Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Crazy Talk
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Roadkill Coyote" data-source="post: 2798032" data-attributes="member: 13568"><p>No, I'm well aware that my initial suggestion might be too broad, as I said "We can argue about the details, like which drugs should be on the list". But I stand by my argument that changes in the mental health system have resulted in many people who would have previously been adjudicated or committed walking around unsupervised in the community. Medication has replaced confinement, and that was the previous standard for restricting purchase and possession. If we are going to have a mental health restriction at all, then we have to update how we recognize that status. The current standard is based on a system that has largely discarded the mechanism we continue to use as a metric. It's broken, and in all likelihood there will be some reform in the next few years, the only question is whether we hash out some objective standards, of wait for the other side to enact a draconian solution based on the feels.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I would also like to get rid of bitter sarcasm that doesn't contribute to online discussions, but the windmill may be too large, and even I feel the breeze.</p><p></p><p>On a more serious note, I do believe people with serious mental illness should be prohibited from purchasing a firearm. I suspect that you find my suggestion far to broad, and I'm certainly willing to entertain other suggestions. You're not giving me enough details to go beyond that. As for the First Amendment issue, somewhere out there, the next killer is watching this media orgy, and receiving the reinforcement, the empowerment, that will lead directly to another attack. I think we should stop this ongoing positive reinforcement by the least intrusive mean possible, if you have a less intrusive suggestion, feel free to contribute.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Roadkill Coyote, post: 2798032, member: 13568"] No, I'm well aware that my initial suggestion might be too broad, as I said "We can argue about the details, like which drugs should be on the list". But I stand by my argument that changes in the mental health system have resulted in many people who would have previously been adjudicated or committed walking around unsupervised in the community. Medication has replaced confinement, and that was the previous standard for restricting purchase and possession. If we are going to have a mental health restriction at all, then we have to update how we recognize that status. The current standard is based on a system that has largely discarded the mechanism we continue to use as a metric. It's broken, and in all likelihood there will be some reform in the next few years, the only question is whether we hash out some objective standards, of wait for the other side to enact a draconian solution based on the feels. I would also like to get rid of bitter sarcasm that doesn't contribute to online discussions, but the windmill may be too large, and even I feel the breeze. On a more serious note, I do believe people with serious mental illness should be prohibited from purchasing a firearm. I suspect that you find my suggestion far to broad, and I'm certainly willing to entertain other suggestions. You're not giving me enough details to go beyond that. As for the First Amendment issue, somewhere out there, the next killer is watching this media orgy, and receiving the reinforcement, the empowerment, that will lead directly to another attack. I think we should stop this ongoing positive reinforcement by the least intrusive mean possible, if you have a less intrusive suggestion, feel free to contribute. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Crazy Talk
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom