HorrorMovieFans.com

Are you cool with being out on a database because you admit depression?

Are you cool with the government knowing you take anti-anxiety medication? Are you ok with them taking your rights away because of it?

Are you cool with not being able to protect your family, home, and business with a firearm because you went to a psychiatrist?

Should we punish those who seek help?

this current discussion and scrutiny of mental health is the conservative / republican answer to and diversion away from gun control stuff from the libs. both are dangerous. both are well meaning but misguided if taken too far.

but all of this outcry is coming from the same guy who wants to put people into a system, to profile people. etc. for simply belonging to a certain race or religion. so i don't know.

i think that looking harder at gun purchasers (or potential potential gun purchasers) before issuing a license and better regulation of firearms (but never outright ban, like so many dems/libs want) is the way to go. but i don't have all of the answers on how to best apply it and such.

zombie wrote:this current discussion and scrutiny of mental health is the conservative / republican answer to and diversion away from gun control stuff from the libs. both are dangerous. both are well meaning but misguided if taken too far.

but all of this outcry is coming from the same guy who wants to put people into a system, to profile people. etc. for simply belonging to a certain race or religion. so i don't know.

i think that looking harder at gun purchasers (or potential potential gun purchasers) before issuing a license and better regulation of firearms (but never outright ban, like so many dems/libs want) is the way to go. but i don't have all of the answers on how to best apply it and such.

What does that mean, "Looking harder"? If someone is disabled for mental health reasons, should they be allowed to purchase a firearm?

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:this current discussion and scrutiny of mental health is the conservative / republican answer to and diversion away from gun control stuff from the libs. both are dangerous. both are well meaning but misguided if taken too far.

but all of this outcry is coming from the same guy who wants to put people into a system, to profile people. etc. for simply belonging to a certain race or religion. so i don't know.

i think that looking harder at gun purchasers (or potential potential gun purchasers) before issuing a license and better regulation of firearms (but never outright ban, like so many dems/libs want) is the way to go. but i don't have all of the answers on how to best apply it and such.

What does that mean, "Looking harder"? If someone is disabled for mental health reasons, should they be allowed to purchase a firearm?

criminal record, anger issues like with that kid. etc. that stuff should be looked at harder. it should be taken more seriously.

what kind of mental health reasons. i do think that some people should not be given access to guns simply because they may not have the ability to use them responsibly. but just because of depression or anxiety? i do think they should be allowed.

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:this current discussion and scrutiny of mental health is the conservative / republican answer to and diversion away from gun control stuff from the libs. both are dangerous. both are well meaning but misguided if taken too far.

but all of this outcry is coming from the same guy who wants to put people into a system, to profile people. etc. for simply belonging to a certain race or religion. so i don't know.

i think that looking harder at gun purchasers (or potential potential gun purchasers) before issuing a license and better regulation of firearms (but never outright ban, like so many dems/libs want) is the way to go. but i don't have all of the answers on how to best apply it and such.

What does that mean, "Looking harder"? If someone is disabled for mental health reasons, should they be allowed to purchase a firearm?

criminal record, anger issues like with that kid. etc. that stuff should be looked at harder. it should be taken more seriously.

what kind of mental health reasons. i do think that some people should not be given access to guns simply because they may not have the ability to use them responsibly. but just because of depression or anxiety? i do think they should be allowed.

Again, "Looked at harder". What does that mean?

Are you minimizing depression and anxiety? Are they not real things? People need medications for them apparently, and they apparently inhibit some from working. Isn;t that pretty serious?

Foo wrote:
Again, "Looked at harder". What does that mean?

Are you minimizing depression and anxiety? Are they not real things? People need medications for them apparently, and they apparently inhibit some from working. Isn;t that pretty serious?

it means that background checks and such, prior to licensing, should be more stringent. and that red flags should be taken more seriously too.

i do not take depression and anxiety lightly. they are real things. i likely have them to an extent, though it's never been diagnosed officially. so yeah. it is serious. and if they are unable to function to the point of inability to hold a job. that should be taken into consideration, for sure.

Foo wrote:Are you cool with being out on a database because you admit depression?

Are you cool with the government knowing you take anti-anxiety medication? Are you ok with them taking your rights away because of it?

Are you cool with not being able to protect your family, home, and business with a firearm because you went to a psychiatrist?

Should we punish those who seek help?

Yes
Yes
Yes
It’s not punishment. It’s help.

showa58taro wrote:

Foo wrote:Are you cool with being out on a database because you admit depression?

Are you cool with the government knowing you take anti-anxiety medication? Are you ok with them taking your rights away because of it?

Are you cool with not being able to protect your family, home, and business with a firearm because you went to a psychiatrist?

Should we punish those who seek help?

Yes
Yes
Yes
It’s not punishment. It’s help.

Taking their rights away for admitting they need some help with mental issues is punishment. You should never punish anyone for prevention.

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:
Again, "Looked at harder". What does that mean?

Are you minimizing depression and anxiety? Are they not real things? People need medications for them apparently, and they apparently inhibit some from working. Isn;t that pretty serious?

it means that background checks and such, prior to licensing, should be more stringent. and that red flags should be taken more seriously too.

i do not take depression and anxiety lightly. they are real things. i likely have them to an extent, though it's never been diagnosed officially. so yeah. it is serious. and if they are unable to function to the point of inability to hold a job. that should be taken into consideration, for sure.

In other words, have competent government. Good luck with that. 45 Police phone calls to the home of the Florida shooter, plus the flat out warnings. How can you expect anything from them at this point?

Foo wrote:Are you cool with being out on a database because you admit depression?

Are you cool with the government knowing you take anti-anxiety medication? Are you ok with them taking your rights away because of it?

Are you cool with not being able to protect your family, home, and business with a firearm because you went to a psychiatrist?

Should we punish those who seek help?

So the bar is talking to a psychiatrist? Not everything is binary it is a ridiculous way to look at things.

Tiggnutz wrote:

Foo wrote:Are you cool with being out on a database because you admit depression?

Are you cool with the government knowing you take anti-anxiety medication? Are you ok with them taking your rights away because of it?

Are you cool with not being able to protect your family, home, and business with a firearm because you went to a psychiatrist?

Should we punish those who seek help?

So the bar is talking to a psychiatrist? Not everything is binary it is a ridiculous way to look at things.

Seb has said he is fine with taking rights away from a person who sees a psychiatrist. I am saying that should not be the case.

Foo wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Foo wrote:Are you cool with being out on a database because you admit depression?

Are you cool with the government knowing you take anti-anxiety medication? Are you ok with them taking your rights away because of it?

Are you cool with not being able to protect your family, home, and business with a firearm because you went to a psychiatrist?

Should we punish those who seek help?

Yes
Yes
Yes
It’s not punishment. It’s help.

Taking their rights away for admitting they need some help with mental issues is punishment. You should never punish anyone for prevention.

No. It’s not. Admitting you’re blind stops you from driving. That’s not punishing. That’s accepting reality. If you need help and could be a danger to yourself and others you shouldn’t own a firearm.