06-27-2013, 05:20 PM
I wouldn't support such a policy, Tiki.
My understanding is that a person who has been diagnosed with a mental illness and has expressed and/or been deemed by a judge or mental health professional to present a threat to him or herself would be recorded in the NICS database and be disqualified from gun ownership. If the illness or behavior is treated and the person no longer represents a threat, he/she can petition to be removed from the database. I support that policy, though there are currently a lot of logistical challenges currently preventing it from being a reality.
Had it been a reality, the Virgina Tech shooter, Cho, would have been included in the NICS database after having been declared violently mentally ill by a judge; he would have failed his background checks and POSSIBLY 32 people would not have been killed. (Would he then have had the capacity/means to acquire a gun illegally or through a private transactions not requiring background checks, IDK.)
Penalizing people for being mentally ill is not something that I would ever get behind. Protecting others and themselves from violently mentally ill is something that I do support, however.
I don't think certain kinds of guns should be banned to all of society. As F.U. pointed out and we've seen with the recent Santa Monica killings, semi automatics can be assembled privately (and there are already a ton of them out there, and previous bans didn't result in a decline in gun violence). I also also don't think, for example, the woman who's on anti-anxiety meds or the recovering alcoholic father - neither of whom have a history of violence or violent threats - should be disqualified from gun ownership.
But, I do believe that not everyone should be legally able to purchase and own guns and more work needs to be done in proactively keeping guns out of the wrong hands.
No perfect solution and no way to see improvements without smart changes and some compromises. I'm not naive about the difficulties and politics involved in affecting such change, but reducing gun violence (and all violence; that's a separate issue) is a worthwhile effort. IMO.
My understanding is that a person who has been diagnosed with a mental illness and has expressed and/or been deemed by a judge or mental health professional to present a threat to him or herself would be recorded in the NICS database and be disqualified from gun ownership. If the illness or behavior is treated and the person no longer represents a threat, he/she can petition to be removed from the database. I support that policy, though there are currently a lot of logistical challenges currently preventing it from being a reality.
Had it been a reality, the Virgina Tech shooter, Cho, would have been included in the NICS database after having been declared violently mentally ill by a judge; he would have failed his background checks and POSSIBLY 32 people would not have been killed. (Would he then have had the capacity/means to acquire a gun illegally or through a private transactions not requiring background checks, IDK.)
Penalizing people for being mentally ill is not something that I would ever get behind. Protecting others and themselves from violently mentally ill is something that I do support, however.
I don't think certain kinds of guns should be banned to all of society. As F.U. pointed out and we've seen with the recent Santa Monica killings, semi automatics can be assembled privately (and there are already a ton of them out there, and previous bans didn't result in a decline in gun violence). I also also don't think, for example, the woman who's on anti-anxiety meds or the recovering alcoholic father - neither of whom have a history of violence or violent threats - should be disqualified from gun ownership.
But, I do believe that not everyone should be legally able to purchase and own guns and more work needs to be done in proactively keeping guns out of the wrong hands.
No perfect solution and no way to see improvements without smart changes and some compromises. I'm not naive about the difficulties and politics involved in affecting such change, but reducing gun violence (and all violence; that's a separate issue) is a worthwhile effort. IMO.