Jump to content

voyager9

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    4,814

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    20

  • Feedback

    0%

Posts posted by voyager9

  1. Posted

    1 hour ago, Cheflife15 said:

    I understand the experiment. My point is, the psychological evaluation is done based on what they said. What other conclusion would they have come to? 

    do you think psychologists have no basis to make proper diagnoses because if this study?

    They were admitted to the hospital for what they said.  They were diagnosed while in the hospital despite acting normal.  I would expect any diagnosis to be based on an evaluation while they were in the hospital and not biased because of the fact they were there. 

  2. Posted

    31 minutes ago, Cheflife15 said:

    Well I mean if they went to the psyche ward because they said they were hearing voices then what else would they be diagnosed with? 

    From the wiki:

    The Rosenhan experiment or Thud experimentwas an experiment conducted to determine the validity of psychiatric diagnosis. The participants feigned hallucinations to enter psychiatric hospitals but acted normally afterwards. They were diagnosed with psychiatric disorders and were given antipsychotic medication. [\quote]
     

  3. Posted

    2 hours ago, Cheflife15 said:

    For it to work the person would have to be unbiased and work from structured questions.

    That is where it will fail.  Either the “structured questions” would themselves be tainted to “err on the side of caution” or the system would be set up such that the doctor would be liable for their decision.. so they would deny by default. 

     

    2 hours ago, Cheflife15 said:

    The current political climate isn't going to  allow us to deal with this.  They are going to continue to ban guns if people are legally buying guns and shooting children.

    Allowing infringements because we fear for worse infringements doesn’t seem a wise strategy and historically ends up going further anyway.  

    • Agree 1

  4. Posted

    1 hour ago, Lawnmower2021 said:

    Our whole legal system revolves around assuming innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and NICS should reflect that.

    This.  
    Of course you mean the real legal system and not the court of public opinion where you’re guilty because you’re accused.  

  5. Posted

    18 minutes ago, Cheflife15 said:

    That's why this is an issue. Here we have so many anti gunners due to situations like this. In Sweden and Norway, it's not as prevalent because these shootings don't occur as often. It's almost like you have to cut down on these shootings to normalize gun ownership in this country.

    The comparison to Sweden/Norway is too simple.  They have a very different culture and population.  
    Id say the idea of a mental health check to purchase a firearm would get more traction if people trusted the government and one party specifically not to take advantage of it for their own agenda.  

    • Agree 1

  6. Posted

    9 minutes ago, Displaced Texan said:

    This I can agree with, but again, how much potential does this have for abuse? 

    Right.  Define “non-normal”.  Does it include not using the “correct” pronoun?  Refusing to mask?   Putting ketchup on steak?

  7. Posted

    28 minutes ago, Cheflife15 said:

    Maybe some type of psyche evaluation like they do in Sweden and Norway. 

    I can't imagine anything more then a 30 minute conversation with this kid or researching his social history posts could've stopped or delayed him from getting a gun. 

    Bad idea. First, what would the criteria be for prohibiting based on this evaluation?   Second, No doctor would actually sign off on it.  They wouldn’t take the liability. 

  8. Posted

    I would actually be ok if they opened up NICS to buyers/sellers for private sales.  Buyer does a BGC on themselves and seller verified.  No info about the firearm or the sale itself gets recorded.  A republican proposed that years ago but it was shot down by the democrats because they wanted FFL-based NICS (for the registry).  
     

    I think they should teach a firearm safety course in school and offer it free as adult-education.  Incentivize it by providing a discount on a safe when you present your certificate.   
     

    The media needs to stop glorifying these shootings and the shooter.  Memory-hole them and never mention their name.  Media-contagion is a thing.   
     

    And, perhaps, if something is seen posted online that is a threat it should be reported to authorities and investigated.   Friends, family, class mates, should say something if they are concerned.  Perhaps a temporarily condition short of “involuntary commitment” should exist that can keep someone from buying after an investigation, and hearing until they get help.  

    • Like 1
    • Agree 2

  13. Posted

    8 minutes ago, DPNJ said:

    @voyager9

    I am looking for a bag that would accommodate three pistol cases , the hard plastic manufacturer cases. You think this midway bag would accommodate three, with ammo , and eye /ear protection? All the bags I see look like they need you to remove the hard case for the pouch they include 

    I don’t know. Mine is a soft case and I usually don’t put ammo in there (unless it’s a quick range trip and I don’t want to lug an ammo can).   If you want a hard case for 3+ handguns, gear, and ammo you will need something else.   Pelican sells cases and you can get custom foam inserts but it will cost more.  

  17. Posted

    2 hours ago, silverado427 said:

    I just noticed Range 14 has new hours.

    Weds and Friday 1:00 - 3:00    used to be 2 - 4

    Sat and Sunday   8:30 - 10:30.     11:00 - 1:00.      1:30 - 3:30

                                  

    Why do they close for 30 minutes twice?  Is that the period between their “new” established blocks?

  20. Posted

    18 minutes ago, Bklynracer said:

    What determines who writes the decision?

    If Thomas is writing it, would it lean more in our favor?

    from

    Quote

    the Chief Justice, or the most senior Justice in the majority if the Chief Justice is in the dissent, assigns a Justice in the majority to write the opinion of the Court. 

    It was mentioned elsewhere that typically justices are assigned one opinion per term and Thomas and Barret were the only two (of the expected majority) that hadn’t authored an opinion.  It was speculated that they wouldn’t assign Barret to such a controversial case.  
     

    Thought this was interesting too

    Quote

    A majority of Justices must agree to all of the contents of the Court's opinion before it is publicly delivered. Justices do this by "signing onto" the opinion. The Justice in charge of writing the opinion must be careful to take into consideration the comments and concerns of the others who voted in the majority. If this does not happen, there may not be enough Justices to maintain the majority. On rare occasions in close cases, a dissenting opinion later becomes the majority opinion because one or more Justices switch their votes after reading the drafts of the majority and dissenting opinions. 

     

    • Thanks 1
    • Informative 1

  23. Posted

    Interesting case on the subject

    UNITED STATES of America v. Remy AUGUSTIN

    Quote

        Those of our sister courts of appeals that have considered 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) have concluded, as do we, that one must be an unlawful user at or about the time he or she possessed the firearm and that to be an unlawful user, one needed to have engaged in regular use over a period of time proximate to or contemporaneous with the possession of the firearm.  

    And

    Quote

    There was no evidence that Augustin had ever used drugs prior to the single use on June 28, or that he ever used drugs again.  All the evidence disclosed was that Augustin used drugs on June 28 and possessed a firearm on June 29, roughly six hours later.6 That evidence was insufficient to support his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3).

     

×
×
  • Create New...