Don't disarm the mentally ill

[ParkCungHee]

More fundamentally, is the text of the Second Amendment equivalent to the intention of its writers? Since it originally had a comma immediately after 'militia' - which is nonsensical by modern standards - there's a good case that the Founding Fathers' understanding of grammar was rather different to our own, and that they intended to write a sentance in which the 'right' depended on its 'explanation'. Even then, should the Constitution be interpreted precisely? Is what was good enough for them good enough for us? And so on, and so forth.

Do we use Oxford Commas?

 

[Flying Pig]

The Oxford Comma comes before the final 'and' in a list of three or more items - as originally written (but not as made into law), the Amendment bracketed off the middle clause 'being necessary to the security of a free state' (or words to that effect), which would normally mean that the bracketing clauses can stand alone: the phrase 'a well regulated militia the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed' makes no sense, but modern grammar dictates that it must.

 

[Carras Dad]

so they wer simply bad at english?

 

[ParkCungHee]

The Oxford Comma comes before the final 'and' in a list of three or more items - as originally written (but not as made into law), the Amendment bracketed off the middle clause 'being necessary to the security of a free state' (or words to that effect), which would normally mean that the bracketing clauses can stand alone: the phrase 'a well regulated militia the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed' makes no sense, but modern grammar dictates that it must.

Well, not the Second Ammendment but the constitution in general. For example if we go with a literalist reading of the constitution:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;"
Now, given that I'm used to using the Oxford Comma, that would seem to imply that Congress has the power "to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general Welfare of the United States." But it does not have the power "to pay the debts...of the United States" or to "provide for the common defence" or to "provide for the general Welfare". No commas means it's one item, no breaking it up.

 

[Flying Pig]

Yes, it does, through doing all the aforementioned - the 'to' in 'to pay... and provide for' should be understood as 'in order to'. In other words, it needs to use them in order to do all of that, rather than for the benefit of the Members of Congress, or anything like that.

so they wer simply bad at english?

Languages evolve.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Yes, it does, through doing all the aforementioned - the 'to' in 'to pay... and provide for' should be understood as 'in order to'. In other words, it needs to use them in order to do all of that, rather than for the benefit of the Members of Congress, or anything like that.

Right, but doesn't that mean they have to do all of that at once since it's a singular power?

Use of the Oxford comma elsewhere in the document ("To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;") would seem to imply they're using it, but other times this seems to produce oddities. For example Congress can only call forth the militia to "suppress rebellions and repel invasions." If there is a rebellion, congress is powerless. If we are invaded, it can take no action vis a vis the militia. But if we're invaded and facing an invasion simultaneously, congress can call the militia.

 

[Flying Pig]

No; the reason the Oxford Comma is generally disliked is that it's seen as redundant; it should, almost, be understood as preceding the final 'and' in every list. The example you've just given illustrates why.

 

[ParkCungHee]

But the use of the Oxford comma is generally the rule in the U.S. Constitution. This would seem to imply that either they're is a very silly absence of a few commas in the Constitution, or that there is a great multitude of extraneous characters that actually made it in to the document.

So I don't think the document is all that grammatical, if we're going to invest too much value in the meaning of the words as they appear on the page.

 

[Berzerker]

Of course there is a difference in various types of mental illness.

No, and neither would anyone else. You seem unable to grasp that this would have already occurred prior to the request to buy a weapon via a mental health professional inputing their diagnosis into a database which would be part of a background check at point of purchase.

Absolutely. Do you?

I equated the violently mentally ill as a demograph that we shouldnt allow to have access to guns. If you disagree with that then your just fine with the violentlly mentally ill killing our schoolchildren.

And I'm fine with drunk drivers killing our children because I support legal booze, right? Oh, you support legal booze. Okay, I have blood on my hands for supporting the 1st Amendment which Hollywood benefits from by making violent movies people pay to see. Plenty of blood to go around... We're talking about the mentally ill, not convicted criminals or the violently mentally ill so stop piling straw. Btw, the mentally ill are more likely to be victims of crime - sounds like a demographic in need of guns.

I dont think you understand the difference between a right and a privilege - we dont need "permission" from a court and its licensed head doc to exercise a right. You are throwing the mentally ill off the gun rights bus, if they want a gun that'll probably be another red flag they're about to go on a killing spree. Wouldn't that be the question asked by the parents of the kid they murdered? How could you let the mentally ill buy a gun? That "right" wont be exercised very often under your system, I imagine thats a few million people smart enough to figure out they're taking a risk just asking your permission to buy a gun.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Now that there is all this speculation about how PTSD can supposedly turn someone into a homicidal maniac who would even kill those who are trying to help him, should we apply the same standards to anybody who has served in the military in a combat zone or been in the proximity of violence that now claims to suffer from it?

 

[MobBoss]

And I'm fine with drunk drivers killing our children because I support legal booze, right? Oh, you support legal booze. Okay, I have blood on my hands for supporting the 1st Amendment which Hollywood benefits from by making violent movies people pay to see. Plenty of blood to go around... We're talking about the mentally ill, not convicted criminals or the violently mentally ill so stop piling straw. Btw, the mentally ill are more likely to be victims of crime - sounds like a demographic in need of guns.

Yes, I am talking about the violently mentally ill. I have from the beginning and consistently have in this thread. You're the one 'piling straw' as it were by wrongfully lumping all mentally ill in this issue when we've been clear and concise in regards the violent vs the non-violent.

The thing is Bezerker, we already restrict the gun rights of the violent mentally ill, we just need to get better at it. More consistency and better communication from health care professionals and our courts.

I dont think you understand the difference between a right and a privilege - we dont need "permission" from a court and its licensed head doc to exercise a right.

To buy a weapon you do. They are called background checks and concealed carry licenses. Maybe you've heard of them?

You are throwing the mentally ill off the gun rights bus, if they want a gun that'll probably be another red flag they're about to go on a killing spree.

Again, only the violently mentally ill and only on the recommedation of their own health care professional.

At this point I'm convinced you really dont have any aguement against my point, since you cant stop yourself from mischaracterizing the point I make regarding the violent as opposed to the non-violent.

Wouldn't that be the question asked by the parents of the kid they murdered? How could you let the mentally ill buy a gun?

Its precisely one of the questions in the Colorado shooting since the guy was being seen by a mental health professional when he commited the crime.

That "right" wont be exercised very often under your system, I imagine thats a few million people smart enough to figure out they're taking a risk just asking your permission to buy a gun.

Actually, there is nothing to indicate this at all and its simply your own personal fear and paranoia in action. There would be absolutely no risk to someone applying to buy a gun. They would simply be turned down during the background check phase of the process. Nothing more, nothing less.

Now that there is all this speculation about how PTSD can supposedly turn someone into a homicidal maniac who would even kill those who are trying to help him, should we apply the same standards to anybody who has served in the military in a combat zone or been in the proximity of violence that now claims to suffer from it?

How about those actually diagnosed in having it?

Btw, its not mere speculation. Soldiers with PTSD are part of the reason the military is having some of the highest suicide rates in its history. You do consider suicide an act of violence dont you?

 

[Berzerker]

Yes, I am talking about the violently mentally ill. I have from the beginning and consistently have in this thread. You're the one 'piling straw' as it were by wrongfully lumping all mentally ill in this issue when we've been clear and concise in regards the violent vs the non-violent.

The thing is Bezerker, we already restrict the gun rights of the violent mentally ill, we just need to get better at it. More consistency and better communication from health care professionals and our courts.

This thread is about the mentally ill, not convicted criminals or the violently mentally ill.

To buy a weapon you do. They are called background checks and concealed carry licenses. Maybe you've heard of them?

We aint talking about concealed carry either (that would be a privilege too), a background check is for criminal convictions for which gun rights have been denied, not a diagnosis from a health care professional working for the courts. After all this and you're still equating the mentally ill with convicted criminals. Thats a load of straw.

Again, only the violently mentally ill and only on the recommedation of their own health care professional.

At this point I'm convinced you really dont have any aguement against my point, since you cant stop yourself from mischaracterizing the point I make regarding the violent as opposed to the non-violent.

Nobody was arguing against your point

Its precisely one of the questions in the Colorado shooting since the guy was being seen by a mental health professional when he commited the crime.

Actually, there is nothing to indicate this at all and its simply your own personal fear and paranoia in action. There would be absolutely no risk to someone applying to buy a gun. They would simply be turned down during the background check phase of the process. Nothing more, nothing less.

How do you think the courts and their docs will answer them? By denying permission to the mentally ill? Erring on the side of caution? Why should they take the risk the person they just allowed to buy a gun goes on a shooting spree? Your assurances aside, the mentally ill wont likely risk the scrutiny either.

 

[MobBoss]

This thread is about the mentally ill, not convicted criminals or the violently mentally ill.

Seriously? You cant discuss disarming the mentally ill without distinguishing the differences in why you shouldnt, and thats going to involve discussion of the violently mentally ill vs the non-violent.

I mean really....

We aint talking about concealed carry either (that would be a privilege too), a background check is for criminal convictions for which gun rights have been denied, not a diagnosis from a health care professional working for the courts. After all this and you're still equating the mentally ill with convicted criminals. Thats a load of straw.

The health care professional doesnt have to work for the court. Health care professionals are already under regulation to report those they think that could harm themselves or others to the authorities. The laws are already there - we just need to make sure the systems/databases/background checks are being used in a way to ensure the right people get that information as regards to gun ownership.

And fwiw, even a simple restraining order without any conviction can remove your access from weapons, so no, its not about equating them with criminals.

Your assurances aside, the mentally ill wont likely risk the scrutiny either.

Your assumption is purely specious. There is nothing to suggest that is even remotely true.

 

[Kaitzilla]

An old 1946 movie about pshycologically damaged vets


Link to video.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Btw, its not mere speculation. Soldiers with PTSD are part of the reason the military is having some of the highest suicide rates in its history. You do consider suicide an act of violence dont you?

So you are arguing that all those diagnosed with PTSD should be deprived of their "right" to own firearms? How many active duty military would then be incapable of performing their own jobs anymore if they couldn't even be trusted to be armed anymore? Why hasn't the military done so yet?

And where is your source that claims that PTSD is a major factor in suicides? How do you explain that the suicide rate is lower in the military than among civilians despite the PTSD claims and diagnoses growing every day?

 

[MobBoss]

So you are arguing that all those diagnosed with PTSD should be deprived of their "right" to own firearms?

No, i'm saying we should leave that up to their servicing mental health professionals.

Are you really in favor of pushing a pistol into a suicidal persons hands because of their PTSD?

Hell, one of the first things we are taught as soldiers in recognizing the symptoms of PTSD is to relief the soldier of his weapon. Its simply common sense.

How many active duty military would then be incapable of performing their own jobs anymore if they couldn't even be trusted to be armed anymore? Why hasn't the military done so yet?

Soliders suffering from that level of PTSD arent capable of doing their jobs anyway Form.

And where is your source that claims that PTSD is a major factor in suicides?

Well, its only been part of the anti-suicide training doctrine for years now.

But since you need proof the sun shines here you go:

http://www.ptsd.va.gov/professional/pages/ptsd-suicide.asp

A body of research indicates that there is a correlation between trauma and suicidal behaviors. There is evidence that traumatic events such as childhood abuse and other types of trauma may increase a person's suicide risk (3,4,5,6,7,8). These studies have looked at whether a history of trauma exposure is linked to suicidal behaviors. Studies also suggest that suicide risk is higher in persons with PTSD. For example, research has found that trauma survivors with PTSD have a significantly higher risk of suicide than trauma survivors diagnosed with other psychiatric illness or with no mental pathology (9).

I mean really Form...how in the living hell could you have doubted that?

How do you explain that the suicide rate is lower in the military than among civilians despite the PTSD claims and diagnoses growing every day?

Its not. The military rate of suicide surpassed the civilian rate early last decade. For example, we had more deaths by suicide (almost 1 every day) than we had combat deaths last year. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...-suicide-rate-surpassed-combat-deaths-in-2012

Same old Form. Still getting schooled on things military by actual soldiers.

 

[Hygro]

So you are arguing that all those diagnosed with PTSD should be deprived of their "right" to own firearms? How many active duty military would then be incapable of performing their own jobs anymore if they couldn't even be trusted to be armed anymore? Why hasn't the military done so yet?

And where is your source that claims that PTSD is a major factor in suicides? How do you explain that the suicide rate is lower in the military than among civilians despite the PTSD claims and diagnoses growing every day?

PTSD is a causal agent of suicide and more access to guns is a causal agent or enabler of suicide.

 

[Flying Pig]

How many active duty military would then be incapable of performing their own jobs anymore if they couldn't even be trusted to be armed anymore? Why hasn't the military done so yet?

Logically, most of them would be fine. After all, it's intuitively obvious that for every one soldier sustained ready to fight, there's several people ensuring that he stays that way - cooking his meals, fixing his kit, doing other non-combatant jobs, and so on.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Are you really in favor of pushing a pistol into a suicidal persons hands because of their PTSD?

Have I ever stated or even insinuated anything of the sort?

I mean really Form...how in the living hell could you have doubted that?

Did I ever say I "doubted" it? I merely asked for a source as you so frequently do yourself.

But why did you quote mine the article by only selecting a paragraph of it when the next two paragraphs were obviously quite germane?

Though considerable research has examined the relation between combat or war trauma and suicide, the relationship is not entirely clear. Some studies have shown a relationship while others have not (1). There is strong evidence, though, that among Veterans who experienced combat trauma, the highest relative suicide risk is observed in those who were wounded multiple times and/or hospitalized for a wound (10). This suggests that the intensity of the combat trauma, and the number of times it occurred, may influence suicide risk in Veterans. This study assessed only combat trauma, not a diagnosis of PTSD, as a factor in the suicidal behavior.

Considerable debate exists about the reason for the heightened risk of suicide in trauma survivors. Whereas some studies suggest that suicide risk is higher due to the symptoms of PTSD (11,12,13), others claim that suicide risk is higher in these individuals because of related psychiatric conditions (14,15). However, a study analyzing data from the National Comorbidity Survey, a nationally representative sample, showed that PTSD alone out of six anxiety diagnoses was significantly associated with suicidal ideation or attempts (16 ). While the study also found an association between suicidal behaviors and both mood disorders and antisocial personality disorder, the findings pointed to a robust relationship between PTSD and suicide after controlling for comorbid disorders. A later study using the Canadian Community Health Survey data also found that respondents with PTSD were at higher risk for suicide attempts after controlling for physical illness and other mental disorders (17).

The research is far from conclusive. It also seems that only the most severe cases of PTSD had a much higher suicide rate. And even in those cases, there may very well be other mitigating factors caused by other mental issues. It is much like any other mental illness. There are varying degrees of it which radically change the risk of violence or suicide.

This is exactly why Obama wants to provide much greater medical healthcare to the general public, much less those in the military who continue to be deprived of sufficient help as the recent issues at your own base clearly showed. Issues which you tried to rationalize away in a previous thread.

It certainly shouldn't be up to laymen like us to decide who should have access to firearms or not on the basis of mental health problems, much less "banned" to mental institutions as you claimed you wished to do. This is just yet another knee-jerk reaction instead of even thinking of addressing the real problems in a rational and cogent manner, as Obama is attempting to do under the recommendations of experts in these fields.

Why do you and many other members of the far right continue to be opposed to providing adequate healthcare to American citizens, while advocating such draconian measures be taken to restrict their own rights and even their freedom?

 

[MobBoss]

The research is far from conclusive. It also seems that only the most severe cases of PTSD had a much higher suicide rate.

Which is why it should be up to the servicing mental health care professional to make such a diagnosis.

And even in those cases, there may very well be other mitigating factors caused by other mental issues. It is much like any other mental illness. There are varying degrees of it which radically change the risk of violence or suicide.

I dont disagree, but at least here you do finally recognize that some mentally ill have a radically higher risk of violence or suicide.

Now...do you want such individuals to have full access to weapons or not? Thats the question.

This is exactly why Obama wants to provide much greater medical healthcare to the general public, much less those in the military who continue to be deprived of sufficient help as the recent issues at your own base clearly showed. Issues which you tried to rationalize away in a previous thread.

Obamacare does nothing to keep guns out of the hands of the violently mentall ill. Come on.

It certainly shouldn't be up to laymen like us to decide who should have access to firearms or not on the basis of mental health problems, much less "banned" to mental institutions as you claimed you wished to do.

Actually, I've mentioned it literally dozens of time that the decision should be up to a mental health care professional.

I mean, you cant say you didnt read me type that. Or are you trying to say that?

This is just yet another knee-jerk reaction instead of even thinking of addressing the real problems in a rational and cogent manner, as Obama is attempting to do under the recommendations of experts in these fields.

Actually, Form, in your last post you actually agree with a couple of the things I've been saying for so long in this thread, but you still try to paint what I am saying as a 'knee-jerk' reaction.

Addressing the mental health aspect of these mass killings is not a knee-jerk reaction. Its actually the correct action to take since its the most common denominator among all mass shootings.