Since everyone wants to talk about taking away gun rights again...
🇳🇱
@freemo@qoto.org
@freemo No. They want to take away automatic weapons from people with mental issues.
People like you and me will be happy owners of the needed rocket launchers for personal defense against bears.
@pthenq1 No, what the hell are you talking about... automatic weapons have been illegal since the 70s.
@freemo They said nothing about "taking away gun rights again". But if you are going to twist what they said, why could I not twist what you said? 👀
@pthenq1 yes they did, they are talking about banning certain types of guns, therefore taking away our right to access to those guns.
@freemo okay. I support the right of get weapons.
Still, nobody can get always the guns they want. Today, for example, I would like portable small atomic bombs. You know, the ones handy to blow up 1 or 2 blocks.
They do not let us put our hands on that... and other weapons.
@pthenq1 Its even illegal for nations to have nuclear weapons, even the ones that have it arent allowed to as they were required to disarm ages ago and didnt... so no, bad example buddy.
@freemo same story. When/If they declare some weapon illegal and you have it, you will have to surrender it.
Other than that, perhaps someone wants a semiautomatic to defend himself from bears.
I want a nuclear mini-nuke to combat field mices. We are all tuned against dangerous environments... 
If they actually played by the rules they would just make a new amendment, legal, no problem.. oh wait.. they cant get the votes! So instead they try to erode it in other ways.
@freemo No. They cannot. It is just about banning weapons on mentally impaired people..
There are two things you can mean by that.. banning it for people who were commited against their will by commiting a crime, those people are already banned from having guns..
Or your suggesting the right to bare arms should be revoked for anyone who voluntarily chooses to go to a psychiatrist and has been treated?
The second one is the only one where they can currently get tguns.. but it makes no sense. There is no public registry where people who seek psychiatric treatment on their own get registered and publicly can be "pinged" in a check... so your suggesting something quite obscene, that if I decide to call a psychiatrist and seek help then I will get on a public registry where gun shops can look me up, and my rights become revoked...
For one having a public registry where people are punished for seeking mental health is beyond a horrible idea, doubly so if the consequence is to loose your fundemental rights.
Do you really think anyone who is struggling with a mental disorder who feels they need to see a psychiatrist is going to do it if the law states that should they go to get treated they forfit a basic right for the rest of their life?
God what a horrible idea.
@freemo @icedquinn No. Those conditions can be managed. But they cannot be fixed.
A psychopath have not moral boundaries. That is because they are incapable to feel remorse. There is not fix for that. They live in society by imitating neurotics (us), so they are no necessarily criminals.. But they do not feel remorse or moral boundaries. No treatment possible.
Example: Charles Manson.
Psychotic is a condition where the brain cannot process information correctly. It cannot be cured. Just treated. But if the pills stop being effective... of they forget to eat it or they run out of those pills...
Example are the people hearing voices or having hallucinations.
The first group will only have weapons to carry their will and attack people as part of some plan. The second group cannot process information and could use weapons following instructions given by god, the voices, etc.
Those 2 groups of people cannot be fixed and they should not have access to weapons.
You still havent addressed the fundamental concern.. you are proposing a situation where if a person goes to a therapist to get treatment they automatically forfeit part of their rights, for life.. so you are effectively discouraging people from going to psychiatrists. Sounds like a pretty shitty solution that will cause way more harm than good.
Psychopaths are also neurotic.. he is using the terminology wrong. Psychopaths do not expiernce delusion or hallucination and therefore would be a neurotic.
@freemo @icedquinn We are all neurotic. That is the "normal thing".
No you are using the terms absolutely wrong, a neurotic person is one with a mental disorder, but where the mental disorder does not include delusion or hallucination... Normal people who have no mental disorders are not neurotic.
@freemo No sir. We are ALL neurotics with or without issues. Our problems could be treated with more or less long therapy treatments.
The other group are Psychotics. They are nor fixable. They can have medication for their condition... or not. But if they forget to get their pill, they lose it.
Are you literally arging that the dictionary definition is wrong and you are right?
Definition of neurotic: "A person afflicted by neurosis"
Definition of neurosis: "Neurosis is a class of functional mental disorders involving chronic distress, but neither delusions nor hallucinations."
@icedquinn @freemo everybody go to therapists. And almost everybody are not criminals.
I am just saying that a big percentage of all the massive crimes are made by no-neurotics. So banning them from accessing to weapons solve a big problem.
In fact it is a good thing because the Left will have lest opportunity of banning weapons... but that is another thing anyway...
Lets make this clear.. .if someone is schizofrenic or a psychopath, and goes to a psychiatrist asking for help with their condition, and the psychiatrist evaluates them and identifies them as a psychopath and agrees to help treat them... should this cause the psychopath to loose their right to guns or not?
If not, how do you even propose psychopaths be identified by this "background check" of yours?
@freemo That is the proposal. I think it make sense. Still a psychopath could have a case about accessing to weapons. He cannot feel remorse, but he could calculate that it will be bad for him to use his weapons against random people.
With a psychotic the story is completely different. They do not perceive reality correctly without treatment.
James Holmes was one of them. 95%+ of the mass murders are psychotic
@pthenq1 i think its fine to discourage a psycotic not to buy weapons, but the second you make it illegal if they seek treatment you create a situation where psychotics are forced to hide their condition and not seek treatment... worst idea ever
@freemo that is all I am saying. And the reasonable thing to do. 95% of mass murders are done by this kind of people. (psycotics).
@pthenq1 Even if 95% of murders are carried out by them, 99.99% of them will never murder anyone.. nothing reasonable about it.. you create a situation where 99.9% of people who would never kill anyone now can no longer seek help without loosing fundemental rights so go untreated and have to hide their condition.. all in the hopes of stopping the 0.01% of them.
So you have now made the entire group dangerous and untreated in a naive and unethical attempt to stop 0.01% of them from crimes.
I bet if you run the statistics youll find 98% of mass shootings are done by men (I cant think of a single woman who did it).. so by that logic only women should be allowed guns... This type of thinking is dangerous, reckless, and stupid. Not to mention causes WAY more harm than it fixes.
@freemo they cannot hide it. A normal person could "suffer" his/her condition.
A psychotic cannot.
Talking about statistics, yes, 95% of the mass shutting are executed by psychotic males. Who knows why...
Ideally, you want to remove the weapons only from their hands. If you find a way to do it and remove the weapons ONLY from them, you will be rich!
@pthenq1 my friend with the condition hid it for many years before being diagnosed, so thats BS
@freemo indeed that is how it works. It is called psychotic break or psychotic attack.
It is like the genius out of the lamp.
You or me will never have something like that, because we are not psychotic, so we do not have a genius waiting to come out...
@pthenq1 No there was no break. He went to the psychiatrist on his own as he wasnt happy hiding it. No one knew until he came out and sought help on his own.
@freemo that is how it is called. I am not talking about a break like a crack or something...
@pthenq1 You said they dont seek help on their own and cant hide it.. you were wrong on both counts.
@freemo No. I did not talk about help.
You said: they could stop looking for help so they do not risk loosing their weapons. So they will hide it.
And I said: They cannot hide it. Because if it is not treated it will be worst and worst. So hiding it is not an option.
Help or not help. Offering it or they looking for it. They cannot hide it after the first psychotic attack. It is a matter of rime
@pthenq1 and i said he hid it for 20+ years with no one ever realizing it, so clearly that is false
It is a matter of time*
@pthenq1 and yet for him it never was.. decadesof hiding and he was never exposed. Only reason i found out is because he actively sought help on his own. If he knew seeking help would mean he would be considered a subhuman with limmited rights for the rest of his life he would have went on going untreated for another 20+ years...
So your proposing people hide it to keep their rights and go for many decades and **maybe** get caught eventually.. still a dumbass suggestion as Id rather see someone get treated than be forced to hide it for decades on end.
@freemo nobody except you talked about subhuman.
@pthenq1 long story short you are proposing a law that forces a situation where 100% of people with a mental disorder is forced to hide it for as long as they can (on the order of decades potentially) and go without treatment. Causing 100% of people to go untreated in the hopes of catching the 0.01% of them that might kill
Worse idea ever.. if anything all youll do is make way more of them murderers because they are now all untreated and you just turned that 0.01% into a much larger number.
@freemo I did not talk about mental disorder. Mental disorder is to wide. I talked about psychotic
And the attention they deserved did not take it away. Reagan did. He is not my pal.
Too much John McCain reasoning...
My friend has schizofrenia, therefore is not neurotic. He goes tot he therapist for treatment... so your statement makes no sense that only neurotics go to therapists.
My friend with schizophrenia would literally have been forced not to go to a psychiatrist when he suspect he was developing the disease for fear he would loose his right to self protection. He would have been forced to try to hide his disorder at all costs rather than seek treatment as he did.
Moreover, they can and often are treated. Medication can eliminate their hallucinations, so your argument they cant be treated is also false.
@freemo I did not say that. I say that schizofrenia cannot be fixed, just treated. The treatment goes OK... until it is not treated anymore.
Ask to the homeless with imaginary friends on the streets if that (stopping receiving treatment) could happen...
@freemo NO. A person going to the therapist is a neurotic. Please check the definitions of neurotic, psychopath and psychotic. Normal people going to therapy are neurotic.
Psychopath and psychotic are born in that way. And stay in the same way until that person die.
Nobody can transit from one condition to the other.
@icedquinn