schizophrenics need guns, not mental health care

Is it wise to let schizophrenics buy guns and block their access to mental healthcare?

  • yep, smart move. give them guns!

  • no, that's monumentally fucking dumb. don't let them buy guns.

Results are only viewable after voting.
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
the senate recently voted to allow people with certain mental illnesses, including schizophrenia, to buy guns.

their new trumpcare bill though, however, does not include parity for mental health issues, like schizophrenia.

is this a good idea? be honest.
Click to expand...
Of course it's a good idea! If they shoot their caregiver, that's one less paycheck to take out of profits. If they shoot themselves, that's another loser off the health insurance rolls, again contributing to profits. Win-win!

(For the slow people, this is called 'sarcasm'.)
 
C

CouchGouch

Well-Known Member
I'm anti firearms, or any means to murder your own, but it's a difficult debate. I don't think protecting your property is a sufficient argument for killing a person who may be stealing to feed himself, his habit or his family. If a persons intention was to kill you, you probably wouldn't have the chance to arm yourself. But that's just speculation, so it's a gamble. I'd say anyone robbing you is a position they're in where they have far few choices than you do

But in a country where gun ownership is legal, means you have no way of knowing if an intruder ihas the means to kill you, i.e. a gun. Luckily I'm in a country where gun ownership is recognised as a threat community safety. This is were the hypocrite comes out, if I thought there was geniune threat to my family, would I want a gun, yes. But I think eradication of murder weapons is the way forward
 
SneekyNinja

SneekyNinja

Well-Known Member
CouchGouch said:
I'm anti firearms, or any means to murder your own, but it's a difficult debate. I don't think protecting your property is a sufficient argument for killing a person who may be stealing to feed himself, his habit or his family. If a persons intention was to kill you, you probably wouldn't have the chance to arm yourself. But that's just speculation, so it's a gamble. I'd say anyone robbing you is a position they're in where they have far few choices than you do

But in a country where gun ownership is legal, means you have no way of knowing if an intruder ihas the means to kill you, i.e. a gun. Luckily I'm in a country where gun ownership is recognised as a threat community safety. This is were the hypocrite comes out, if I thought there was geniune threat to my family, would I want a gun, yes. But I think eradication of murder weapons is the way forward
Click to expand...
Here's a simple concept:

If you don't break into someone's house then you're unlikely to be shot for breaking into someone's house.

"Feed their family"

This isnt the fucking 1800's, why are all the "starving poor" so fucking fat?

Gun ownership is a complete non-issue as long as you ensure only sane, rational people have access to them.

Look at Canada, Switzerland, the Netherlands, etc. Lots of guns, very little murder.
 
blu3bird

blu3bird

Well-Known Member
I think if the mentally ill has a payee, then they still aren't allowed access to firearms.

But it's (probably) not the best idea to give guns to mentally disabled folks

Maybe let them have air rifles if they want to practice shooting skillz
 
esh dov ets

esh dov ets

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
the senate recently voted to allow people with certain mental illnesses, including schizophrenia, to buy guns.

their new trumpcare bill though, however, does not include parity for mental health issues, like schizophrenia.

is this a good idea? be honest.
Click to expand...
i agree with the mentally ill being allowed to own guns. with maybe a psyc eval mandate but beyond that they have every right. don't agree with the arbitrary trump rules though. as for less coverage under trump party health care reform, thats atrocious.
 
Nugachino

Nugachino

Well-Known Member
SneekyNinja said:
Here's a simple concept:

If you don't break into someone's house then you're unlikely to be shot for breaking into someone's house.

"Feed their family"

This isnt the fucking 1800's, why are all the "starving poor" so fucking fat?

Gun ownership is a complete non-issue as long as you ensure only sane, rational people have access to them.

Look at Canada, Switzerland, the Netherlands, etc. Lots of guns, very little murder.
Click to expand...

Have you looked at the nutritional information in lower classed foods. The shit is so processed. There's more fat, preservatives and other crap in it than anything.

Also. If you look at the price of food. Let alone fast food. It's cheaper to eat slop. Than it is to eat a healthy dish.

Especially in the fast food industry. I mean c'mon. Why does a fuckin burger cost way less than a salad? No one had to cook it. There's less effort in preparing and storing it. Why the fuck is it so pricey.
 
SneekyNinja

SneekyNinja

Well-Known Member
Nugachino said:
Have you looked at the nutritional information in lower classed foods. The shit is so processed. There's more fat, preservatives and other crap in it than anything.

Also. If you look at the price of food. Let alone fast food. It's cheaper to eat slop. Than it is to eat a healthy dish.

Especially in the fast food industry. I mean c'mon. Why does a fuckin burger cost way less than a salad? No one had to cook it. There's less effort in preparing and storing it. Why the fuck is it so pricey.
Click to expand...
I'm not arguing that, but obviously people ain't going hungry so the "crime to feed their family" line is a bit out of date.

Visit Brazil or South Africa and then we'll talk about the real meaning of "poor" ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top