Guns Don't Kill People, People Kill People

ScienceChic wrote: So what do you think of this case? Is this woman rights being violated, or is this a exactly what we thought should be done to prevent future public shootings?

OK, I'll bite, and offer this although I'm pretty sure my response will be viewed by many here on MMT as my typical "tap dance".

The article doesn't say what the husband's psychiatric evaluation was for, specifically. Was he being held for 72 hours because he posed a risk of harm to himself? To others? Something else?

This is why it's so important to try not to stigmatize those with mental illness as being "crazies" (you didn't do that, but others here on MMT have). There is a HUGE difference between being mentally ill and being diagnosed as being insane, as we've seen in the Aurora theater shooting trial.

I just don't think we have enough information in this case to be able to render any kind of an informed decision one way or the other. My opinion.

And one more thing.....the use of the word "exactly" doesn't quite resonate with me, personally in this case. Nitpicking? Perhaps.

ZHawke wrote:

ScienceChic wrote: So what do you think of this case? Is this woman rights being violated, or is this a exactly what we thought should be done to prevent future public shootings?

OK, I'll bite, and offer this although I'm pretty sure my response will be viewed by many here on MMT as my typical "tap dance".

The article doesn't say what the husband's psychiatric evaluation was for, specifically. Was he being held for 72 hours because he posed a risk of harm to himself? To others? Something else?

This is why it's so important to try not to stigmatize those with mental illness as being "crazies" (you didn't do that, but others here on MMT have). There is a HUGE difference between being mentally ill and being diagnosed as being insane, as we've seen in the Aurora theater shooting trial.

I just don't think we have enough information in this case to be able to render any kind of an informed decision one way or the other. My opinion.

So if there is not enough information as to whether a person with some kind of mental illness is a danger, should the default position be to keep the guns from the woman or let her have the guns but be responsible for any crimes committed with them by the husband? Who decides?

Who said anything at all about the husband committing any crimes whether with these guns or not? Obviously, the authorities went with the default position and are "erring" on the side of caution.

What is YOUR position on this?

And the reason I asked what is YOUR position on this, Rick, is because SC asked for opinions....like yours. I did not, although you questioned mine.

Sorry I forgot she asked the question, you've been the most active on this topic so I deferred to you.

IMO, the woman should be able to keep her guns if she is not the one who has a mental problem. What she does with the guns is her choice... if she is irresponsible enough to allow her mentally ill husband to have access, then she is responsible for anything bad that may happen with the guns.

I see it no differently than having guns and kids in the same house... lock up your guns and be responsible. Simple.

Rick wrote: Sorry I forgot she asked the question, you've been the most active on this topic so I deferred to you.

IMO, the woman should be able to keep her guns if she is not the one who has a mental problem. What she does with the guns is her choice... if she is irresponsible enough to allow her mentally ill husband to have access, then she is responsible for anything bad that may happen with the guns.

I see it no differently than having guns and kids in the same house... lock up your guns and be responsible. Simple.

But Rick, under your model individuals who own guns would have to have some personal responsibility. In an Era when Noone is ever responsible for their own actions your model doesn't work; James Holmes literally wrote an entire notebook detailing his plans but every murder and maiming he committed is not his fault because he is mentally ill or was at the time. IMHO there are some crimes so heinous that the evidence is all that should be required to get the death penality. What's the point of allowing that kind of criminal to survive and continue to seek appeals,parole, or rehabilitation. Truncate the process, hold a trial and if found guilty sentence the purpatrator to death, allow one appeal and if the appeal fails execute the prisoner in an expedient manner.

As a tangent, I wonder how many posters here are pro abortion but anti death penalty? Talk about a position that contradicts itself!

otisptoadwater wrote: But Rick, under your model individuals who own guns would have to have some personal responsibility.

Apparently, you're missing the irony in that statement.

As to the rest of it, the perp in the Aurora theater shooting was found to be mentally ill, not insane. HUGE difference. Plus, his defense team offered a plea deal before the trial ever began, and the prosecution turned it down, which, to me, acknowledges his guilt and that he knew what he was doing when he did it and that he knew it was wrong. The prosecution turning down that plea deal pretty much forced the defense team to take it in the "insanity" direction from there.

Your take on mental illness is what's wrong with our societal views on mental illness, IMHO. By not acknowledging there is a difference between mental illness and insanity, you basically include an entire group of individuals in a category of mental illness who do not belong there (insanity).

It's been argued in another thread on another site that gun violence does not exist, that the "gun genie" needs to be put back into the bottle because "violence" is the same no matter how it might be committed. Well, the same thing could be said about mental illness, too, as far as I'm concerned.

On the mental illness thing, this article, Aurora Police Commander Mike Dailey reveals his concern for theater shooting officers suffering PTSD , goes into some detail on the aftermath of a mass shooting and explains how scenarios like these actually "create" an entirely new class of mentally ill individuals in the form of PTSD. These individuals are NOT insane, but they do suffer from PTSD, and PTSD is pretty widely acknowledged to be a mental illness. That's the conundrum we face in trying to address the issue of mental illness in this country, and is also the untold story of heroic first responders who try to help others in travesties like the Aurora theater shooting:

He described the scene he and his officers experienced as "nothing less than the trauma of war.