General Discussion

enlightenment

(8,830 posts)

75. Yes, you're reading correctly.

Sat Oct 3, 2015, 08:24 PM

Oct 2015

There is no viable way to identify people who may develop a psychological illness in advance. We could look at genetics, upbringing, etc - we could even start demanding DNA - but that would only identify possibilities, not actualities.

A woman with the "breast cancer gene" has a significantly greater chance of developing breast cancer than a woman who does not have that gene - but it doesn't mean she WILL develop breast cancer. Should ALL women who have the gene have preventative mastectomies? What if insurance companies started demanding that these women have mastectomies, based on that increased risk?

There just isn't any way to accomplish pre-guess who might develop a mental illness - and even if we could, that road presumes that mental illness is behind every trigger happy arse with a gun.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

89 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

OK, so my last idea was not well received [View all] dumbcat Oct 2015 OP

Good question Duckhunter935 Oct 2015 #1

The British still use guns in hunting and sport. How do they keep gun violence among humans... ChisolmTrailDem Oct 2015 #2

That doesn't address the question asked dumbcat Oct 2015 #23

Well, for one thing, they don't use hand guns Warpy Oct 2015 #54

Canadians have hunting rifles Aerows Oct 2015 #81

Gun love is a sickness that's difficult to treat. hunter Oct 2015 #3

You didn't address the question asked dumbcat Oct 2015 #24

I think wanting to own a gun for anything other than utilitarian reasons... hunter Oct 2015 #51

Then, your answer to the question is dumbcat Oct 2015 #53

We don't. enlightenment Oct 2015 #4

So if I read your reply correctly dumbcat Oct 2015 #25

Yes, you're reading correctly. enlightenment Oct 2015 #75

Yes, that idea was properly not well received. However... sudenlyseymour Oct 2015 #5

Thank you for your thoughtful reply, but dumbcat Oct 2015 #26

I am as useless as so many others who have replied. sudenlyseymour Oct 2015 #84

We could look twice at those who feel the need to pose on social media with guns. cwydro Oct 2015 #6

No they don't. Just the ones you happen to remember who happened to do that. Warren Stupidity Oct 2015 #8

Every one of the most recent had pictures of themselves with guns. cwydro Oct 2015 #9

Cedric G. Prather Warren Stupidity Oct 2015 #11

I love people who cannot post without using profanity. cwydro Oct 2015 #12

'horseshit'? seriously? that is what you are responding to? Warren Stupidity Oct 2015 #13

It's a sign of class dumbcat Oct 2015 #43

I agree with you there. cwydro Oct 2015 #79

And hundreds of thousands did not Duckhunter935 Oct 2015 #37

That is backwards logic, or would it be illogical? uppityperson Oct 2015 #21

After you look twice, then what do you do? dumbcat Oct 2015 #27

Oh fuck that. Every other country that had a mass shooting problem did the obvious: Warren Stupidity Oct 2015 #7

What kinds of limits and regulations? LWolf Oct 2015 #14

^^^This Post^^^ -none Oct 2015 #16

That's far too sensible to ever work in this country. Crunchy Frog Oct 2015 #49

I know, but I can dream can't I? -none Oct 2015 #67

Message auto-removed Name removed Oct 2015 #69

Cars are, by law, licensed and insured to run on the street. Their purpose is transportation. -none Oct 2015 #76

Classy. And non-responsive dumbcat Oct 2015 #28

Sorry to say that happens a lot Duckhunter935 Oct 2015 #40

Mexico has strict gun laws Travis_0004 Oct 2015 #59

Mexico. Seriously? Warren Stupidity Oct 2015 #60

Overall homicides are higher in mexico Travis_0004 Oct 2015 #62

Well go ahead and talk about anything other Warren Stupidity Oct 2015 #68

You require a permit to purchase a gun. NutmegYankee Oct 2015 #10

I like the Vermont and Maine procedures better... Kang Colby Oct 2015 #17

In practice all town Police Chiefs or First Selectman have requested references. NutmegYankee Oct 2015 #19

They both have vastly lower population densities than CT. Crunchy Frog Oct 2015 #55

That's the closest I've seen yet to an answer dumbcat Oct 2015 #29

I can try to explain Connecticut's laws NutmegYankee Oct 2015 #77

probably makes it easy for a sherrif to deny a gun permit to Blacks or any other person Travis_0004 Oct 2015 #80

Considering that Connecticut doesn't have sheriffs, that won't happen. NutmegYankee Oct 2015 #82

Ban all guns! n/t PowerToThePeople Oct 2015 #15

Non responsive to my simple request dumbcat Oct 2015 #30

You have yet to answer what should be done to gun owners like Vice President Joe Biden, kelly1mm Oct 2015 #61

Ideally, turn over all his guns. PowerToThePeople Oct 2015 #70

Ok, I suppose that if passing laws (or in this case amending the constitution) is what you propose kelly1mm Oct 2015 #72

They are winning currently PowerToThePeople Oct 2015 #73

Man, I sure hope Vice President Biden, who you deem a domestic terrorist, is not our nominee kelly1mm Oct 2015 #74

What's your answer to the problem of guns coming across the borders if they're banned? cherokeeprogressive Oct 2015 #71

I think we just have to cut down on the number of guns treestar Oct 2015 #18

Non responsive to the question asked dumbcat Oct 2015 #31

this replies deals with "Many of -THESE- had -SOME- indication of -MENTAL ILLNESS- HereSince1628 Oct 2015 #20

So, did all that long reply boil down to dumbcat Oct 2015 #34

No it boiled down to HereSince1628 Oct 2015 #38

OK. Do you have an answer to the question posed in the OP? dumbcat Oct 2015 #41

I think focus on mental illness is mostly wrongheaded and hugely reliant on bigotry HereSince1628 Oct 2015 #47

Well, thanks anyway dumbcat Oct 2015 #52

I'm not into the Manicheasim of yes and no of conservatives and HereSince1628 Oct 2015 #57

I think we are in violent agreement dumbcat Oct 2015 #64

Yup. Conflating many problems into simple ones doesn't work. uppityperson Oct 2015 #45

E.O. Wilson says the dilemma of human existence stems from HereSince1628 Oct 2015 #50

Here is the link to your last idea, rather than a reply I gave uppityperson Oct 2015 #22

This message was self-deleted by its author dumbcat Oct 2015 #35

Simple... Require them to become... farmbo Oct 2015 #32

You want to determine who is a potential danger to others dumbcat Oct 2015 #36

Yes... Read the the text of the 2nd Amendment farmbo Oct 2015 #42

You are still non-responsive to the question dumbcat Oct 2015 #44

Respectfully,it is responsive. I'm linking gun purchases to a 'well regulated militia' farmbo Oct 2015 #85

I do not know how to ID potential mass murderers uppityperson Oct 2015 #33

Thank you for the most direct, honest answer in this thread dumbcat Oct 2015 #39

No, you can't simply identify anyone who might potentially commit an act of violence Crunchy Frog Oct 2015 #46

Thank you for your thoughtful and honest reply dumbcat Oct 2015 #48

"I am not about limiting your rights and freedoms"? you wanted to give this power to teenagers on uppityperson Oct 2015 #56

That other post was a proposition dumbcat Oct 2015 #63

Thank you for acknowledging it was absurd. I wasn't sure, especially due to your replies saying uppityperson Oct 2015 #78

Granted, I don't like living in a gun saturated society, Crunchy Frog Oct 2015 #66

I posted a similar request yesterday. Here are the responses Evergreen Emerald Oct 2015 #58

Your question was much, much broader than mine dumbcat Oct 2015 #65

My answer is different smilingwen Oct 2015 #83

This ain't much different than your other pre-crime thread, huh. Iggo Oct 2015 #86

If you say so dumbcat Oct 2015 #87

I'm glad you agree. Iggo Oct 2015 #88

Freeedumb isn't strictly the domain of the right. Sen. Walter Sobchak Oct 2015 #89