"The Hunt"

[Trell]

And, this applies to assessing mental health exactly how???

Clearly you didn't click on the link of the page titled "Fact Sheet – Pilot Mental Fitness", but I copy/pasted the wrong section and I'll update my original post.

 

[panteragstk]

Really? So an assumption of guilt, and you have to prove you're innocent? You have to prove a negative? And who decides whether you can buy a gun or not? Your MD? A psychiatrist? Clergy? Neighbor? Family?

Tell me how you would actually execute this requirement. Then look at the causes of death in this country, and tell me why put the effort in gun control and ignore causes that are orders of magnitude greater than mass shootings. I mean, if the goal is really to save lives...

That's exactly the point. It's very difficult to do this without either exposing what really shouldn't be exposed, or invading privacy.

But, the point is if you have a mental issue severe enough then you shouldn't have a gun.

Same way that people with epilepsy can't drive unless they haven't had a seizure in a specific amount of time. We aren't taking something away from them so much as trying to prevent them from hurting themselves or others. Why can't it be the same with guns?

 

[herbu]

That's exactly the point. It's very difficult to do this without either exposing what really shouldn't be exposed, or invading privacy.

But, the point is if you have a mental issue severe enough then you shouldn't have a gun.

Same way that people with epilepsy can't drive unless they haven't had a seizure in a specific amount of time. We aren't taking something away from them so much as trying to prevent them from hurting themselves or others. Why can't it be the same with guns?

1. Have you had a seizure in the last year?
2. Are you mentally unstable enough for us to take away your Constitutional right?

The first question is easy to answer. Yes or No. But again, exactly WHO do you propose should answer the second question? This is typical liberal strategy. "Mentally ill people shouldn't have guns". Well, who could disagree with that? I'll tell you... only evil, deplorable conservatives who want people murdered in the streets and children massacred in schools... that's who. Right? The problem is, emotion is the only argument of the Left. Just like conservatives are for dirty air, dirty water, environmental decimation, etc. Emotion.

I agree some people should not own guns because they're not mentally capable of conforming to the law. Still waiting for someone to tell me HOW they propose to identify these people without violating my rights. In the meantime, how many gun criminals are repeat offenders? In my proposal, the answer would be zero. If you commit a crime with a gun, you're gone. Period. I think THAT would have an impact on crime with guns. That's what you want, right? Maybe not.

 

[highfigh]

1. Have you had a seizure in the last year?
2. Are you mentally unstable enough for us to take away your Constitutional right?

The first question is easy to answer. Yes or No. But again, exactly WHO do you propose should answer the second question? This is typical liberal strategy. "Mentally ill people shouldn't have guns". Well, who could disagree with that? I'll tell you... only evil, deplorable conservatives who want people murdered in the streets and children massacred in schools... that's who. Right? The problem is, emotion is the only argument of the Left. Just like conservatives are for dirty air, dirty water, environmental decimation, etc. Emotion.

I agree some people should not own guns because they're not mentally capable of conforming to the law. Still waiting for someone to tell me HOW they propose to identify these people without violating my rights. In the meantime, how many gun criminals are repeat offenders? In my proposal, the answer would be zero. If you commit a crime with a gun, you're gone. Period. I think THAT would have an impact on crime with guns. That's what you want, right? Maybe not.

I would be happier if the courts could bring themselves to impose meaningful penalties on criminals in the face of the "families" who protest incarceration as 'racist'. If the person committed a serious crime, they lose their freedom for the time imposed. If they got off easy because of skin color, and this can be tracked, go after the judges and prosecutors who let them off for that reason.

Lots of criminals have been caught with weapons more than one time- that's up to the judges who let them go after 'time served' and a slap on the wrist and I think we should be able to go after these judges for liability. Ditto for prosecutors and DAs.

I think that the abuse of information could be a problem if mental health data were to be more available because I'm skeptical of peoples' ability to keep their damn mouths shut and for government to stop itself when it has something it can use for whatever purposes it sees as "in the best interest of the public" but I really think it's time to do something more meaningful. As I have posted, I don't think most people need easy access to AR/AK style weapons- sure, it's fun to blast away with an AR/AK rifle but it's really not 'needed'. If they're banned, something else will be used, as before. 30-30 and .308 have been the weapons of choice, they could be in the future.

 

[panteragstk]

1. Have you had a seizure in the last year?
2. Are you mentally unstable enough for us to take away your Constitutional right?

The first question is easy to answer. Yes or No. But again, exactly WHO do you propose should answer the second question? This is typical liberal strategy. "Mentally ill people shouldn't have guns". Well, who could disagree with that? I'll tell you... only evil, deplorable conservatives who want people murdered in the streets and children massacred in schools... that's who. Right? The problem is, emotion is the only argument of the Left. Just like conservatives are for dirty air, dirty water, environmental decimation, etc. Emotion.

I agree some people should not own guns because they're not mentally capable of conforming to the law. Still waiting for someone to tell me HOW they propose to identify these people without violating my rights. In the meantime, how many gun criminals are repeat offenders? In my proposal, the answer would be zero. If you commit a crime with a gun, you're gone. Period. I think THAT would have an impact on crime with guns. That's what you want, right? Maybe not.

I think you missed the part where I agree with you. I don't have a clue who should answer the second part. Really, I don't think there should be a "who" so much as a database that has the information stored in a fashion that just answers the question for them.

It goes like this (or should):

1. Person attempting to purchase gun fills out form, provides identification.
2. Person attempting to sell gun runs person's information through system.
3. System either comes back with "good to go" or "no gun for that person".

There shouldn't be a why given. Just a no. If the person attempting to buy the gun wants a why, then they have to go to whomever we put in charge of the database. ATF or whatever.

The system can easily be filled in with patient records, but even those aren't in central database every hospital has access to (or they weren't when I worked at one) so that's another hurtle we'd have to get over.

It should work like it does when someone has to get a federal security clearance. You fill out the form, they check to make sure you are truthful, if you aren't, they ask you about it or flat deny your clearance. If you are truthful, you get the clearance as long as you meet the requirements. The government isn't trusting YOU to give them the info, they're just verifying what they already have.

Same should be for gun purchases. Leaving a person to check the box and just trusting them to be truthful is stupid, but until we have a way to verify if they are telling the truth, we're stuck with what we have.

 

[herbu]

1. Person attempting to purchase gun fills out form, provides identification.
2. Person attempting to sell gun runs person's information through system.
3. System either comes back with "good to go" or "no gun for that person".

That's exactly what happens today. The database used reveals criminal history. In other words, it shows if you have been legally determined guilty of breaking some law. Now the proposal is to add somebody else's OPINION as to your fitness to own a gun. There's the rub. Who's opinion do we use? You know conflicting OPINIONS are a dime a dozen among doctors and psychiatrists. So neighbors? Friends? Family? I do not want the government deciding whose OPINION is strong enough to violate my constitutional rights. (BTW, remember these rights are not given by the government. The government is specifically prohibited from encroaching upon these rights.)

So until the Left begins targeting the criminals instead of law abiding people, we know what their motives really are. And I think it is despicable to use family's grief to showcase their hidden agenda.

 

[highfigh]

I think you missed the part where I agree with you. I don't have a clue who should answer the second part. Really, I don't think there should be a "who" so much as a database that has the information stored in a fashion that just answers the question for them.

It goes like this (or should):

1. Person attempting to purchase gun fills out form, provides identification.
2. Person attempting to sell gun runs person's information through system.
3. System either comes back with "good to go" or "no gun for that person".

There shouldn't be a why given. Just a no. If the person attempting to buy the gun wants a why, then they have to go to whomever we put in charge of the database. ATF or whatever.

The system can easily be filled in with patient records, but even those aren't in central database every hospital has access to (or they weren't when I worked at one) so that's another hurtle we'd have to get over.

It should work like it does when someone has to get a federal security clearance. You fill out the form, they check to make sure you are truthful, if you aren't, they ask you about it or flat deny your clearance. If you are truthful, you get the clearance as long as you meet the requirements. The government isn't trusting YOU to give them the info, they're just verifying what they already have.

Same should be for gun purchases. Leaving a person to check the box and just trusting them to be truthful is stupid, but until we have a way to verify if they are telling the truth, we're stuck with what we have.

Your #2 should be: "Person attempting to sell gun submits applicant's information to the agency that considers it for approval". If the dealer wants the applicant to get the gun(s) and they aren't good candidates, they could influence the outcome.

A trial is starting for a case where someone confronted a driver who parked in a handicapped spot and it wasn't the first time he had parked illegally. A convenience store employee went outside, an argument ensued and the employee shoved the driver to the ground. As he walked back to the store, the driver pulled out a gun and fired a few rounds, killing the employee. The defense says it was justified, but I really hope they find him guilty- the video shows that the employee was clearly leaving the scene and was unarmed- there was no good reason to shoot him.

 

[panteragstk]

That's exactly what happens today. The database used reveals criminal history. In other words, it shows if you have been legally determined guilty of breaking some law. Now the proposal is to add somebody else's OPINION as to your fitness to own a gun. There's the rub. Who's opinion do we use? You know conflicting OPINIONS are a dime a dozen among doctors and psychiatrists. So neighbors? Friends? Family? I do not want the government deciding whose OPINION is strong enough to violate my constitutional rights. (BTW, remember these rights are not given by the government. The government is specifically prohibited from encroaching upon these rights.)

So until the Left begins targeting the criminals instead of law abiding people, we know what their motives really are. And I think it is despicable to use family's grief to showcase their hidden agenda.

Good point. Who's opinion it would be would have to be something verifiable. I'm thinking if a person that is diagnosed with schizophrenia and has been in an institution for it at some point, then that decision should be obvious.

I do agree that you get varying opinions from doctors as to whether or not someone has a mental disorder of some sort so I'm not sure what would have to be done to ensure that a diagnosis is actually valid. The only thing I can think of is if someone gets denied because of something on their record they disagree with, then there should be an appeal process of some kind. Not sure how else to be fair on that part of the application.

 

[panteragstk]

Your #2 should be: "Person attempting to sell gun submits applicant's information to the agency that considers it for approval". If the dealer wants the applicant to get the gun(s) and they aren't good candidates, they could influence the outcome.

A trial is starting for a case where someone confronted a driver who parked in a handicapped spot and it wasn't the first time he had parked illegally. A convenience store employee went outside, an argument ensued and the employee shoved the driver to the ground. As he walked back to the store, the driver pulled out a gun and fired a few rounds, killing the employee. The defense says it was justified, but I really hope they find him guilty- the video shows that the employee was clearly leaving the scene and was unarmed- there was no good reason to shoot him.

That's what I meant, just didn't use enough words. The seller is in now way involved with the decision.

 

[herbu]

The only thing I can think of is if someone gets denied because of something on their record they disagree with, then there should be an appeal process of some kind. Not sure how else to be fair on that part of the application.

See, there's the rub. There is no reasonable proposal on HOW to execute. Your proposal sounds too much like an assumption of guilt, with some kind of way to "appeal" if you disagree.

 

[panteragstk]

See, there's the rub. There is no reasonable proposal on HOW to execute. Your proposal sounds too much like an assumption of guilt, with some kind of way to "appeal" if you disagree.

It could be used that way, but the way it should be used is that we have an impartial person evaluate another person to determine if they are of sound mind. Bias always comes into play with stuff like this so it's very difficult to find a way to show who shouldn't be allowed to own a gun in an unbiased manner that doesn't infringe on their rights, but we have to start somewhere.

I'm hoping people much smarter than I or any of us is working on this. We need some sort of way to keep guns out of the hands of irresponsible or dangerous people, but that can't punish the 90% of gun owners that are completely responsible people. That is what makes this damn near impossible.