You could argue that. The fact is, every minute you delay the shooter is another minute for the police to respond. What about bulletproof windows and doors that are securely locked when students are in a classroom?
So, you recognise the existence of opportunity costs, you just discard their impact on voting rights?
Huh? All the gun dealer needs to see is that the background check was passed or failed. He doesn’t need to see what triggered a failure, just that a failure happened and the customer isn’t eligible to buy the gun.
And currently in order to run a background check, you have to be a FFL dealer. So it’s not open to “any random fuck,” it’s accessed by people who could lose their license if they abuse their privileges.
Agree with everything but #6 Doors. That’s just silly. (and would be imposible to inforce).
I wonder how long it was before the cops got there after the shooting began? I’m not putting the police down, they can’t be everywhere at once. This shooting probably took no more than 10 minutes.
The idea of more secure doors into classrooms is interesting though. Though it’s sad to even think that we may need that.
I do recognize the impact of opportunity costs. I also recognize that when something is freely available and requires approximately as much time as it takes to get a state ID or driver’s license (which, if you already had one, you wouldn’t need a voter ID) it is so easy to get that anybody who says they can’t get one is either not who he/she says they are or are just arguing for the sake of arguing. It took me all of 15 minutes from the time I walked in to get my driver’s license renewed.
Nope. Running a NICS check goes like this:
- FFL holder calls
- Gives name and ID number (usually SSN) of purchaser
- NICS representative looks up person
- Purchase is approved or denied
- FFL holder is not given a reason for denial
After Virginia Tech we heard all the hue and cry about how we need to screen for mental health issues. I’m suggesting we implement exactly what you asked for, a mental health database, and it’s “retarded pining”? No, as usual, the person who should be disqualified from the discussion is YOU.
True. In 1934, $200 was a couple of months wages for most workers.
I am tired of the “you can’t tax a right” meme, “It’s a poll tax” and the claims of being taxes of firearms being unconstitutional. There is an established excise tax on firearms and ammunition - increasing it to provide funds for school security, victim compensation etc. is a political problem but should not be unconstitutional.
Here is the link to the Treasury Department web page listing excise taxes on firearms.
Sales taxes also seem to be settled law. From what I can tell, state and local governments that tax personal property usually exempt firearms even though they are usually considered personal property for other purposes (inheritance, bankruptcy etc.)
Which disorders will be disqualifying? How many people do you think have a mental disorder?
Where is this database going to come from? You seem to think that it somehow exists and is only being held back by HIPAA.
It’s not even the database problem. Today, already, there is a stigma attached to mental illness. Attach even more stigma to it by depriving those who seek help of their rights, and watch more and more mental illnesses go untreated because the sufferers don’t want to reveal it.
It has to be discussed, created, and then implemented. How, precisely, is a database of gun owners going to be created? I know you’re all about that one.
Aside from political will, which now clearly exists to hear it from gun-control advocates, HIPAA is the major obstacle. If the political will exists to create exactly what the gun-control people demanded after Virginia Tech, it will require a waiver of privacy for that purpose. The number of people with a mental disorder is irrelevant as long as we keep guns out of the hands of nutters. If it saves even a single person it’s worth doing, right? Or is that justification only good for advocacy of gun bans?
See you couldn’t answer a single one of my questions. That is because it’s a fucking stupid proposition, disqualifying morons from further participation.
Terr’s point is an excellent one, but I personally wouldn’t advance it here since I figure that gun strokers don’t much care about stigmatizing the mentally ill.
I answered every one of your questions. You just don’t like the answers.
It’s clear that the demands for keeping guns out of the hands of crazy people isn’t a priority, unless saying so can be used as a justification for gun bans.
Also, a rejection does not stigmatize the mentally ill, because NOBODY BUT THEM knows why they were rejected! The guy running the NCIS check has no idea why he/she was flagged, and in truth doesn’t care. It’s not like they put your name in the paper if you get denied. They only do that if you have a permit, apparently.
I am very pro-2nd amendment (although I don’t own any guns at the moment). The point is not relevant to my 2nd amendment stance - you take away more rights from those classified as “mentally ill” and fewer of them will seek help, because they won’t want to be classified that way.
The rejection is a stigma by itself - to the person who is rejected. Modern medicine is good enough that most “crazy people” are not crazy, if they are on correct meds. But take away their rights as a condition for then getting those meds - and you will have a lot more untreated “crazy” people who are eligible to buy guns. Is that the goal?
So? Do we consider the feelings of felons when they are rejected? How about people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence?
Do we or do we not want to keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill? Yes or no?
It’s not about feelings. The felon doesn’t volunteer to be a felon. The mentally ill have to seek help, voluntarily, to be registered in your “database”.
Ok, I will repeat what I was saying. See if you agree or disagree with any of these statements.
-
“Mentally ill” who seek help can usually be treated with modern psychiatric drugs and lead a normal life, thus posing less danger to themselves and to society than if they are not treated.
-
You can only register for the purposes of denial of 2nd amendment rights people who seek help for their mental illness. Those who don’t seek help cannot be registered.
-
If you pass laws that remove rights, such as 2nd amendment rights, from the “registered” mentally ill, that will cause fewer of them to seek help.
-
Take the 3 points above. Put them together and you see that by pursuing your solution you cause more untreated mentally ill out there who are eligible to buy guns.
Is that your goal?
Terr, your point #1 is so grossly oversimplified it is simply false.
It’s true. I didn’t say every mental illness is completely treatable. But a lot of them are, to the point of the patients leading normal, productive lives.
People keep concentrating on Adam Lanza’s “Asperger’s” symptoms. Asperger’s is not drug-treatable, but Asperger’s Syndrome also is not a mental illness, and thus wouldn’t prevent him from buying guns under any scheme that would try to keep guns away from the mentally ill. In any case, it is a bit ridiculous to think that his Asperger’s (if that is what he had) is what caused the massacre.
If he had something else - like schizophrenia - it would have been treatable. But I understand that he resisted treatment anyway. How much more would he have resisted if he knew that on diagnosis he would be placed in the database that would take away some of his rights?
Of course Asperger’s Disorder is a mental illness. It is one of the Pervasive Developmental Disorders, along with Autism, Rett’s Disorder, and Childhood Disintegrative Disorder.