Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You assume he wanted to get helpIt takes a person a long time to get that sick, so it takes time to get well. It is fucking asinine and heartless to just write them off.I took him to the ER and sat with him through the night. Then he was admitted to a dual purpose drug rehab/depression hospital.well you confiscated them....I have a friend who has been hospitalized twice in the past year for suicide attempts. The first time, he was apprehended by the police WITH A GUN TO HIS HEAD.
The second time, just two weeks ago, he had a .45 and was personally disarmed by me while another friend who was covering me with a sidearm. Prior to me taking him in, the police had all the roads in and out of town blanketed with police cars and a BOLO out on him.
He is now in official police records TWICE for using a gun for suicidal purposes, along with domestic abuse, and yet no one has come to take his guns away.
Explain.
ETA: I confiscated his .45 and am keeping it in my gun safe for now.
and I hope you are doing more than that to help a friend
OH and I like how your other friend was willing to kill him to stop him from killing himself
but truthfully I think youre lying through your tooth
They only kept him for three days.
As for my other friend, he was willing to kill to stop ME from getting killed, dumbass.
The police don't know I have his .45. They haven't even inquired about all his guns. Not even when I called them to cancel the BOLO!
Explain.
The ONLY reason to confiscate a gun from someone who is suicidal is because they might also be homicidal. Suicide is a valid and important thing all people have to face and live up to at some point. And it sounds to me as if no one has helped this person at all yet.
Sure it takes a long time to get sick and a long time to get well.
But gun control does nothing to help either of these problems.
Clearly it is a medical problem, fixed by making health care a free, public option.
That was he could have gotten help a the very beginning, and headed it all off.
None of that can be undone now, and gun control did not and could not help in the least.
By taking the gun, his family is safer. Period.Wow. You are one sick fuck. This is a friend of mine. I'm not going to let him die if I can help it.I have a friend who has been hospitalized twice in the past year for suicide attempts. The first time, he was apprehended by the police WITH A GUN TO HIS HEAD.The reason no one should ever be talking about any limits on gun ownership is because any and all limits make no sense at all, except maybe age.
That is for many obvious reasons.
One is that any gun control regulations means that the very least trustworthy people, the government, get to decide who gets guns and who does not. And that is totally backwards because through out history, government has always been the main source of corruption and threat to individual rights. All wars, slavery, holocausts, segregation, abusive taxation, etc., is always coming from inherent government corruption.
The second is that gun control legislation always not only fails, but does the exact opposite of making things safer.
What is does is just like Prohibition and the War on Drugs, is increase the problem by making it more lucrative to illegal blacks markets, who then rely on violence even more.
Only honest people will ever be intimidated by gun control regulations and legislation.
So only the people who should be armed can possibly be disarmed.
All the dangerous people who should disarmed then will be more likely to be armed if there is any gun control regulation at all.
Obviously the only way to make things safer is by controlling dangerous people, a doable task.
If instead you try to control dangerous objects, that not only is impossible for thousands of reasons, but has to opposite effect of making dangerous people even more dangerous, because the honest people are all without means of defense.
Gun control legislation not only is irrational, but an obvious lie and fraud intent on disrupting and destroying any chance at a real democratic republic. It is totally and completely against the 14th amendment, as well as the 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendments.
The federal government is clearly barred from any weapons legislation by law.
The second time, just two weeks ago, he had a .45 and was personally disarmed by me while another friend who was covering me with a sidearm. Prior to me taking him in, the police had all the roads in and out of town blanketed with police cars and a BOLO out on him.
He is now in official police records TWICE for using a gun for suicidal purposes, along with domestic abuse, and yet no one has come to take his guns away.
Explain.
ETA: I confiscated his .45 and am keeping it in my gun safe for now.
And WHY did you do that?
Clearly if someone wants to commit suicide that badly, they have a terrible life, and you just made it infinitely worse, with the person being imprisoned.
I can't think of anything worse then being imprisoned.
I would much rather be dead.
Wouldn't you?
Nor is confiscating a single weapon going to make it harder for them to commit suicide later.
If they do not intend to live, then they will pay anything for a weapon, much less the fact tailpipes, electricity, plastic bags, etc. are all just as deadly and totally free.
You did not help them at all.
The man is going through a situational reaction disturbance. It's temporary.
I was suicidal 22 years ago, and here I am. And I am glad to be alive.
Dipshit.
While he was in the hospital, they took him off some meds he has been taking since his last hospitalization. His mood improved dramatically.
Oftentimes, medications can make a person worse. Doctors are just shooting bullets in the dark, hoping to hit the target. But sometimes they cause more harm with meds.
That happened to me, too.
So of course meds can be harmful.
And it was the hospitalization that was the fix.
Isn't it obvious that gun control in no way could possibly have done one bit of good, at all?
So you fixed the temporary situation and did good.
But it was NOT by taking a gun.
It was by getting him treatment.
Classics never go out of styleOh to be young again.
I remember when I had MY first beer.
What's that line from...50 years ago?
Time to join the 21'st century...and it's jokes.
You assume he wanted to get helpIt takes a person a long time to get that sick, so it takes time to get well. It is fucking asinine and heartless to just write them off.I took him to the ER and sat with him through the night. Then he was admitted to a dual purpose drug rehab/depression hospital.well you confiscated them....
and I hope you are doing more than that to help a friend
OH and I like how your other friend was willing to kill him to stop him from killing himself
but truthfully I think youre lying through your tooth
They only kept him for three days.
As for my other friend, he was willing to kill to stop ME from getting killed, dumbass.
The police don't know I have his .45. They haven't even inquired about all his guns. Not even when I called them to cancel the BOLO!
Explain.
The ONLY reason to confiscate a gun from someone who is suicidal is because they might also be homicidal. Suicide is a valid and important thing all people have to face and live up to at some point. And it sounds to me as if no one has helped this person at all yet.
Sure it takes a long time to get sick and a long time to get well.
But gun control does nothing to help either of these problems.
Clearly it is a medical problem, fixed by making health care a free, public option.
That was he could have gotten help a the very beginning, and headed it all off.
None of that can be undone now, and gun control did not and could not help in the least.
Even if health care was free (and nothing is ever free) there is no way to force a person to use that care unless of course you have him committed involuntarily by due process
You assume he wanted to get helpIt takes a person a long time to get that sick, so it takes time to get well. It is fucking asinine and heartless to just write them off.I took him to the ER and sat with him through the night. Then he was admitted to a dual purpose drug rehab/depression hospital.
They only kept him for three days.
As for my other friend, he was willing to kill to stop ME from getting killed, dumbass.
The police don't know I have his .45. They haven't even inquired about all his guns. Not even when I called them to cancel the BOLO!
Explain.
The ONLY reason to confiscate a gun from someone who is suicidal is because they might also be homicidal. Suicide is a valid and important thing all people have to face and live up to at some point. And it sounds to me as if no one has helped this person at all yet.
Sure it takes a long time to get sick and a long time to get well.
But gun control does nothing to help either of these problems.
Clearly it is a medical problem, fixed by making health care a free, public option.
That was he could have gotten help a the very beginning, and headed it all off.
None of that can be undone now, and gun control did not and could not help in the least.
Even if health care was free (and nothing is ever free) there is no way to force a person to use that care unless of course you have him committed involuntarily by due process
First of all, almost all suicide fail and really are just a cry for help.
Second is that the family could easily have forced treatment earlier, if it were affordable.
Third is that public health care is free because all countries that use public health care spend less than half what we do on health care, and get better results.
That is because health insurance is the least efficient way to pay for health care, and has caused the costs to more than double.
That is because you have prepaid, so then no longer have any ability to influence quality or cost.
You assume he wanted to get helpIt takes a person a long time to get that sick, so it takes time to get well. It is fucking asinine and heartless to just write them off.The ONLY reason to confiscate a gun from someone who is suicidal is because they might also be homicidal. Suicide is a valid and important thing all people have to face and live up to at some point. And it sounds to me as if no one has helped this person at all yet.
Sure it takes a long time to get sick and a long time to get well.
But gun control does nothing to help either of these problems.
Clearly it is a medical problem, fixed by making health care a free, public option.
That was he could have gotten help a the very beginning, and headed it all off.
None of that can be undone now, and gun control did not and could not help in the least.
Even if health care was free (and nothing is ever free) there is no way to force a person to use that care unless of course you have him committed involuntarily by due process
First of all, almost all suicide fail and really are just a cry for help.
Second is that the family could easily have forced treatment earlier, if it were affordable.
Third is that public health care is free because all countries that use public health care spend less than half what we do on health care, and get better results.
That is because health insurance is the least efficient way to pay for health care, and has caused the costs to more than double.
That is because you have prepaid, so then no longer have any ability to influence quality or cost.
I'm sure you meant to say most suicide attempts fail
And one can be involuntarily committed regardless of ability to pay it only needs to be proven that one is a danger to himself or others to the satisfaction of the courts.
That is the only way you can force a person to receive medical treatment
You assume he wanted to get helpIt takes a person a long time to get that sick, so it takes time to get well. It is fucking asinine and heartless to just write them off.
Sure it takes a long time to get sick and a long time to get well.
But gun control does nothing to help either of these problems.
Clearly it is a medical problem, fixed by making health care a free, public option.
That was he could have gotten help a the very beginning, and headed it all off.
None of that can be undone now, and gun control did not and could not help in the least.
Even if health care was free (and nothing is ever free) there is no way to force a person to use that care unless of course you have him committed involuntarily by due process
First of all, almost all suicide fail and really are just a cry for help.
Second is that the family could easily have forced treatment earlier, if it were affordable.
Third is that public health care is free because all countries that use public health care spend less than half what we do on health care, and get better results.
That is because health insurance is the least efficient way to pay for health care, and has caused the costs to more than double.
That is because you have prepaid, so then no longer have any ability to influence quality or cost.
I'm sure you meant to say most suicide attempts fail
And one can be involuntarily committed regardless of ability to pay it only needs to be proven that one is a danger to himself or others to the satisfaction of the courts.
That is the only way you can force a person to receive medical treatment
Yes, I intended that most suicides attempts fail and likely are intended to fail, to just get help.
Involuntary commitment is imprisonment to prevent harm, but does not at all mean they will get medical help.
That is because Reagan cut all funding for mental health facilities.
They need to be funded once again.
There currently is not way to force a person to receive medical treatment.
You assume he wanted to get helpSure it takes a long time to get sick and a long time to get well.
But gun control does nothing to help either of these problems.
Clearly it is a medical problem, fixed by making health care a free, public option.
That was he could have gotten help a the very beginning, and headed it all off.
None of that can be undone now, and gun control did not and could not help in the least.
Even if health care was free (and nothing is ever free) there is no way to force a person to use that care unless of course you have him committed involuntarily by due process
First of all, almost all suicide fail and really are just a cry for help.
Second is that the family could easily have forced treatment earlier, if it were affordable.
Third is that public health care is free because all countries that use public health care spend less than half what we do on health care, and get better results.
That is because health insurance is the least efficient way to pay for health care, and has caused the costs to more than double.
That is because you have prepaid, so then no longer have any ability to influence quality or cost.
I'm sure you meant to say most suicide attempts fail
And one can be involuntarily committed regardless of ability to pay it only needs to be proven that one is a danger to himself or others to the satisfaction of the courts.
That is the only way you can force a person to receive medical treatment
Yes, I intended that most suicides attempts fail and likely are intended to fail, to just get help.
Involuntary commitment is imprisonment to prevent harm, but does not at all mean they will get medical help.
That is because Reagan cut all funding for mental health facilities.
They need to be funded once again.
There currently is not way to force a person to receive medical treatment.
There is no scenario that guarantees anyone will get help.
The only way to guarantee that is to force people into treatment.
The only legal way available to force treatment is involuntary commitment
You assume he wanted to get help
Even if health care was free (and nothing is ever free) there is no way to force a person to use that care unless of course you have him committed involuntarily by due process
First of all, almost all suicide fail and really are just a cry for help.
Second is that the family could easily have forced treatment earlier, if it were affordable.
Third is that public health care is free because all countries that use public health care spend less than half what we do on health care, and get better results.
That is because health insurance is the least efficient way to pay for health care, and has caused the costs to more than double.
That is because you have prepaid, so then no longer have any ability to influence quality or cost.
I'm sure you meant to say most suicide attempts fail
And one can be involuntarily committed regardless of ability to pay it only needs to be proven that one is a danger to himself or others to the satisfaction of the courts.
That is the only way you can force a person to receive medical treatment
Yes, I intended that most suicides attempts fail and likely are intended to fail, to just get help.
Involuntary commitment is imprisonment to prevent harm, but does not at all mean they will get medical help.
That is because Reagan cut all funding for mental health facilities.
They need to be funded once again.
There currently is not way to force a person to receive medical treatment.
There is no scenario that guarantees anyone will get help.
The only way to guarantee that is to force people into treatment.
The only legal way available to force treatment is involuntary commitment
No, the only that used to be available to force a person to get treatment was involuntary commitment.
But with Reagans cuts, there is NO way to force a person to get treatment.
Involuntary commitment does not allow for treatment any more.
But that also ignores that fact anyone playing with suicide instead of just getting it over with right away, likely WANTS to get help.
So then the ONLY hold up is cost.
Why?The sales of ALL guns soared under Obama.
It was Obama's stated mission and efforts in conformity thereto that proved the "Rube Herd" right about him.The Rube Herd even bleeved the hoax that the government was buying up all the bullets, and they went out and panic bought every round they could, thus causing shortages and high prices.
That is STRICTLY a mental health issue, not a gun issue.I have a friend who has been hospitalized twice in the past year for suicide attempts. The first time, he was apprehended by the police WITH A GUN TO HIS HEAD.
The second time, just two weeks ago, he had a .45 and was personally disarmed by me while another friend who was covering me with a sidearm. Prior to me taking him in, the police had all the roads in and out of town blanketed with police cars and a BOLO out on him.
He is now in official police records TWICE for using a gun for suicidal purposes, along with domestic abuse, and yet no one has come to take his guns away.
Explain.
ETA: I confiscated his .45 and am keeping it in my gun safe for now.
Why?The sales of ALL guns soared under Obama.
It was Obama's stated mission and efforts in conformity thereto that proved the "Rube Herd" right about him.The Rube Herd even bleeved the hoax that the government was buying up all the bullets, and they went out and panic bought every round they could, thus causing shortages and high prices.
So, again. If you don't want to give the NRA more power, tell people to quit voting for pretty much all Democrats and a good bunch of Republicans.
First of all, almost all suicide fail and really are just a cry for help.
Second is that the family could easily have forced treatment earlier, if it were affordable.
Third is that public health care is free because all countries that use public health care spend less than half what we do on health care, and get better results.
That is because health insurance is the least efficient way to pay for health care, and has caused the costs to more than double.
That is because you have prepaid, so then no longer have any ability to influence quality or cost.
I'm sure you meant to say most suicide attempts fail
And one can be involuntarily committed regardless of ability to pay it only needs to be proven that one is a danger to himself or others to the satisfaction of the courts.
That is the only way you can force a person to receive medical treatment
Yes, I intended that most suicides attempts fail and likely are intended to fail, to just get help.
Involuntary commitment is imprisonment to prevent harm, but does not at all mean they will get medical help.
That is because Reagan cut all funding for mental health facilities.
They need to be funded once again.
There currently is not way to force a person to receive medical treatment.
There is no scenario that guarantees anyone will get help.
The only way to guarantee that is to force people into treatment.
The only legal way available to force treatment is involuntary commitment
No, the only that used to be available to force a person to get treatment was involuntary commitment.
But with Reagans cuts, there is NO way to force a person to get treatment.
Involuntary commitment does not allow for treatment any more.
But that also ignores that fact anyone playing with suicide instead of just getting it over with right away, likely WANTS to get help.
So then the ONLY hold up is cost.
It appears that most of the conversation revolves around the Feds. It's not the Feds job. It's the States and locals.
I'm sure you meant to say most suicide attempts fail
And one can be involuntarily committed regardless of ability to pay it only needs to be proven that one is a danger to himself or others to the satisfaction of the courts.
That is the only way you can force a person to receive medical treatment
Yes, I intended that most suicides attempts fail and likely are intended to fail, to just get help.
Involuntary commitment is imprisonment to prevent harm, but does not at all mean they will get medical help.
That is because Reagan cut all funding for mental health facilities.
They need to be funded once again.
There currently is not way to force a person to receive medical treatment.
There is no scenario that guarantees anyone will get help.
The only way to guarantee that is to force people into treatment.
The only legal way available to force treatment is involuntary commitment
No, the only that used to be available to force a person to get treatment was involuntary commitment.
But with Reagans cuts, there is NO way to force a person to get treatment.
Involuntary commitment does not allow for treatment any more.
But that also ignores that fact anyone playing with suicide instead of just getting it over with right away, likely WANTS to get help.
So then the ONLY hold up is cost.
It appears that most of the conversation revolves around the Feds. It's not the Feds job. It's the States and locals.
Yes, but in this particular context, a person was wondering why the local police were not attempting to take away the person's guns after the 2nd failed suicide attempt.
And in that case, I think they police likely defer to the family.
If a person is mentally unfit, then it should be the family that initiates the proper steps, not the police, who do not really know the person.
But to get back to your point, it would be even worse if the feds were the ones to try to confiscate weapons over suicide attempts, as they likely would shoot and kill the person in the process of confiscating.
You assume he wanted to get help
Even if health care was free (and nothing is ever free) there is no way to force a person to use that care unless of course you have him committed involuntarily by due process
First of all, almost all suicide fail and really are just a cry for help.
Second is that the family could easily have forced treatment earlier, if it were affordable.
Third is that public health care is free because all countries that use public health care spend less than half what we do on health care, and get better results.
That is because health insurance is the least efficient way to pay for health care, and has caused the costs to more than double.
That is because you have prepaid, so then no longer have any ability to influence quality or cost.
I'm sure you meant to say most suicide attempts fail
And one can be involuntarily committed regardless of ability to pay it only needs to be proven that one is a danger to himself or others to the satisfaction of the courts.
That is the only way you can force a person to receive medical treatment
Yes, I intended that most suicides attempts fail and likely are intended to fail, to just get help.
Involuntary commitment is imprisonment to prevent harm, but does not at all mean they will get medical help.
That is because Reagan cut all funding for mental health facilities.
They need to be funded once again.
There currently is not way to force a person to receive medical treatment.
There is no scenario that guarantees anyone will get help.
The only way to guarantee that is to force people into treatment.
The only legal way available to force treatment is involuntary commitment
No, the only that used to be available to force a person to get treatment was involuntary commitment.
But with Reagans cuts, there is NO way to force a person to get treatment.
Involuntary commitment does not allow for treatment any more.
But that also ignores that fact anyone playing with suicide instead of just getting it over with right away, likely WANTS to get help.
So then the ONLY hold up is cost.
local police are killing more americans then the feds areI'm sure you meant to say most suicide attempts fail
And one can be involuntarily committed regardless of ability to pay it only needs to be proven that one is a danger to himself or others to the satisfaction of the courts.
That is the only way you can force a person to receive medical treatment
Yes, I intended that most suicides attempts fail and likely are intended to fail, to just get help.
Involuntary commitment is imprisonment to prevent harm, but does not at all mean they will get medical help.
That is because Reagan cut all funding for mental health facilities.
They need to be funded once again.
There currently is not way to force a person to receive medical treatment.
There is no scenario that guarantees anyone will get help.
The only way to guarantee that is to force people into treatment.
The only legal way available to force treatment is involuntary commitment
No, the only that used to be available to force a person to get treatment was involuntary commitment.
But with Reagans cuts, there is NO way to force a person to get treatment.
Involuntary commitment does not allow for treatment any more.
But that also ignores that fact anyone playing with suicide instead of just getting it over with right away, likely WANTS to get help.
So then the ONLY hold up is cost.
It appears that most of the conversation revolves around the Feds. It's not the Feds job. It's the States and locals.
Yes, but in this particular context, a person was wondering why the local police were not attempting to take away the person's guns after the 2nd failed suicide attempt.
And in that case, I think they police likely defer to the family.
If a person is mentally unfit, then it should be the family that initiates the proper steps, not the police, who do not really know the person.
But to get back to your point, it would be even worse if the feds were the ones to try to confiscate weapons over suicide attempts, as they likely would shoot and kill the person in the process of confiscating.
Why please so ignorantly, left-wingers?why plead so specially, right wingers.
Uh...MaObama did come for the guns. If you weren’t the most ignorant poster on USMB, you would be familiar with “Operation Choke Point”.“OBAMAZ CUMMIN FER YER GUNZ BUY MOAR!!!" was one of the most successful marketing campaigns in history, and they knew that streak would continue with Hillary in office.
Here is the flaw in your propaganda: Operation Choke Point. Facts. See how they work?Here's the flaw in your reasoning: Obama was not a gun grabber. See how that works?
