thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,393
|
Post by thyme4change on Mar 24, 2021 13:07:54 GMT -5
I am not a gun person, nor am I an anti-gun person. I am not advocating for anything. And I am not overly educated on this subject. That said, I really struggle with the "mental health" aspect. I certainly don't want paranoid schizophrenic people running around with automatic weapons, but when discussing implementation of laws, I get really nervous. Mental health covers a broad range of problems, and we already have so many problems convincing people that it is a physical problem and seeking treatment is a good thing. We don't have a lot of definitive testing - so it is mostly based on self reporting. If a diagnoses leads to your guns being taken away, why seek treatment? This type of law could set mental health identification and treatment back 20 years - which could be more deadly than our current rate of mass murder. Also, which mental illnesses are we going after? I would think depression causes the most suicides by gun(which accounts for 60% of gun deaths), but tens of millions of people have had a depression diagnosis. Depression can be a single episode, periodic or chronic. Once you get a depression diagnosis are you gun free forever? What if you hunt or are a policeman? New hobby, New job? What about treatment? For many people, a little medication is adequate treatment, but the problem will pop right back up if you stop medicating. If you find a perfectly healthy way to live, do you get your guns back until someone notices you are off your meds? Or, even with treatment you are ineligible for gun ownership forever. Even if you had an isolated incident of (say) post-partum depression - no guns for you, ever? This all adds up to the most at risk gun owners least likely to get treatment. Are we counting on people around them to report them? They can do that now. Are we counting on some clinical set of standards that can evaluate every person that shows any signs of mental illness and being able to evenly and accurately judge who is violent, who is suicidal and who is consistently taking medication? All while the patients are lying about every question you ask, because guns are important to them. I would rather see: 1) Research into how violence and mental health interact 2) Massive funding for mental health treatments 3) Public education campaigns to change the understanding of mental health care 4) Get rid of the restrictions we have surrounding seeing gun violence as a public health issue 5) Increasing the ability of practicitioners to talk with patients about guns (gag the NRA fussing about this) 6) Licensing (people) and registration (weapons) that has to be renewed periodically, and the ability to follow through on people that have registered guns but don't renew But just saying "take guns away from the mentally ill" - that means absolutely nothing. It is utter nonsense and completely unrealistic. I hate hearing it and I will categorically be against law that will make mental health care worse. So, be more nuanced if you want to have a decent conversation. No one is running around with automatic weapons. Requires quite the special federal license to own one. The prohibited person list is quite comprehensive and long. You would have to back read a few of the commnents on this thread to help understand why it will be highly unlikely to have an intelligent, nuanced conversation. Kevlar burkas anyone ? That whole thread and you picked out the one hyperbole or technically inaccurate statement. I dont know one gun from another. The news is classifying the gun used in Boulder as an "assault weapon". That would have a more accurate way to phrase it, I guess. I find your correction a disingenuous discussion point.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 25, 2024 17:58:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2021 13:13:38 GMT -5
Interesting concept, licensing a right guaranteed by the constitution. Wonder how thats going to come about at a Federal level. billisonboard thinks we might be ratifying a repeal of the second amendment. After that, licensing could be a thing. I would be all for it at that point, however we seem to be going in the other direction with the uncontrolled urban violence of the last year. To clarify: I think that at some point in the future, when enough Americans are fed up with the increasing level of gun violence in this country and laws addressing it are thwarted by the 2nd Amendment, there will be the support needed for repeal of the amendment. When and how quickly it happens is an open question. I'm quite happy with the direction it's moving. The Democrats seem to have shot themselves in the foot so far on this one, with the sanctioned political violence. Moving any possible repeal quite farther down the road after the uncontrolled violence in urban areas the last year.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 25, 2024 17:58:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2021 13:16:40 GMT -5
No one is running around with automatic weapons. Requires quite the special federal license to own one. The prohibited person list is quite comprehensive and long. You would have to back read a few of the commnents on this thread to help understand why it will be highly unlikely to have an intelligent, nuanced conversation. Kevlar burkas anyone ? That whole thread and you picked out the one hyperbole or technically inaccurate statement. I dont know one gun from another. The news is classifying the gun used in Boulder as an "assault weapon". That would have a more accurate way to phrase it, I guess. I find your correction a disingenuous discussion point. The news doesn't classify guns. They like to blur actual classifications. Assault weapon is a term describing how a gun looks, not function. You want nuance, you're getting it. It begins with the basics. Pardon my observation, but you don't really seem to want nuance with your last post.
|
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 7,368
|
Post by pulmonarymd on Mar 24, 2021 13:21:41 GMT -5
Why don’t you do some research on the number of innocent bystanders who got shot in the cross fire when Barney Fife armed citizens draw their guns and start shootings indiscriminately? Or are those kinds of friendly fire incidents just little whoopsies because a good guy with a gun did them? Why don't you ? You have my interest on that, but you'll have to do your own homework. I have nothing to defend in regards to the Second Amendment. Because Congress passed at rule(at the NRA's behest) that prevented the use of Federal Money to research this. I know what you will answer, but don't bother. But Conservatives and the NRA have no interest in getting to the bottom of this issue. Along the lines of the tobacco lobby, if you prevent research on a subject, you can obfuscate it for a long time.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,309
|
Post by swamp on Mar 24, 2021 13:25:22 GMT -5
Yes, your last point about licensing is the correct response. But gun rights advocates want us to focus on all those other things so they can deflect from that. Funding studies so we can better understand the problems, and what risk factors can be helpful in predicting mass shootings would be helpful as well. But it you prevent that, you can again avoid talking about solutions, so they can just argue for the status quo. Waiting periods are helpful for people going through a mental health crisis, as the prevent someone from committing suicide. So there is some value about considering the mental health aspect, as it may save lives. But it needs to be done very carefully, and needs to be done with adequate treatment of mental health. Interesting concept, licensing a right guaranteed by the constitution. Wonder how thats going to come about at a Federal level. billisonboard thinks we might be ratifying a repeal of the second amendment. After that, licensing could be a thing. I would be all for it at that point, however we seem to be going in the other direction with the uncontrolled urban violence of the last year. No, no we aren’t ratifying a repeal of the second amendment. We couldnt even get 1/3 of the states to agree on it, let alone 2/3 of the states needed. Stop being hysterical.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 25, 2024 17:58:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2021 13:25:28 GMT -5
Why don't you ? You have my interest on that, but you'll have to do your own homework. I have nothing to defend in regards to the Second Amendment. Because Congress passed at rule(at the NRA's behest) that prevented the use of Federal Money to research this. I know what you will answer, but don't bother. But Conservatives and the NRA have no interest in getting to the bottom of this issue. Along the lines of the tobacco lobby, if you prevent research on a subject, you can obfuscate it for a long time. Self defense rights do not correlate to the legality of addictive substance sales.
|
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 7,368
|
Post by pulmonarymd on Mar 24, 2021 13:28:43 GMT -5
Because Congress passed at rule(at the NRA's behest) that prevented the use of Federal Money to research this. I know what you will answer, but don't bother. But Conservatives and the NRA have no interest in getting to the bottom of this issue. Along the lines of the tobacco lobby, if you prevent research on a subject, you can obfuscate it for a long time. Self defense rights do not correlate to the legality of addictive substance sales. That's right, studying the effect of restrictive vs less restrictive gun laws on suicide rates ahs nothing to do with public health. I guess studying the effect of safety devices on injuries and deaths in motor vehicle crashes doesn't qualify as a public health issue either?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 25, 2024 17:58:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2021 13:30:22 GMT -5
Interesting concept, licensing a right guaranteed by the constitution. Wonder how thats going to come about at a Federal level. billisonboard thinks we might be ratifying a repeal of the second amendment. After that, licensing could be a thing. I would be all for it at that point, however we seem to be going in the other direction with the uncontrolled urban violence of the last year. No, no we aren’t ratifying a repeal of the second amendment. We couldnt even get 1/3 of the states to agree on it, let alone 2/3 of the states needed. Stop being hysterical. I'm not hysterical. I'm sitting pretty and quite satisfied with the way things are right now, from a second amendment viewpoint. You're just verifying my point, billisonboard is the one that should actually hear that from an Attorney.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,309
|
Post by swamp on Mar 24, 2021 13:31:32 GMT -5
Bill is a smart guy. He doesn’t need me to explain anything to him.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 25, 2024 17:58:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2021 13:38:05 GMT -5
Self defense rights do not correlate to the legality of addictive substance sales. That's right, studying the effect of restrictive vs less restrictive gun laws on suicide rates ahs nothing to do with public health. I guess studying the effect of safety devices on injuries and deaths in motor vehicle crashes doesn't qualify as a public health issue either? Individual gun ownership as a second amendment right, was recently reaffirmed by the supreme court not that long ago. Has nothing to do with health, compare it to anything you like, not going to change anything. Its just more antigun narrative looking for a spin angle, to get traction for votes. Didn't work before, not going to work now. The billionaires backing that branding for the Democratic Party, like to keep the hysteria going, keeps the democrats occupied vs taxing the rich.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 25, 2024 17:58:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2021 13:38:48 GMT -5
Bill is a smart guy. He doesn’t need me to explain anything to him. Yes, he's very smart. Stays on topic also.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 25, 2024 17:58:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2021 13:40:00 GMT -5
Got to run, will pick up on this later.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,454
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 24, 2021 13:43:18 GMT -5
Interesting concept, licensing a right guaranteed by the constitution. Wonder how thats going to come about at a Federal level. billisonboard thinks we might be ratifying a repeal of the second amendment. After that, licensing could be a thing. I would be all for it at that point, however we seem to be going in the other direction with the uncontrolled urban violence of the last year. No, no we aren’t ratifying a repeal of the second amendment. We couldnt even get 1/3 of the states to agree on it, let alone 2/3 of the states needed. Stop being hysterical. He is just addressing my comments on the topic. I think it is important to have repeal as an option in the discussion. IM(not so)HO, the amendment establishes a mindset one has the right to use a gun as the way to resolve conflicts when other means fail. Good (yet ineffectual) against a dictatorial government but not so good when the dispute is a stimulus check nor child custody.
|
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 7,368
|
Post by pulmonarymd on Mar 24, 2021 13:46:20 GMT -5
By avoiding any study or debate on restrictions, it allows for the argument that nothing can be done and that the right should not be re-examined not to be questioned. To actually get a picture of how bad this issue is would likely result in what bill is saying to occur sooner. Do not want that to happen. Funny how it is ok for the NRA to get governments to restrict physician speech about the gun issue. I thought freedom of speech was also enshrined in our Bill of Rights. Or is the right to bear arms the only unrestricted right we have?
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Mar 24, 2021 14:36:35 GMT -5
A homeowner and son were forced to defend themselves when a group of masked men broke into their Pageland, S.C. residence on March 5, 2021.
The incident began that Friday morning when the homeowner and son were getting ready to leave for work and a young man walked up to the front door asking for directions. As the two were talking with the young stranger, a second youth came around the corner armed with a handgun and forced the two into their home. Back inside the home, one of the armed robbers began to fight with the homeowner and shot him in the leg.
The homeowner's son managed to grab a shotgun sitting in the home and shoot the other young armed robber in the head. The first robber ran out of the home where a third accomplice in a white car, and they fled the scene. The 17-year-old robber who was shot in the head died of his injury at the scene.
Police determined that the three youths had targeted the home for robbery, and that the surviving robber had tried to break into the same home back in Dec. 2020. The surviving robber was later caught and charged with two counts of attempted murder, first degree burglary and use of a deadly weapon during a violent crime. (wbtv.com, Charlotte, N.C., 03/10/2021) www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2021/3/12/the-armed-citizen-march-12-2021 Why don’t you do some research on the number of innocent bystanders who got shot in the cross fire when Barney Fife armed citizens draw their guns and start shootings indiscriminately? Or are those kinds of friendly fire incidents just little whoopsies because a good guy with a gun did them? ....or this guy? Houston police say that an armed man's attempt to stop a carjacking went terribly wrong on Saturday night when he shot the vehicle's owner in the head, then fled the scene. www.rawstory.com/2015/09/texas-good-guy-with-a-gun-shoots-carjacking-victim-in-head-then-runs-away/
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,694
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Mar 24, 2021 15:41:46 GMT -5
Why don’t you do some research on the number of innocent bystanders who got shot in the cross fire when Barney Fife armed citizens draw their guns and start shootings indiscriminately? Or are those kinds of friendly fire incidents just little whoopsies because a good guy with a gun did them? ....or this guy? Houston police say that an armed man's attempt to stop a carjacking went terribly wrong on Saturday night when he shot the vehicle's owner in the head, then fled the scene. www.rawstory.com/2015/09/texas-good-guy-with-a-gun-shoots-carjacking-victim-in-head-then-runs-away/Glad to hear he didn't kill him. Mo' guns, mo' problems.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 25, 2024 17:58:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2021 15:42:49 GMT -5
By avoiding any study or debate on restrictions, it allows for the argument that nothing can be done and that the right should not be re-examined not to be questioned. To actually get a picture of how bad this issue is would likely result in what bill is saying to occur sooner. Do not want that to happen. Funny how it is ok for the NRA to get governments to restrict physician speech about the gun issue. I thought freedom of speech was also enshrined in our Bill of Rights. Or is the right to bear arms the only unrestricted right we have?Gun rights are not unrestricted, kind of curious where you came up with that. You have outright lied in the past in regards to Trump 'stopping' Covid research. This is your redeeming moment, please tell me where guns/gun rights are 'unrestricted' ? In the US of course.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 25, 2024 17:58:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2021 15:50:12 GMT -5
No, no we aren’t ratifying a repeal of the second amendment. We couldnt even get 1/3 of the states to agree on it, let alone 2/3 of the states needed. Stop being hysterical. He is just addressing my comments on the topic. I think it is important to have repeal as an option in the discussion. IM(not so)HO, the amendment establishes a mindset one has the right to use a gun as the way to resolve conflicts when other means fail. Good (yet ineffectual) against a dictatorial government but not so good when the dispute is a stimulus check nor child custody. Your example of guns being used to resolve conflicts as a constitutional right when others fail, is the logical fallacy of false dichotomy. That's a false narrative used by the well financed gun control lobby that wishes law abiding gun owners to be associated with criminals. 'I didn't get my stimulus check, I'm going to shoot someone as a reason of no other recourse'. Repeal as a discussion topic is always available, repeal itself is just not likely to happen at quite the extremely low possible margin of success.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 25, 2024 17:58:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2021 15:56:03 GMT -5
Another plus for gun owners; On January 14, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) finalized an NRA-supported rule to end politically-motivated discrimination in the provision of financial services. The new regulation is now set to take effect on April 1.
As we reported last month, the rule follows a long pattern of banks refusing or curtailing service to lawful industries that have been targeted by political activists in and outside of the government. These have included businesses in the firearm and ammunition sectors.
Banks have tried to justify these actions against viable, financially-sound customers on the basis of “reputation risk.” That is, even though the customers’ own financial houses are in good order, the bank insists it could suffer possible adverse consequences by transacting with them from angering those who oppose the customer’s products or activities.
Taken to its logical extreme, however, this means that the only businesses allowed to operate in the private sector would be those deemed acceptable by the social grievance lobby, which continually expands its targets and its demands. This small, vocal minority – whose members disproportionately come from elites in technology, media, entertainment, and academia – does not necessarily represent the will of the free market generally or of the body politic.
The finalized rule keeps intact the provisions most relevant to discrimination against Second Amendment related companies. In particular, it would require covered banks to provide fair access to all the products they offer to law-abiding customers who are able to satisfy predetermined “quantitative, impartial risk-based standards.” It would also prohibit the banks from coordinating with others to “deny … any person a financial service the covered bank offers.”
The new rule comes at a time when a variety of private institutions are making sweeping decisions to limit transactions with industries or even lone individuals that have incurred the wrath of political activists.
The OCC rulemaking draws a hard line at the use of financial exile as a political maneuver. Any American who believes in the basic principles of fairness and non-discrimination should welcome it.www.nraila.org/articles/20210119/occ-finalizes-non-discrimination-rule
|
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 7,368
|
Post by pulmonarymd on Mar 24, 2021 16:14:44 GMT -5
By avoiding any study or debate on restrictions, it allows for the argument that nothing can be done and that the right should not be re-examined not to be questioned. To actually get a picture of how bad this issue is would likely result in what bill is saying to occur sooner. Do not want that to happen. Funny how it is ok for the NRA to get governments to restrict physician speech about the gun issue. I thought freedom of speech was also enshrined in our Bill of Rights. Or is the right to bear arms the only unrestricted right we have?Gun rights are not unrestricted, kind of curious where you came up with that. You have outright lied in the past in regards to Trump 'stopping' Covid research. This is your redeeming moment, please tell me where guns/gun rights are 'unrestricted' ? In the US of course. I really have no need to "redeem" myself in your eyes. Just like you have no concern about my view of you. Your pedantic arguing and hair splitting is tiresome. Good day
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,454
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 24, 2021 16:59:28 GMT -5
He is just addressing my comments on the topic. I think it is important to have repeal as an option in the discussion. IM(not so)HO, the amendment establishes a mindset one has the right to use a gun as the way to resolve conflicts when other means fail. Good (yet ineffectual) against a dictatorial government but not so good when the dispute is a stimulus check nor child custody. Your example of guns being used to resolve conflicts as a constitutional right when others fail, is the logical fallacy of false dichotomy. That's a false narrative used by the well financed gun control lobby that wishes law abiding gun owners to be associated with criminals. 'I didn't get my stimulus check, I'm going to shoot someone as a reason of no other recourse'. Repeal as a discussion topic is always available, repeal itself is just not likely to happen at quite the extremely low possible margin of success. The whole of the 2nd Amendment coupled with modern life and how the amendment is interpreted these days is what makes it interesting. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. I was taught that guns were there for we the people to secure our living in that free State, that we had the Constitutional right to use them to stop anyone from taking that away. For people who live only in the immediate of time and space, that is easily interpreted as them having the right to decide that their "free state" is in danger and start shooting.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,433
|
Post by Tennesseer on Mar 24, 2021 18:26:06 GMT -5
Man with five guns, body armor detained in Atlanta grocery store
A man armed with a rifle entered an Atlanta Publix Supermarket Wednesday in Midtown at Atlantic Station, a commercial and residential area in the city, police said. A witness saw the man entering "the location openly carrying a rifle and entered the bathroom" and alerted the store management and then notified police, according to a preliminary investigation. Officers immediately located and detained the man. During the investigation, officers recovered five firearms (two long guns and three pistols) and body armor, according to the Atlanta Police Department. "When the male exited the bathroom, arriving units immediately detained" him, according to a statement from Atlanta Police Department. The incident comes just two days after a gunman killed 10 people at a supermarket in Boulder, Colorado, and just over a week since a shooter killed eight people at spas in the Atlanta area. Atlanta Police say that health officials are conducting a mental health evaluation of the man in custody and that the investigation is still preliminary and continues at this time. Publix in 2019 joined a number of retailers who ask that customers not openly carry guns in their stores in states where open carry is legal. Link here: link
|
|
steff
Senior Associate
I'll sleep when I'm dead
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 17:34:24 GMT -5
Posts: 10,772
|
Post by steff on Mar 24, 2021 18:56:53 GMT -5
There's an older guy in our area that likes to show up at grocery stores with his bullet proof vest & his AR strapped across his back & a pistol on his hip. Now I bet we can get him banned from the stores while he's packing & showing off.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,393
|
Post by thyme4change on Mar 24, 2021 20:30:36 GMT -5
That whole thread and you picked out the one hyperbole or technically inaccurate statement. I dont know one gun from another. The news is classifying the gun used in Boulder as an "assault weapon". That would have a more accurate way to phrase it, I guess. I find your correction a disingenuous discussion point. The news doesn't classify guns. They like to blur actual classifications. Assault weapon is a term describing how a gun looks, not function. You want nuance, you're getting it. It begins with the basics. Pardon my observation, but you don't really seem to want nuance with your last post. No. I don't want nuance between guns.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,694
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Mar 25, 2021 6:58:17 GMT -5
www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/our-abhorrent-new-normal-at-my-grocery-store/ar-BB1eVx6p?ocid=msedgntpAny other afternoon, this stretch of sidewalk in front of King Soopers would be largely empty, passed over by cars entering and exiting the expansive parking lot and frequented only by the odd jogger or shopper on foot. Today it's packed. High schoolers in sweatpants and beanies hug and stick flowers into the fence. Silent neighbors carrying bouquets sidestep journalists, protesters and police officers.
It's an all too familiar scene, unfolding as if according to a universal script. Tearful interviews. Hashtags that include the word strong. "We never thought it could happen here." Angry tweets. Accusations of false flags and dark conspiracies. It was the same at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut; at the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando; the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh; and the Walmart shooting in El Paso. And here in Boulder, it’s unfolding like a master class in mass shooting etiquette.
I'm one of the reporters in the throng, interviewing survivors and mourners and taking in the scene in front of America's most recent gun massacre. But I’m having a hard time being objective: This is my neighborhood grocery store.
Ortiz doesn't know me, but I know him by sight, the way I know just about everyone who works at the South Boulder King Soopers. They're a cheerful, chill bunch, even in the midst of a pandemic. The checkers wear badges that say things like "I love the beach" and "Serving you for 23 years" and, in the case of a very tall pharmacy employee, "six foot seven."
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,881
|
Post by happyhoix on Mar 25, 2021 7:03:45 GMT -5
I am not a gun person, nor am I an anti-gun person. I am not advocating for anything. And I am not overly educated on this subject. That said, I really struggle with the "mental health" aspect. I certainly don't want paranoid schizophrenic people running around with automatic weapons, but when discussing implementation of laws, I get really nervous. Mental health covers a broad range of problems, and we already have so many problems convincing people that it is a physical problem and seeking treatment is a good thing. We don't have a lot of definitive testing - so it is mostly based on self reporting. If a diagnoses leads to your guns being taken away, why seek treatment? This type of law could set mental health identification and treatment back 20 years - which could be more deadly than our current rate of mass murder. Also, which mental illnesses are we going after? I would think depression causes the most suicides by gun(which accounts for 60% of gun deaths), but tens of millions of people have had a depression diagnosis. Depression can be a single episode, periodic or chronic. Once you get a depression diagnosis are you gun free forever? What if you hunt or are a policeman? New hobby, New job? What about treatment? For many people, a little medication is adequate treatment, but the problem will pop right back up if you stop medicating. If you find a perfectly healthy way to live, do you get your guns back until someone notices you are off your meds? Or, even with treatment you are ineligible for gun ownership forever. Even if you had an isolated incident of (say) post-partum depression - no guns for you, ever? This all adds up to the most at risk gun owners least likely to get treatment. Are we counting on people around them to report them? They can do that now. Are we counting on some clinical set of standards that can evaluate every person that shows any signs of mental illness and being able to evenly and accurately judge who is violent, who is suicidal and who is consistently taking medication? All while the patients are lying about every question you ask, because guns are important to them. I would rather see: 1) Research into how violence and mental health interact 2) Massive funding for mental health treatments 3) Public education campaigns to change the understanding of mental health care 4) Get rid of the restrictions we have surrounding seeing gun violence as a public health issue 5) Increasing the ability of practicitioners to talk with patients about guns (gag the NRA fussing about this) 6) Licensing (people) and registration (weapons) that has to be renewed periodically, and the ability to follow through on people that have registered guns but don't renew But just saying "take guns away from the mentally ill" - that means absolutely nothing. It is utter nonsense and completely unrealistic. I hate hearing it and I will categorically be against law that will make mental health care worse. So, be more nuanced if you want to have a decent conversation. Obviously it wouldn’t target every one with MH issues. Probably a majority of the population has some flavor of mental health tick. I want mandatory reporters, like with child abuse. So when the aurora Colorado movie theater killer told his therapist he fantasized about shooting a bunch of people, she would be obligated to let the cops know, and they would be obligated to check him out and flag him so that he can’t immediately purchase an assault type weapon. Or when the father of the man who killed all those kids at the elementary school tried to force him to get treatment and remove him from his mother’s house (she had a large armory, including assault weapons) he could succeed, instead of being forced to leave him there, a ticking time bomb. It was the unibombers brother who turned him in and got him picked up before he killed more people. The therapists, family members and friends of people who fantasize about mass murder should be obligated to report them, and the police obligated to investigate. Sure, as with child abuse, some people will have to prove their innocence, but I’d rather err on the side of caution for both issues. As it stands, police won’t do anything until the gunman starts firing.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 25, 2024 17:58:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2021 8:32:40 GMT -5
Gun rights are not unrestricted, kind of curious where you came up with that. You have outright lied in the past in regards to Trump 'stopping' Covid research. This is your redeeming moment, please tell me where guns/gun rights are 'unrestricted' ? In the US of course. I really have no need to "redeem" myself in your eyes. Just like you have no concern about my view of you. Your pedantic arguing and hair splitting is tiresome. Good day Another outright lie again, this time on the unrestricted gun rights. I wonder how many people think unrestricted gun rights are "splitting hairs" as you say in this post of yours that's quoted ? Or are you just rabble rousing on the less informed ? Shame on you. So no answer on a place in the US on unrestricted gun rights as you claimed ? Does explain why the NRA is so effective. They tout over and over again to fight lies/obfuscation with the truth. Time for you to run away again.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 25, 2024 17:58:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2021 8:36:11 GMT -5
Your example of guns being used to resolve conflicts as a constitutional right when others fail, is the logical fallacy of false dichotomy. That's a false narrative used by the well financed gun control lobby that wishes law abiding gun owners to be associated with criminals. 'I didn't get my stimulus check, I'm going to shoot someone as a reason of no other recourse'. Repeal as a discussion topic is always available, repeal itself is just not likely to happen at quite the extremely low possible margin of success. The whole of the 2nd Amendment coupled with modern life and how the amendment is interpreted these days is what makes it interesting. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. I was taught that guns were there for we the people to secure our living in that free State, that we had the Constitutional right to use them to stop anyone from taking that away. For people who live only in the immediate of time and space, that is easily interpreted as them having the right to decide that their "free state" is in danger and start shooting. Quite the reach there. Seems to match that narrative of gun owners being associated with criminals. Did your teachers also explain to you about rule of law, criminal offense ? That would seem important in a teaching situation on gun rights/use.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 25, 2024 17:58:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2021 8:49:40 GMT -5
The news doesn't classify guns. They like to blur actual classifications. Assault weapon is a term describing how a gun looks, not function. You want nuance, you're getting it. It begins with the basics. Pardon my observation, but you don't really seem to want nuance with your last post. No. I don't want nuance between guns. Ok, fair enough. It does seem pertinent to me because gun classification is a big part of the criteria that's used in legislation.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,454
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 25, 2021 9:09:38 GMT -5
The whole of the 2nd Amendment coupled with modern life and how the amendment is interpreted these days is what makes it interesting. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. I was taught that guns were there for we the people to secure our living in that free State, that we had the Constitutional right to use them to stop anyone from taking that away. For people who live only in the immediate of time and space, that is easily interpreted as them having the right to decide that their "free state" is in danger and start shooting. Quite the reach there. Seems to match that narrative of gun owners being associated with criminals. Did your teachers also explain to you about rule of law, criminal offense ? That would have been a little over the head of elementary school kids in a lesson on the Bill of Rights. Those who drive on our public roads without a license are criminals while those who are properly licensed are not.
|
|