12-18-2012, 10:28 AM
(12-17-2012, 11:25 PM)Jimbone Wrote: I thought this was a reasoned and fair approach to the current debate... FWIW to anyone interested:
http://blogs.ajc.com/kyle-wingfield/2012...wn-debate/
This is another good piece, imo. It focuses on the challenges facing gun control effectiveness where it's most needed.
Snipped:
People with histories of mental illness and a proclivity toward violence are not supposed to be able to purchase firearms in the United States. But in practice, say experts, a patchwork of state and federal laws only apply to people who have been institutionalized or deemed by authorities to be dangerous.
Federal law mandates background checks meant to keep convicted felons and people with mental illnesses from legally acquiring guns, but the rules only apply to people who buy weapons from licensed dealers -- meaning that people, including those with mental illnesses, can buy what they please from other individuals at gun shows or elsewhere. At the state level, standards vary and are bedeviled by poor tracking and a lack of coordination with federal authorities, making enforcement spotty.
In short, no effective system exists that can prevent those with mental illness from getting hold of deadly firearms or reliably predict who may act out in violence.
The underlying goal of laws restricting who can buy guns is to keep guns out of the hands of the people most likely to commit violent acts. By that measure, the laws aren't working, said Paul Appelbaum, the director of the Division of Law, Ethics and Psychiatry at Columbia University's department of psychiatry.
"What we've been pursuing here has been not just a failed strategy, but a strategy that is unlikely ever to be implemented successfully," Appelbaum said. "We're both sweeping up lots of people about whom we probably shouldn't be worried and omitting many people about whom we should."
Full story:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/17...18421.html