Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A main issue is "how do you define 'mental illness' for the purpose of creating a law to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people"?
Most people would think a guy who hears voices, thinks aliens are after his brain and hurts animals shouldn't have access to weapons.
Okay, now what about some 50 year old guy with no criminal record who recently started taking anti-anxiety medication? What about a woman (also with no criminal record) who took pills for post partum depression? Do these people count as "mentally ill"? I mean they technically have "sought help from a medical professional about psychiatric problems".
Another important note: any such law would not work how you think it should work and would not be written the way you would want it to be written. It would be written by legislators (who are probably the worst people in the country) and it would have unintended consequences. For example:
People get all freaked out after the Oklahoma City bombing. Congress passes some ''tough on crime'' law to expedite executions. Result: people like Troy Davis lose the ability to be re-tried even if witnesses recant their testimony.
Florida passes a "tough on crime" law designed to curb the epidemic of gun violence. Result: Marissa Alexander got a 20 year mandatory minimum sentence for firing a warning shot at her abusive husband.
People get into a moral panic about 150 rich people avoiding taxes legally. Congress creates the AMT. Result: 3.9 million pay the AMT now.
California passes a "three strikes" law designed to punish habitual offenders.
Result: people have received life sentences for shoplifting.
And the king of 'em all: people get all freaked out over drugs. They begin the war on drugs. Result: we have a higher incarceration rate than China, Russia, Cuba and Iran. Drugs are still everywhere. It's easier for high school kids to get drugs than it is for them to get beer. The past 3 presidents have admitted to taking drugs.
But if you admit to wanting to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people, you have to admit that you actually favor gun control after all.
And then you're on the NRA **** list.
Wrong, HD: it's a very complex problem, and it will not be simply answered by fever-pitch emotionalism. I would NEVER use my assuaut rifle on any innocent person, nor, I'll suggest, will the literal tens of millions of fully legal owners.
Those mental health issues however? I personally know of one young man (now about 22) who has always demo'd violent behavior towards his parents and his later guardian grandparents (he nearly beat his aged gramma to death a few years back). But then he broke into several occupied homes in NW Wa St., and threatened the owners as he beat and robbed them! Spent a few months in juvie detention before being sprung. My shotgun shooting pal recently saw this kid at the local skeet rqnge, after he'd applied for his concealed weapon permit! WTF?
So...my pal then went down to the local PD and reported this egregious factoid, but they said their hands were tied. My pal told them he was carefully diarizing this official report, and when, not IF, this evil type does commit mayhem in the future, it will be right there, front page on CNN.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by southbel
I don't have a problem keeping guns out of crazy people's hands. I think those who want absolutely no control at all aren't sensible. But some of these threads have been dominated by the 'bad them all' crowds or those that want to make restrictions that quite frankly wouldn't help. So, I'm all for intelligent conversation but it must include more than just gun banning.
Not sure what we should do here? Well, there is no simple answer, folks, but certainly a simple hi cap or "assualt rifle" ban will not work. Then what will you want to do!
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by airwave09
√ Governments should always be feared more than a couple of crazies with access to guns. History proves this again and again.
This is because the worst genocides and crimes against humanity have all come at the hands of GOVERNMENTS after their people have been completely disarmed and unable to defend themselves. Big Pharma even kills many more people willingly than all serial killers and mass shooters combined, and where is the big emotional outpouring for justice there?
This is my plea to the American people to
√ stop letting the corporate-controlled mainstream media influence your decision process.
The over-emotional coverage of this massacre and virtual non-coverage of the crimes committed by large corporations is once again a deafening silence showing whose side the lame stream media really is on.
Thanks for your thoughtful and logical insight, airwave09
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose
How do most of these unstable people get guns?
They steal them.
How do you get legal owners to take responsibility for their guns?
You hold them accountable.
Make gun owners legally liable for their guns, that were not properly secured, that are used in a crime.
Properly secured is NOT under the bed, on the fridge, in the car, in the closet, under a couch cushion, hanging over the fireplace, leaning against the wall, in the back window of your truck.
Properly secured is in a safe, or physically on your person.
Agreed, jj! A possibly useful partial solution. Even if the Feds have to subsidize it through entitlement spending and stimuli, perhaps making up The People's Federal Safe Building Company. "New Program employes millions, and saves lives at the same time!"
But also, let's not allow the true criminal off the hook: as in: you leave your moist & mud-covered shotgun out in your warm bedroom after a long day of hunting in frigid weather, and you go out to McDonald's for your post-hunt gourmet meal. Back in about 1 hour! Meantime, your home is broken into, and the gun used nefariously. So... all your fault? Hardly. It is after all, your home, and it is also illegal to steal things, esp. potentially dangerous ones from other people.
The guilty do not get to be off the hook just because of some Liberal "Ah they were raised poorly. Pity on them!" thinking. Sorry: it's time The Eagle came home to roost and feed a bit on the truly guilty.
Is this where we studiously ignore that cutting mental health services to the bone was a key policy pf Blessed St. Reagan (PBUH)?
I am all for re-opening the asylums and committing people to these pseudo-prisons for life. If family can't control their members then society has to step in and do something.
Wrong, HD: it's a very complex problem, and it will not be simply answered by fever-pitch emotionalism. I would NEVER use my assuaut rifle on any innocent person, nor, I'll suggest, will the literal tens of millions od legal owners.
Mental health issues however? I personally know of one young man (now about 22) who has always demo'd violent behavior towards his parents and his later guardian grandparents (he nearly beat his aged gramma to death). Then he broke into several occupied homes in NW Wa St., and threatened the owners as he breat and robbed them. My shotgun shooting pal recently saw this kid at the local skeet rqnge, after he'd applied for his concealed weapon permit! WTF?
So...my pal then went down to the local PD and reported this egregious factoid, and they said their hands were tied. My pal told then he was carefully diarizing this official reporting to them, and when, not IF, this evil type does commit mayhem in the future, it will be right there on CNN.
Not sure what we should do here? Well, there is no simple answer, folks, but certainly a simple hi cap or "assualt rifle: ban will not work. Then what will you want to do!
Absolutely agree with you. I think these knee jerk 'ban the guns' reactions aren't the solution. Your example here is a prime example of what I'm talking about. There are millions of legal gun owners that have and will never use their gun in a crime. Yet, it seems, from my perspective is that we are concentrating on limiting the lawful gun owners instead of concentrating on the unstable and criminals in our community. It's time we put the focus on the criminals and mentally deranged that are performing these shootings vice the lawful gun owners that would never do such a thing.
Agreed, jj! A possibly useful partial solution. Even if the Feds have to subsidize it through entitlement spending and stimuli, perhaps making up The People's Federal Safe Building Company. "New Program employes millions, and saves lives at the same time!"
But also, let's not allow the true criminal off the hook: as in: you leave your moist & mud-covered shotgun out in your warm bedroom after a long day of hunting in frigid weather, and you go out to McDonald's for your post-hunt gourmet meal. Back in about 1 hour! Meantime, your home is broken into, and the gun used nefariously. So... all your fault? Hardly. It is after all, your home, and it is also illegal to steal things, esp. potentially dangerous ones from other people.
The guilty do not get to be off the hook just because of some Liberal "Ah they were raised poorly. Pity on them!" thinking. Sorry: it's time The Eagle came home to roost and feed a bit on the truly guilty.
The criminal is already charged for their crimes, but I think that gun crimes should face even stiffer criminal penalties.
I never said that the owner should be entirely to blame. In the case of the hunter, he should have taken his gun with him, or locked it up.
The only way to enforce securing guns, is for there to be legal ramifications for not doing so. Since we aren't going to send cops door to door to check to see if guns are in safes, the only other option is hold the owner accountable.
There will always be outside situations. Someone knocks you out and takes your gun, house is robbed while you are away, and the whole safe is stolen, or cut open with a torch, but you were still properly securing your guns.
I am all for re-opening the asylums and committing people to these pseudo-prisons for life. If family can't control their members then society has to step in and do something.
And if someone in your family decides it's YOU that they can't control?
II do however have a problem with the US government taking our right to bear arms away.
Then you have a problem with a fever dream. Nobody in the government is suggesting a repeal of the 2nd Amendment.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
