(10-09-2015, 02:52 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote:

(10-09-2015, 02:33 PM)sally Wrote:

(10-09-2015, 11:14 AM)F.U. Wrote: Just wondering what everyone thinks a gun registry would accomplish?

I think some states have laws that violent felons cannot live in a household with any guns. The same should be for the mentally ill or anyone who has been admitted to a mental health facility for any reason. If guns were registered it would make easier to ensure these people aren't being released to households that have an arsenal at their reach.

I don't really have any strong opinions on it either way, I'm in the middle on the gun debate. I think a more important first step should be to have armed security at the schools and making it harder to get in.

That is discrimination and the "for any reason" statement could come down to an officers opinion that a perfectly sane person needs to be observed for 24 hours. That happens a lot actually.

It's never happened to me. And you just said a few pages back that the issue that needs to be addressed is the mentally ill. So if we don't discriminate and ensure they have no access to firearms what do you suggest?

The problem in baring the mentally ill is first proving they are ill and then punishing them for something they haven't done yet.

If you've spent any amount of time in a mental facility other than maybe a one time offense for being drunk or whatever and LE determined to take you to the nut house instead of jail you should not be allowed to live in a household with firearms. I wouldn't cry if that was a law.

(10-09-2015, 03:26 PM)sally Wrote:

(10-09-2015, 02:52 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote:

(10-09-2015, 02:33 PM)sally Wrote:

(10-09-2015, 11:14 AM)F.U. Wrote: Just wondering what everyone thinks a gun registry would accomplish?

I think some states have laws that violent felons cannot live in a household with any guns. The same should be for the mentally ill or anyone who has been admitted to a mental health facility for any reason. If guns were registered it would make easier to ensure these people aren't being released to households that have an arsenal at their reach.

I don't really have any strong opinions on it either way, I'm in the middle on the gun debate. I think a more important first step should be to have armed security at the schools and making it harder to get in.

That is discrimination and the "for any reason" statement could come down to an officers opinion that a perfectly sane person needs to be observed for 24 hours. That happens a lot actually.

It's never happened to me. And you just said a few pages back that the issue that needs to be addressed is the mentally ill. So if we don't discriminate and ensure they have no access to firearms what do you suggest?

Get them diagnosed and treated properly. If they're deemed a danger to themselves or society, they can not possess or own a firearm.

(10-09-2015, 03:42 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote:

(10-09-2015, 03:26 PM)sally Wrote:

(10-09-2015, 02:52 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote:

(10-09-2015, 02:33 PM)sally Wrote:

(10-09-2015, 11:14 AM)F.U. Wrote: Just wondering what everyone thinks a gun registry would accomplish?

I think some states have laws that violent felons cannot live in a household with any guns. The same should be for the mentally ill or anyone who has been admitted to a mental health facility for any reason. If guns were registered it would make easier to ensure these people aren't being released to households that have an arsenal at their reach.

I don't really have any strong opinions on it either way, I'm in the middle on the gun debate. I think a more important first step should be to have armed security at the schools and making it harder to get in.

That is discrimination and the "for any reason" statement could come down to an officers opinion that a perfectly sane person needs to be observed for 24 hours. That happens a lot actually.

It's never happened to me. And you just said a few pages back that the issue that needs to be addressed is the mentally ill. So if we don't discriminate and ensure they have no access to firearms what do you suggest?

Get them diagnosed and treated properly. If they're deemed a danger to themselves or society, they can not possess or own a firearm.

I don't know why Cynical Ninja came to mind when I read that. LOL

My position is we need everyone who owns a gun or purchases one to sign a piece of paper stating they will never, ever, use the gun for a criminal act.

I believe this would satisfy the current administration's need for protecting the "at large" citizenry.

Just an agreement with a signature.

Like the piece of paper signed by Iranian officials regarding procuring nuclear weapons.

No need to look into someone's past.

Just sign on the line and we're good to go.

(10-09-2015, 03:42 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: Get them diagnosed and treated properly. If they're deemed a danger to themselves or society, they can not possess or own a firearm.

They're already diagnosed and treated, just like the Oregon shooter. That doesn't stop them from being released to a household with access to firearms or "straw buyers" to purchase guns on their behalf.

The mental illness rhetoric is cover.

The anti-gun movement and the soft-Marxists won't be satisfied until all the guns are confiscated and the Second Amendment is repealed.

Obama doesn't have the stones to state that publicly.

His twenty plus exec orders have done NOTHING to prevent any of these killings.

FFS! They can't even vet the illegals and the Syrian refugees.

(10-09-2015, 04:23 PM)sally Wrote:

(10-09-2015, 03:42 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: Get them diagnosed and treated properly. If they're deemed a danger to themselves or society, they can not possess or own a firearm.

They're already diagnosed and treated, just like the Oregon shooter. That doesn't stop them from being released to a household with access to firearms or "straw buyers" to purchase guns on their behalf.

Yeah, I don't think there needs to be a special gun-related mental illness diagnosis either. If you're clinically mentally ill, you shouldn't have access to guns.

I saw the other day that the Oregon shooter had not only received mental treatment, but was discharged from the army after only a few weeks because he tried to commit suicide. And still, he had 14 guns at his disposal at home - all legally purchased by himself or family members.

Most mentally ill aren't violent towards others, but most mass murderers are mentally ill.

If I had a mentally ill person in my home, I'd be worried about suicide even if I didn't suspect homicidal fantasies. I'd not have anything around that made that easier to pull off, even if I thought the risk was low.

But, I also think family's struggling with a mentally ill or violent family member in the home might actually need more access to a weapon of self-defense. No potential gun violence reduction solution covers all the bases though.

(10-09-2015, 04:41 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: But, I also think family's struggling with a mentally ill or violent family member in the home might actually need more access to a weapon of self-defense. No potential gun violence reduction solution covers all the bases though.

I think it's called institutionalization of the sick.

Reduces the need for self-defense drastically.

(10-09-2015, 04:23 PM)sally Wrote:

(10-09-2015, 03:42 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: Get them diagnosed and treated properly. If they're deemed a danger to themselves or society, they can not possess or own a firearm.

They're already diagnosed and treated, just like the Oregon shooter. That doesn't stop them from being released to a household with access to firearms or "straw buyers" to purchase guns on their behalf.

So was Lanza. Was the treatment sufficient? ya think? Was either ready for release? JFC! Can't see the forest for all the trees Sally?

(10-09-2015, 04:51 PM)BlueTiki Wrote:

(10-09-2015, 04:41 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: But, I also think family's struggling with a mentally ill or violent family member in the home might actually need more access to a weapon of self-defense. No potential gun violence reduction solution covers all the bases though.

I think it's called institutionalization of the sick.

Reduces the need for self-defense drastically.

Yes.

(10-09-2015, 04:51 PM)BlueTiki Wrote:

(10-09-2015, 04:41 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: But, I also think family's struggling with a mentally ill or violent family member in the home might actually need more access to a weapon of self-defense. No potential gun violence reduction solution covers all the bases though.

I think it's called institutionalization of the sick.

Reduces the need for self-defense drastically.

The difficulty today in institutionalizing people without their consent, along with lack of facilities, are definitely problems that need to be addressed. Not only in the context of gun access, but in general.

Jails, the streets, and family residences are homes to too many dangerously mentally ill people for lack of appropriate alternatives, in my opinion.

(10-09-2015, 04:52 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote:

(10-09-2015, 04:23 PM)sally Wrote:

(10-09-2015, 03:42 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: Get them diagnosed and treated properly. If they're deemed a danger to themselves or society, they can not possess or own a firearm.

They're already diagnosed and treated, just like the Oregon shooter. That doesn't stop them from being released to a household with access to firearms or "straw buyers" to purchase guns on their behalf.

So was Lanza. Was the treatment sufficient? ya think? Was either ready for release? JFC! Can't see the forest for all the trees Sally?

I understood what you were saying, but we're about as good as curing mental illness as we are cancer. Not very good. So what do you suggest to do with the mentally ill after so long? My point was the last place they should be released to is a home with gun enthusiasts while not even being monitored.

(10-09-2015, 10:43 AM)Midwest Spy Wrote: Maggot = Consumate bullshit-peddler.

A nice ring to it.

There's not one person here clamoring to take your precious guns.

My god, you want to go out to your local dump and shoot beer cans until darkness falls, be my guest.

None of you gun aficionados even acknowledge that there are too many guns and they're too easy for the wrong (see: mentally unhinged) people to get.

I'm more concerned with victims of gun violence than I am with your 'inalienable right' to own as many fucking guns as you want.

You guys sound like you're looney tunes, spewing the same old horse-shit rhetoric day after day.

I like this post, too....Sorry, but the flu or whatever prevents me from writing my own stuff .....I have never been anti gun; I have related stories of growing up with guns in the house (house full of hunters), but easy access to guns has to stop.....I am sick and tired of those who continue with same, old, outdated, tired, redundant excuses about their God given rights to own a million guns and a pickup load or more of ammo....and to Fu, who bashes me for my post and because I don't talk to him "nicely," he is all mad and won't talk..... I don't give a hoot whether you like me or not. I care more about innocents losing their lives every day. Sorry, you don't think I talk nicely to you, but I don't like gun fanatics who think only of themselves. I have read reliable statistics showing that even gun enthusiasts and majority of Americans would like to tighten up gun laws and get this, even some NRA members agree with this.

(10-09-2015, 06:17 PM)blueberryhill Wrote:

(10-09-2015, 10:43 AM)Midwest Spy Wrote: None of you gun aficionados even acknowledge that there are too many guns and they're too easy for the wrong (see: mentally unhinged) people to get.

I'm more concerned with victims of gun violence than I am with your 'inalienable right' to own as many fucking guns as you want.

You guys sound like you're looney tunes, spewing the same old horse-shit rhetoric day after day.

I am sick and tired of those who continue with same, old, outdated, tired, redundant excuses about their God given rights to own a million guns and a pickup load or more of ammo......... I don't give a hoot whether you like me or not. I care more about innocents losing their lives every day. Sorry, you don't think I talk nicely to you, but I don't like gun fanatics who think only of themselves. I have read reliable statistics showing that even gun enthusiasts and majority of Americans would like to tighten up gun laws and get this, even some NRA members agree with this.

Yes . . . many gun enthusiasts and NRA members would welcome cogent measures to keep guns out of the hands of those who are irresponsible and would cause mayhem.

I find it distasteful that both you and Spy claim some sort of moral high ground, suggesting that those who desire and exercise their guaranteed 2^nd Ammendment rights, somehow don't care about victims ("innocents") killed by the actions of criminals or the deranged. Talk about the "same old horse-shit rhetoric"!

It seems, to me, that the anti-gun crowd doesn't respect the same Constitution that allows gays to marry, demands equality for the races, protects freedom of speech, provides the right for a woman to have an abortion, allows the freedom to practice religion and the right of free speech.

Pray tell . . . what cogent new law will save the innocents from homicide by guns?

Why have the majority of mass killings happened while a Democrat is in the White House?

Maybe it isn't a mental health problem or the proliferation of guns, after all.

Or maybe the constitutional rights of the mentally ill and the criminals, trump those of law abiding citizens or the body politic?

Too bad the ACA didn't address this "health crisis".

Probably a glitch in the website.

(10-10-2015, 02:10 AM)BlueTiki Wrote: Or maybe the constitutional rights of the mentally ill and the criminals, trump those of law abiding citizens or the body politic?

That's what I believe. I can't help but feel if that weren't the case there would be a database filled with the names of those who have seen a professional for mental health issues. Their right to privacy trumps a citizens right to be safe. This doesn't just effect those who get access to guns but those who would fly a plane full of people into a mountain.

(10-10-2015, 06:27 AM)Duchess Wrote:

(10-10-2015, 02:10 AM)BlueTiki Wrote: Or maybe the constitutional rights of the mentally ill and the criminals, trump those of law abiding citizens or the body politic?

That's what I believe. I can't help but feel if that weren't the case there would be a database filled with the names of those who have seen a professional for mental health issues. Their right to privacy trumps a citizens right to be safe. This doesn't just effect those who get access to guns but those who would fly a plane full of people into a mountain.

Thats exactly what One of the many aspects to this problem is (are?)
I have said it before, check on the nuts and fruits and make sure they have no access to weapons, make sure their families know and acknowledge that they must not have access. For the patients it would be a bit like being on probation.

I also think the existing laws need to be tightened up, specifically the background checks at gun shows and hign volume private sales. These things can be done without the $400,000,000 price tag attached to the last lame ass grab the dems came up with.

There is no magic bullet, but there are several things to be done that will help.

(10-08-2015, 04:48 PM)crash Wrote: The issue is that way too many people in your country die from gun related violence or accidents. I don't have the figures, and tbh, I can't be assed going to look for them, but I'd wager that the gun deaths due to mental illness of the shooter are a low percentage of the total.

I'd wager your wager would pay off, crash.

There's not a lot of government-funded research on gun violence (I hope that changes soon). But, groups that have looked at the correlation between random sample groups of violent criminals have consistently found between 4% and 6% had a known history of mental illness.

That doesn't mean there aren't undiagnosed mentally ill persons among the other approximately 95% of violent criminals in those studies or that the illness contributed to the crime, of course. So, it's hard to say with any degree of certainty how much mental illness contributes to the problem of violence in general, and gun violence in particular. But, in my opinion, it wouldn't be a very high percentage unless combined with serious substance abuse.

For mass murderers specifically though, the percentage of those with documented records of mental illness is much higher. In 2001, 23% of the mass murderers studied had such a history. Just based on following mass murder cases since that time, I'd guess the percentage is much higher now.

I think better and more accessible mental health treatment is something that needs to be addressed seriously (not just in the U.S.), primarily for the benefit of the ill, but also for increased public safety. Improving the mental health system could help reduce/prevent violent crime, but the sparse data available doesn't suggest that it would impact a majority of violent crime carried out with or without guns.

(10-10-2015, 06:27 AM)Duchess Wrote:

(10-10-2015, 02:10 AM)BlueTiki Wrote: Or maybe the constitutional rights of the mentally ill and the criminals, trump those of law abiding citizens or the body politic?

That's what I believe. I can't help but feel if that weren't the case there would be a database filled with the names of those who have seen a professional for mental health issues. Their right to privacy trumps a citizens right to be safe. This doesn't just effect those who get access to guns but those who would fly a plane full of people into a mountain.

I don't want to infringe on the rights of the mentally ill or stigmatize those who seek treatment.

I think if all states simply reported into the federal background check system database (NICS) in accordance with the current regulations, it would have a meaningful impact in reducing some types of gun violence. That would be accomplished without unfairly discriminating against or further stigmatizing mentally ill people (or those who just seek psychiatric counseling, take meds for mild depression, etc.)

To me, it's similar to the Military's disqualification of certain mentally ill people; it's prudent to disqualify some people for their own safety and the safety of others.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution ensures the right to bear arms in the context of maintaining a well-regulated Militia of the people. As I see it, "well-regulated" should include screening who is eligible to safely participate by bearing arms.