This message was self-deleted by its author

[hack89]

This message was self-deleted by its author (hack89) on Tue Mar 19, 2013, 07:31 AM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[freshwest]

1. I know people who have been adjudicated in that manner and will never legally own guns.

The standard is high, and the fact is they don't need guns for the severe range of problems they face. They need various means of protection from themselves and others, including the system itself, and law enforcement in particular.

It's part of the mitigation process to prevent sending them to jail or prison, where they will deteriorate and be in danger from more able inmates. If it was not in place, those individuals acts while incompetent would send them straight to jail. The statute is about meeting the needs of the total person in a progressive manner as part of civilized society.

But it's not really about gun rights, so let's not get diverted here by saying that gun violence is by mentally ill persons. Many of those that go through Mental Health Court have never owned a gun, their property destruction or assaults are based on what they can do without any weapon in hand when in a crisis.

It is a red herring regarding gun control, as these folks aren't in a position to own guns for the most part. The families, advocates and public defenders for persons in that position are fighting to get treatment in a non-punitive milieu within the least restrictive setting. It is intended to help the person, not control the access to guns.

This is a non-issue as far as legislation and should NOT be cited as a panacea for gun violence. This was the argument of the NRA after Newtown, inappropriate to this group's SOP. And I hope that is not your intention here, please. I have found you to be a respectful and serious poster in other forums.

Family dynamics and mental health was a factor there, but the public is not interested in gun fetish talk about capacity, or who is mentally ill. Most people suffering these afflictions are not violent to others, but their illness impacts those around them.

Guns have one purpose, and the NRA and GOA have muddied the issues for the sake of profits and sales. Not one word they say or position they take is valid, IMO, because of the context.

They refuse to take responsibility for the Koch - ALEC legislation destabilizing society as a whole. ALEC is dismantling civil government state by state, and Koch funded media incites armed revolution.

They want guns all over the place to create chaos. Then they will push the masses to accept authoritarian rule by theocracy or corporatism. This must be resisted at all costs by the intellectual, organizational power of the Democratic party and gun control is part of that, not mental health.

Although we can argue the insanity of the Alex Jones types who want to shoot down drones and conduct guerrilla war, that has nothing to do with Newtown or the laws of Washington state.

[CreekDog]

4. Mental illness is not the issue, it's people with violent tendencies or the likelihood to harm...

themselves or others that are the problem.

[BainsBane]

5. blame everything but gun proliferation

that is the clear goal. And if you can target a vulnerable population, all the better. Never mind there is no empirical link.

[BainsBane]

10. from someone who opposes simple registration of guns

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=115233

[apocalypsehow]

14. Hahaaahaa! Good catch.

[freshwest]

12. And I insist, knowing this system, that's not the issue of those the statute addresses.

It is NOT about guns. It's about care.

Please don't brush people whose records state they are incapable of reasoning and severely mentally disabled, unable to distinguish the consequences of their actions, as being a source of problems. Most are illiterate and could not navigate paperwork to obtain guns illegally. Many are so bad off that they are permanently indigent. They are NOT seeking guns.

These people often require intensive care that lasts for a life-time and I have never known any to employ weapons. Unless you want to call tossing a chair or some other object a weapon.

These are a small minority of vulnerable people receiving care paid for the by good people of Washington state as the right thing to do, as part of a humane society. It is beyond their capacity and a slur on them, don't drag them into this.

With all due respect, this is a grossly erroneous example to cite of people getting access to guns illegally. And a deep offense to this particular population. You may think differently, though.

[Electric Monk]

3. ...

[freshwest]

13. You are making me physically ill with this doubling down. I'm taking a break.

[freshwest]

9. Excellent.

[apocalypsehow]

11. Yep - that toon nails it. And no one's being fooled by the new "I support gun control, I really,

really, REALLY do!!!" craze (no pun intended) sweeping the Gungeon right now.

[DanTex]

16. "It is the gun grabbers who think that there is an epidemic of gun violence that requires more

gun control."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014133612#post104

Amazing that someone with such extreme right-wing views on guns can come around and suddenly support progressive gun control reforms. But hey, it's always nice to see people open their eyes and change their mind...

[apocalypsehow]

17. Funny, just yesterday that same poster was telling me that he and I "agreed" on everything about gun

control "except the AWB." Talk about doing a 180!

[raidert05]

15. I understand..

What the op was trying to bring into perspective is that although universal backgrounds should be a across the board thing, The system needs the cooperation of all the states in reporting of pertinent data in a timely manner as to not undermine the effectiveness of the system.

I'm proud to say my adopted state of Virginia is at the top of the list backed by the (Mayors Against Illegal Guns November 2012 Data) even with all of its other "sloppy gun laws" in reporting into the system. I would also like to see some where along the lines that in the cases of temporary restraining order involving domestic or violent abuse accusation that temporary flags would be put in the system to stop purchases until after resolution of the conflict in a court of law.

In the case of the article cited by the op mental-health records, I think in time with the implementation of universal background checks and stricter federal guidelines in mandatory input of data into the system by all states and mandatory waiting periods on all firearm purchase of at least a 5 day minimum would help control the flow of firearms and cut down on gun related fatalities.