentally ill and need to have your guns removed for your own safety, how can we possibly remove guns we don't know you have? No, it is not paranoid. The objection to registration is based on very real, very recent abuses by the government. We've also had many lawmakers suggest we move to the ban models of other countries. To dismiss acknowledging those facts as paranoid is dismissing reality. The objection to gun registration is that it could be a precursor to confiscation and considering the calls from lawmakers... that's an actual possibility, not paranoia. A ban on one gun starts out with the best intentions and then it doesn't work as planned (because it will not be effective at stopping mass shootings) and they "have to" expand whatever the current ban is. And despite the constant demonization of those acknowledging the most recent abuses of power, it is NOT paranoid to consider the possibility. It's actually dishonest to suggest it is paranoid. We've already seen the IRS abuse it's power and the DOJ against reporters doing their job, the NSA issues, the SSA trying to ban those who need help managing finances with no due process, the secretive No Fly List abuse also with no due process, just to name a few. So we know it has MAJOR potential for being abused considering their announced intentions and gun owners aren't willing to give them the opportunity when there are more effective ways to stop the massacres. What happens when the people in power do that to rights YOU agree with? I think if you want to buy a gun you need to be trained to use it correctly and safely. I also think we need to strengthen reporting to NICS. I do not agree with mandatory mental health checks because that has the potential to be abused as shown above.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 17, 2024 10:29:16 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2018 18:24:27 GMT
One of the first signs we had that my mom was having issues with Alzheimer’s was that she was unable to maintain her checkbook register. My brother noticed that her normally meticulously maintained register was a scratched out, scribbled up mess that hadn’t been balanced in months, and he told me (I had POA). I took over paying her bills and mentioned it to her doctor who started the process of assessing her for Alzheimer’s. By then, it was already affecting her memory and judgement and as time went on she got increasingly anxious and paranoid too. My mom wasn’t a gun owner but knowing how irate she got just when we had to take away the car keys, I would really hate to see how out of sorts someone with Alzheimer’s might get if their kids had to take away their guns. I know someone dealing with this right now. The elderly person in question also has a history of schizophrenia and domestic violence and this person is taking care of another vulnerable disabled elderly person and their kids know there are loaded guns somewhere in the house. It’s scary. This link shows how the SSA determines capability to manage benefits; secure.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0200502020 Of note, this from the website: Consider the following when assessing the need for capability development: Does the individual have difficulty answering questions, getting the evidence or information necessary to pursue the claim, or understanding explanations and reporting instructions? This not someone I want handling guns despite a prior poster‘s protests that not being able to handle finances shouldn’t be a determining factor. If a person doesn’t have the capacity to handle money, why the hell would we trust them with a gun? I posted this in another thread. I don’t agree with Gia and the ACLU that people who have difficulty understanding and explaining things as noted above should have guns. I also don’t think these folks should be driving either. As Yale’s Dr. Mark Rosen observed when the rule was first suggested, the link between financial acumen and mental illness is extraordinarily weak: “Someone can be incapable of managing their funds but not be dangerous, violent or unsafe,” said Dr. Marc Rosen, a Yale psychiatrist who has studied how veterans with mental health problems manage their money. “They are very different determinations." Statement from the National Council on Disability: "NCD is a nonpartisan, independent federal agency with no stated position with respect to gun-ownership or gun-control other than our long-held position that restrictions on gun possession or ownership based on psychiatric or intellectual disability must be based on a verifiable concern as to whether the individual poses a heightened risk of danger to themselves or others if they are in possession of a weapon. Additionally, it is critically important that any restriction on gun possession or ownership on this basis is imposed only after the individual has been afforded due process and given an opportunity to respond to allegations that they are not able to safely possess or own a firearm due to his or her disability. NCD believes that SSA’s final rule falls far short of meeting these criteria." There's a reason the ACLU and dozenS of mental health groups have urged the repeal of the law Obama put in place.
And it isn't because they don't care if mentally unstable people are handling guns.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 17, 2024 10:29:16 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2018 18:33:05 GMT
This link shows how the SSA determines capability to manage benefits; secure.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0200502020 Of note, this from the website: Consider the following when assessing the need for capability development: Does the individual have difficulty answering questions, getting the evidence or information necessary to pursue the claim, or understanding explanations and reporting instructions? This not someone I want handling guns despite a prior poster‘s protests that not being able to handle finances shouldn’t be a determining factor. If a person doesn’t have the capacity to handle money, why the hell would we trust them with a gun? I posted this in another thread. I don’t agree with Gia and the ACLU that people who have difficulty understanding and explaining things as noted above should have guns. I also don’t think these folks should be driving either. As Yale’s Dr. Mark Rosen observed when the rule was first suggested, the link between financial acumen and mental illness is extraordinarily weak: “Someone can be incapable of managing their funds but not be dangerous, violent or unsafe,” said Dr. Marc Rosen, a Yale psychiatrist who has studied how veterans with mental health problems manage their money. “They are very different determinations." Statement from the National Council on Disability: "NCD is a nonpartisan, independent federal agency with no stated position with respect to gun-ownership or gun-control other than our long-held position that restrictions on gun possession or ownership based on psychiatric or intellectual disability must be based on a verifiable concern as to whether the individual poses a heightened risk of danger to themselves or others if they are in possession of a weapon. Additionally, it is critically important that any restriction on gun possession or ownership on this basis is imposed only after the individual has been afforded due process and given an opportunity to respond to allegations that they are not able to safely possess or own a firearm due to his or her disability. NCD believes that SSA’s final rule falls far short of meeting these criteria." There's a reason the ACLU and dozenS of mental health groups have urged the repeal of the law Obama put in place.
And it isn't because they don't care if mentally unstable people are handling guns. I happen to know a couple of people fits this criteria to a t. In fact one of the guys has my sister handle his financial dealings with SSA because he is not mentally capable of doing it on his own. Now if someone cannot handle their their own financial affairs what makes you think they can handle the responsibility that goes with owning a gun? So you can repeated and bold the part about ACLU etc from now until the cows come home but in this they are dead wrong.
|
|