[quote]smh23 wrote:
de mortuis nihil nisi bonum[/quote]
Is this Latin for “too soon?”
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
de mortuis nihil nisi bonum[/quote]
Is this Latin for “too soon?”[/quote]
Do not speak ill of the dead, paraphrased.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Anyway, my real point is that you are literally the last person on this board who should be erecting de mortuis nihil nisi bonum banners. Let’s not hijack this any further.[/quote]
That wasn’t my point or my intent. My point was that you made a knee-jerk judgment call on something you know nothing about. You just happened to insult everyone who doesn’t view war vets in the same light as convicted murderers, the deceased included.
But I can see why you just want this discussion to go away, instead of admitting you made a jackass comment.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Anyway, my real point is that you are literally the last person on this board who should be erecting de mortuis nihil nisi bonum banners. Let’s not hijack this any further.[/quote]
That wasn’t my point or my intent. My point was that you made a knee-jerk judgment call on something you know nothing about. You just happened to insult everyone who doesn’t view war vets in the same light as convicted murderers, the deceased included.
But I can see why you just want this discussion to go away, instead of admitting you made a jackass comment.[/quote]
I don’t view war vets in the same light as convicts and I don’t see how you could possibly have inferred as much.
My comment had less to do with this particular instance and more to do with the general lack of interest in mental health policy in this country. Lanza, Holmes, this guy, etc.–they don’t belong around guns. It’s more important that the mentally ill are cared for/heavily-restricted than expending untold amounts of political energy on weapons bans that are a) historically noneffective and b) fairly easily circumvented.
There isn’t an easy solution–what program could have caught Lanza or this guy before his breaking point? Would it have helped? I don’t know. But somebody should be trying, and in the meantime the psychologically disturbed should find it as difficult to be in the position to discharge a firearm as is possible.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
I don’t view war vets in the same light as convicts and I don’t see how you could possibly have inferred as much.[/quote]
Well, let’s see. Here was a war vet with PTSD, on a gun range, and you said he shouldn’t have been on a gun range, right? And why shouldn’t he have been on that range?
Felons can’t have guns. You say that war vets with PTSD shouldn’t have guns. Both for the sole reason that they might illegally shoot someone. Right?
Or am I missing something here? Explain it to me in plain terms; why should vets suffering from PTSD be barred from shooting on a gun range, again?
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
I don’t view war vets in the same light as convicts and I don’t see how you could possibly have inferred as much.[/quote]
Well, let’s see. Here was a war vet with PTSD, on a gun range, and you said he shouldn’t have been on a gun range, right? And why shouldn’t he have been on that range?
Felons can’t have guns. You say that war vets with PTSD shouldn’t have guns. Both for the sole reason that they might illegally shoot someone. Right?
Or am I missing something here? Explain it to me in plain terms; why should vets suffering from PTSD be barred from shooting on a gun range, again?[/quote]
You act like PTSD is as simplistic and monolithic a condition as athlete’s foot. People who are truly disturbed should be evaluated and, if necessary, kept from guns until they improve. No system is perfect, but ours is decidedly imperfect. Radical notion, I know.
If the question is, are there some people with PTSD who should not be shooting? The answer is absolutely.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
If the question is, are there some people with PTSD who should not be shooting? The answer is absolutely.[/quote]
And who should make that determination?
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
If the question is, are there some people with PTSD who should not be shooting? The answer is absolutely.[/quote]
And who should make that determination?[/quote]
A doctor.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
If the question is, are there some people with PTSD who should not be shooting? The answer is absolutely.[/quote]
And who should make that determination?[/quote]
A doctor.[/quote]
Gag. So after we defend the nation we have to prove ourselves sane, while losers who stay home, don’t?
PLus, I wouldn’t go to a VA doctor to pop a zit. TriCare brothel of doctors is just as bad.
On top of that, the VA has been trying DX everyone with PTSD for the express reason of denying gun rights.
All crap like this does is make soldiers lie to their doctors and tell them everything is fucking roses so they don’t get a medical rating.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
If the question is, are there some people with PTSD who should not be shooting? The answer is absolutely.[/quote]
And who should make that determination?[/quote]
A doctor.[/quote]
Precisely. And taking into account that Routh is still enlisted in the Marine Corps Individual Ready Reserves, it’s reasonable to assume that a doctor had not made that determination in his individual case (or he would have been medically discharged).
So the opinion that he should not have been at the range was a reactionary call only justified by hindsight.
We can’t even say that Routh is guilty at this point, because he hasn’t had his day in court. We must assume him innocent, which nullifies any conjecture as to whether he should have been on that range with a gun in his hand in the first place.
[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
If the question is, are there some people with PTSD who should not be shooting? The answer is absolutely.[/quote]
And who should make that determination?[/quote]
A doctor.[/quote]
Gag. So after we defend the nation we have to prove ourselves sane, while losers who stay home, don’t?
PLus, I wouldn’t go to a VA doctor to pop a zit. TriCare brothel of doctors is just as bad.
On top of that, the VA has been trying DX everyone with PTSD for the express reason of denying gun rights.
All crap like this does is make soldiers lie to their doctors and tell them everything is fucking roses so they don’t get a medical rating.[/quote]
You set up a false dichotomy. Either vets have to prove themselves sane or the mentally disturbed can’t be kept away from firearms. Reality is not so simple.
Or maybe we shouldn’t try to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people. Whatever.
[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:
Gag. So after we defend the nation we have to prove ourselves sane, while losers who stay home, don’t?
PLus, I wouldn’t go to a VA doctor to pop a zit. TriCare brothel of doctors is just as bad.
On top of that, the VA has been trying DX everyone with PTSD for the express reason of denying gun rights.
All crap like this does is make soldiers lie to their doctors and tell them everything is fucking roses so they don’t get a medical rating.[/quote]
Situation Normal, indeed.
Makes you wonder what the deal is; here we have a group of individuals who have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you’ll put your lives on the line in defense of Our Republic, and the thanks you get is to have your right to bear arms stripped away.
It makes perfect sense, but in a very disturbing way.
[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
If the question is, are there some people with PTSD who should not be shooting? The answer is absolutely.[/quote]
And who should make that determination?[/quote]
A doctor.[/quote]
Gag. So after we defend the nation we have to prove ourselves sane, while losers who stay home, don’t?
[/quote]
Policy designed to effectively diagnose and deal with mental illness–including policies which would keep the disturbed away from guns–are a good thing. This applies to everyone–it doesn’t exclude all the “losers” who never joined up.
Suicide prevention 101 says remove lethal means from those at risk. I’ve had to help a friend’s wife pull guns from her severely depressed husband and store them for a while on doctors orders, and it wasn’t fun, but I personally think the step saved his life. Its not a personal affront to Veterans who might need some help to treat them like any other person who has mental-health issues and needs some help.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Suicide prevention 101 says remove lethal means from those at risk. I’ve had to help a friend’s wife pull guns from her severely depressed husband and store them for a while on doctors orders, and it wasn’t fun, but I personally think the step saved his life. Its not a personal affront to Veterans who might need some help to treat them like any other person who has mental-health issues and needs some help. [/quote]
This. Someone with serious mental problems doesn’t get a gun. Sorry.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Suicide prevention 101 says remove lethal means from those at risk. I’ve had to help a friend’s wife pull guns from her severely depressed husband and store them for a while on doctors orders, and it wasn’t fun, but I personally think the step saved his life. Its not a personal affront to Veterans who might need some help to treat them like any other person who has mental-health issues and needs some help. [/quote]
This. Someone with serious mental problems doesn’t get a gun. Sorry.[/quote]
You do realize that nobody is arguing against this… right?
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Suicide prevention 101 says remove lethal means from those at risk. I’ve had to help a friend’s wife pull guns from her severely depressed husband and store them for a while on doctors orders, and it wasn’t fun, but I personally think the step saved his life. Its not a personal affront to Veterans who might need some help to treat them like any other person who has mental-health issues and needs some help. [/quote]
This. Someone with serious mental problems doesn’t get a gun. Sorry.[/quote]
You do realize that nobody is arguing against this… right?[/quote]
That’s good.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
I just saw on the news that that 14 minute speech cost the tax payers 1 million dollars. Not prevelant to this thread but something I found interesting.