| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No I wasn't. But now I'm gonna say your reading comprehension needs work.
EDIT: What do they call it when you put words in someone's mouth to invalidate an argument they aren't even making?
Feel free to clarify if you like.
The statistics don't like. We average more deaths. Not just deaths related to crime, but suicides and accidents by firearms. We also have a far greater number of homes with firearms present.
Switzerland, a country with lots of guns, also averages a lot of suicides by guns. They also have 10 times as many accidental deaths as England.
Are you saying the presence of firearms does not increase the likelihood of suicide? Because there is a mountain of good data that shows you'd be wrong.
|
I've said outright several times in many threads. I'm a probation officer.
Okay, I obviously missed that...
The magical supervision fairy who is going to watch crazy people poop so they can't buy guns...
Well actually, your position was not something I was thinking of when I was talking about placing people under psychiatric supervision and having "social-type workers" visiting these people's homes...
I was literally thinking of clinical social workers...
|
@ Bignorsewolf - Loughner, Cho, and Holmes should have been on the do not sell list, period. All three had serious, documented mental health conditions which were considered potentially dangerous.
The neo-nazi was on the radar because of his arrests, but likely couldn't have been prevented from buying a firearm. Unlike Digital Elf, I understand we don't have the resources to track and follow every Neo-Nazi jackass who is out there, so there probably wasn't much that could be done on that one. I probably should have left him off the list for the discussion, but at the same time his more or less dishonorable discharge gave me pause he might at some point show up as being evaluated unstable somewhere along the lines, in which case...
Your fear of the slippery slope ignores the real and present danger of the mentally unstable being armed. Not just these three, but more generally. Your "The government might at some point make it illegal for some person who isn't mentally ill enough for my belief system to not be able to purchase a gun without going through an appeal process" isn't of equal value to me as "We might prevent crazy people from having arsenals of firearms."
I have very little concern that a mental health professional is going to flag a lot of people who aren't dangerous for a couple of reasons.
1) People are lazy, and filling out and submitting forms means actually doing something.
2) They risk their license and therapeutic trust if they do it and they are found to have abused it.
What I suspect is quite often the therapist will discuss it with the client during lucid periods of therapy and get them to agree to be to be added to the list. And yes sometimes they will go "We have to release this person from the 72 hour commitment, but..."
Right now the toolbox is involuntary commitment and...yeah. If I was arguing for no appeal process, sure. But I'm not.
We only need to look at, well, every other major industrialized country in the world to see adding a bit of common sense to who can purchase guns isn't going to drive us into tyranny.
@Digital Elf...
Clinical Social Workers? Really. Do you know how much an LCSW makes? Do you know how expensive it would be to pay them to just go check on people? And you want to give an LCSW the power to detain people, presumably indefinitely, rather than restrict gun access?
And here is the real kicker. Do you want the people under supervision to be able to buy guns? Because if not...
Seriously, do you think LCSW's have magically gun detecting powers, or do you plan on giving them the power to execute daily home search warrents and then plan on paying them to do so.
That is more expensive than institutionalization....
@ Bignorsewolf - Loughner, Cho, and Holmes should have been on the do not sell list, period. All three had serious, documented mental health conditions which were considered potentially dangerous.
How large would your list be?
The neo-nazi was on the radar because of his arrests, but likely couldn't have been prevented from buying a firearm.
See, this is whats worrying me.
Either you're willing to make the list large enough to include everyone thats been arrested for driving while ability impaired, or you don't like the fact that he's a neo nazi and an arrest completely unrelated to gun violence is a good excuse to stick it to him.
EVEN then... he could have just borrowed his girlfriends (illegaly obtained) handgun as easily as he could borrow her car keys.
Your fear of the slippery slope ignores the real and present danger of the mentally unstable being armed.Not just these three, but more generally.
I believe I'm giving the problem the amount of worry it warrants: somewhere between being struck by a meteor and dying in an airplane crash.
Your "The government might at some point make it illegal for some person who isn't mentally ill enough for my belief system to not be able to purchase a gun without going through an appeal process" isn't of equal value to me as "We might prevent crazy people from having arsenals of firearms."
Speaking of unlikely events, you're not going to prevent them from having firearms. Since you're not taking away the guns they have, you are only preventing them from
1) Getting guns in between when the shrink goes to the authorities and what constitutionally must be a short period until they can appeal.
2) Getting legal guns: there are so many easy sources of illegal guns that you're not preventing much if anything
3) Having someone else get the gun for them.
Please address this point: Given the above, how much good do you really see this provision doing? Compare that with how many people you would see eschewing psychiatric treatment altogether, leading to murders or more likely suicides?
1) People are lazy, and filling out and submitting forms means actually doing something.
Psychologists have political opinions just like anyone else.
2) They risk their license and therapeutic trust if they do it and they are found to have abused it.
And what happens when you DON"T report it and your patient shoots up a minimall? That will get your license yanked even faster. How does someone prove that there was no reasonable fear of imminent danger to someone else? Over reporting/erring on the side of caution seems like the safest way to keep your license. Besides, its no big deal right?
Right now the toolbox is involuntary commitment and...yeah. If I was arguing for no appeal process, sure. But I'm not.
You are arguing that they are guilty until proven innocent, in an action taken by the state against its citizens.
We only need to look at, well, every other major industrialized country in the world to see adding a bit of common sense to who can purchase guns isn't going to drive us into tyranny.
Other industrialized countries didn't list the right to bear arms among the rights of its citizenry. I don't like the fact that its there, but it is. What you're proposing says its ok to have someone that isn't elected, and that the people have no direct or indirect control over, violate someones rights. I'm not happy with needing to do that with people that are completely bonkers, but I understand the neccesity. What you're proposing would do more harm than good, and all it would accomplish would be to set up a very dangerous precedent for how other rights can be treated.
|
|
Do you really think Cho, Loughner or Holmes were going to be able to convince someone to make a straw purchase without raising red flags?
The length of the list isn't the issue. The criteria will be set by mental health professionals.
As to non-reporting, as someone who works in a profession where I am obligated to report any number of things, you are grossly overstating liability for discretionary reporting.
If the mental health professional releases someone now from involuntary commitment (which happened with at least Cho and I believe also with Loughner) are they losing licenses? No, because they followed policy and procedure.
Now given the appeal process with certainly involve the doctor doing a ton of work to justify reasoning for the block, all while losing the income from working with the client if it is not mutually agreed to, I think it very unlikely this would become systematic abuse.
If you are a person who wants to buy guns, would you go to a therapist who has a reputation of blocking gun purchase, given other options. And if you aren't given other options (aka you are brought to the hospital because you are acting irrationally) I am fine with caution being the guide.
It isn't just about these three mass murderers. I work with people every day who should not be able to buy guns if they aren't on medications. And sometimes the medications stop working (even if they can afford to keep getting them and taking them) and then...
We can actually include suicides in the numbers of gun deaths for this conversation. Nearly 100,000 people get shot every year. The last stats I can find say in 2009 18,735 died of self inflicted gunshot wounds with another 11,493 from gun related homicide.
Annually.
You want to compare those numbers to your meteor or air crash?
If I am a clinician with a severely depressed patient, wouldn't it be helpful to all involved if during the 5 day waiting period I was notified my client was trying to buy a gun? Just as one example.
So you stop a gun purchase, he buys a knife and kills himself. Way to go, instead of trying to deal with the suicidal tendency you just change the implement.......yay
Who said that stopping a gun purchase was the end of treatment?
Given the statistics post in this thread about a page ago, giving those suffering from depression access to forearms results in a higher suicide rate; that's not rocket science.
I don't mean to be insulting, but anyone who really thinks psychiatric professionals being able to put their patients on a watch list will limit their own access to firearms should take a good long look in the mirror and decide if their own behavior is really that erratic. If so, seek help, they won't take away your guns as the laws stand now.
|
So you stop a gun purchase, he buys a knife and kills himself. Way to go, instead of trying to deal with the suicidal tendency you just change the implement.......yayWho said that stopping a gun purchase was the end of treatment?
Given the statistics post in this thread about a page ago, giving those suffering from depression access to forearms results in a higher suicide rate; that's not rocket science.
I don't mean to be insulting, but anyone who really thinks psychiatric professionals being able to put their patients on a watch list will limit their own access to firearms should take a good long look in the mirror and decide if their own behavior is really that erratic. If so, seek help, they won't take away your guns as the laws stand now.
Yes they can, right now.
Yes they can, right now.So you stop a gun purchase, he buys a knife and kills himself. Way to go, instead of trying to deal with the suicidal tendency you just change the implement.......yayWho said that stopping a gun purchase was the end of treatment?
Given the statistics post in this thread about a page ago, giving those suffering from depression access to forearms results in a higher suicide rate; that's not rocket science.
I don't mean to be insulting, but anyone who really thinks psychiatric professionals being able to put their patients on a watch list will limit their own access to firearms should take a good long look in the mirror and decide if their own behavior is really that erratic. If so, seek help, they won't take away your guns as the laws stand now.
Can I ask what state you live in Andrew?
As I understand the current law here in Rhode Island, there's no legal mechanism for for firearm confiscation in and of itself; If you commit a crime, or walk down the street waving a gun around, the legal system will limit (or bar, hopefully) your access to firearms. However, that's very different from coming into someone's house and taking someone's firearms on a psychotherapists say, which, I must point out, is not what Ciretose is suggesting.
Do you really think Cho, Loughner or Holmes were going to be able to convince someone to make a straw purchase without raising red flags?
Against a system that's ostensibly in place but misses them anyway? hell yes.
The length of the list isn't the issue. The criteria will be set by mental health professionals.
The length of the list most certainly is an issue. It determines how many people you're going to have jumping through hoops vs how many deaths you prevent.
As to non-reporting, as someone who works in a profession where I am obligated to report any number of things, you are grossly overstating liability for discretionary reporting.
But doesn't that go both ways?
If the mental health professional releases someone now from involuntary commitment (which happened with at least Cho and I believe also with Loughner) are they losing licenses? No, because they followed policy and procedure.
But there is an annoyingly long review process and investigation, correct?
Now given the appeal process with certainly involve the doctor doing a ton of work to justify reasoning for the block, all while losing the income from working with the client if it is not mutually agreed to, I think it very unlikely this would become systematic abuse.
Isn't that what they said about ADD medication?
If you are a person who wants to buy guns, would you go to a therapist who has a reputation of blocking gun purchase, given other options. And if you aren't given other options (aka you are brought to the hospital because you are acting irrationally) I am fine with caution being the guide.
You're assuming that people really investigate the therapists and treat them as individuals. I don't think people are that smart. If Mr Jones the psychologist is saying that his clients shouldn't have guns , its not going to be perceived as "Mr jones is a quack that wants to take my guns", its going to come across as "all those damned shrinks are quacks who want to take my guns"
It isn't just about these three mass murderers. I work with people every day who should not be able to buy guns if they aren't on medications. And sometimes the medications stop working (even if they can afford to keep getting them and taking them) and then...
Well, if they really are that dangerous why doesn't it happen more often?
We can actually include suicides in the numbers of gun deaths for this conversation. Nearly 100,000 people get shot every year. The last stats I can find say in 2009 18,735 died of self inflicted gunshot wounds with another 11,493 from gun related homicide.
Annually.
You want to compare those numbers to your meteor or air crash?
This is horribly disingenuous number crunching.
NOTHING you're proposing would touch ANY of those numbers in a meaningful fashion. You are, specifically looking to keep people designated as crazy from buying more firearms. You would NOT prevent all firearm deaths and you KNOW that. You will not prevent gun deaths from drug deals gone bad. You will not prevent gun deaths from robberies. You will not prevent gun deaths from hunting accidents. I think you would cause more suicides than you would prevent by scaring gun owners away from the shrinks office. Most suicides are done with a gun someone already has lying around.
You cannot treat [all fire arm deaths in the us] as the much, MUCH MUCH smaller subset of [firearms deaths in the us caused by guns purchased after a psychiatrist has reported his concerns to the police] Yes, i will gladly make a comparison to THAT number, the one actually under discussion, with airline crashes.
If I am a clinician with a severely depressed patient, wouldn't it be helpful to all involved if during the 5 day waiting period I was notified my client was trying to buy a gun? Just as one example.
Geat. You're not paranoid they really ARE watching you.
I really wouldn't want the gun store or the government know i was seeing a shrink anyway.
|
|
All the gun store would know is you are flagged.
If you are arguing that nothing you can do to reduce the number of mentally ill with firearms will make any difference, you are in Andrew R territory.
The arguments you are making are the same ones made about the 5 day waiting period and the database check, but time has shown gun crime has declined dramatically since they came into regular use.
Brady passed in 1993...notice a trend?.
And so we now have evidence that restricting access works. The knife homicides did not increase to compensate. They stayed the same (look at the chart, sorry Andrew R)
Yet the numbers are still that high.
You are the one who threw out the meteor and airplane numbers, not me. I am saying we can further reduce gun deaths, and the trade off is a little more paperwork for people deemed dangerously mentally unstable. Likely a very, very small portion of society that probably doesn't need to have guns since, you know, someone who does this for a living thinks they are dangerously mentally unstable.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm in favor of the right to kill yourself.
Just wanted to say.
All the gun store would know is you are flagged.
And 4 drinks at the local watering hole later so would the entire town.
If you are arguing that nothing you can do to reduce the number of mentally ill with firearms will make any difference, you are in Andrew R territory.
There's a lot you can do. But I'm pointing out very specific problems with your proposal and you're insulting me instead of addressing them.
Things that might actually work
Make insurance companies cover mental health
Universal healthcare
Ban high rate of fire guns at the manufacturing level
Ban high capacity ammo clips
Decriminalize pot (safer than most prescriptions)
Even out the wealth distribution so that life isn't such a crapsack existance that eating a .45 seems like a rational alternative.
The arguments you are making are the same ones made about the 5 day waiting period and the database check, but time has shown gun crime has declined dramatically since they came into regular use.
I have little problem with treating everyone equally. I have a large problem with saying this group over here has these rights and that group over there does not based on a very subjective criteria, or pretty much anything but an individuals actions.
[url]Brady passed in 1993...notice a trend?[/url]
Yes. Again, I do not like handguns. But you're comparing guns getting into and staying in circulation for a very long time vs what is at best a shorterm bandaid.
And so we now have evidence that restricting access works.
But not to people who don't give one whit if they're breaking the law or not.
You are the one who threw out the meteor and airplane numbers, not me.
What you compared them to was all handgun deaths. You cannot treat [all fire arm deaths in the us] as the much, MUCH MUCH smaller subset of [firearms deaths in the us caused by guns purchased after a psychiatrist has reported his concerns to the police]
I am saying we can further reduce gun deaths, and the trade off is a little more paperwork for people deemed dangerously mentally unstable. Likely a very, very small portion of society that probably doesn't need to have guns since, you know, someone who does this for a living thinks they are dangerously mentally unstable.
How many gun deaths do you think you would prevent?
You keep dodging this point: Don't you think you would scare people away from getting help?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm in favor of the right to kill yourself.
Just wanted to say.
Yeah but i don't mind stopping someone either. If i save them and they change their mind they can kill themselves later. If they're depressed about a girl or a job or went off their meds and would have gotten better in a few days and DO off themselves then changing their mind is a bit harder.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah but i don't mind stopping someone either. If i save them and they change their mind they can kill themselves later. If they're depressed about a girl or a job or went off their meds and would have gotten better in a few days and DO off themselves then changing their mind is a bit harder.
I agree with this, too.
Yes they can, right now.So you stop a gun purchase, he buys a knife and kills himself. Way to go, instead of trying to deal with the suicidal tendency you just change the implement.......yayWho said that stopping a gun purchase was the end of treatment?
Given the statistics post in this thread about a page ago, giving those suffering from depression access to forearms results in a higher suicide rate; that's not rocket science.
I don't mean to be insulting, but anyone who really thinks psychiatric professionals being able to put their patients on a watch list will limit their own access to firearms should take a good long look in the mirror and decide if their own behavior is really that erratic. If so, seek help, they won't take away your guns as the laws stand now.
Except that isn't what the statistics show us.
The statistics show us that if there is a gun in the home, suicide is more likely.
If the gun is unsecured and loaded. Suicide is even more likely.
Both Switzerland and the US average over 5 firearm suicides per 100,000 people every year. England averages 0.33 per 100,000. The US and Switzerland also have higher suicide rates in general than England.
In the US, states with higher gun ownership have higher suicide rates than states with lower gun ownership rates. If you exclude suicides by firearms for both kinds of states, the suicide rate becomes very similar.
|
|
The gun owner only knows they are flagged "No buy", he doesn't know why they are flagged "No Buy.". Same as it currently is.
I don't think it would scare people away from getting help any more than people are currently scared of getting help. I don't think many people are going going "I would like to seek help for my mental health issues, but I also would like to buy a gun..."
I think the people who would be restricted would fall into two main categories.
1) People who are severely depressed who agree with the doctor while in a lucid state that they shouldn't buy guns if they later aren't.
2) People who are brought for evaluation, often against their will, and found to mentally unstable.
The first ones are easy, and can be done in collaboration with the doctor.
The second aren't seeking treatment, regardless. They are generally sent by someone else because they need to be cleared after an episode.
I don't know how many deaths it would prevent. If we give Brady credit for even half of the decrease,that would be about 2000 a year for homicides alone, meaning over 20,000 less handgun murders since it passed.
So lets say it is 100 a year between suicides and homicides. I think that is very low, but lets go with that as a number That is 1000 people over 10 years.
Now how many people do you think are going to be flagged that also wanted to purchase firearms and will be prevented from doing so?
The gun owner only knows they are flagged "No buy", he doesn't know why they are flagged "No Buy.". Same as it currently is.
Its not going to be hard to guess, since there's only two reasons.
I don't think it would scare people away from getting help any more than people are currently scared of getting help. I don't think many people are going going "I would like to seek help for my mental health issues, but I also would like to buy a gun..."
I think a lot of people would say "I don't trust those *(&(*#&$#$ shrinks and not go. Almost anyone that finds out they're flagged is going to stop seeing their shrink.
So lets say it is 100 a year between suicides and homicides. I think that is very low, but lets go with that as a number That is 1000 people over 10 years.
I think you'd get that many extra suicides, at least, from people not going in for help out of fear, or finding out that they're a list and not seeing their shrink anymore.
How many millions of dollars would this cost? FOr 100 people a year? I could save more people than that shipping veggies into the inner cities or replacing highway reflectors.
Now how many people do you think are going to be flagged that also wanted to purchase firearms and will be prevented from doing so?
20,000 , minimum. If the cops get a new tool to keep people they don't want to have guns from getting guns they'll be tossing them to the shrinks left and right.
I'm in favor of the right to die with dignity. If you're terminally ill, death is guaranteed and it's going to be long and painful, sure, go when you choose.
If it's a choice being made because of mental health issues, you probably aren't making a rational choice. You are going to cause significant pain and suffering, plus your disease may be treatable, giving you an opportunity at a long and happy life.
While I do think it should be a right, it isn't something we should encourage or allow it to be an easy impulsive decision. I say this as someone who's made an attempt before.
|
|
There are more than two reasons, actually.
Those people who stop seeing their shrink when they get flagged...I don't mind them not being able to buy guns.
I think you are making an assumption that they will refuse treatment when they find out they can't buy guns. I think you are underestimating the therapeutic relationship. I think most of the time the therapist will tell the person during the counseling process, and most of the rest of the time they will be asking they be added because the person is refusing treatment.
So your 20,000 inconvenienced by not being able to buy a gun doesn't bother me as much as the 1000 who would not be dead.
And that is not even getting into the "not shot" number.
So your 20,000 inconvenienced by not being able to buy a gun doesn't bother me as much as the 1000 who would not be dead.
Come on now, you can't compare a per year number with a per 10 year number.
You'd easily loose the bystanders shot in the extra suicides.
What you have is a potential constitutional violation that will cost millions of dollars to save 100 people?
You need to pay for the database computers, an IT department,
you need to pay for the courthouse, judges, and prosecutor
you're probably going to have to pay for the lawyer to the accused
I realize that given your job you have a higher chance of being one of those 100 but i think a little perspective is in order. The entire country isn't in your personal situation and there's other ways to save more people with that money.
think you are making an assumption that they will refuse treatment when they find out they can't buy guns.
I think there's going to be one report on fox news about someone that can't buy guns followed by a lot of people canceling their appointments.
If you think 20,000 people will be added a year who will attempt to buy guns, I think you are out of your mind.
And so it begins. I'm out of my mind, throw me on the list, I can't buy a gun the numbers will hit 20k in no time.
How many people are you expecting to be added in a given year for mental health that are not already on for criminal reasons? And of those, what percent are trying to buy a gun?
I can very easily see the police doctor shopping until they find someone who will keep people they want to bring charges against on the list. Its effectively what you wanted to do with the neo nazi. You can't charge him for his beliefs, but hey, if you have an excuse that he drove drunk why not find some way to parlay that into a ban on him getting a gun , or better yet some serious jail-time when he tries to get one.
We buy 14 million guns a year. What % of the population do psychiatrists think is too crazy to own a firearm? Is it really hat hard to believe that .0002% of those sales are to people that are crazy?
Are you also in favor of the "right" to die of preventable disease? After all, if people wanted to be healthy, they wouldn't make the decision to be ill.
How on earth does your mind make a link between A and B?
But yes, people have the right to refuse treatment for injuries or diseases they contract, as a general rule. Not knowing the law, I might expect there to be exceptions for people suffering from, like, polio some other virulent communicable disease that is imminently treatable.
But I'll reserve any further comment until I figure out what angle you're going at with this left-field comment.
|
|
If you think 20,000 people will be added a year who will attempt to buy guns, I think you are out of your mind.And so it begins. I'm out of my mind, throw me on the list, I can't buy a gun the numbers will hit 20k in no time.
How many people are you expecting to be added in a given year for mental health that are not already on for criminal reasons? And of those, what percent are trying to buy a gun?I can very easily see the police doctor shopping until they find someone who will keep people they want to bring charges against on the list. Its effectively what you wanted to do with the neo nazi. You can't charge him for his beliefs, but hey, if you have an excuse that he drove drunk why not find some way to parlay that into a ban on him getting a gun , or better yet some serious jail-time when he tries to get one.
We buy 14 million guns a year. What % of the population do psychiatrists think is too crazy to own a firearm? Is it really hat hard to believe that .0002% of those sales are to people that are crazy?
Nice hyperbole. Feels "truthy"
Now let me tell you how it actually works.
When a police officer is concerned about someone's mental health, they take them to the nearest hospital. The hospitals have social workers who do an initial eval to see if they can be safely released (either to the police to be booked or just released) and if they can't they are committed to a psychiatric ward until they can go before a judge.
This is very expensive for the hospital, as reimbursement is rare. The judge then is given a very quick and dirty report, which generally advocates for release from the hospital, because they aren't profitable to keep.
Most times that person has a charge, so they go to the detention center and any further eval is done through the court process.
But police also bring attempted suicides, family calls for mental health outburst that they don't want to press charges on, etc...and in those cases...well that is where Loughner, Cho, Holmes and a few people I've worked with over the years fall.
Most of the seriously mentally ill can't afford to buy medication, let alone a gun. Putting them on a "don't buy gun" list is like putting them on a "don't go to the moon" list. They couldn't afford it regardless.
Guns and ammo ain't free.
But we probably still want them on the list because, you know, they are crazy. But they won't count toward your 20k a year, since they aren't buying guns anyway.
Where we have a smaller subset are the people who must meet all of the following criteria:
A) Picked up by police or otherwise brought for evaluation to a licensed medical professional.
B) Either not charged with a criminal offense that would lead to a disposition, or having charges that were not able to be prosecuted for any number of reasons (including victim refusal to testify)
C) Were diagnosed by a mental health professional to be dangerously mentally unstable, but able to be released based on criteria.
D) Disagree with the evaluator about it being appropriate to be added to the "Can't purchase firearms" list. (I'm thinking most suicide attempts will fall under this, as once stabilized and no longer suicidal, my experience is they understand them having to access to firearms is a bad thing.)
E) Have the finances and desire to attempt to purchase a firearm and/or ammunition.
20,000 is a big number. I've been doing this job for about 10 years now and having someone meet all of the above criteria does happen, but not often.
But the people who do really, REALLY should not be able to have guns.
I don't disagree that maybe 20,000 people TOTAL would be added to the list a year. Keep in mind that would be 200,000 people in 10 years, which is a good amount.
But of those 20,000, I would bet between 80% (if not more) would do so voluntarily as part of the therapeutic process, as most of the people added would be failed suicide attempts.
And of those 4,000 how many want to buy guns in a given year? Or over 10 years? 30% of people own guns in the US I believe, so lets go with that number. So of the 4000 people who might be put on the do not buy list involuntarily because they are diagnosed as mentally unstable, let us say 1200 a year actually can't do so.
So 6,000 people can't get guns over a 5 year period. Let's look at just three incidents over a 5 year period where this would have come into effect.
32 were killed at Virginia Tech in 2007 (17 injured)
6 in Tucson in 2011 (12 others shot)
12 killed in Aurora (58 wounded)
And of course, those are just off the top of my head and in the news.
6,000 people can't get guns.
50 people aren't dead, 87 aren't shot. So 137 people aren't shot (again, not counting all the ones that didn't make national news...)
6,000 people who are believed to be mentally unstable by trained mental health professionals are unconvinced by not being able to buy firearms unless they complete an appeal process.
137 people are not shot. 50 people are not dead.
And before you say "We don't know if they would have gotten guns elsewhere" all three should have been on flag lists when they attempted the purchases that would have brought investigators to them, and would have prevented them from buying the guns used.
And these are only the ones we know about from the news. I know from my work these aren't the only ones.
Nice hyperbole. Feels "truthy"
Now let me tell you how it actually works.
This sort of comment needs to be followed by a correction. Your tone suggests you're correcting me but you're not actually arguing against anything i said at this point.
This is very expensive for the hospital, as reimbursement is rare. The judge then is given a very quick and dirty report, which generally advocates for release from the hospital, because they aren't profitable to keep.
And throwing someone's name on a list is incredibly cheap. Why on earth wouldn't you do it for any ONE of the criteria?
12 in aurora, as already stated, would NOT have been affected by this. He already had some of the guns before he was declared nuts.
Loughner apparently (as far as i can tell after being up way too long) never saw a mental health professional and wouldn't have been on your list: the college wanted him to get one but he dropped out. Unless you're going to give english teachers the power to declare people crazy or put him on the list for having a bong and painting a street sign too your proposal wouldn't help at all.
The argument for Cho only holds if you think he couldn't have gotten his weapons illegally: You're doing the math as if making it illegal will prevent all of it. It doesn't work that way. Someone that's not planning on seeing another sunrise really doesn't care what the penalties are for getting a gun illegally. He ordered the gun three days in advance and then picked it up. If he's going to put that kind of effort hitting downtown and picking it up illegally would have been easy.
We don't know if they would have gotten guns elsewhere" all three should have been on flag lists when they attempted the purchases that would have brought investigators to them,
Dude, the list isn't going to be secret. If you start putting people on a list when the shrink calls them nuts its going to enter common knowledge and people will act to avoid it.
Are you also in favor of the "right" to die of preventable disease? After all, if people wanted to be healthy, they wouldn't make the decision to be ill.
You mean like cirrohsis of the liver from drinking too much, lung cancer from smoking too much, or a heart attack from eating too many mozzarella sticks instead of vegetables? Yes, if you want to put it that way, I am in favor of the right to die of preventable diseases.
Is it really that easy to "hit downtown and pick up an illegal gun"?
If you don't care who knows about it in 48 hours, yes.
I mean, I get that professional crooks, gang members and the like know where to look for such things, but for people from outside that environment? I wouldn't know where to start
Do you just drive to the bad part of town and start asking people on the street? Flash some money around?
Cash, or if you're evading one of those instant background checks just pick up a hooker and have her (or him) buy it for you.
|
|
Is it really that easy to "hit downtown and pick up an illegal gun"?
Most states do not control LEGAL private party gun sales (so in those states, it is perfectly legal for a private individual to sell his firearm without getting a licensed FFL involved)...
Which means, no paperwork, no background check...
Literally, cash and carry...
However, if the person buying the gun through a private party is otherwise prohibited from owning a firearm, that person is still breaking the law...
These states also make selling a firearm to someone that is otherwise prohibited from owning a firearm illegal...
But then, the only way for the seller to find out is to ask the person who wants to buy the firearm...
Person at gun show selling a firearm privately: Hey, you're not prohibited from buying this are you?"
Felon: "Ah shucks, you caught me... Guess I can't buy your gun now huh?"
Did anyone besides you pack your handy haversack...
|
|
If you don't care who knows about it in 48 hours, yes.
And given all of these mass killings were planned out well in advance...
The shrink list already exists. All three of them SHOULD have been in the system. They only weren't in the system because of local refusal to enforce federal law.
Walking into a psychologist office for treatment is going to notify more people than a flag at a gun shop.
|
|
Is it really that easy to "hit downtown and pick up an illegal gun"?Most states do not control LEGAL private party gun sales (so in those states, it is perfectly legal for a private individual to sell his firearm without getting a licensed FFL involved)...
Which means, no paperwork, no background check...
In Colorado for example, it is absolutely legal to sell a firearm privately at a gun show (just walk around the show carrying a sign that says you have a firearm for sale until somebody buys it from you)...
Literally, cash and carry...
However, if the person buying the gun through a private party is otherwise prohibited from owning a firearm, that person is still breaking the law...
These states also make selling a firearm to someone that is otherwise prohibited from owning a firearm illegal...
But then, the only way for the seller to find out is to ask the person who wants to buy the firearm...
Yes. And this is, say it with me now, the problem.
|
|
All the gun store would know is you are flagged.
If you are arguing that nothing you can do to reduce the number of mentally ill with firearms will make any difference, you are in Andrew R territory.
The arguments you are making are the same ones made about the 5 day waiting period and the database check, but time has shown gun crime has declined dramatically since they came into regular use.
Brady passed in 1993...notice a trend?.
And so we now have evidence that restricting access works. The knife homicides did not increase to compensate. They stayed the same (look at the chart, sorry Andrew R)
Yet the numbers are still that high.
You are the one who threw out the meteor and airplane numbers, not me. I am saying we can further reduce gun deaths, and the trade off is a little more paperwork for people deemed dangerously mentally unstable. Likely a very, very small portion of society that probably doesn't need to have guns since, you know, someone who does this for a living thinks they are dangerously mentally unstable.
http://survivalist.com/doomsday-prepper-has-guns-confiscate.html
Example of "Andrew R" territory.
Tennessee, home of what your ideas are spawning.
|
|
The argument for Cho only holds if you think he couldn't have gotten his weapons illegally: You're doing the math as if making it illegal will prevent all of it. It doesn't work that way. Someone that's not planning on seeing another sunrise really doesn't care what the penalties are for getting a gun illegally. He ordered the gun three days in advance and then picked it up. If he's going to put that kind of effort hitting downtown and picking it up illegally would have been easy.Is it really that easy to "hit downtown and pick up an illegal gun"?
I mean, I get that professional crooks, gang members and the like know where to look for such things, but for people from outside that environment? I wouldn't know where to start
Do you just drive to the bad part of town and start asking people on the street? Flash some money around?
I could have one in less than 24 hours easily, but i know people that could do it. not everyone has that.
|
|
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/wounded-military-vets-guns-confiscated-by-d -c-police-and-he-cant-seem-to-get-them-back/
http://www.armedfemalesofamerica.com/crosshairs/gun_nuts.htm
Some more "andrew R" territory about the gov taking what they want
And this gem, Florida's Baker act. letting them take rights and property indefinitely yay http://www.bakeracttraining.org/files/faq/ba-weapons_contraband.pdf
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
HINT: If you're talking to an audience of people mostly more liberal than you are, citing the Blaze (an outlet established by Glenn Beck, the guy too right-wing for even Fox News to take seriously) and some gun-nut emags is not going to strengthen your position. Rather, citing those sources suggests that you live in a hermetically-sealed echo chamber, out of touch with the real world, and people will reject your argument accordingly.
If you're confident of your facts, getting them from more centrist sources -- or even citing liberal sources and pointing past the spin to show the facts -- is a LOT more convincing.
Remember, events are neutral; it's how they're reported that varies. But sources that are known to blatantly invent "facts" and events under the cover of "it's entertainment, not news" are not good sources for actual news in almost any case.
|
|
Yes. And this is, say it with me now, the problem.
I live in a state that requires any firearm sale to go through a dealer with an FFL; whether that sale is a PPT, purchase at a gun show, or a gun store, it does not matter. We also have a 10 day waiting period on all firearm sales...
The only exception to this is transferring a firearm to direct family members (e.g. from father to son, husband to wife, sibling to sibling, etc.) does not require any paperwork, background check, waiting period, or an FFL dealer...
And we still have a huge problem with gun violence...
|
|
HINT: If you're talking to an audience of people mostly more liberal than you are, citing the Blaze (an outlet established by Glenn Beck, the guy too right-wing for even Fox News to take seriously) and some gun-nut emags is not going to strengthen your position. Rather, citing those sources suggests that you live in a hermetically-sealed echo chamber, out of touch with the real world, and people will reject your argument accordingly.
If you're confident of your facts, getting them from more centrist sources -- or even citing liberal sources and pointing past the spin to show the facts -- is a LOT more convincing.
Remember, events are neutral; it's how they're reported that varies.
And despite what liberals like to think, the situations and laws those cite are real. Just because they are not bent to your politics doesn't make them wrong. But of course they cannot be bothered to refute the facts contained therein
And despite what liberals like to think, the situations and laws those cite are real. Just because they are not bent to your politics doesn't make them wrong.
Sources that are known to blatantly invent "facts" and events under the cover of "it's entertainment, not news" are not good sources for actual news in almost any case, simply because people can legitimately question whether the situations described actually occurred, or are being told as tall tales for "entertainment purposes."
Cite a liberal or centrist source and you convince a liberal audience doubly. Cite the likes of Beck and you're preasching only to the choir.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But of course they cannot be bothered to refute the facts contained therein
If you're citing facts and bothering to provide a link, it's presumably because you're trying to convince people. Providing a link that will convince them is smart. Providing a link that makes them think your facts are make-believe, and then telling them it's their responsibility to disprove it, is a losing strategy.
The burden of proof is on the person making claims, not on the person they're trying to convince. That's how things work.