Support your 2nd amendment rights!

[RHRanch]

"All vets are mentally ill" is not close to the same as "find a way that veterans who are incapacitated for one reason or another mentally don’t have access to this kind of weapon."

I would say her real statement is stupid for two reasons. One, PTSD is a product of any violent situation. It's not a product of just the Iraq War. Two, she should be talking about how to identify any person with mental issues rather than just veterans. That is what really got the negative attention.

Mentally ill people for the most part are largely non-violent. Most violence in this country is done by people who have been drinking.... Alcohol use is probably a better predictor of violence than mental illness. The people who do these shootings tend to be young males, and some of them are psychotic, but not all of them. Some people with psychosis are veterans, so at best veteran status could only be viewed as a flag on someone's history when looking for potential spree killers. The most common factor for this kind of crime is gender: males, and age.

The problem with our system is not really IMO the guns, but preventing access to them by people that are known to be unstable. In most of these mass shootings, the unstable behavior was noted for years. But if you are a friend or relative of a person like this, you know that there really is nothing much you can do about them. Your friend/family member cannot be forcibly committed except in extreme cases, there are almost no long term treatment facilities for them to go to, except prison. If you know someone who is elderly and shouldn't be driving, you can drop a card at the DMV with their name, and they get called in for a drivers test/evaluation, but if you know someone who has the potential to act out violently with a gun, there really is no one you can call for preventative help.

 

[hemet dennis]

Quote: Can you really drop a card at the DMV for someone you think is a bad driver, and they will get called in ?

 

[Bullitt]

That's OK if YOU "see no need"
I "see no need" for some folks to have access to computers.


That's odd since there were none until the 1990's
You'd think someone would have figured out they were "necessary" before then

Reality is they are poiintless, since they do nothing to stop crimes from being committed

Funny. Okay, how about hand-held fully automatic weapons were not on the minds of those who wrote the Bill of Rights? So, fully automatic weapons should not be protected under the U.S. Constitution. A person usually had a gun with one shot. If a person murdered someone, other people could tackle the guy with the gun. With a fully automatic weapon, someone can mow people down and it is difficult to stop the person.

Background checks have not been fully implemented. But if background checks do nothing, how do you propose to keep guns out of the hands of felons and the mentally ill? We have to try to keep guns out of their hands somehow.

 

[Bullitt]

The problem with our system is not really IMO the guns, but preventing access to them by people that are known to be unstable. In most of these mass shootings, the unstable behavior was noted for years. But if you are a friend or relative of a person like this, you know that there really is nothing much you can do about them. Your friend/family member cannot be forcibly committed except in extreme cases, there are almost no long term treatment facilities for them to go to, except prison. If you know someone who is elderly and shouldn't be driving, you can drop a card at the DMV with their name, and they get called in for a drivers test/evaluation, but if you know someone who has the potential to act out violently with a gun, there really is no one you can call for preventative help.

I agree for the most part. There needs to be a better system for keeping guns out of the hands of felons and the mentally ill. I understand someone can buy a gun on the street or steal a gun. But when a person goes into a gun shop we should not allow guns to be sold to felons and the mentally ill. No systems will be 100% effective. But I do not understand those people who want to allow anyone to buy a gun.

Again, fully automatic weapons and high-capacity magazines are not necessary for home defense. They work well for mass shootings, though. And there have been more than 250 mass shootings so far this year in the United States. (A mass shooting defined as 4 or more people wounded or killed.)

I have been shooting guns since before I hit puberty, so this is coming from a gun owner. There just have to be some safety measures in place.

 

[rebelcowboysnb]

high-capacity magazines? If you want to make sure no one respects anything you say about guns, that is a good term to use.

Courts have already said that the second protects weapons in common use for legitimate purposes. Military value has been the key weapons protected by the courts.

The AR an AK platform are the two most popular guns world wide. Both are commonly sold standard with a 30 round mag (all of mine are 25) an the full auto versions are common in the military of ever country on the planet.

So if the courts say common and military use is protected an you want to ban common cause you don't like it, well it does not work that way.

You also say the founders did not expect full auto? No, they expected broadsides from cannon laden privateers. An they got to see those happen. They would have laughed at the idea of bans on AR holding 30 rounds cause they are dangerous in the hands of the public but ok for the government.

 

[RHRanch]

Can you really drop a card at the DMV for someone you think is a bad driver, and they will get called in ?

Yes, but not simply because they are a "bad driver", it needs to be if you are concerned about ABILITY to drive, due to medical/physical or mental issue. At my DMV they have a form for people to fill out if concerned about a family member. This site gives info on how they decide to evaluate someone: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/about/senior/driverlicense/reexam.htm

 

[RHRanch]

I agree for the most part. There needs to be a better system for keeping guns out of the hands of felons and the mentally ill. I understand someone can buy a gun on the street or steal a gun. But when a person goes into a gun shop we should not allow guns to be sold to felons and the mentally ill. No systems will be 100% effective. But I do not understand those people who want to allow anyone to buy a gun.

Again, fully automatic weapons and high-capacity magazines are not necessary for home defense. They work well for mass shootings, though. And there have been more than 250 mass shootings so far this year in the United States. (A mass shooting defined as 4 or more people wounded or killed.)

I have been shooting guns since before I hit puberty, so this is coming from a gun owner. There just have to be some safety measures in place.

So, if you don't think we should sell guns to "the mentally ill", how should we go about creating a mentally ill database without making them into second class citizens/stigmatizing them? There is no "Mentally Ill Database". If there were, what mental illnesses are to be included? Schizophrenics? People who are depressed? Eating disordered? Addicts? Obsessive compulsives? PTSD? Who decides who is included or not? How do we encourage people to get treatment for their mental illness if they know that seeking help from a doctor will get them put on some national register of "dangerous" crazy people? Keep in mind, most mentally ill people are never violent. Traditionally, people who are labeled and categorized into lists which preclude them from the rights of "normal" people, (like Felons), end up facing major discrimination and disenfranchisement.

Then consider how many people will be on this list, mental illness is common. According to NIMH, "An estimated 26.2 percent of Americans ages 18 and older — about one in four adults — suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder in a given year." Thats a lot. Check out the site if you want more info. http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publ...count-mental-disorders-in-america/index.shtml

 

[cluckcluckgirl]

Funny. Okay, how about hand-held fully automatic weapons were not on the minds of those who wrote the Bill of Rights? So, fully automatic weapons should not be protected under the U.S. Constitution. A person usually had a gun with one shot. If a person murdered someone, other people could tackle the guy with the gun. With a fully automatic weapon, someone can mow people down and it is difficult to stop the person.

Background checks have not been fully implemented. But if background checks do nothing, how do you propose to keep guns out of the hands of felons and the mentally ill? We have to try to keep guns out of their hands somehow.

And I doubt the Founding Fathers thought that the gun would evolve to where a rifle could shoot 30 rounds in under a minute. So does that mean we should ban ARs and AKs? To quote Thomas Jefferson on page 334 of The Thomas Jefferson Papers, "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." And because we are intellectual beings, we invent and improve.

But as I stated earlier in this thread, do you really think that a criminal will go commit a crime in an area heavily populated with guns? They would get shot at!

 

[Bear Foot Farm]

Quote: What was "on their minds" was the PEOPLE should have access to the same weapons as the military.

Legal machine guns have rarely been used in crimes, and MOST crimes are commited with handguns.

Quote: You can NOT keep guns out of their hands by laws regulating HONEST people
Much like you can't stop crack heads from doing drugs simply by passing more laws..


Quote: YOU do not get to decide what is "necessary" for anyone other than yourself.
That's what is great about America

But if you REALLY want to discuss FACTS, show us how many of those "250 mass shootings" were done with full auto weapons.

 

[Bear Foot Farm]

Quote: It's not allowed
Happy now?