Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

HereSince1628

(36,063 posts)
45. There's nothing controversial about that, but that's not REALLY the nature of the concern.
Thu Dec 20, 2012, 05:51 PM
Dec 2012

I don't want guns in the hands of dangerous people either. I'm totally in agreement with that sentiment.

But there is more than one twist in the mobius strip of these threads on guns, mental illness and violence.

And when you cut it down the middle you end up with two loops.

Please look at the OTHER loop, the one that has nothing to do with wanting a gun.

It might seem strange but most people familiar with mental illness are not really too very hot about the right to own guns.

We ARE very hot about unreasonably getting our names placed on some national registry that says we are untrustworthy and dangerous because a database program flagged a billing code, or because some pharmacy database says we filled a prescription.

We are afraid of getting our names on lists of untrustworthy and dangerous people. We already face real discrimination. We've got legitimate concerns about facile trampling of constitutional rights, but we are downright terrified about having innocent, unrisky peoples' names on databases of shunned people, because we know how expansion of access and misuse of databases proceeds in the US.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

The snippet you posted is wrong. randome Dec 2012 #1
Maybe would be if a good share of rampage shooters didn't turn out pipoman Dec 2012 #2
70% of murders are by guns BainsBane Dec 2012 #12
Why not both? Arcana Dec 2012 #13
I'm fine with that BainsBane Dec 2012 #17
But scapegoating legal gun owners is perfectly acceptable hack89 Dec 2012 #27
no one is scapegoating gun owners BainsBane Dec 2012 #29
So all those OPs equating gun ownership with mental illness hack89 Dec 2012 #30
Did I write them? BainsBane Dec 2012 #31
Just pointing out the mood of DU hack89 Dec 2012 #32
. . . BainsBane Dec 2012 #34
Democrats own guns hack89 Dec 2012 #35
what point was that? BainsBane Dec 2012 #36
I am certainly will to consider reforms hack89 Dec 2012 #37
So the majority of these rampage killings aren't also pipoman Dec 2012 #14
A fraction of murders BainsBane Dec 2012 #16
... pipoman Dec 2012 #25
Another point BainsBane Dec 2012 #18
I agree with all of this.. pipoman Dec 2012 #26
That mass murder of people of color is utterly ignored Fire Walk With Me Dec 2012 #3
The constant war tama Dec 2012 #4
Some of us have nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #6
Some black Connecticut residents question media attention on Newtown shootings FarCenter Dec 2012 #11
It's a problem "white america" may not be interested in addressing, much less solving. Fire Walk With Me Dec 2012 #42
Nope, not one bit nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #5
Yes, of course it is. H2O Man Dec 2012 #7
So the majority of these guys aren't mentally ill? pipoman Dec 2012 #9
Which guys? H2O Man Dec 2012 #10
Rampage killers. pipoman Dec 2012 #15
"Rampage killers" is a H2O Man Dec 2012 #28
In the case of Jared Loughner, James Holmes, and Seung-Hui Cho, weren't they just expelled and Arcana Dec 2012 #38
Don't you understand... pipoman Dec 2012 #40
I understand. H2O Man Dec 2012 #41
There has been borderline conceptual discussion of it here in GD, in poll form etc. Fire Walk With Me Dec 2012 #43
I think that would be ridiculous pipoman Dec 2012 #49
You lost me at "PETA vegan is outrageous." Didn't bother to read the rest. nt Honeycombe8 Dec 2012 #8
How could anyone possibly think this creates stigma? Denninmi Dec 2012 #19
there's some big brother shit being suggested fizzgig Dec 2012 #21
Yup, my exact thought. Denninmi Dec 2012 #22
When advocates and activists say "Let's have the conversation" I think they prefer more level-headed Arcana Dec 2012 #23
It's a little hard not to take it personally Denninmi Dec 2012 #24
I understand Arcana Dec 2012 #39
it does when it calls for a broadbrush abrogation of our rights fizzgig Dec 2012 #20
I am opposed to mentally ill people with potentially violent tendencies having firearms el_bryanto Dec 2012 #33
Perhaps because such is being stated in broad brush strokes without real knowledge of mental illness Fire Walk With Me Dec 2012 #44
There's nothing controversial about that, but that's not REALLY the nature of the concern. HereSince1628 Dec 2012 #45
"mentally ill people with violent tendencies" loyalsister Dec 2012 #46
Spot on! Fire Walk With Me Dec 2012 #48
Yes, it's stigmatising Spider Jerusalem Dec 2012 #47
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Is having the conversatio...»Reply #45