Interesting reading. From the tone of that report it sounds like certain entities have thrown up roadblocks in some states to prevent the reporting to NICS for whatever reason. I remember some of that when it was going hot and heavy a couple years ago. There was fear (justifiable maybe) that employers could get the disclosed info and use it to discriminate against current or potential employees. Schools and colleges could do the same. In a lot of states it appears that the issues are still tied up in court or that there is no fight at all to get it resolved.
I can see that are genuine and valid concerns about reporting "Mental Health" issues, but I can also see possible solutions as it applies to gun purchases. The fact that you are requesting to purchase a gun from a FFL should by your participation authorize the disclosure solely to the NICS system for whatever is in the other databases. That way, only folks desiring to purchase would have their info disclosed and not everyone that is in the system. Other roadblocks is the lack of computerization of records on compatible systems. This is something I have actually dealt with and know how much of a pain in the ass it can be.
As usual there is no silver bullet for all this, there will have to be 1000 little solutions all over the place to get it all fixed.
Maybe because I've not owned any guns, but I don't understand the paranoia that seems to envelop gun enthusiasts.
Are people really that determined to take away your guns?
I'm asking in all seriousness.
[/quote]
Yes MS there are many out there that would love nothing better than to remove most if not all of our firearms. Just like the antis read the gun forums I read sites like the Brady bunches site. I see it all the time. People posting that no one but a cop or a soldier need to carry a gun, no one needs a AR15, AK47 or for that matter any form of semiauto firearm. If we want to quote the second amendment we should only be allowed to own muskets, etc etc etc. Then top those comments off with the old, this law is a good start, we will never stop, comments and we are left with the realization that there are many out there that want to take our firearms and firearm rights away.
Maybe a list of verifiable references 4 maybe........just tossing it out there.
Here are just a few quotes I found with one quick search. These are not brady bunchers calling for restriction or confiscation.
"Banning guns is an idea whose time has come."
--U.S. Sen. Joseph Biden Associated Press 11/18/93
"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal." U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, December 1993
"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe." CA Sen Diane Feinstein
"I don't care about crime, I just want to get the guns." OH Sen Howard Metzenbaum
"I am one who believes that as a first step the U.S. should move expeditiously to disarm the civilian population, other than police and security officers, of all handguns, pistols and revolvers ...no one should have a right to anonymous ownership or use of a gun." Dean Morris, Director of Law Enforcement Assistance Administration
"I do not believe in people owning guns. Guns should be owned only by the police and military. I am going to do everything I can to disarm this state." MA Gov Michael Dukakis
Wow!
Uh huh, NOW you can see what it really out there.
Thats Exactly why the NRA is so adamant.
We gun owners are not paranoid, the threat is real.
There are definitely some overzealous folks on both sides of the aisle. Always will be. The nuts on the left can't even get any new laws passed in the wake of a massacre; they don't speak for all in the middle or on the left anymore than the nuts on the extreme right speak for rational gun owners.
Feinstein, for example, irritates the hell outta me. Not only in relation to her gun control views, mostly all of her views.
Bloomberg too, when it comes to gun control specifically. But, generally not as much as Feinstein because he supports the decriminalization of marijuana possession.
His group of Mayors Against Guns really 'effed up in New Hampshire this week when they read off the list of victims of gun violence at a public rally.
Was it really an accident that Tamberlin Tsarnaev, the older Boston bomber brother, was one of the names read aloud? Yeah, I think it was. I also think that Bloomberg's apology was sincere.
But, it's so ignorant that these activists who are using the names of victims to push the public for support of more controls wouldn't take the time to review their own damn copy before reading it aloud. Slow down...think... Hard to take these folks seriously sometimes.
“Folks”.
That's what George W used to call Al Qaeda.
“These folks”.
Jesus Christ.
That's not a George W word and it's not negative or positive. It's a common English synonym for people or members. We stole it from the Germans, "fulka".
Obama uses the word too to describe the good citizens of the U.S. I don't believe he considers us terrorists, at least not all of us.
Porky Pig used the word to end his shows. That was back during the Cold War, but I don't think there was any underlying pinko implication there either, CN.
That's all folks...
Criminals, terrorists, cowards, scumbags, murderers all of these terms would have been more appropriate for Al Qaeda, more appropriate than “folks” anyway.
(06-24-2013, 09:46 AM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: [ -> ]Remembering that stuttering little pig brought a smale to my face HOTD.
I think he prefers to be called George W Bush.
(06-24-2013, 09:45 AM)Cynical Ninja Wrote: [ -> ]Criminals, terrorists, cowards, scumbags, murderers all of these terms would have been more appropriate for Al Qaeda, more appropriate than “folks” anyway.
Well, W had his own speaking style, that's for sure.
But, I think he probably shattered any illusions that referring to Al Qaeda as "folks" was a sign of affection with his enactment of war against them.
Actions speak louder than words, but not nearly as often. I stole that one from Mark Twain, but plenty of other folks use it sometimes too.
(06-24-2013, 09:46 AM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: [ -> ] (06-24-2013, 09:30 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]Porky Pig used the word to end his shows.
That's all folks...
Remembering that stuttering little pig brought a smile to my face HOTD.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBzJGckMYO4
The old Warner Brothers cartoon characters are great. The music too.
I remember when I was relatively new at Mock and someone referred to Dick as Yosemite Sam - made me laugh.
![[Image: 200px-Yosemite_Sam.png]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/8c/Yosemite_Sam.png/200px-Yosemite_Sam.png)
(06-24-2013, 10:15 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]I remember when I was relatively new at Mock and someone referred to Dick as Yosemite Sam - made me laugh.
Ha! That was me. I used to refer to him as that frequently. I always pictured him on a rant jumping up & down. It makes me snicker.
^ You're the guilty party! It really fit.
After I read that reference the first time, I always imagined Dick as Yosemite Sam whenever we disagreed and he'd try to run me in circles to tire me out and agree with him.
(06-21-2013, 03:04 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]Just read this recent report about what "mental defect/illness" used to mean in terms of disqualification from gun purchase, what it currently means, and some of the HIPAA and state challenges regarding NICS database population. I thought it was an interesting read.
The elephant in the room regarding mental illness and gun control is
the government is declaring persons suffering from psychological disorders are presumed to be . . . no . . . labeled as irresponsible and violent.
As such, why stop with gun ownership regarding these individuals?
Let's ban them from the workplace, public events and educational institutions!
I'm sure we can revamp Molokai from its humble Leper colony beginnings and house these defects of society.
Aloha, nutjobs!
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.
(06-24-2013, 09:50 AM)Cynical Ninja Wrote: [ -> ] (06-24-2013, 09:46 AM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: [ -> ]Remembering that stuttering little pig brought a smale to my face HOTD.
I think he prefers to be called George W Bush.
Say what you will about Bush but he did some damn good work helping with the AIDS epidemic in Africa. A mans integrity can be measured by what he does for others expecting nothing in return.