Gun ownership and mental health (psychological) screenings

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by AshleyO

I'm just going to go play Skyrim.

You privileged bastard. Rights are on the line here.

[AshleyO]

*shrugs*

I dunno what to tell you. Present a scantron of various options and positions that I support and plug it into a machine and tally that up as a vote.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by AshleyO

*shrugs*

I dunno what to tell you. Present a scantron of various options and positions that I support and plug it into a machine and tally that up as a vote.

You WOULD rely on the electoral process.

Direct action is where it's at.

[Miss Absynthe]

Originally Posted by Despanan

b) Not true Schizophrenics are at significantly higher risk for violence than the general population, but this may be due to the fact that schizophrenics have a higher incidence of drug use.

If you look at the actual research paper referred to in the wiki that you posted WRT schizophrenia and violent acts, you will find this:

Schizophrenia and other psychoses are associated with violence and violent offending, particularly homicide. However, most of the excess risk appears to be mediated by substance abuse comorbidity. The risk in these patients with comorbidity is similar to that for substance abuse without psychosis. Public health strategies for violence reduction could consider focusing on the primary and secondary prevention of substance abuse

[Emphasis added]

Originally Posted by Despanan

It would seem that there are restrictions & prohibitions on epileptics who drive in many countries depending upon the severity of their condition.

yes.. depending on the severity of their condition.

[AshleyO]

...Are you trying to be funny?

I can't tell is Desp is being factious or not.

[Miss Absynthe]

When talking about taking someone's license away because they have a substantial visual impairment, you are talking about someone who's ability to drive IS affected.

When talking about not allowing someone with a mental illness to have a firearm, you are talking about someone who MAY OR MAY NOT do something one day...

...and statistically speaking the people who do fucked up things with firearms are not the people who have mental illnesses.

[AshleyO]

I just realized that when it comes to mental illness and such...

It's interesting the the fate of those with MIs have NO AGENCY for their own destiny. Their entire lives are determined on the compassion or understanding (lack thereof) of those who do not have MI.

[Miss Absynthe]

And then add to that the fact that once you have some sort of diagnosis listed on a medical file EVERYTHING becomes about that.

Quite literally every time I go to see a GP I get asked about my psych meds.

"Oh.. I see you've stopped taking your seroquel. Why don't we start you back on that."
"Umm.. because the last time I checked it won't actually do anything for a sore throat."

...not to mention the way that things are phrased - "..let's start you on.." not "..there is this medication that you could try.."

...or the fact that if someone with a physical illness refuses treatment then it is seen as their decision, even if people don't understand it the medical community accepts that it is ultimately that person's choice to undergo treatment or take medication. If someone has a mental illness then they are just labelled as being non-compliant no matter what their reasoning behind refusing treatment is.

..like most other things, it all comes down to privilege - and the people who have it also have the privilege of not having to be aware of their own level of privilege.

[Miss Absynthe]

http://www.upworthy.com/the-nra-thin...his?g=3&c=upw1

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by AshleyO

...Are you trying to be funny?

I'm not trying to be funny, I'm being goddamn hilarious.

If you look at the actual research paper referred to in the wiki that you posted WRT schizophrenia and violent acts, you will find this:

I did look at it. that's why I said this, which you linked:

Originally Posted by despanan

...but this may be due to the fact that schizophrenics have a higher incidence of drug use.

So we don't actually disagree here.

When talking about not allowing someone with a mental illness to have a firearm, you are talking about someone who MAY OR MAY NOT do something one day...

I'm actually less concerned with criminal proclivity, and more concerned with missed shots and other accidents.

It's interesting the the fate of those with MIs have NO AGENCY for their own destiny. Their entire lives are determined on the compassion or understanding (lack thereof) of those who do not have MI.

That depends on the severity of their illnesses.

[Miss Absynthe]

A person is more than the severity of their illness. You're proposing that someone have their rights removed on that basis alone.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Miss Absynthe

A person is more than the severity of their illness. You're proposing that someone have their rights removed on that basis alone.

I'm pointing out that there can be rational reasons for removing rights from people. If those reasons are rational then it's not ableism. I'm totally okay with taking a more nuanced approach to things.

Now can you please answer my question: do you support doing away with the insanity defense?

[AshleyO]

[Despanan]

So you WOULDN'T support doing away with the insanity defense?

Also, don't act like you're against doing away with rights. You're totally FOR doing away with rights.

[Versus]

I like how policing people from harming others with hate speech is totally out of line, but taking self-determination from the disabled is totally legit.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Versus

I like how policing people from harming others with hate speech is totally out of line, but taking self-determination from the disabled is totally legit.

Is it rational to remove that self determination? That's a problem with self-determination in the case of people with impaired reasoning faculties.

We also remove self-determination from children, until they turn 18. Are you against this?

[AshleyO]

Tsk. Tsk. *smh*

[Versus]

You're disgusting.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Versus

You're disgusting.

Your FACE is disgusting.

Let's try this another way: we remove self-determination from people when we put them in prison. Are you against putting people in prison no matter the circumstances?

[Versus]

Do you think you're being fucking cute right now?

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Versus

Do you think you're being fucking cute right now?

No, I don't think I'm being fucking cute. I know I'm being fucking cute. Now answer the question. I've asked four questions and I've gotten zero answers. One would be nice.

[Miss Absynthe]

Perhaps if you try asking questions that actually have something to do with the topic, instead of questions designed to reframe the discussion into something that you feel you can "win"?

[Despanan]

Assume I'm very stupid.

Please tell me how these questions are not related to the topic.

[Miss Absynthe]

Aww.. man. That set up was way too easy.

Seriously, though - could you please repost the four questions? There have been a lot of them thrown around here.

[Despanan]

1) As blindness is a disability, is taking a driver's license away from someone who's legally blind ableism? If not, why not?

2) If the mentally ill should enjoy all the rights and privileges of those who are not mentally ill, regardless of their condition, should they also have the same responsibilities. For instance: should courts reject the insanity plea? If not, why not?

3) If self-determination should never be removed under any circumstances, should children enjoy the same level of self-determination as adults? How about criminals or felons? Should people never be placed in prison? Why?

4) If self-determination can be reasonably removed by society under specific circumstances, are there any circumstances in which it is reasonable to remove reasonable levels of self-determination from the mentally ill, depending upon their condition? ie: If it is likely that a schizophrenic's condition is so advanced that they have become a danger to themselves and others, is it ableism to involuntarily commit them?