We had this conversation a day or two ago.
https://mises.org/wire/when-mental-health-used-empower-state
https://mises.org/wire/when-mental-health-used-empower-state
An Article For CSCOTT To Read
- Thread starter Ponca Dan
- Start date
Mises says all humans err, but attempts to qualify that by saying everyone’s doing it. In your opinion, what actions justify gun control/removal of the right to bear arms? Also, merely dissenting opinions are rarely grounds for removing the right to bear arms...your actions dictate this. The author compares public outrage to Mises’s view of Soviet stifling of dissenting opinion via forced incarceration/psychiatric treatment. That’s just odd.
Nicolas Cruz was evaluated for mental illness for cuts on his arms. He was deemed sufficient to own firearms. Do you consider this to be a reasonable decision? Should the state not be allowed to exercise a measure of control to advance public safety? Is that Soviet-level authoritarianism in your eyes?
Last edited:
Gosh that’s spot on lol. Oklahoma State University should be calling me any minute asking for their journalism degree and minor in political science back. Damn fools they are!
Words to picture ratio doesn’t check out for targeted audience. @Ponca Dan do you have anything from Nickelodeon kids?
You have a degree? In journalism? And you write the way you do? They should ask for the degree back.
haha tho carry on lol.
It was also recommended he be institutionalized by another MH professional.
One got it right
The other did not
Lame trying to use the one that got it wrong to push a narrative
You obviously have very little intuition lol...I stated quite clearly I’m in favor of a reasonable check on rights when actions dictate it. The failure to do so resulted in guns in Cruz’s hands...and subsequent tragedy.
But nice try trying to twist facts to drive your attempts-to-#win narrative haha.
Carry on.
Interesting. Is the diagnosis of "sufficient to own firearms" in the DSM?
The background checks in place weren’t the issue
The failure of law enforcement, medical professionals, etc were the issue
There were so many red flags ignored it’s unforgivable
Laugh it up putz
His original article argued against the “state” controlling gun ownership. I think you and I are splitting hairs here, because we both agree in the necessity of said control in appropriate circumstances. Yes, the state of Florida and law enforcement agencies dropped the ball bigtime.
Last edited:
The original article was not about the "state controlling gun ownership." The article was about the potential danger of giving the state power to decide who is and who is not mentally qualified to own a gun. It used examples like the government in the Soviet Union abusing such a power. I know we don't want to believe it could happen here, but it could happen here if we ignore potential warning signs - much like the warning signs missed by Florida authorities.
17 dead in a gun-free zone is the reality here, and the reality is far closer to anarchy than totalitarian regime. As an anarchist, are you saying you will accept the ugly consequences of free will? At what point do you start to say enough is enough?
If I had any clue how to connect the dots you are asking about I would attempt to do so. When is enough enough? 17 dead students pales in comparison to the tens of millions of Soviet citizens who were slaughtered, starved to death, frozen in the Gulag, crowded 10 families into one house, and forbidden to protect themselves from each other, notwithstanding the government agents that harassed them day and night. Personally I'll take my chances with the continuation of the 2nd Amendment, thank you very much.
