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.
Mental illness does not automatically mean dangerous. This idea is absolutely unfair to people who have mental illnesses. For example; anorexia. 100% a mental illness, but no need to keep them from owning guns.
So you are in support of mentally ill buying guns?
Mental illness does not automatically mean dangerous. This idea is absolutely unfair to people who have mental illnesses. For example; anorexia. 100% a mental illness, but no need to keep them from owning guns.
I completly agree. The "mentally ill" have become the scape goats for gun owners. It is an easy deflection against the gun control proponents who want to restrict everyone.
The only thing that should matter is if someone has been deemed by a court of law to be a danger to themselves or others. If someone is such a danger then they should be in an instatution and not amoungts the general populace.
What's wrong with trading a gun out of a car trunk?
Nothing. You can usually get a better deal, no wait, no registration, no checks. And you don't need to worry about being on a list for "Confiscation" by armed "Contractors" should there be an event where you may need the gun to protect your home and family, like Katrina.
The folks here that want to say "No one will come to get your guns because they are registered ' can save the time and trouble of posting, since you can find it has been done if you care to look. Its OK if you feel that it won't ever happen, but then you won't know until it happens, when you may need the gun the most. Some of us are not willing to take that chance.
So you are in support of mentally ill buying guns?
Makes no difference if one support it or does not support it, since there will never be a data base like that. No Health Service Provider, like Hospitals, Doctors, Shrinks, or anyone else is going to share Patient Confidential Material with a data base that can be accessed out side of their control, due to Law Suits, and its against the Law. Its not going to happen so its not even an option.
Sure there should be a waiting period.
Hot heads need some time to cool down. And impulse buying something lethal (and often very expensive) can always use a little time for thought, too. A perfectly cool-headed gun buyer could well change his mind as to the particular gun he buys, and use the waiting period to do it.
It's not a bad thing to consider the need of a gun. Or to consider the need vs. the want. God knows I wish there was a waiting period for buying banjos- they cost as much or more than a gun, and I've had many regrets from buying one too fast. There's lots of stuff in life that's like that; but little of it can kill someone. Banjos are lethal, but they're slower acting than guns.
Sure there should be a waiting period.
Hot heads need some time to cool down. And impulse buying something lethal (and often very expensive) can always use a little time for thought, too. A perfectly cool-headed gun buyer could well change his mind as to the particular gun he buys, and use the waiting period to do it.
It's not a bad thing to consider the need of a gun. Or to consider the need vs. the want. God knows I wish there was a waiting period for buying banjos- they cost as much or more than a gun, and I've had many regrets from buying one too fast. There's lots of stuff in life that's like that; but little of it can kill someone. Banjos are lethal, but they're slower acting than guns.
What if someone gets really hot headed on the day they are allowed to pick up the gun?
How does making me wait ten days to pick up a gun make a difference when I already own 30 guns?
Sure there should be a waiting period.
Hot heads need some time to cool down. And impulse buying something lethal (and often very expensive) can always use a little time for thought, too. A perfectly cool-headed gun buyer could well change his mind as to the particular gun he buys, and use the waiting period to do it.
It's not a bad thing to consider the need of a gun. Or to consider the need vs. the want. God knows I wish there was a waiting period for buying banjos- they cost as much or more than a gun, and I've had many regrets from buying one too fast. There's lots of stuff in life that's like that; but little of it can kill someone. Banjos are lethal, but they're slower acting than guns.
Can you provide a link where someone in a fit of rage, ran to their local gun store, bought a gun and ran home and shot someone? If you play banjo so poorly that it's lethal, remind me to never listen to you play.
How do you know that a person didn't change their mind to commit a murder after cooling off for a couple days?
How do you know that a waiting period didn't buy time for an abused spouse to flee to safety?
And how many abused people have been killed while waiting for government permission? People like you never care about those lives as long as you can push your agenda.
False. Numerous studies have been conducted on the effects of waiting periods, both before and after the federal Brady bill was passed in 1993. Those studies consistently show that there is no correlation between waiting periods and murder or robbery rates. Florida State University professor Gary Kleck analyzed data from every U.S. city with a population over 100,000 and found that waiting periods had no statistically significant effect. Even University of Maryland anti-gun researcher David McDowell found that “waiting periods have no influence on either gun homicides or gun suicides.”
TEN MYTHS ABOUT GUN CONTROL The SSPBA findings affirmed a series of polls conducted by the National Association of Chiefs of Police of every chief and sheriff in the country, representing over 15,000 departments. Seventy-three percent felt that a national waiting period would have no effect on criminals getting firearms. An overwhelming 90% felt that such a scheme would instead make agencies less effective against crime by reducing their manpower and only serve to open them up to liability lawsuits.
I'm sure you know better than they do though, right?
The waiting period, or "cooling-off" period, as some in the "gun control" community call it, is the most often cited solution to "crimes of passion." However, state crime records show that in 1992, states with waiting periods and other laws delaying or denying gun purchases had an overall violent crime rate more than 47% higher and a homicide rate 19% higher than other states. In the five states that have some jurisdictions with waiting periods (Georgia, Kansas, Nevada, Ohio and Virginia), the non-waiting period portions of all five states have far lower violent crime and homicide rates.
So are you going to be like most anti gun nuts and ignore the facts and push your agenda?
So you are in support of mentally ill buying guns?
I don't think you grasp how broad of the term 'mentally ill' is. I know you're thinking autistic person with anger control issues, but it's not even close to that simple. Mental illness covers everything from dyslexia to anxiety to schizophrenia. Each one is incredibly unique, and to put a blanket 'no mentally ill people can have guns' law into affect is discrimination and pointless. It's a waste of legislation it shouldn't even be discussed. Why? Because it's based only on assumption. As I said, you're clearly picturing people who would be described as sociopaths as being mentally ill, sort of like how the term 'sex offender' immediately conjures up images of pedophile rapists, not 19 years old kids who stuck it in a 17 year old.
It's fear tactics, a common trick employed by all political parties. They invent a term, take a group within that term, and make that particular group representative of the whole, without reason to validate it. Sort of like how all Muslims are terrorists, or all black people weren't actually people.
And to suggest that one has to be mentally ill to commit a crime is absurd. One can just be having a bad day, make a mistake, and end up getting in serious trouble for it. Someone who is perfectly mentally stable could have his girlfriend dump him, get laid off form work, find that someone keyed his car, then on his way home form work, some dude in a pick up gives him the finger to he pulls over, gets in an argument, and shoots the guy. Just as someone with a history of mental illness could be sitting in their home, a murder breaks in, then they pull the gun they've been safely keeping in their drawer and save their life.
So in a manner of speaking, I don't have any major issues with the mentally ill having possible access to fire arms. I expect them to be as careful with them as anyone else, of course, and failure to do so will result in similar punishment.
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.
