Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Multiple people reportedly killed after gunman opens fire at Florida airport

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Mike1976 View Post
    ...In my opinion mentally unstable people ...should have their 2nd Amendment rights suspended until they've proven that they can be trusted. Same way their freedom can be suspended when they've been a threat to society. You don't leave a gun alone with a child either and expect them to behave responsibly with it.
    Psychiatry in the 20th century had a nasty habit of allowing itself to be a tool of the government for opression - an ideal way of suppressing/locking up dissidents for "mental illness".

    What do you call "mentally unstable"? In some societies, someone who identifies as gay or transgender is "mentally unstable". How about someone who has OCD? Mild depression? A phobia of heights?

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by GB_FXST View Post

      2nd Amendment rights cannot be stripped without legal due process.
      Like the legal process that follows after you tell the FBI that you are making plans for an attack to support ISIS ideology?

      Originally posted by TheKiwi View Post

      What do you call "mentally unstable"?
      Stepping into an FBI office and saying the CIA is making you fight for ISIS. Hearing voices in your head telling you to hurt people. Violent outbursts for no apparent reason. Should I continue?

      Whether you make such a threat because you're deranged or because you are actually serious you need to be locked up in either a psychiatric facility or jail and upon release some rights should be temporarily suspended, like an extended parole which also imposes limitations to personal freedom to see if you can be trusted with a deadly weapon designed for killing people. And no, kitchen knives, cars etc aren't meant for killing people. Shooting paper/steel targets or a deer doesn't make firearms an every day item that is essential to survival for 99,99% of the population, they have always been designed primarily to take lives. If you get into the position where society no longer trusts you to have firearms you have no one else to blame but yourself. The same way it goes for if society decides that you need to be in jail.

      Guns don't kill people, they just make it a whole lot easier. I see no reason for society to protect the rights of the criminal and the mentally deranged to have the ability to hurt innocent people more easily than it absolutely has to. You use your car to get to the job that the parole officer set up for you. You use a kitchen knife to make dinner for yourself. What every day use does a gun have to an ex-detainee or current mental patient that doesn't fall under the category of hobby or self-defence which in the case of the ex-detainee may well turn out to be defence against their former colleagues and in the case of the severity level of mental issues that I described severely exaggerated or even completely imaginary.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Mike1976 View Post

        Stepping into an FBI office and saying the CIA is making you fight for ISIS. Hearing voices in your head telling you to hurt people. Violent outbursts for no apparent reason. Should I continue?
        .
        I'll just repeat - mentally unstable are some of those wonderful weasel words that can be used to mean whatever the person in power wants it to. The example you've given above is an excellent one of bureaucratic screw-up rather than something that should be used for a blanket rule.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Chomiq View Post
          I'm not discussing the right to have a gun in checked baggage. I'm saying you can walk into the local FBI office saying CIA is forcing you to watch ISIS videos, get checked in for a psych evaluation, receive psychological treatment and still not get flagged for some sort of "don't let him get on a flight, especially if he's got a gun in his CHECKED baggage" list. This guy just ridiculed the entire airport security system and the FBI.
          Chomiq I understand your point. However.....if I understand that airport and most airports here in the US...the baggage claim is not on the secure side of the TSA line, i.e. it is unsecured where people waiting can meet incoming travelers. While your point might stand with flying...what is to prevent anyone with a gun from coming into the baggage claim from the parking area and opening fire? Nothing currently. I certainly do not desire/want the security moving out into the baggage claim area, unless we are talking about moving it away from the airports, i.e like Israel and have security out a mile from the terminals....as we just can't manage that in the current setup of US airports in cities with malls, hotels, restaurants and single family housing etc right up close to the airports (for instance Love Field in Dallas, National in DC, Salt Lake City, Omaha, San Francisco, etc. other methods of control need to be looked at for long term....IMO. ymmv

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by TheKiwi View Post

            I'll just repeat - mentally unstable are some of those wonderful weasel words that can be used to mean whatever the person in power wants it to. The example you've given above is an excellent one of bureaucratic screw-up rather than something that should be used for a blanket rule.
            I thought "hacking" was the best weasel word of the year.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by TheKiwi View Post

              I'll just repeat - mentally unstable are some of those wonderful weasel words that can be used to mean whatever the person in power wants it to. The example you've given above is an excellent one of bureaucratic screw-up rather than something that should be used for a blanket rule.
              I never said there should be a blanket rule, to clarify it further I said that after the legal process including the psychiatric diagnosis of actual mental issues qualified medical staff can make that recommendation to a judge. There is no implication of a blanket ban on guns for "troublemakers" in what I said.

              Edit: Just read that he had to turn in a gun for a while due to mental issues but it was given back later because no mental issues were apparent, not certain that it's the same gun used in the attack. Interesting to see what this more thorough evaluation will uncover as far as the extent of failure of the system goes ...
              Last edited by Mike1976; 07-01-2017, 06:21 PM.

              Comment


              • #52
                Mental issues are like guns, they're everywhere and are easily concealed.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Fargin View Post
                  Mental issues are like guns, they're everywhere and are easily concealed.
                  Well not in this case since he presented himself to the FBI with a story that screams nutcase. Whether he went to the FBI to get help for his apparent condition to prevent it from reaching the next level that we all saw on the news or because he was so far gone that he genuinely believed his story and was looking for LE support from the FBI remains to be seen. Either way mistakes were made in not taking this matter seriously enough.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Mike1976 View Post

                    Like the legal process that follows after you tell the FBI that you are making plans for an attack to support ISIS ideology?



                    Stepping into an FBI office and saying the CIA is making you fight for ISIS. Hearing voices in your head telling you to hurt people. Violent outbursts for no apparent reason. Should I continue?

                    Whether you make such a threat because you're deranged or because you are actually serious you need to be locked up in either a psychiatric facility or jail and upon release some rights should be temporarily suspended, like an extended parole which also imposes limitations to personal freedom to see if you can be trusted with a deadly weapon designed for killing people. And no, kitchen knives, cars etc aren't meant for killing people. Shooting paper/steel targets or a deer doesn't make firearms an every day item that is essential to survival for 99,99% of the population, they have always been designed primarily to take lives. If you get into the position where society no longer trusts you to have firearms you have no one else to blame but yourself. The same way it goes for if society decides that you need to be in jail.

                    Guns don't kill people, they just make it a whole lot easier. I see no reason for society to protect the rights of the criminal and the mentally deranged to have the ability to hurt innocent people more easily than it absolutely has to. You use your car to get to the job that the parole officer set up for you. You use a kitchen knife to make dinner for yourself. What every day use does a gun have to an ex-detainee or current mental patient that doesn't fall under the category of hobby or self-defence which in the case of the ex-detainee may well turn out to be defence against their former colleagues and in the case of the severity level of mental issues that I described severely exaggerated or even completely imaginary.
                    Many steps before the subsequent FBI investigation may possibly result in a Judicial finding of guilt or mental defect.

                    We are wading into a conversation about the differences between rights and privileges. 2nd Amendment is of course the former.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      So for those of you who support the possible terrorist angle in this case, why didn't he shout Allahu Akbar and that kind of thing during the attack? By all accounts he was silent. Didn't say a word throughout the whole ordeal.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by breki View Post
                        So for those of you who support the possible terrorist angle in this case, why didn't he shout Allahu Akbar and that kind of thing during the attack? By all accounts he was silent. Didn't say a word throughout the whole ordeal.
                        He's telepathic.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          He's shy and not wanting to proselytize?

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X