Quote:
Originally Posted by GocartMozart
how do you consider someone at risk? this means you have to give someone the power to label you "at-risk." fuck that. While I'm a moody person in general, i'm nothing like bi-polar personalities which are abound in society. If you started labeling people "at-risk" you'd firstly breaking their constitutional rights by prejudicing them immediately, but secondly, that would make me more likely to take arms in the first place. For me personallly I would take it as a pure interferance in my rights, but worse a person who truly is legitemately sick, is already feeling like the world has labeled him unfairly. That person is thus far more prone to this act.
End of the day, you can't protect everyone, everyday of their lives. They have to use their intuition to call for help if they notice something. Stupid shit happens everyday, that doesn't mean we go around over-reacting to it. It would be a bigger tragedy if we did. Now if you can think of logical solution that doesn't interfere with peoples rights, I'm all for it.
|
That's exactly why this is not as cut-and-dry as people seem to think it is.
It's worth pointing out, though, that having a diagnosis known is not prejudicial. Leaking the information if it's not public record is, but if it's part of (for example) your college application, it's not. It isn't a video game world. In a game with a crossfire, you lose strength or power or whatever if you hit a civilian. In real life, someone dies if you shoot an innocent in a crossfire.
But then again, the civil liberties crowd would have a field day with that one, and I'm inclined to think (at least partly) rightly so.
So, back to square one. Either way, the whole "put more guns out there" suggestion is counter-productive. It'll just make things worse.