How crazy is too crazy to own a gun?

[tyr_13]

Excellent idea fellas.

Now, how do you do that? How do you filter the mental health issues? I said once in one of these ridiculous gun threads that we need to address the mental health issue, maybe via mandatory mental health screening for gun purchase applicants. It was an idea, not perfect, but an idea.

Instead of counter ideas, it was hand-waved away with cries of "FREEDOM!" and "RIGHTS!".

So, how do you plan to do this?

ETA: I fully understand (as I suspect most do) that perfectly normal, sane people can snap and have a meltdown.

I laid out a plan to help address mental health issues and how the relate to guns in several threads. The assertion that you didn't get counter ideas and only got hand-waves of 'freedom' and 'rights' is at the very least hyperbole. Maybe that's the reaction you've gotten other places, but those reactions are fairly rare here.

EDIT: Which I'd love to link to, but keep getting a database error when I search...

EDIT2: Working now. Here is a fair compilation of points I've repeatedly post in many threads.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Is mistaking a 22 year old woman for a ground hog to crazy or reckless, or was that killing just one of those things that could happen to anyone?

 

[Mudcat]

Furthermore, production of guns at all ensures that Very Bad Things will be done with them.

Why not stop producing them then and remove as many from circulation as is humanly possible then? That would seem, to me, to cut down on the possibility that Very Bad Things happen with guns.

 

[Checkmite]

Not that it's possible to enforce; but on a meta level, if one has a casual belief that a certain person or kind of person "deserves to die", I think I would consider that person too crazy to own a gun.

 

[Minoosh]

Not that it's possible to enforce; but on a meta level, if one has a casual belief that a certain person or kind of person "deserves to die", I think I would consider that person too crazy to own a gun.

I'm female and have had the vivid fantasy of shooting a serial rapist trying to get in my door. With a shotgun. I don't know if I would consider it a "casual belief." In the '80s I lived in some crappy neighborhoods during a time when multiple serial sex offenders were operating. They probably still are, but a) the newspapers have stopped reporting most rapes and b) I live in a safer neighborhood.

Whether such men "deserve to die" wasn't the main point; I just wanted them dead so they couldn't victimize anyone else. I really didn't want to shoot a nonviolent burglar, or even a possibly armed mugger. My wrath was reserved for serial violent sex offenders.

I wish guns were less readily available in the U.S. but I'm not sure what gun control accomplishes. Only 3 percent of involuntary committals show up on background checks, per Guns & Ammo. Also, the checks do not help if someone has untreated rage or depression, or if they negligent in handling/storing of weapons.

Also, gun control often is pushed after mass killings but it seems to me that much of the time the specific legislation proposed or passed wouldn't have prevented the spree. (Full auto bans, limited magazines, assault rifles - people bent on destruction still find ways, by carrying multiple weapons, etc.).

There's also the critical mass issue. Unlike the UK we have so many firearms in circulation that limiting availability would disproportionately affect law-abiding people. Maybe new technology will mature to make biometric-screened guns reliable enough to satisfy gun enthusiasts. I've seen opinions that this feature must work 100 percent of the time to be acceptable. In theory I don't disagree. But if it were 99 percent effective, IMO it would prevent many suicides or accidental shootings.

That never seems to figure in the arguments against such technology.

 

[Belz...]

Just having some fun. These type of posts usually get the pro gun crowd riled to the point of derangement.

Aw ha ha ha ! We need people like you so badly in serious conversations like this. Doesn't give anyone bad impressions at all.

 

[Ranb]

Interesting. I didn't know that some states could ban them in general, even with the class III.

Generally states restrict firearms based on some sort of "feel good" policy or because they can rather than any genuine threat posed by them. This is why firearms like silencers, MG SBS, SBR and DD's are more often restricted than handguns.

If the 2nd amendment really was the all powerful sacred script that some claim it is then I would not be asking the ATF's permission and paying a $200 tax to register some of my collection.

Ranb

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I see so much fear and so little logic.

So do we...

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I'm female and have had the vivid fantasy of shooting a serial rapist trying to get in my door. ... Whether such men "deserve to die" wasn't the main point; I just wanted them dead so they couldn't victimize anyone else.

Given the specific fantasy here, I'd say you'd want them dead so they couldn't victimize you. If your goal is to kill such a person to protect others, you wouldn't be waiting for them to come to you.

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

Excellent idea fellas.

Now, how do you do that? How do you filter the mental health issues? I said once in one of these ridiculous gun threads that we need to address the mental health issue, maybe via mandatory mental health screening for gun purchase applicants. It was an idea, not perfect, but an idea.

Instead of counter ideas, it was hand-waved away with cries of "FREEDOM!" and "RIGHTS!".

So, how do you plan to do this?

ETA: I fully understand (as I suspect most do) that perfectly normal, sane people can snap and have a meltdown.

The answer is obvious. We need to take away everyone's brains because some people do bad things with them.

 

[sloinker]

Aw ha ha ha ! We need people like you so badly in serious conversations like this. Doesn't give anyone bad impressions at all.

You don't really think this discussion will actually change a persons opinion on this topic, do you?

 

[sadhatter]

Baloney. "Arm yourself" doesn't make you safer. You think it does because of the "fallacy of misleading vividness"---the (rare) case where a gun is good, i.e. a Hollywood-style armed-self-defense event, is vivid and exciting and easy to daydream about; the (common) cases where a gun is bad, like when a family member becomes irrational or suicidal, or a gun is stolen in an empty-house burglary and kills someone you've never met, are boring/depressing and hard to daydream about. This fallacy makes people ignore the common but boring possibilities and mistakenly think the "vivid" possibility is common.

Even on the "vivid" side, guns are not a defense, they're an anti-defense. A burglar breaking into your house is going to ignore you if you hide or sneak away with your bare hands. They're going to get away with your cash or your painkillers or whatever and you'll be fine. If you do one thing, anything whatsoever, that falls in the category of "self defense", you've made things worse than if you'd been barehanded.

Also, "arm yourself" instantly upgrades all sorts of minor misfortunes from "embarrassing/scary story to tell later" into "one dead and one in custody". Inquisitive children (yours, visitors), drunken anger (by you, family, houseguests), mental illness flareups (you, family members, houseguests), or fear/rage/mistaken identity) from "embarrassing/scary story to tell later" into "someone is dead and I'm in jail".



You don't have to have "criminals disarm themselves". You have to get the people who sell guns---law-abiding people like you, who buy guns legally and pass NICS checks while doing so---to stop selling guns to complete strangers. Which you're free to do now (it's even legal!) but you would not be able to do if the guns you bought had a legal- or financial-responsibility-bearing title connecting the gun's serial number to your name and address.

Imagine a car-sale law that said your car-insurance would remain active until a new owner's insurance was on file. That'd make it very, very hard for anonymity-needing people to buy cars; no self-interested person would sell you one if you weren't willing to attach your own name to it. If you make it the same way with guns, and gradually (10-20y) it'll deplete the supply of (and increase the street price of) the cheapo street guns that fuel most drug/gang violence.

That is quite a lot of faith you have in criminals to never be violent. Is like to love on your planet i really would but i can't really find it.

The mtg that every criminal is some top hat wearing gentleman makes me giggle, and tells me the people promoting it hasn't experienced a home invasion or other violent

By your logic even police don't need to be armed, just let the criminals do their thing and they won't hurt anyone, right?

 

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

The Virginia Tech shooter had been accused of stalking two young women, had been diagnosed with two different mental illnesses, had been declared mentally ill by a court and had been ordered by that same court to seek treatment.

And yet he was able to get two guns anyway.

So how is this?

If you have threatened two women, have more than one mental illness and have been declared mentally ill by a judge, you don't get a gun for the next 7 years.

Is that reasonable?

 

[Cylinder]

The Virginia Tech shooter had been accused of stalking two young women, had been diagnosed with two different mental illnesses, had been declared mentally ill by a court and had been ordered by that same court to seek treatment.

And yet he was able to get two guns anyway.

So how is this?

Cho was not committed by any court to an inpatient mental health facility, thus he was never included in the database of persons prohibited from purchasing a firearm in that state.

So how is this?

If you have threatened two women, have more than one mental illness and have been declared mentally ill by a judge, you don't get a gun for the next 7 years.

Is that reasonable?

Threaten two women sounds fairly reasonable with due process qualification. A mechanism exists -- parole, probation or suspended imposition of sentence with the condition that the supervised person not possess firearms. Of course, you have to define threaten.

Have more than one mental illness is a bit broad. I was treated for episodic anxiety and depression many years ago on occasion of the sudden and traumatic death of my brother which caused the breakup of a long-term relationship. Nothing in the course of that treatment suggests that I should be prevented by a court from possessing firearms. In actual fact, my primary care physician counseled me about the risk of sudden suicidal thoughts and the level of stress I was under. I support non-punitive orders preventing the possession of firearms for people who are experiencing some profound traumatic episode. This already exists in the form of the various statues regarding people presenting symptoms of self-harm or danger to others in a clinical setting. Again, there are serious due process concerns. The job there is addressing patient privacy, due process and the protection of the public in a manner that satisfies all concerns.

Courts don't really diagnose mental illness -- they make a finding of fact that a person is incapable of managing their own affairs. Looking to the court for a medical diagnosis is not the direction I want to see return. As history illustrates, this is very prone to abuse and the simple error of having a person trained and experienced in law to pretend that experience is useful as a diagnostic tool.

 

[ben m]

That is quite a lot of faith you have in criminals to never be violent. Is like to love on your planet i really would but i can't really find it.

When did words like "never" come into it? Can't we talk about activities with better or worse odds? I guess not, gun nuts like everything to be black and white.

You have faith that a good guy always correctly intuit whether they're going to be threatened or not---never, e.g., mistaking a conflict-averse cat burglar for a violent attacker? You have faith that a good guy drawing a gun always defuses the situation, never escalate it? You have faith that a gun in a good guy's house only gets used, by the good guy, for good, against bad guys, never by a mentally-ill family member? I'd like to live on that planet but I really can't find it, either.

 

[12AX7]

Knives, guns and a lot of other multi-purpose tools can be used as weapons. I think it makes more sense to address the problem cause (crazy people) rather than some of the tools they might use to assault people. Otherwise, you still have crazy people that could assault people.

So when you said the above, you were just paying lip service; you have no real ideas or desire to address the mental health issues in question.

The answer is obvious. We need to take away everyone's brains because some people do bad things with them.

Thanks.

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

So when you said the above, you were just paying lip service; you have no real ideas or desire to address the mental health issues in question.



Thanks.

You are incorrect, sir. I have the desire to have these issues addressed but since I am not a mental health professional I'm not going to pretend to know the best way to do it.

 

[autumn1971]

You are incorrect, sir. I have the desire to have these issues addressed but since I am not a mental health professional I'm not going to pretend to know the best way to do it.

Aw. You're doing the internet wrong.

 

[Olowkow]

The gunman that just killed himself and six others at UCSB was probably not crazy in the same sense that the school shooter Lanza was. He was just a total jerk apparently who couldn't get laid. There are unfortunately very likely many people with deep seated anger about all kinds of issues who likely will not kill anyone with a knife or a baseball bat in a fit of road rage or a political argument. But introduce a handgun into the mix, and all bets are off even if the person has the outward appearance of a character right out of Leave it to Beaver.

The image in this link of a guy in a Starbucks or a Chipotle suggests to me some kind of mental problem or psychological inadequacy, and if I were in line and saw someone other than a cop sporting a gun, I'd just leave the store. There is some kind of odd misplaced pride being exhibited that I cannot relate to easily, and it generates a bit of unease in me in a public place. I think also that this individual proudly exhibiting his security device very likely doesn't understand that he would probably be the first one shot by the crazy dude that he so fervently wants to fantasize about defending unarmed citizens against. A psychopathic predator doesn't have to be an idiot; he would surely look around for obvious hazards such as some macho looking guy jauntily sporting his expensive toy at his side, and have the element of surprise.

Even off duty cops, who are required to carry their weapon at all times, don't openly carry--at least the ones I know of. The image of a guy with a handgun holster on his belt strikes me as his living out some wild west paranoid fantasy to me, and my snap judgement of him is "What a jerk!" I then figure, jerks shouldn't be carrying guns, this is not a safe situation, so I leave. And then the fools with their assault rifles in Chipotle grinning ear to ear at how clever they are for owning a weapon of war, rather than any skill in using or properly displaying it. I guess that's a way of getting chicks, or in this case, asked to leave a restaurant.

I'm seeing more and more "no guns" signs these days, at the fitness center, at the country club, in several restaurants etc. I wonder what happens when obvious handgun man wants to get lunch at Taffies, and he is refused service. What happens if this issue begins to cost Taffies business customers, and money?

Is this situation similar to "No shirt, no shoes, no service?" I have the right not to wear shoes, but a good case can be made that I don't have the right to go barefoot in an eating establishment forcing everyone else to smell my feet.

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

States with concealed carry laws usually make some provisions for businesses to restrict them. In SC the signs must be a certain size and properly displayed so that no one can say they didn't know guns were not allowed. The appropriate response when you see someone violating this restriction is to call the police.