Roll Call 34

i have a few airsoft guns.

maybe i should work on homeowrk he gave me

lets be rebellious and keep this one going :P

Yeah I'm not sure if anyone is watching

Airsoft guns are awesome! Great for drunkenly playing war with your friends in the house. Hurts like hell though!

Ok breaking the rules is making me nervous....I'll start one, come over when you're ready

pfft.........

lol

Right, neither of the two I mentioned had restrictions, which is what caused a lot of debate about the problems we have identifying and properly treating the mentally ill. Part of the problem is caused by our country's strong citizen rights and privacy laws. The MI can be under the radar, and if family reach out for help, help is not given until the mentally ill person commits a violent crime. Those are very complicated dynamics to deal with. I firmly believe that there is no way that this will ever become a gun restricted country, except restrictions on criminals and the mentally ill. In both of those situations, it is for the protection of everyone, including the mentally ill. Unfortunately, the U.S. is so saturated with guns, that many people who shouldn't have them, get them anyway. I think about parents who keep guns in the house, and get careless one day and their kid shoots another child, or their sibling. That's the U.S. of A. Man, we believe in the right to bear arms.

[QUOTE=Sometimes psychotic;3981644]Now I have gun restrictions.....why.....voluntary inpatient treatment. I was sick enough to know I needed help so I can't own a gun for 5 years. Now I don't have any reason to and short of war I don't see the point so I'm not worried about it they freak me out tbh. It's not that I want a gun, it's that my rights are restricted because I asked for help with my MI I mean wtf....how is that not a police state?[/QUOTE]

I don't believe that makes a police state. We have a government that is supposed to provide protections for its citizens. I mean - if we didn't have laws that is willing to place restrictions of various kinds on people for various valid reasons, then we'd be living in Somalia, you know? That said, I really do understand that it must feel just awful to be an intelligent and self-aware person who realized something was wrong and was courageous enough to seek treatment, and then endures a 'right' taken away for a period of time. And you did nothing 'bad.' You did something GOOD! But if there was no policy about restricting gun ownership in general for the mentally ill, then that would put enough people at unreasonable risk that it becomes worth it to make someone have to set aside their right - for the greater good. That's a consequence of living in a civilized society, I'm afraid.

[QUOTE=Sometimes psychotic;3981644]Most of the forcibly medicated go through the criminal system and they may or may not respond to meds, a third of people don't.....why medicate them if the meds don't work....to me that is a violation like no other....here let me control your mind, not in a way where you'll return to what you were but instead in a way where you'll simply be so sedated you don't want to move....I too would choose the streets....[/QUOTE]

I agree - most of those forcibly medicated get in that position because they have committed violent crimes. And it's true that not everyone is responsive to meds. I'm guessing (from watching the case of the guy who shot up the movie theater), that someone like that may go through a trial of different meds. I'm not sure how much of being unresponsive to meds is due to lack of compliance on the part of the MI that are not forcibly medicated. But anyway, Both he and the Gabby Giffords shooter have improved with treatment. The theater killer improved enough to be deemed competent to stand trial? Anyway, I agree that there's no point in medicating someone who is truly unresponsive, but it can take time to really reach that conclusion. And someone in prison for killing people while in psychosis has no right to "choose the streets." If they have to be sedated to where they are extremely compliant, then so be it. The folks we've talked about have killed an awful lot of people and caused untold tragedy because of their "right" to bear arms before their MI was diagnosed.

[QUOTE=Sometimes psychotic;3981644]Now let's partition off Hawaii and send the MI away on vacation someplace nice instead! people would be faking to get on the plane....carrot vs stick....we only use the stick....why on earth are we using a stick on people who are sick in the first place. They can't even recognize the stick....that's how so many end up shot at the hands of the police, the danger is unclear......but carrot, who doesn't like carrots? I like carrots [/QUOTE]

I agree. Police need to be intensively trained in how to better recognize that someone is mentally ill. Some jurisdictions have better trained police than others, for sure. Fortunately, it appears that every time a mentally ill person is shot by police, there is an uproar. Unfortunately, the police are often dealing with a situation where they are facing someone who is very erratic, and it can be difficult to distinguish between someone way off on drugs, or a mental illness. If the mentally ill person has a weapon (and when they are having strong delusions, it's highly likely they will have a weapon), and they act in a threatening manner, then they very well may get shot. I wish police were better at shooting them in the leg or something, disabling them to stop the threat. But I guess if they have a gun in their hand and are not following directions, that is a situation where the police may have no choice. And that is why it is a good idea that anyone with MI does not have access to guns.

I am really sorry, SometimesP, for the frustration and insult you've experienced. I wish everyone was healthy - and no one had to experience mental illness

Hope to see you all at roll call 35