4 ms·

For... various interpretations of mentally incapacitated. Like not running your own finances?

StavrosK 10y ago
Are guns that essential to everyday life in the US that you have to carefully consider exactly how incapacitated someone is? I would think that even the slightest hint of incapacitation should be enough for someone to be denied a gun.
- colechristensen 10y ago
  We take our rights seriously. A car is much more dangerous than a gun and I doubt you'd suggest that the "slightest hint of incapacitation" should be enough for someone to be denied a driver's license.
  - halisaurus 10y ago
    You can't get a drivers license if your vision falls below 20/40. That's a "slight hint of incapacitation". Edit to clarify: ...without also requiring eye correction. Of course you can wear glasses to drive, but it becomes mandatory, and without that eye correction you cannot get a license.
    - Nrsolis 10y ago
      Try and suggest to people over the age of 70 that they need to take more frequent drivers tests or get certified by their doctor to safely operate a vehicle. You'll learn quickly that cognitive dissonance is a real thing.
      - StavrosK 10y ago
        Good thing people don't need a gun to get to work every day, otherwise we'd see lots of cognitive dissonance there too.
        Nrsolis 10y ago
        I guess that depends on what neighborhood you live in doesn't it? Try and suggest that ownership and operation of a vehicle is a Constitutional right and see how far you get with that. Want to change the Bill of Rights and get rid of the Second Amendment? There's an app for that.
      - halisaurus 10y ago
        California allows for another person to contact the DMV to suggest that a person of any age needs a reexamination. [0] [0] https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/?1dmy&urile=wcm:path:/dmv_content_en/dmv/about/senior/driverlicense/reexam https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/?1dmy&urile=wcm:path:/dmv_...
  - phpnode 10y ago
    What a ridiculous comment, a gun's only purpose is to kill, and yes, incapacitated people should not be driving if they present a danger to other road users.
  - deutronium 10y ago
    Isn't the whole point of a gun to kill people though, unlike a car?
    - Jtsummers 10y ago
      Sometimes to kill animals. But principally to kill, that is the purpose of weapons.
    - ctdonath 10y ago
      If someone is trying to rob/assault/rape/kill you, when you otherwise are unable to defend yourself against a superior-strength assailant, you may find a gun much more useful than a car. Hard to drive when you've been beaten to death.
      - deutronium 10y ago
        Are you indicating everyone should be able to own a weapon then? Despite being incapacitated in some way, which may lead to injury of themself or others.
        ctdonath 10y ago
        Interesting tell for cognitive dissonance there. The baseline is that, as the Constitution enumerates, armament of self for defense of self, family, and state is a natural right. The well-established & well-understood caveat is that any right may be curtailed for a particular individual IF adjudicated, in court, for good and established specific cause. The problem being addressed by the law in question is that veterans are being denied that right by faceless bureaucrats routinely checking "mentally incapacitated" checkbox for decades-old never-recurring cases of mild depression or other irrelevant trivialities. If you're going to deny someone the right of self-defense, at least do it in court with articulable & relevant cause.
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
    - 10y ago
  - tonyedgecombe 10y ago
    Actually I don't think you take your rights very seriously at all.
  - DanBC 10y ago
    Have you missed the decades of drink drive campaigning?
  - StavrosK 10y ago
    > A car is much more dangerous than a gun Did it really not occur to you while writing that comment that that analogy is not applicable here because a car is incommensurately more useful than a gun? Also, yes, I would, don't drive if you're even slightly incapacitated. It's super dangerous.
    - LyndsySimon 10y ago
      > Did it really not occur to you while writing that comment that that analogy is not applicable here because a car is incommensurately more useful than a gun? Respectfully, that's an opinion.
      - StavrosK 10y ago
        Sorry, I was overly mean in that comment, and yes, it's an opinion, but I think it's true for a vast majority of people.
- mindcrime 10y ago
  Yes.
- rukittenme 10y ago
  The degree to which you are incapacitated is important. We wouldn't be hearing ableist arguments if the topic were anything other than guns. Not every mentally incapacitated person is a psychotic murderer and its discriminatory to think so.
  - StavrosK 10y ago
    > ableist Good job with the slur there. > We wouldn't be hearing ableist arguments if the topic were anything other than guns I hold the same opinion on bombs and other things too, if it makes any difference.
- LyndsySimon 10y ago
  > Are guns that essential to everyday life in the US that you have to carefully consider exactly how incapacitated someone is? Yes - legally, and for much of the country, culturally. The right to bear arms is on par with the freedom of speech or religion. In short, if the justification would be insufficient to warrant ordering them to cease political speech or preventing them from worshipping as they choose, then it's insufficient for denying them the right to arms. > I would think that even the slightest hint of incapacitation should be enough for someone to be denied a gun. It's just the opposite here; stripping someone of their right to possess firearms is an extreme measure.

Are guns that essential to everyday life in the US that you have to carefully consider exactly how incapacitated someone is? I would think that even the slightest hint of incapacitation should be enough for someone to be denied a gun.

colechristensen 10y ago
We take our rights seriously. A car is much more dangerous than a gun and I doubt you'd suggest that the "slightest hint of incapacitation" should be enough for someone to be denied a driver's license.
- halisaurus 10y ago
  You can't get a drivers license if your vision falls below 20/40. That's a "slight hint of incapacitation". Edit to clarify: ...without also requiring eye correction. Of course you can wear glasses to drive, but it becomes mandatory, and without that eye correction you cannot get a license.
  - Nrsolis 10y ago
    Try and suggest to people over the age of 70 that they need to take more frequent drivers tests or get certified by their doctor to safely operate a vehicle. You'll learn quickly that cognitive dissonance is a real thing.
    - StavrosK 10y ago
      Good thing people don't need a gun to get to work every day, otherwise we'd see lots of cognitive dissonance there too.
      - Nrsolis 10y ago
        I guess that depends on what neighborhood you live in doesn't it? Try and suggest that ownership and operation of a vehicle is a Constitutional right and see how far you get with that. Want to change the Bill of Rights and get rid of the Second Amendment? There's an app for that.
    - halisaurus 10y ago
      California allows for another person to contact the DMV to suggest that a person of any age needs a reexamination. [0] [0] https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/?1dmy&urile=wcm:path:/dmv_content_en/dmv/about/senior/driverlicense/reexam https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/?1dmy&urile=wcm:path:/dmv_...
- phpnode 10y ago
  What a ridiculous comment, a gun's only purpose is to kill, and yes, incapacitated people should not be driving if they present a danger to other road users.
- deutronium 10y ago
  Isn't the whole point of a gun to kill people though, unlike a car?
  - Jtsummers 10y ago
    Sometimes to kill animals. But principally to kill, that is the purpose of weapons.
  - ctdonath 10y ago
    If someone is trying to rob/assault/rape/kill you, when you otherwise are unable to defend yourself against a superior-strength assailant, you may find a gun much more useful than a car. Hard to drive when you've been beaten to death.
    - deutronium 10y ago
      Are you indicating everyone should be able to own a weapon then? Despite being incapacitated in some way, which may lead to injury of themself or others.
      - ctdonath 10y ago
        Interesting tell for cognitive dissonance there. The baseline is that, as the Constitution enumerates, armament of self for defense of self, family, and state is a natural right. The well-established & well-understood caveat is that any right may be curtailed for a particular individual IF adjudicated, in court, for good and established specific cause. The problem being addressed by the law in question is that veterans are being denied that right by faceless bureaucrats routinely checking "mentally incapacitated" checkbox for decades-old never-recurring cases of mild depression or other irrelevant trivialities. If you're going to deny someone the right of self-defense, at least do it in court with articulable & relevant cause.
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
  - 10y ago
- tonyedgecombe 10y ago
  Actually I don't think you take your rights very seriously at all.
- DanBC 10y ago
  Have you missed the decades of drink drive campaigning?
- StavrosK 10y ago
  > A car is much more dangerous than a gun Did it really not occur to you while writing that comment that that analogy is not applicable here because a car is incommensurately more useful than a gun? Also, yes, I would, don't drive if you're even slightly incapacitated. It's super dangerous.
  - LyndsySimon 10y ago
    > Did it really not occur to you while writing that comment that that analogy is not applicable here because a car is incommensurately more useful than a gun? Respectfully, that's an opinion.
    - StavrosK 10y ago
      Sorry, I was overly mean in that comment, and yes, it's an opinion, but I think it's true for a vast majority of people.
mindcrime 10y ago
Yes.
rukittenme 10y ago
The degree to which you are incapacitated is important. We wouldn't be hearing ableist arguments if the topic were anything other than guns. Not every mentally incapacitated person is a psychotic murderer and its discriminatory to think so.
- StavrosK 10y ago
  > ableist Good job with the slur there. > We wouldn't be hearing ableist arguments if the topic were anything other than guns I hold the same opinion on bombs and other things too, if it makes any difference.
LyndsySimon 10y ago
> Are guns that essential to everyday life in the US that you have to carefully consider exactly how incapacitated someone is? Yes - legally, and for much of the country, culturally. The right to bear arms is on par with the freedom of speech or religion. In short, if the justification would be insufficient to warrant ordering them to cease political speech or preventing them from worshipping as they choose, then it's insufficient for denying them the right to arms. > I would think that even the slightest hint of incapacitation should be enough for someone to be denied a gun. It's just the opposite here; stripping someone of their right to possess firearms is an extreme measure.