Topic: What's your opinion of gun control? - page 185. (Read 450482 times)

I would agree with you on this standard, except for the fact in some states, all it takes is the word of one family member or one police officer to have you committed involuntarily, and on their word alone. Even by this considerably more reasonable standard, we still come to the point where an individual is making decisions removing the rights of others.

An example of police using involuntary commitment as a weapon of coercion and harassment: http://countercurrentnews.com/2015/03/cop-threatens-to-have-man-involuntarily-committed-to-a-mental-hospital-for-recording-the-police/

Yeah, I'm starting to see the issues with mandatory evaluations, mostly that it would cost a fortune and not really be practical.  Seems like the best option is to use a law similar to NC is using, where you can't have one if you've been involuntarily hospitalized previously for being a danger to yourself/others

Again, I bring you back to the issue of effective enforcement and prevention of "mission creep" and abuse of these newly issued powers, which has still not been addressed. Also who makes the rules and draws the lines? Just like gun control in general, this is a really good idea that sounds great, but is missing the parts that show how it would implemented effectively and respectfully regarding people's rights. Additionally, even if they did do it correctly, why would crazy people care about following the law when murder is already illegal? Do you really believe they would not be able to find an illegal weapon if they so desired? It is safer to err on the side of caution and make sure the maximal number of law abiding citizens are armed so as to be able to respond most effectively when crazies do get a hold of firearms. Gun control is treating the symptom of gun violence, not the source. The source is not guns themselves, but the increasingly poor mental health of the American populace. Gun control is like giving cough medicine to some one with lung cancer. It may provide temporary and superficial relief, but the source of the destructive element still remains unhindered, allowed to fester untreated.

As far as your suggestion of subsidizing firearms training, that was not my suggestion at all, but your own idea. I am opposed to the idea in whole because as I stated, it provides yet another barrier of entry for the most at risk elements of society, those that live in poverty and crime stricken areas. If I had to design a system of mandatory firearms training, I would model it after the Swiss system of a short period of mandatory civil service under which every citizen is trained with firearms and prepared as a civil defense force, along with mandatory firearm ownership in every household. Every indication shows this is the most effective model relating to gun ownership, and this would be the only circumstances under which I would support mandatory firearms training for general ownership. Again, I think training is a very good idea, but the question is not if it is a good idea, but how do you do so without putting those at most risk in harms way even more so?


Step 1: Collect Underpants
Step 2: ?
Step 3: Profit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tO5sxLapAts

Fact Check: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

USA != Americas.

The lean on the Americas figure is not due to the USA but rather Mexico, Brazil and Greenland.  All of which have substantially higher murder rates than the USA....

What?

No load fire aim?

Right, now look at the list of plausible exclusions from the procedures WERE THE GUNCONTROLFREEKS ever to get control of guns -

List of negatives for gun ownership -

1. 
2.
3.....1091 blalbhalblah
1092 too many right answers to questions
1093 between ages of 18-45, prime time for Muslim terrorism but we can't discriminate on religion, just ban them all
1-17 too young and immature
45+  Senile (also possibility of ex military here, those guys are dangerous)

My opinion of gun control is that it is best to relax your muscles, look past the sights at your target, and fire on the exhale with a steady trigger pull. 

 

Haha nailed it.  The ironic part is that now I work a clinical mental health position for a government agency.  You know what they don't administer to mental health clinicians where I work?  Psych evals and tox screens.

For gun control questions please add...

Have you ever thought your government was bad?
Have you ever thought some laws didn't matter?
Have you ever wanted to barbecue penquins or polar bears?

And for the proguncontrol freaks, here is the question you would like to ask-

Have you ever owned or handled a gun?

(If yes, clearly they should not be allowed to have a gun....)

(If no, they are inexperienced and would be dangerous if allowed to have one....)

When I was in college I was applying for random part-time jobs.  I applied once to Blockbuster and got red-flagged as high risk for hire lol.  If what you're talking about was anything like the Blockbuster survey, we're in trouble.  Among the questions asked were: Have you ever been in trouble?  Have you ever lied?  Have you ever been late?  What the hell am I supposed to do with those?

And homosexuals and nymphomanics WERE INCARCERATED INVOLUNTARILY.  FYI...

It's not a matter of any mental illness, it's whether said mental illness reasonably poses a danger to any other people.  Same standard we use for involuntary hospitalization, but maybe take out the 'to yourself' part.

Perhaps not.  You might remember the stories not long ago the technological capabilities of 'reading minds' to the extent that a visual images of a face (albeit not very 'high resolution') could be pulled out of a person's thoughts.  It seems far-fetched on one hand, but with sensitive enough readings and enough data processing power, it does seem technically feasible...and the news stories on it were at least passed off as being accurate.  I could see it being much more easy to combine less complex methods with a few targeted questions or images being able to understand an individual's mind quickly and cost effectively.  Probably you could do it without much more complexity than running a TSA security line.

In my recent interest in vaccination technology, it does seem to me that there is a very strong interest in doing at least one shot (here in the U.S.) either In Utero (pregnant women are now implored to take flu vaccines) or right at birth via the Hep-B shot.  Hep-B is a threat to those who engage in unsafe sexual practice or inter-venous drug use neither practice is widespread among newborns.  This observation is interesting enough for me to form some hypothesis.  One of these is that by infusing certain metals into the brain at an early stage of development one can make certain technology more effective.

You are likely far too trusting of your Overlords on the bolded above.  You presume they have good intent - I presume that they don't, often times.

Further, mental illness is far less precise than these words imply.  And it wasn't too long ago that actual, certified Mental Illnesses included -

Homosexuality
Nymphomania

Certainly you don't want THOSE PEOPLE to have guns.  Do you?  Wait, are we more enlightened today?  Smarter?  Better informed?  More scientific?

Might want to think those things over a bit, lol....

In this day and age, there's no reason we can't use technology to get around the course problem.  Have a free video series made by the state, quick paper test when you get to the shooting range and go fire off 50 bullets.  A gun costs a few hundred bucks, so there shouldn't be an issue with an extra 15 for some practice ammo.  With not many places with shooting ranges more than an hour away, it should be easy to find a time to do it on a day off or even after work.

The mental health check isn't an issue of whether anybody with any mental illness shouldn't be able to have one, but where to draw the line.  Maybe people with depression, bipolar, etc would be able to get one, while people that are more 'up there' with schizophrenia, psychosis, etc can't.  

Any and all means of ratcheting up the cost, complexity, and or bureaucratic procedures that one must jump through to gain possession of a firearm is contrary to the 2nd amendment.  

That includes "waiting periods."   Oddly enough, while a waiting period might ensure someone is not buying a gun in anger to shoot someone.....it also makes a person defenseless against those who, suddenly in anger, would do harm to him.  What is the net result of the "waiting period"?  I suspect it is negative, but am not certain.

What about required firearms safety?  Of this there are two varieties (1) for concealed carry (2) for any firearm purchase.  For (2) this seems ridiculous, particularly since such courses are available for free on youtube.   For (1) maybe it is more reasonable.  The one I took was all good information - the 50 rounds shot at a 7 yard target was totally ridiculous.  Still, there were a number of people in that room with zero experience with firearms.

To be fair, I have found the NCIS "instant background checks" done when buying a firearm from a dealer to be pretty fair.  Sometimes I have gotten the "wait and see" response, then gone back a couple days later and picked the firearm up.  Other times it was an immediate approval.  Once it was a denial, for a state charge (an error) that had never been taken off my record.  The errors and omissions from the state and local level do propagate upwards to the federal database, and nobody really cares.  It's your job to figure it out and get them corrected.  

And from a reverse perspective, what about the countless millions of people who could likely qualify for some mental health diagnosis or another, but who are currently undiagnosed?  On-the-spot psych evals?  Now that would be costly...

It's getting to the point where people think it's pretty weird to NOT be on some perscription medication or another.  Recently a 'health care professional' double-checked that there was not some records mix-up when she didn't see my mother on any.

I really could imagine a situation where someone who did not take any drugs was considered some sort of a paranoid freak for that reason alone.  That could 'close the gap' should the 2nd amendment be denied to people due to their medication or the underlying necessity of the medication.

I better read Brave New World again...before it's banned...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1btEwwRePs  Huxley fuckin nails it!  Again and again.

Mental health is the real issue, and addressing it in an effective way should be the primary concern.  I don't find anything wrong with a gun in the hand of a morally sound, mentally stable person that is able to manage anger.

As for limiting less affluent folks from being able to take a course and own a firearm, that can be said about any expense in general.  A gun is not a basic need so it doesn't need to be subsidized.

You reminded me...


Could some Social Security recipients lose gun rights? NRA says yes

".....The Social Security Administration confirmed that it is developing a new policy. It does not currently require the reporting of its mentally incapacitated beneficiaries to the government’s gun-purchase background check system.

The NRA says if Social Security starts doing so it would allow the government to disarm the 4.2 million Social Security pensioners who have a “representative payee” to manage their benefits, forcing some elderly or disabled people to decide between arming themselves or getting their Social Security checks.

Federal gun laws prohibit the possession or sale of firearms to those who “have been adjudicated as a mental defective or been committed to a mental institution.”...."

Obama plan could ban 4.2 million Social Security recipients from owning guns