The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules
document is now in effect.
President Obama Announces Planned Executive Orders for Gun Control
Posts
I was speaking in general about dangerous people from obtaining fire arms, part of what obama did was enable better background checks, which would have prevented Roof from owning a fire arm as he was awaiting trial for a felony and I believe had already been convicted of one.
pleasepaypreacher.net
So what you are saying is the first paragraph of your post has nothing to do with the second? Do you see where that might be confusing?
yea.. out of all the patients my wife has seen so far only one scared the shit out of her, and that guy was already in with a police escort. (she isn't a forensic psychiatrist so she doesn't see those types much)
I do think it's controversial to have a system where a patient's EHR is scanned and any diagnosis of X, Y, or Z mental illness is an automatic disqualifier. I do see how someone could argue either side in good faith (depending on what X, Y, and Z are).
EDIT2: I also can see why even if in theory the second could be a good / workable solution, in practice it would do more harm than good.
Ok and is the second part of what you said anywhere listed in what Obama did yesterday? I mean I admit I'm not the best at english comprehension but in the three proposals listed none of them were the second thing?
pleasepaypreacher.net
No, it's not.
I think people are arguing past one another here.
A theoretical 'should we / can we do this' vs. a 'yesterday Obama ordered this'.
So par for the course in any gun thread?
So just to be clear here. You feel using mentally ill in your argument to back the executive orders makes total sense and is on topic while refuting topics brought up about the mentally ill is completely irrelevant and off topic?
Are there like, gun brokerages or something, gunbay, or craigguns, where you say "[WTS] this gun" and the service performs the background check of the person [WTB]ing?
Which is suppose basically a highly focused pawn shop.
I feel the topic is about what Obama did yesterday? As in these are the executive orders Obama did. Maybe if you want to have the topic you want to have create a new topic?
And again you have not at all said what you have a problem with with what the president did yesterday which is the topic this thread is about.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Sure, you can always go through a FFL holder.
You don't have to though, which is the problem with the whole 'gun show loophole'.
EDIT - don't have to in some cases
Nor have you said what the mental illness has to do with Obama's executive orders or Dylan Roof. Stop being a goose.
Everyone agree that what Obama did yesterday specifically with regards to mental health was good?
Good? Good?
I don't feel that further demonizing a minority group is worth the ends that will be achieved here.
I wish we weren't perpetually on the cliff of austerity, because I'd actually like the figure to be much higher than that. 500m seems like such a drop in the bucket for such a prevalent issue that has been criminally underfunded since forever.
It probably should since the majority of the discussion has had nothing to do with the topic directly, but I will stop contributing to it.
That said the last two seem largely irrelevant to me. As stated earlier mental illness is not a predictor of future violent behavior in any reliable way. I don't see how it will help murder rate, and I suspect the rate on suicide will be negligible going off rough memory of suicide statistics. I don't think gun shot is a usually second time choice, and it really doesn't do much for first time given the nature of suicide attempts.
Just say "For any gun sale to be legal, it must go through a background check." but then also make sure there's easy ways to facilitate it so that doing so isn't really more onerous than listing it on ebay, and then there's a record of the transaction, so for liability purposes, say the gun being used in a crime, you can go "I sold it to this dude, on this day, who passed your background check, here's the confirmation code. Ball's in your court."
Of course a lot people probably wouldn't like the government tracking all that.
This is what always bothers me.
"The government can't track my (x) cause they're shady"
They government knows every goddamn thing about you already. You need government approval to hunt wild game or fish, to drive a car, hell to buy a car since all 50 states now require auto insurance at time of purchase, to get prescription medication, and to vote. (not approval exactly, on voting, but a valid ID is required)
This is a big money industry that didn't get the same foothold as the auto or healthcare industry using the NRA to bullhorn a 200+ year old document like Catholics do with the Bible so that we can't make changes that impede their profit margin.
Let's get one thing clear, guns are fine, but some people shouldn't have them. That's a fact and a proven fact whether people choose to believe it nor not (see: Global Warming, Evolution) If we start regulating firearms more, then the number of guns sold goes down, and that causes a loss in revenue. Companies fear this and use the NRA who employs fear mongering to rile up (predominantly Southern) US Citizens (and mostly Republicans) into thinking their freedoms are being infringed on.
It's all dollars at the end of the day, sadly.
I'm still happy about yesterday though, any step in the right direction is a good step.
I didn't insinuate that at all. In fact I don't find armchair quarterbacking all that annoying, that is kinda the point of these threads.
What I was pointing out is this is one of those topics that attract not just armchair quarterbacking, but armchair cricket bowlering. Where some people are coming from a point of near total ignorance, yet still make a lot of technical suggestions or statements.
I mean, if the thread was about automobile safety and someone posted "they should have some kind of straps to hold you into the car if there is an accident". While they would be correct; that is a great idea, it doesn't really contribute much other than someone needing to point out...yeah that exists already.
You know what? As long as doctors and psychiatrists are going to keep pumping immeasurable amounts of chemicals into us on a regular basis as a means to fix whatever problems they think we have, and as long as those medications come with funny little side effects alone, or when mixed with others (I watched a perfectly normal guy get fired when his blood pressure medicine mixed with his anti depressants and he pulled out a field knife and started tearing into some PCs here at MY VERY OFFICE), then I'm fine having that information sent to the government so they can say "hmmm... well you have no history of mental illness, but you know what, just to be safe since you're taking lithium for multiple personality disorder, you don't get a gun."
...
It really doesn't though. I get your point, and it's a good one, and the image helped, but modern safeties are nothing compared to what they could be on household firearms or hunting firearms. I'm not saying the military and police force need to adapt something like that (although a fingerprint trigger lock would be nice) but guns could be made MUCH safer.
What irks me is that we need to invest soo much money and time into making a device that fires a deadly projectile "safer" because parents are still leaving guns loaded, lying around the house where children can find them, but that's never going to change, and if you can't change people, you have to change the device.
The problem is, the first time a woman who just got out of an abusive marriage and is on lithium for depression is denied a gun, and her ex proceeds to walk through a restraining order and beats her to death, you've now got a martyr to hold up for why mental health holds on guns are bad.
And the pushback I'm seeing against what is probably the barest and most inadequate extension of those gun laws is mind boggling.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
Or change the law so that anyone who leaves an unsecured, loaded firearm where a minor can access it who goes on to kill someone with it is charged with negligent homicide. Right now there's literally nothing done. "Oh it was an accident, nobody to punish, oh well, another dead 3 year old."
yeah and if we decommission our nuclear arsenal then it makes us a target for North Korea, but are we really going to play that game? If only someone had a gun in that theater in Aurora, if only Donald Trump was in San Bernardido with his AR15....
Not only is that a really dangerous game to play but it's also giving random lowest percent chance scenarios vs the real likely scenario of someone killing themselves with a firearm, which in case anyone has missed the fact the last 400 times it's been posted, the primary cause of firearm death in the us is Suicide.
Which leads to fewer people getting treatment, which leads to more violent outbreaks. Contraindications and bad reactions to meds are not causing a noticeable problem in the minority of violent gun crime. I currently have to reassure clients I will withhold certain information from my notes in order to continue seeing them. Add an actual consequence? Not a great idea from the treatment angle.
As an example here, men are much more likely to be involved in a gun related death last I saw not in small part because of the preferred method of suicides different genders have. Should we restrict guns from all men? I am going to guess no because that seems like a pretty random and arbitrary method of restriction that doesn't really address any specific problem*.
*For those of you responding you would like to get rid of all guns let me preemptively agree with you. The question proposed is do we risk doing it piecemeal starting with a class we already discriminate against**?
**No I don't mean men. I shouldn't have to say this. I don't hate you reader, I hate those who pretend to be discriminated against.
That's fair. The topic started as to the validity and legality of getting HIPPA information to determine someone's eligibility to own a firearm and snowballed from there, and I helped in that. You're right.
of course if it ends up being exactly that i'll be right up there with you, government can do some good stuff.. and some really boned headed stuff.
Look, despite how long you've been in this field, and despite your (admittedly well defined) knowledge of mental illness, neither you nor I have a good professional grasp of what medication and it's combinations can or can't do in regards to violent gun deaths, notably suicides, and as it's been pointed out it's way off topic, so let's just move on.
While fair, it is worth remembering that current social stigma regarding treatment is enough to keep many from ever seeking it. Imagined legal ramifications, no matter how slight or rare, need to be carefully balanced against the potential for fewer people getting needed treatment.
Actually the understanding of suicide and medicine (general not gun related) is getting a lot better in recent years. Just as a quick aside that I will drop.
I know in WI, it is a Class A misdemeanor. Which really isn't harsh enough, but if your 3 year old accidentally killing themselves isn't enough deterrence IDK what criminal penalty would be. Then you run into the "They have to live with the guilt of X the rest of their life isn't that punishment enough" line of thinking.
I don't disagree for a second that if a parent leaves a loaded gun in the house with a child or person who does not have the knowledge to handle that firearm, and that gun is within access to said child or person and they then cause themselves or others damage, there should absolutely be a higher penalty.
That doesn't change the fact that they could also be made safer without everyone having fantasies of "but then the burglar will get it out of my hands before I can fire it"
well... yea... the US government will have to assure and explain everything as they define criteria which currently is unknown, and of course re-explain and counter and likely correct as plans get sussed out. (if things ever get that far..)
There is NOTHING safe about a loaded and/or chambered pistol (revolver or semi automatic) that doesn't have a safety, especially when every nerf gun, toy, movie, and cartoon on television features prominent heroes firing them at the bad guy. That's not a "tv and video games are violent" statement, but that shit imprints, and if you're telling me a two year old couldn't pick up a S&W M&P 9mm that you left lying around with a round in it and figure out how to kill itself, you're in denial.
Dude, reread what I just wrote, come on.
No I know, I read it, but there's a LOT of people out there with double action hammerless Taurus 38 revolvers. They're a REALLY popular carry and home defense piece and they're the easiest thing on earth to fire. I wasn't trying to bash you, I was just saying there's a lot of shit out there that doesn't even have a safety and stuff like the Taurus 38 isn't even intricate or complex.
They'll set some arbitrary limit most likely. Honestly I'd like to see all sales of a firearm go through an FFL. I see a lot of people on Armslist these days saying they'll only sell to non convicts who will meet in person at an FFL. Not everyone mind you, but more than I was seeing a year ago.
It would have been easier for him to say all sales go through an FFL who does background checks and then you'd have the gun stores that already do consignment having full shelves, and local businesses would flourish. Even Armslist would still do well because the shops could list there.
I know, my point was that it requires to be both loaded and left accessible. Put the same .38 on a bed with no ammo available and it's no more dangerous than a rock. Leaving one out, loaded and ready means they took every step they could to make it as unsafe as possible then act surprised when a kid shoots themselves.
Not that even unloaded it should be left out, of course. Heck I have my BB guns in a safe at home even.