So Joyce Foundation Shill Baldr Odinson has his first blog post up in a month, you’d think with that posting rate this one would be solid gold. Instead its a loosely held together screed of talking points from his Joyce masters. One point is that what he claims as a person with a “long history of severe neurological problems” bought a handgun at an FFL and passed a background check. Now first I’ll point out in Baldr’s story this “Mentally Ill” person was simply a straw buyer for a convicted felon, this person did not go nuts and start shooting people.
Bob chimes in in the comments section.
You focus on the fact that a mentally ill person had access to firearms. I do have a problem with that.
Let’s discuss it.
First, define mentally ill and the conditions associated with that that causes people to lose their rights?
Second, What methods are available to determine when a person is a danger to themselves or others?
Please be specific and include a discussion of the accuracy of those methods.
Third, If those people are a danger to themselves or others, what do you propose to do about it — other than stripping them of their right to keep and bear arms?
Bob makes a great point. What is “Mentally ill”? I was diagnosed with ADD as a child. I haven’t taken any medications for it since I was a teenager, I don’t feel impaired in any way. Am I mentally ill?
Several of my friends have clinical depression, they’re very well controlled both through medication and therapy. Are they Mentally ill?
Just about every woman I know has a noticeable shift in their mood and personality in on or around their menstrual cycle. Are they mentally ill?
I get cranky when I’m hungry or over tired. Am I mentally ill?
Baldr Odinson constantly uses the fictional metric of “Gun Death” and claims that somehow that is more relevant than “Death” or “Violent Crime Rates”. Is he Mentally Ill?
We need definitions of mental illness, the law currently states that involuntary commitment is that magical line you need to cross to be so mentally ill as to lose rights. Makes sense, if a respected legal authority (a Judge) says you have such mental problems that you are going to be treated, even if it is against your will, that sounds like a nice line.
Bob’s point about what else should be done is a VERY good one. You see anti-gun activists are obsessed with the object of a gun, and they look at nothing beyond it. Pro-rights activists look at the problem…violence, and don’t get obsessed with the tool. You see we want to curb VIOLENCE, they want to curb GUNS.
But what else? Let’s say the lady mentioned in Baldr’s article was declared “Mentially Ill” under the NICS check and could no longer buy or own guns because of her medical history. Is that it? She can’t be trusted with a gun because she may go crazy and shoot somebody, or in this case give it to somebody dangerous. Can she be trusted with a knife? How about behind the wheel of a car? Should she be able to buy a can of gasoline and a book of matches? Can she walk onto a school campus?
If somebody can “Just Snap” and do violence, a gun is not the ONLY tool we need to be worried about. Why is it the only tool Baldr, and his organization are worried about? Well because they want to ban them, and they really don’t think that the people they would strip of their rights are all that dangerous….I mean they walk on the sidewalk while they drive by in their cars! Its just all about restriction, and restriction of ONLY one thing. GUNS. Baldr’s response?
Goodness, Bob, you must think me a psychologist! Are YOU qualified to deem her safe enough?
Oh yes, since Bob does not have a psychology degree (neither do I) we obviously can’t talk about such things.
I’ll leave the determination of “danger to self and others” to a licenced psychologist. Newspaper reports cite her has having had a long history of schizophrenia and erratic behavior, combined with reduced mental capacity that required her to work with the Pearl Buck Center to adjust to society. Is this severe enough to warrant removal of her second ammendment rights? Seems pretty clear to me.
He’ll leave that determination up to a licensed psychologist….but it seems clear to me she’s a danger! Not a hint of irony! This is much like the Brady Campaign protesters at the convention where chanting on a megaphone “We Wanna Talk!” over and over again. Ummm well you ARE talking, and you are saying “We Wanna Talk!”….if you want a dialog its going to be mighty hard if you’re spamming the air with a megaphone….
And just because I’m on poor old Baldr, I thought I’d post this quote.
There is hardly a line you have written which can’t be refuted with logical thought or a truthful representation of peer-reviewed publications, and you have bent the truth to suit your faulty perceptions.
Go over and have a look at the whole quote, and the great post by Patrick, you’ll note that despite what he says there is no “truthful representation of peer-reviewed publications”. What’s even better is I know that said publications aren’t a bluff, they do exist, and they are ALL paid for by the Joyce foundation. Kinda odd that the only time the data that Patrick speaks of is refuted the “researcher” is working under a Joyce grant, or its simply being cooked up by somebody like Josh Sugarmann using not only suspect but laughable “scientific” methods.
Baldr has only put up one post a month because he’s too busy with his Twitter Account. Really the anti-gun people are more brand advertisers than they are political activists. Too bad slogans like “cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs”, and “King of Beers” really don’t do all that much to thinking adults. Frankly they don’t seem to do a whole lot for young children either. I ate Cocoa puffs because they were filled with chocolaty goodness. I don’t eat them anymore because I prefer my cereal less sweet these days.
Twitter is best for them, as it gives them just enough space to push a sound byte, not enough for them to support it….which is convenient.
I’d imagine they’d smoke up better than the big ones too!
