That’s fine, but it’s not a definiton of mental illness. It wouldn’t have had any bearimg on Newtown, or Aurora, or Columbine, or even Virginia Tech, IIRC.
But if that’s the definition you want to run with, fine by me. We could at least set aside this stupid idea that a.solution to the problem is going to come from a focus on mental health, and address the real problem of easy access to firearms.
Thanks!
(By the way, state laws vary dramatically as regards the definition of a disqualifying mental conditon, but let’s stick with yours.)
I make no claims that connecting a database of prohibited persons for mental illness would prevent the rare occurrence of mass shootings such as Newtown or others. It would however assist in limiting prohibited persons access to firearms. That is a worthwhile goal. Having all sales run through an FFL subject to a NICS check would limit straw purchases. That too is a worthwhile goal.
In reality, I think easier access to firearms would be a solution, not a problem. When there is an active shooter, people call the police. Because they have guns. The best way to stop an active shooter with a gun is to call other people with guns. Either police or armed citizens. Nation wide shall issue and state preemption with a removal of gun free zones has the potential to mitigate damage in situations like Newtown. I’m sure you will disagree.
Back to the topic at hand - it seems like poor form to gloat about rising gun values, just like it would be to gloat over rising stock prices. Though if I had extras to sell I surely would and make a hefty profit. Alas I gave my last AR-15 pattern rifle away as a gift.
So if I’m following the argument correctly … a list of people who own guns would be intrusive and solve nothing, but a list of people who *don’t *own guns would be totally non-intrusive and solve everything.
Since you’ve repeated your plea for a yes or no, and the response has not been clear to you: yes, we want to keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill. What you don’t seem to understand is that your plan might actually increase the number of untreated mentally ill people because a lot of people won’t want their treatment on record if it means they might not be allowed to own guns. In which case you’ve wasted a bunch of effort on a system which does not keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill.
I like your list of ideas, and am encouraged that a gun advocate would propose them, but the above point is really a concern – mentally ill people don’t really need any additional incentives to avoid treatment, and it has nothing to do with not wanting to hurt their feelings. You may be proposing a system which by its very design encourages someone to hide the specific attribute the system is trying to measure.
ETA: Point 4 might not actually require modifying HIPAA if you changed it so that the application process requires you to give consent to having the appropriate entity access your medical records. I’m not totally sure that’s possible, but it seems like if it is, that’s a much easier route than modifying HIPAA.
The news out today on NICS background checks for the month of December shows the number of checks last month at 2.78 million, up from November’s record of 2.01 million, and a passing the record of the previous December’s checks by almost a million.
NICS checks are only ran at the point of purchase, so many or most of those checks can be translated into gun sales. There are no actual traceable numbers for gun sales.
Could be. The numbers are what they are however. 4000 vs. 30-40 annual deaths.
Reasonable to me would include legislation that would attempt to solve the 4000 deaths per year by shotguns, not the 30-40 by assault weapon. But that would never pass would it?
See, JX, it ain’t me you have to worry, me and mine. There’s quite a few of us in the Keep The Goddam Things If They Mean That Fucking Much To You Caucus. We have bigger fish to fry, nation wide. Well, not quite, we’ve got fish that conceivably can be fried, whereas gun control has always been impossible. Myself, I kinda like rifles. Rather a good shot. Open sight, of course, you need a scope, go play a video game.
Its the mood of the country you gotta worry about. These recent incidents have soured that mood, barking mad LaPierre didn’t do his cause any service. Now, its likely enough that this will blow over, nothing much will happen, every effort will be slow-walked to death by old age. If this shit stops happening, that is. If it never happens again, nothing much will change.
See, you’re still trying to blame the lefties and the liberals for your worries. But they were already there, weren’t they? Their views didn’t much change. Intensified, but not changed. Whats changing is the people who didn’t much care one way or the other. And they’re scared, and they want something to change, and aren’t willing to patiently endure lectures on the true meaning of the Second Amendment. We can be reasoned with. We want reasonable things.
They’re scared, and they want to stop being scared. They’re the ones you gotta worry about. They’ll make us look like a day at the beach.
Of course, if this shit stops happening, you got nothing to worry about. Think that’s likely?
I realized recently that I get into these debates, not to change minds, but to strengthen my own positions and thoughts on what it is that I believe. In the heat of the moment, I still let my emotions get the best of me from time to time. Please don’t take anything I direct at you personally.
No, I don’t think shootings will stop anytime soon. This country has never been stronger, but there are some significant cracks in the foundation. I hope someone at sometime takes a serious look at repairing them. Right now, they are only trying to cover them up with spackle.