The Gun Control Thread

[lesfunk]

well, probably. But it does raise the issue. If a troubled person thinks that they might be turned in. They might not seek help.

[jhale667]

Unfortunately, This discussion is turning into personal insults and Extreme vs. Extreme (Cherone vs. Cherone if you will).
Nothing really unexpected jumped out at me during The Presidents news conference.
Universal background checks are only reasonable cuntsidering the responsibility of owning and operating a firearm.
I'm not a fan on the proposed extended ban on high capacity clips as I like to keep shooting, not reloading.
The assault weapons ban? I need a little more studying on that one. Are we talking about Class 3? Semi auto centerfire?
The problem is that in general the owner/operators of the most lethal weapons are the most capable/qualified subjects.
Most guys who are going to get hurt or have an accident are shooting small calibre, easy to get weapons.

The mental health angle poses some difficulty. Obviously nobody wants unstable individuals to have guns but the dismantling of doctor/patient confidentiality causes obvious problems. The most important being trust between patient and doctor.
Many people seek psychological counseling with thoughts of harming themselves and to a much lesser extent , others with the idea of receiving help in solving those issues. If doctors are enabled and or encouraged to "tell" on their patients to the "authorities", the incentive to fully disclose one's feelings to their doctor, or even seek help altogether, is greatly diminished, is it not?

You make some valid points. I'd be OK with extended capacity magazines used (and remaining) at gun ranges ONLY, but no way does anyone need to own one for personal use - no reason for one unless you're planning on shooting into a crowd. Using one for hunting would be stupid - A) if you're that bad of a shot you should be getting your shit in a supermarket, and B ) picking buckshot out of meat is bad enough, who wants their venison or whatever riddled with bullets?


I don't think doctor/patient confidentiality would be impacted greatly - I think in most case people that are that far gone SHOULD be reported, but it'd be a rare occurance. But I mean c'mon, if you're dumb enough to publicly state you genuinely want to harm people, stands to reason you're too dumb (and/or crazy) to be trusted with a firearm.

[BigBadBrian]

Listening to the POTUS press conference, and he hasn't suggested anything unreasonable AT ALL.

18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.


I think that means ARMED GUARDS!

[FORD]

The willingness of doctors to go along with such surveillance seems minimal to me...

So you think it's totally acceptable for mentally ill persons to own guns?

[jhale667]

And whatever side in the debate you're on, the fact remains...

[jhale667]

Like that always helps...

18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.


I think that means ARMED GUARDS!

Yep, let's just hope they don't get shot first, or snowed in (like last week), or...

[FORD]

The mental health angle poses some difficulty. Obviously nobody wants unstable individuals to have guns but the dismantling of doctor/patient confidentiality causes obvious problems. The most important being trust between patient and doctor.
Many people seek psychological counseling with thoughts of harming themselves and to a much lesser extent , others with the idea of receiving help in solving those issues. If doctors are enabled and or encouraged to "tell" on their patients to the "authorities", the incentive to fully disclose one's feelings to their doctor, or even seek help altogether, is greatly diminished, is it not?

If the background check simply comes up with a red flag, based on the mental health issues without specifying why, then I don't see a problem. All the gun seller needs to know is whether or not a person is capable of responsible gun ownership. They don't need to know all the details of why they are not.

[ELVIS]

So you think it's totally acceptable for mentally ill persons to own guns?

No, let me paraphrase myself...

My idea for that would be the MD or even a pharmacist have a state (not federal) form that you sign when taking SSRI's or other dangerous medication that you understand that you may not possess nor purchase a firearm while taking said medication...

[FORD]

No, let me paraphrase myself...

My idea for that would be the MD or even a pharmacist have a state (not federal) form that you sign when taking SSRI's or other dangerous medication that you understand that you may not possess nor purchase a firearm while taking said medication...

This can't be a "state vs federal" issue. You can have the forms issued by the state, and a state agency ensuring that the doctors and/or pharmacists comply with the program, but the "red flag" on a person's name has to be accessible in a national database, because if someone is only prohibited from buying guns in one state, then all they would have to do is jump the state line to buy one.

Or buy them online from another state. And I'm not so sure that online weapons sales shouldn't be banned outright anyway.

[jhale667]

No, let me paraphrase myself...

My idea for that would be the MD or even a pharmacist have a state (not federal) form that you sign when taking SSRI's or other dangerous medication that you understand that you may not possess nor purchase a firearm while taking said medication...

OK, re-read your own post, and then apply your own logic:

So let's say you as a gun-owner are at some point (finally) diagnosed with a mental disorder. You gonna sign that and willfully let someone show up to "take ur guns"? Even if only until you're off said meds?











Yeah, that'd happen.

[chefcraig]

This can't be a "state vs federal" issue. You can have the forms issued by the state, and a state agency ensuring that the doctors and/or pharmacists comply with the program, but the "red flag" on a person's name has to be accessible in a national database, because if someone is only prohibited from buying guns in one state, then all they would have to do is jump the state line to buy one.

Or buy them online from another state. And I'm not so sure that online weapons sales shouldn't be banned outright anyway.

The flaw in that theory is the act of establishing such a database in the first place. Seriously, if the government fails to keep track of pedophile priests and unbalanced police officers, who seemingly roam unbridled from state to state, how is it going to keep track of far more voluminous gun sales?

[lesfunk]

No, let me paraphrase myself...

My idea for that would be the MD or even a pharmacist have a state (not federal) form that you sign when taking SSRI's or other dangerous medication that you understand that you may not possess nor purchase a firearm while taking said medication...

First, you'd have to have real evidence if not proof that taking SSRI turns someone into a killer. You won't find any because it's bullshit.

[FORD]

The flaw in that theory is the act of establishing such a database in the first place. Seriously, if the government fails to keep track of pedophile priests and unbalanced police officers, who seemingly roam unbridled from state to state, how is it going to keep track of far more voluminous gun sales?

Yeah, I know all about glitches in state government databases. Or even corporate databases, for that matter. Comcast being one of the worst examples.....

Not saying it would be a perfect solution overnight. On the other hand, it would create jobs for programmers and techs to set the whole damn thing up.

As far as the pedophile priests go, they're usually free to rape children in other states because the diocese they previously worked for refused to charge them with any crime, and merely swept it under the rug by shipping Father Pedobear out of state.



Corrupt cops often take care of their own in the same fashion.

[lesfunk]

This can't be a "state vs federal" issue. You can have the forms issued by the state, and a state agency ensuring that the doctors and/or pharmacists comply with the program, but the "red flag" on a person's name has to be accessible in a national database, because if someone is only prohibited from buying guns in one state, then all they would have to do is jump the state line to buy one.

Or buy them online from another state. And I'm not so sure that online weapons sales shouldn't be banned outright anyway.

That's not correct at all. In order to purchase a gun online, it must be shipped to an FFL where the state background check happens.

[ELVIS]

This can't be a "state vs federal" issue. You can have the forms issued by the state, and a state agency ensuring that the doctors and/or pharmacists comply with the program, but the "red flag" on a person's name has to be accessible in a national database, because if someone is only prohibited from buying guns in one state, then all they would have to do is jump the state line to buy one.

Or buy them online from another state. And I'm not so sure that online weapons sales shouldn't be banned outright anyway.

The feds can have their database, but the individual states should govern the programs...