Gun Laws

[Mr. Desmond]

Okay great, you found a poll that says mentally ill people should not own guns so how does the law read? 

Any law would have to be over reaching in order to ensure a mentally ill person could not buy a gun but this still cannot guarantee that they will be prevented from buying one. 

Psycho Johnny is 21, lives at home and has exhibited anti-social tendencies but his over-protective parents have not sought treatment for him out of fear that Johnny would be labeled as mentally ill.  Johnny goes to buy a gun, who and what checks will be performed to ensure Johnny doesn't get a gun?   If he hasn't been treated, then why would he be denied the right to buy a gun?

Does this check get performed on all gun purchases including rifles and shotguns?  Who is legally responsible for issuing the permit, the state or federal government? 

Why is it we hold the driver responsible when they drive drunk rather than pass laws that make it harder for people to buy cars?  Why not make dealerships do background checks on car buyers and make it illegal for DWI / DUI offenders to buy cars? 

Again, the issue isn't guns, the issue is mentally ill people going untreated or off their medications.  This mentality that if they can't legally buy a gun they won't hurt others is as insane as they are. 

The issue is guns - guns have one purpose. Registering them and closing loopholes which prevent background checks on certain loopholed sales -- online, gun shows, etc. will at least help track guns.

Why limit the argument to the mentally ill since guns kill people who may not show symptoms of mental illness until they undergo a divorce, terminated from their job, etc. I haven't thought out the complete program. Yes, there are issues. But let's start with those who are presently mentally ill or violent criminals/

Background checks -- why are you so defensive about a common sense measure? Why don't we have a federal registration of guns to make the system more efficient?

If people have to wait in line or arrive too late to get a drivers license, they are out of luck -  not so with a lethal weapon. Come on down! Who needs that background check? Grab a weapon.

Silly, stupid idiocracy.

Haven't we gone over this already, ad nauseum? You are not going to catch everyone with mental illness, you try to limit, you try to educate, you encourage parents for Johnny to seek a doc. It is a holistic solution that can help, only help the problem.

Guns have one purpose -- to kill, main, injure, or for responsible gun owners, in addition, to practice target shooting for sport and fun.

Cars - their purpose is to transport. When abused, they kill.

Legal Drugs - their purpose is to relieve pain or other maladies. When abused, they harm or kill.

The difference is their purpose when not abused.

So what you're saying is that it is all or nothing ... guns for all, or guns for none. That won't work. BUT we can take reasonable measures for a weapon whose purpose is destruction.

 

Edited October 6, 2015 by Mr. Desmond

[Pretzel]

People say that background checks wouldn't help restrict guns from the mentally ill. Why not have a "firearm's license", similar to a driver's license, that requires a mental evaluation before it can be obtained. You need to show your firearm's license at a store to purchase a firearm. If you commit any sort of crime that would currently restrict you from a firearm, or are deemed mentally incompetent when you go back to renew your license, the license would be revoked same as a driver's license. It would eliminate the cost/hassle of having a background check at each point of purchase while also providing a system that provides the same benefits. The system would also ensure that anyone who is authorized to purchase a firearm has at least received basic training on safety and operation to help limit injuries. 

I know I would be fine with that type of system, and it would also provide an easy way to track a firearm to an individual if necessary. Just link the firearm's serial number to the person's license number, and then provide a form to transfer ownership of a gun similar to the title of a car. How to handle older firearms with this system would be the main problem I could see.

Edited October 6, 2015 by Pretzel

[newtogolf]

My primary purpose of a gun is self defense of myself and family.  For some it's primary purpose is hunting.  These are just as justifiable positions as owning a car to get to work.  Last I checked guns are inanimate objects that can't by nature be be good or bad, only their use can be defined as such.

We're not going to agree, so you'll vote for the laws and those of us who believe this is just a gateway for all out gun control will vote no and in the end we'll see who has more votes.  I also have the Constitution on my side.

[Mr. Desmond]

That's all???  Well, crap, then why are we even talking about this?  I thought there had been a lot of shootings.

Never mind.

Most of the mentally ill have so many issues that they forget they wanted a gun before they can get one, or ask people to get one for them, and the person looks at them as if they are looney.

I was taking a guy for drug rehab to S Texas. During the drive, he turned from nice guy to wanting an AR-15 and expressing a desire to kill people. He later forgot about the gun or killing people until 2 days later. We changed the subject. 

Reagan was for the Brady Bill, the NRA actually was bipartisan some time ago -- but they turned and I wonder why. Could it be they became an arm of the gun manufacturers?

My primary purpose of a gun is self defense of myself and family.  For some it's primary purpose is hunting.  These are just as justifiable positions as owning a car to get to work.  Last I checked guns are inanimate objects that can't by nature be be good or bad, only their use can be defined as such.

We're not going to agree, so you'll vote for the laws and those of us who believe this is just a gateway for all out gun control will vote no and in the end we'll see who has more votes.  I also have the Constitution on my side.

Not really -- you have an amendment to the Constitution. Not the same thing.

[newtogolf]

People say that background checks wouldn't help restrict guns from the mentally ill. Why not have a "firearm's license", similar to a driver's license, that requires a mental evaluation before it can be obtained. You need to show your firearm's license at a store to purchase a firearm. If you commit any sort of crime that would currently restrict you from a firearm, or are deemed mentally incompetent when you go back to renew your license, the license would be revoked same as a driver's license. It would eliminate the cost/hassle of having a background check at each point of purchase while also providing a system that provides the same benefits. The system would also ensure that anyone who is authorized to purchase a firearm has at least received basic training on safety and operation to help limit injuries.

I know I would be fine with that type of system, and it would also provide an easy way to track a firearm to an individual if necessary. Just link the firearm's serial number to the person's license number, and then provide a form to transfer ownership of a gun similar to the title of a car. How to handle older firearms with this system would be the main problem I could see.

When you go to DMV the clerk performs a mental evaluation on you?  They don't do that here in NY.  They already do background checks for pistols in many states, but there's no way to do a mental evaluation. 

There are also many states that don't require a permit for rifles and shotguns, so what do we do with those? 

[SavvySwede]

Not when you consider how many "mentally ill" people there are in the US.  Roughly 25% of the population between 18-23 would be classified as mentally ill, which works out to over 60 million. 

I assume you put "mentally ill" in quotes because that isn't a real stat? I'm confused because I'm pretty sure there aren't 240 million people in the US between 18-23,  the whole country is like 320 million.

[iacas]

Interesting from Pew Research Center as to poll numbers regarding restrictions that Americans favor. Does it really hurt to close legal loopholes for online sales, private guns sales and gun shows?

Most Americans are morons. What do I care what they think? Ideally we elect people to govern who can make smarter, more informed choices than Joe Public.

Windows was more popular than Mac OS. Popularity is not the way to write laws. Guess what? Americans favor paying no taxes, too! Let's just abolish all taxes! It's the will of the people!!!

[Golfingdad]

Not really -- you have an amendment to the Constitution. Not the same thing.

A ridiculously outdated amendment at that.  Wanna go halfsies with me on starting a well regulated militia?

[newtogolf]

I assume you put "mentally ill" in quotes because that isn't a real stat? I'm confused because I'm pretty sure there aren't 240 million people in the US between 18-23,  the whole country is like 320 million.

You're right the stat was for 18 and over.  Roughly the research stated 25% of the US population would be classified as mentally ill.  I used quotes because the term is used loosely and could range from mild depression to schizophrenia and we haven't decided how restrictive the term would apply to gun control. 

[iacas]

The issue is guns - guns have one purpose. Registering them and closing loopholes which prevent background checks on certain loopholed sales -- online, gun shows, etc. will at least help track guns.

What purpose is that?

I can name a few:

• Target shooting (still an Olympic sport, or part of other Olympic sports)
• Hunting (still important for a lot of people… my family used to eat venison from the deer we'd hunt, and rabbit, and hunt groundhogs to help a farmer from having cows break their legs)
• Home and/or personal protection. Whether at home or out and about.
• Law enforcement.
• Military applications.

Yes, if you want to say "a gun's sole purpose is to fire a hard piece of metal at fast speeds" then you bet. But a knife's purpose is to slice things, and a bomb's purpose is to blow shit up, and yet there are plenty of legal uses for both. 

[TN94z]

What purpose is that?

I can name a few:

• Target shooting (still an Olympic sport, or part of other Olympic sports)
• Hunting (still important for a lot of people… my family used to eat venison from the deer we'd hunt, and rabbit, and hunt groundhogs to help a farmer from having cows break their legs)
• Home and/or personal protection. Whether at home or out and about.
• Law enforcement.
• Military applications.

Yes, if you want to say "a gun's sole purpose is to fire a hard piece of metal at fast speeds" then you bet. But a knife's purpose is to slice things, and a bomb's purpose is to blow shit up, and yet there are plenty of legal uses for both. 

Agreed! 

[SavvySwede]

You're right the stat was for 18 and over.  Roughly the research stated 25% of the US population would be classified as mentally ill.  I used quotes because the term is used loosely and could range from mild depression to schizophrenia and we haven't decided how restrictive the term would apply to gun control. 

Sounds about right.

[Mr. Desmond]

What purpose is that?

I can name a few:

• Target shooting (still an Olympic sport, or part of other Olympic sports)
• Hunting (still important for a lot of people… my family used to eat venison from the deer we'd hunt, and rabbit, and hunt groundhogs to help a farmer from having cows break their legs)
• Home and/or personal protection. Whether at home or out and about.
• Law enforcement.
• Military applications.

Yes, if you want to say "a gun's sole purpose is to fire a hard piece of metal at fast speeds" then you bet. But a knife's purpose is to slice things, and a bomb's purpose is to blow shit up, and yet there are plenty of legal uses for both. 

It was stated in my post. The primary purpose of a gun, when used, is to harm, maim, kill, whether for hunting or whether aimed at people, in addition to sporting purposes.  The reasons for owning a gun vary, as you stated, from personal protection to defense of the citizenry.

Personally, I enjoy going out with my son and shooting a rifle at targets, my 24 yr old hunts with a gun  during every hunting season. That's great.

I don't know where this discussion went from how can we close registration, purchasing  and background loopholes to prevent violence, to "You can take my gun when you can pry it from my cold, dead fingers".

That is not my discussion. What I saw was that this discussion started going everywhere, and lacked focus, becoming "for guns" or "against guns", when most people respect the 2nd Amendment, and only want reasonable, common sense restrictions. The flow of the discussion, I understand, will occur in a thread of this type, when we jump in, post, and jump out without reading prior posts.

I do not know what can be done reasonably to stem violence, but I think  a holistic solution involves more than registration and background checks. It will take a more educated American public, and as you stated, we are not there... and neither are our politicians.

[iacas]

It was stated in my post. The primary purpose of a gun, when used, is to harm, maim, kill, whether for hunting or whether aimed at people, in addition to sporting purposes.  The reasons for owning a gun vary, as you stated, from personal protection to defense of the citizenry.

No it isn't. The primary purpose depends on who is using it, just as it does when using a knife. Could be whittling wood, preparing a meal, or carving up a human body. Depends on who is using it.

Put your way, one could say the primary purpose of a vehicle is to hurtle heavy pieces of metal, glass, plastic, and human bodies through space at high speeds, too.

There are legitimate uses for owning a gun. Or a knife. Or a baseball bat. Or an explosive. The person is what decides whether the gun (or knife, or bat, or explosive) is to be used for good or bad.

I don't know where this discussion went from how can we close registration, purchasing  and background loopholes to prevent violence, to "You can take my gun when you can pry it from my cold, dead fingers".

Spare us the rhetoric. It's not there.

I do not know what can be done reasonably to stem violence, but I think  a holistic solution involves more than registration and background checks. It will take a more educated American public, and as you stated, we are not there... and neither are our politicians.

As I've said ten or so times over the years, everything I've read points toward the gun violence problem being an economic one. Canada has a lot of guns, too. So do other countries.

[newtogolf]

It was stated in my post. The primary purpose of a gun, when used, is to harm, maim, kill, whether for hunting or whether aimed at people, in addition to sporting purposes.  The reasons for owning a gun vary, as you stated, from personal protection to defense of the citizenry.

Personally, I enjoy going out with my son and shooting a rifle at targets, my 24 yr old hunts with a gun  during every hunting season. That's great.

I don't know where this discussion went from how can we close registration, purchasing  and background loopholes to prevent violence, to "You can take my gun when you can pry it from my cold, dead fingers".

That is not my discussion. What I saw was that this discussion started going everywhere, and lacked focus, becoming "for guns" or "against guns", when most people respect the 2nd Amendment, and only want reasonable, common sense restrictions. The flow of the discussion, I understand, will occur in a thread of this type, when we jump in, post, and jump out without reading prior posts.

I do not know what can be done reasonably to stem violence, but I think  a holistic solution involves more than registration and background checks. It will take a more educated American public, and as you stated, we are not there... and neither are our politicians.

It reduces down to "You can take my gun when you can pry it from my cold, dead fingers" because the current government is not trusted and there are no assurances that once subjective determinations are added to gun control laws that legal, sane, law abiding citizens won't be denied the right to purchase guns.

Right now the test is simple, have you been convicted of a crime or not.  There's no easy way to determine mental stability without consultative evaluations that are completely subjective, not to mention expensive.

These proposed laws also don't prevent a situation like in Sandy Hook where the guns were owned by a family member who was not mentally ill or when a the mentally ill person acquires them illegally.  

While I'm not trying to minimize the loss of the victims and their families we're talking about on average 9 incidents a year.  I also would add that some of the victims families in OK have openly stated they are against any additional gun control laws.

[Gator Hazard]

 

Guns have one purpose -- to kill, main, injure, or for responsible gun owners, in addition, to practice target shooting for sport and fun.

Cars - their purpose is to transport. When abused, they kill.

Legal Drugs - their purpose is to relieve pain or other maladies. When abused, they harm or kill.

 

Hey you named two or more reasons for everything but cars.  I thought cars purpose was to transport and to bone in when you don't want to spring for a cheap motel room.  When abused you may have to take off the next 18 years from golfing.

 

[AbsoluteTruths]

When seconds count the police are only minutes away. I my case the police arrived in 35 minutes. The culprit was lucky I recognized he was stoned and chose mercy.

[Pretzel]

When you go to DMV the clerk performs a mental evaluation on you?  They don't do that here in NY.  They already do background checks for pistols in many states, but there's no way to do a mental evaluation. 

There are also many states that don't require a permit for rifles and shotguns, so what do we do with those? 

I was saying you could implement a new system, with a suggestion as to how it could go. Obviously it's not exactly equivalent to going to the DMV for a driver's license, but a firearm is also different from a vehicle in a number of ways. The comparison is not 1-1.