At least 10 dead in shooting

[cadaverdog]

The clown in the video doesn't think mental illness causes people to commit mass murders but I think you'd have to be mentally ill to do such a thing. Mentally stable people realize they're going to probably end up dead or behind bars for the rest of their lives if they act upon impulses such as those and just let those violent thoughts pass. Who hasn't thought about killing somebody but didn't because they knew there would be consequences for doing so even if they got away with it. If you can be brainwashed into thinking you're gonna be rewarded by your creator for killing people who don't think or look like you do you're mentally unstable.

[Kristy]

Hey fantasy SMChick, you still alive. Not a psuedo anything but how do keep a registry of mentally ill but yet not violate medical record privacy laws?

Do you all read that? See, this is how a god damn liberal will get you killed - literally.

[Never was]

Do you all read that? See, this is how a god damn liberal will get you killed - literally.

SMChick, I think Ford as the resident voice of the liberal point of view may find calling me liberal offensive but if you wish ok I am a big fat flaming liberal.

Now moving past that the question remains how do you create a national registry of mentally ill? Is it those declared in a court to be legally incompetent because that is a really small number? Is it anyone prescribed a psychotropic drug? If so that is a huge number and back to how do you create that without violating privacy laws? I don't know the answer or claim that there is one right one but it is not simple in reality. Rhetoric is easy, policy that is easy has really bad unintended consequences regardless or conservative or liberal origin. This also then opens to how we dispense and prescribe these drugs, etc... There are many hard decisions and you can't find them in a simple label.

[Kristy]

SMChick, I think Ford as the resident voice of the liberal point of view may find calling me liberal offensive but if you wish ok I am a big fat flaming liberal.

Yes you are, you pedantic, pathetic, pillow bitter of possibly puerile pussy pus.

Now moving past that the question remains how do you create a national registry of mentally ill?

Who is talking about a registry, hippie? Take Cafaggerslob here for exampies: say he goes in and says to his social worker like he is going to kill someone and has plans to do so BINGO! He loses the right to in possession of a gun. How is that any god damn different from placing a mental health hold on someone? The you flag all the asses of all the other crazie pansies you liberals love to fellatio so that they cannot legally purchase a weapon, or be in possession of a weapon. No HIPPA laws are violated and it's not much different from what felons go through. So.Do.Shut.The.Fuck.Up.

I swear, you uber-rich college boy liberals. So fucking hellbent on having the violently mentally ill have their ways.

Get the fuck out of this thread.

[Kristy]

Looks like WARF missed one:

[FORD]

SMChick, I think Ford as the resident voice of the liberal point of view may find calling me liberal offensive but if you wish ok I am a big fat flaming liberal.

Now moving past that the question remains how do you create a national registry of mentally ill? Is it those declared in a court to be legally incompetent because that is a really small number? Is it anyone prescribed a psychotropic drug? If so that is a huge number and back to how do you create that without violating privacy laws? I don't know the answer or claim that there is one right one but it is not simple in reality. Rhetoric is easy, policy that is easy has really bad unintended consequences regardless or conservative or liberal origin. This also then opens to how we dispense and prescribe these drugs, etc... There are many hard decisions and you can't find them in a simple label.

The database needs to be created in such a way that all that's visible to a gun seller is a red flag, saying "This person cannot buy a gun or ammo".

It's not their concern WHY that is the case. So whether they are a convicted felon, or mentally ill, it's still the same "red flag", at least from what the gun seller can see. And yes, being prescribed an SSRI drug should put somebody into that database. These drugs even have warning labels that admit that they will make some people "suicidal" (and from there, it's not a huge leap to "homicidal", especially for those people who can't kill themselves, but have to manipulate somebody else into doing it (like cops, for example)



...so yeah, I have no problem with anybody with those particular toxic chemicals rolling around in their head being prohibited from buying weapons & ammo, as long as it's done in a way where the particulars of their mental illness remains private.

[Kristy]

The database needs to be created in such a way that all that's visible to a gun seller is a red flag, saying "This person cannot buy a gun or ammo".

Exactly, Bernie Boy! This is pretty much already what happens with convicted felons. And it would not violate HIPPA laws because a gun seller would have no need to know the reason why the name is flagged. But oh no! Can't have that kind of common sense with liberals like Never buzzed around. I'm surprised uber-rich college boy takes the timeout of his high rise Cheery Creek gentrification loft to condescend to us with his brilliant ideas.

[Never was]

Ford I agree the SSRI drugs should be a flag and an open discussion of how they are prescribed. But creating a database will dictate reporting identifying information to the gov't. which indeed will violate current law or require re-classification with the result being uniting the NRA and ACLU. Currently C2 at many state levels captures patient identifying information it does not at the federal level, it is an RFID system for that reason. You also have the issue what do you do if a legal gun owner is prescribed, do police confiscate the gun? If not surrender does the gun owner essentially get arrested? Will this cause some to avoid treatment?


I agree with the sentiment, I just think to be effective it requires some big decisions in balancing privacy, protection, how we treat, and how we enforce. Just not simple and if those issues don't get coordinated policy can create more unintended consequence. There is a huge correlation between SSRI and mass killings, so I'm with you Ford.

[Kristy]

It's survival in the Cherry Creek when you live from day to day. Cherry Creek people don't have much pity, "fuck the poor" that's what they say.


~Joe Walsh

[DONNIEP]

I wonder how many people take Prozac but never kill anybody. And now someone will say "But everybody that commits a mass shooting is on dem dere drugs!!" That's kinda like saying most terrorists are Muslims, ain't it?

[DONNIEP]

And I don't take drugs so it doesn't affect me. But if we're gonna start ruling out Prozac and the like we might as well toss weed in the no no bucket. Maybe require people applying for a new permit to pee in a cup or give a hair sample. And I don't care if weed doesn't make people violent. High is high. Same as how it's illegal to carry with booze in your system. ANY booze.

[Seshmeister]

[DONNIEP]

I wish I could get me some of that gun lobby money. I'd buy more guns!

[cadaverdog]

I wish I could get me some of that gun lobby money. I'd buy more guns!

I'd buy a flame thrower.

[Kristy]

I'd buy a Russel Crowe - you know, the Roth Army NSA spy.