caketastydelish
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2008
- Messages
- 9,571
If someone is going to kill themselves, they don't need a gun to do it.
Yeah... look, mental illness should not be grounds to deny someone a firearm, but it should absolutely be considered. Not just for society's sake, but for the prospective gun owner too. While I don't know the numbers for your specific condition, 10% of schizophrenics end up killing themselves. No reason to keep that easy.
Form, do you really think having a discussion on mental health and gun ownership is a 'knee-jerk' reaction in full consideration that the majority of these killers that are involved in this mass shooters are mentally ill?
Are you interested in trying to solve this problem, or are you more interested in scoring propaganda points?
Mental health is part of this real issue. The sad thing about this is its been ignored for way too long while other 'knee-jerk' measures have been taken with no effect or resulting in an actual increase in shootings.
Form, the definition of crazy is doing the same old thing and expecting a different result. Its high time that we take a look at this problem from more than just a 'its a gun problem' attitude. Or are you just fine with these mentally ill people having access to weapons with which they murder people by the scores with?
You can't very well deprive the clearly violent gun nuts of their play toys no matter how emotionally disturbed and irrational they happen to be.Why not just have everyone do an extensive psych test to see who is potentially violent? Clearly, there are plenty of violent people who don't have a mental illness, so why do they get a free pass?
Why should I "agree" with the same old tired strawmen of my actual opinions from someone who continues misinterpret them "to score propaganda points", instead of even try to discuss the real issues?Form, I would think you'd agree with this.
MobBoss, I don't mind you having a different opinion, but stop stereotyping us.
Yeah... look, mental illness should not be grounds to deny someone a firearm, but it should absolutely be considered. Not just for society's sake, but for the prospective gun owner too. While I don't know the numbers for your specific condition, 10% of schizophrenics end up killing themselves. No reason to keep that easy.
You can't very well deprive the clearly violent gun nuts of their play toys no matter how emotionally disturbed and irrational they happen to be.
But depriving others of those very same "rights" who have shown no signs of violence at all and suffer from mental illness, which the right wing refuses to even provide proper medical aid, is an entirely different story.
Why should I "agree" with the same old tired strawmen of my actual opinions from someone who continues misinterpret them "to score propaganda points", instead of even try to discuss the real issues?
This is why we have people that are mental health professionals. It would be up to them to diagnose and determine who is potentially violently mentall ill and those that arent.
And no, you dont need to see a psychiatrist before buying a gun, just have the background checks incorporate a history of mental illness if there is one present. They would know you have a diagnosis if such a database were kept for that reason.
And just because you dont have all the answers in front of you hardly makes it dumb. Its only dumb if you are just fine with crazy people shooting up our schools on a semi-regular basis.
Additionally, it opens up whether fundamentally average individuals are of sufficient health to exercise their rights.I wonder how they are determining "mentally ill"? Anything in the DSM-V? How do you rank disorders? How do you make sure people get treatment they need if a diagnosis comes with a new legal status? Do you need to see a psychiatrist before buying a gun? How do they know even if you have a diagnosis?
The whole thing is dumb.
Wasting breath here Mobboss since 40% of all guns are bought legally second hard without any checks and who can guess the number of straw buyers purchasing firearms legally for another person.
NRA is against any background checks for private sales.
Our ruling
Bloomberg said 40 percent of gun sales take place through gun shows or the Internet, without a background check.
The best information on the informal gun market is based on a survey and is about 15 years old (the data used in the survey is almost 20 years old). Theres no question that many guns are bought with no background check, but theres not sufficient current evidence to say that the proportion is 40 percent of all sales.
Bloombergs statement is partially accurate but leaves out that important detail: Half True.
Yet those who claim they only oppose assault weapons being banned still support and continue to deliberately ignore this effort by the gun lobby and Republican congressmen, who are actually major contributors to gun violence by refusing to plug this obvious loophole.NRA is against any background checks for private sales.
Instead, the far-right is now even trying to institutionalize those who suffer from mental illness who might possibly show signs of violence in the future.
This process already largely exists, so I think your fear is here rather unfounded.
How is this any different that such a check finding a history of domestic violence or felony conviction disallowing someone to buy a gun.
Answer: it isnt.
This wouldnt be a judgement of mental incompetence. Merely a snapshot of whether a person is ok to own a weapon within reason at that point according to the recommendations of a mental health professional.
It wouldnt be the first or last time police have confiscated someones weapons via a court order. What do you think happens to a current gun owner if they get a domestic violence conviction? Wouldnt be any different than how that works at all.
"Mental incompetence" was your phrase, and it wouldn't be a snapshot of today but an investigation into the lives of people looking for past signs of mental illness too. You dont see a difference between a criminal conviction for assaulting someone and being mentally ill?
If someone is going to kill themselves, they don't need a gun to do it.
He didn't say a word about Bloomberg. Now did he?Ah, so you're think Bloomberg is a great source for that? Politifact disagrees.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...michael-bloomberg-says-40-percent-guns-are-s/
Does it occur? Yes. But there isnt any real evidence to support what percentage of guns are sold/bought this way.
There is quite obviously "real evidence" that a large number of guns are still sold without any background check at all. To claim there isn't is disingenuous.We asked Philip Cook, a Duke University professor who co-authored the study, if he thinks that 40 percent estimate -- which is now more than 15 years old -- is still a current, reliable estimate of secondary market gun sales.
"The answer is I have no idea," Cook said. "This survey was done almost 20 years ago. … It’s clear there are a lot of transactions that are not through dealers. How many, we’re not really clear on it. … We would say it’s a very old number."
Other scholars had similar views. Paul Blackman is a retired criminologist and former research coordinator for the NRA Institute for Legislative Action. "Personally, I think your safest bet is to say that no one knows, but that the vast majority of crime guns come from some other source than gun shows," he told us.
On the other hand, not much has changed in the gun market in the past two decades.
"It’s a fairly stable market. That is to say, gun stores have had their part, police supply stores have had their part, and then there are the gun shows and private dealings about which we know very little," said Robert McCrie, of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice. "There’s the knowledge that the market has been more vigorous and probably that higher vigor has been reflected in gun shows and private sales in tandem."
McCrie said, "The 40 percent seems about right."
Gary Kleck, whose research has provided the foundation for less restrictive concealed carry laws, told PolitiFact the 40 percent estimate is "probably still reasonably valid today."
Little other evidence
In 1999, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives released a report on gun shows. Investigators found that a quarter of the vendors were private sellers, not licensed dealers, and reported that "felons and other prohibited persons who want to avoid Brady Act checks and records of their purchase buy firearms at these shows." They said guns from such shows had been used in drug crimes.
We called the ATF and asked if there was anything more recent. They had nothing new to add. We called the National Rifle Association and the National Shooting Sports Foundation, groups that oppose new efforts to track gun transactions. Neither organization responded.
The City of New York commissioned an investigation of Internet gun sales in 2011. The report said on 10 websites, it found over 25,000 weapons for sale.The report said that over 60 percent of sellers allowed a purchase to move forward even when the alleged buyer said he didn’t believe he would pass a background check.
Here you had yet another opportunity to go on record being vehemently opposed to this overt hypocrisy by the "law and order" crowd who are anything but, yet you didn't do so. Why do you continue to defend the indefensible by apparently supporting an organization that is actually directly contributing to gun violence by felons, despite claiming that you do not agree with their position?NRA is against any background checks for private sales.
It most likely is. Yet gun violence is actually decreasing.I would hazard that with the expansion of the internet, the figure for twenty years ago is most likely lower than today's.
He didn't say a word about Bloomberg. Now did he?
Did you even bother to read the Politifact article? Or did you deliberately decide to quote mine it while trying to give the impression that Politifact was claiming his own statement was a "half-truth" when it actually wasn't?
There is quite obviously "real evidence" that a large number of guns are still sold without any background check at all. To claim there isn't is disingenuous.