What country in the world has the most guns?

Damocles said:
Do you propose forced incarceration for anybody the government deems to be a mental health risk? Maybe a new "pre-crime" division of some kind? What exactly are you proposing?
Click to expand...

Over here, anybody can be "sectioned" by this process.

In the United Kingdom, the process known in the United States as involuntary commitment is informally known as "detaining" or "sectioning," using various sections of the Mental Health Act 1983 (covering England and Wales), the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 and the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 that provide its legal basis.

In England and Wales, approved mental health professionals have a lead role in coordinating Mental Health Act assessments, which they conduct in cooperation with usually two medical practitioners. Under the Mental Health Act, detention is determined by utility and purpose. Mentally ill individuals may be detained under Section 2 for a period of assessment lasting up to 28 days or Section 3 for a period of treatment lasting up to 6 months. Patients already on a ward may be detained under section 5(2) for up to 72 hours for the purposes of allowing an assessment to take place for section 2 or 3. Separate sections deal with mentally ill criminal offenders. In all cases detention needs to be justified on the basis that the person has a mental disorder and poses a risk of harm to their own health, safety, or the safety of others.[SUP][20][/SUP]

Under the amended Mental Health Act 2007, which came into force in November 2008, to be detained under Section 3 for treatment, appropriate treatment must be available in the place of detention. Supervised Community Treatment orders means people can be discharged to the community on a conditional basis, remaining liable to recall to hospital if they break the conditions of the community treatment order.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
Over here, anybody can be "sectioned" by this process.

In the United Kingdom, the process known in the United States as involuntary commitment is informally known as "detaining" or "sectioning," using various sections of the Mental Health Act 1983 (covering England and Wales), the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 and the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 that provide its legal basis.

In England and Wales, approved mental health professionals have a lead role in coordinating Mental Health Act assessments, which they conduct in cooperation with usually two medical practitioners. Under the Mental Health Act, detention is determined by utility and purpose. Mentally ill individuals may be detained under Section 2 for a period of assessment lasting up to 28 days or Section 3 for a period of treatment lasting up to 6 months. Patients already on a ward may be detained under section 5(2) for up to 72 hours for the purposes of allowing an assessment to take place for section 2 or 3. Separate sections deal with mentally ill criminal offenders. In all cases detention needs to be justified on the basis that the person has a mental disorder and poses a risk of harm to their own health, safety, or the safety of others.[SUP][20][/SUP]

Under the amended Mental Health Act 2007, which came into force in November 2008, to be detained under Section 3 for treatment, appropriate treatment must be available in the place of detention. Supervised Community Treatment orders means people can be discharged to the community on a conditional basis, remaining liable to recall to hospital if they break the conditions of the community treatment order.
Click to expand...


Tom, we have, for the most part, similar provisions here. The problem is, since Raygun, a severe shortage of hospital beds.
 
Reagan closed the mental healthcare system here.


Then the right began harping on the homeless that turned up everywhere on our streets
 
The really sad part is many vietnam vets never got the treatment they needed and lived decades on the street before dying homeless
 
This is how the right treats people in this country.


They love them while they fight and love them when they come home dead BUT they refuse them the treatment they so badly need when they come home alive.

The right has done this ALL my life.
 
Zombie Jesus said:
Where's the disconnect? If someone currently has or has a proclivity for mental health problems - then no, they don't legally get to get their fuck'n mittens on a firearm...that's my opinion, it's not compartmentalized by political ideology other than those who're way out there with regards to the political spectrum are probably more than likely already suffer from some sort of mental illness and shouldn't be trusted high powered rifles or concealed weapons without a thorough background check.

The 2nd Amendment doesn't state that it's illegal to keep the god damned mongoloids from hoarding an arsenal in the basement. We're allowed to legislate standards for firearms ownership at both the state and Federal levels, no reason sanity and competence can't be included as factors...what would be great is the entertainment that would come out of it...just the thought of the "Deliverance" Chick Fil A crowd bitching and moaning that the competency tests for firearm ownership are demographically (I know, that's a long word for the average hillbilly bother father sister fucker) and culturally biased is funny...
Click to expand...

Yeah, but ask a negro to show ID to vote and your are shitting in your depends right puddin? Because demographically the only fuckers without ID are negros, spics and old fuckers right?
 
http://www.sociology.org/content/vo...as.html?&_suid=135566583380409099067957543961


Electronic Journal of Sociology (1998)
ISSN: 1198 3655
Ronald Reagan and the Commitment of the Mentally Ill:
Capital, Interest Groups, and the Eclipse of Social Policy
Alexandar R Thomas
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Northeastern University
alex@telenet.net

Abstract
Conventional wisdom suggests that the reduction of funding for social welfare policies during the 1980s is the result of a conservative backlash against the welfare state. With such a backlash, it should be expected that changes in the policies toward involuntary commitment of the mentally ill reflect a generally conservative approach to social policy more generally. In this case, however, the complex of social forces that lead to less restrictive guidelines for involuntary commitment are not the result of conservative politics per se, but rather a coalition of fiscal conservatives, law and order Republicans, relatives of mentally ill patients, and the practitioners working with those patients. Combined with a sharp rise in homelessness during the 1980s, Ronald Reagan pursued a policy toward the treatment of mental illness that satisfied special interest groups and the demands of the business community, but failed to address the issue: the treatment of mental illness
 
I Love America said:
Yeah, but ask a negro to show ID to vote and your are shitting in your depends right puddin? Because demographically the only fuckers without ID are negros, spics and old fuckers right?
Click to expand...


poor people are more likely to not have an ID becuase they dont own an car.

Poor people are more likely to be of color.


the republican party knows this and has used it to their advantage by acting illegally for decades.


Your approval of these crimes prove yet again your a racist.
 
evince said:
poor people are more likely to not have an ID becuase they dont own an car.

Poor people are more likely to be of color.


the republican party knows this and has used it to their advantage by acting illegally for decades.


Your approval of these crimes prove yet again your a racist.
Click to expand...

Yet these same poor negroes you claim to feel sorry for aren't allowed to protect themselves from gun violence in their neighborhoods because shortsighted douchebags like you have unarmed them while the animals run free without fear. I pray to all that is just and fair that you libtardiots have to personally live with the repercussions of your sordid, racist ideology.

You should be forced to live in the ghettos so you can see what it is like to be under assault 24/7
 
I Love America said:
Yet these same poor negroes you claim to feel sorry for aren't allowed to protect themselves from gun violence in their neighborhoods because shortsighted douchebags like you have unarmed them while the animals run free without fear. I pray to all that is just and fair that you libtardiots have to personally live with the repercussions of your sordid, racist ideology.

You should be forced to live in the ghettos so you can see what it is like to be under assault 24/7
Click to expand...

I pray that you go to heaven. (soon)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top