• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Trump's Second Term

shemp said:
Several sources seem to disagree with you.



www.nydailynews.com

Trump considers effort to ban trans people from owning guns: report

Although trans people comprise a tiny minority of mass shooters, right-wing figures have recently claimed that they are responsible for a disproportionate number of the attacks, including the Minne…
www.nydailynews.com www.nydailynews.com

www.newsweek.com

Trump's DOJ weighing transgender gun law proposals: Report

Conservatives have come out against the transgender community after the Annunciation shooting.
www.newsweek.com www.newsweek.com
Click to expand...
Yep, I owe an apology. But I have no problem restricting guns from people with untreated mental illness. Let this start that conversation.
 
Hercules56 said:
However, banning people from possessing guns if they suffer from untreated mental illness isn't a bad idea.
Click to expand...
Yes it is. For a start, when someone rocks up to a gun shop, how do you know whether they have untreated mental illness? Most untreated mental illness is also undiagnosed mental illness, because you can't undergo treatment for something that hasn't been diagnosed. This means that there is no record - which would be under doctor-patient confidentiality, by the way. Even if there is a record of their diagnosis and treatment plan, and even if confidentiality is breached, how do you know that a person is compliant with their treatment plan?

What you propose is a terrible idea, and completely unenforceable.
 
Andy_Ross said:
Gorka: "We will find you and we will kill you. If you're a jihadi with American blood on your hand, if you're a cartel member bringing powdered death into America, you have declared war on us and we will turn you into red mist. It is that simple."
Click to expand...
The administration stands outside the law. Piss them off and they will simply kill you out of hand. They are outlaws. The difference between the US and a gang of bandits now is essentially one of budget.
 
arthwollipot said:
Yes it is. For a start, when someone rocks up to a gun shop, how do you know whether they have untreated mental illness? Most untreated mental illness is also undiagnosed mental illness, because you can't undergo treatment for something that hasn't been diagnosed. This means that there is no record - which would be under doctor-patient confidentiality, by the way. Even if there is a record of their diagnosis and treatment plan, and even if confidentiality is breached, how do you know that a person is compliant with their treatment plan?

What you propose is a terrible idea, and completely unenforceable.
Click to expand...

Its not the subject of this thread, but ATF could require a letter from a PhD from anyone receiving any psych meds in order to possess a gun. Or we could simply require a letter from a PhD within the last 5 years stating person is mentally healthy to possess a firearm. Other nations do this, and it is legal as we already ban folks who have been institutionalized by a judge from possessing a gun.

If you wanna discuss this more, make a new thread.
 
Last edited:
arthwollipot said:
Yes it is. For a start, when someone rocks up to a gun shop, how do you know whether they have untreated mental illness? Most untreated mental illness is also undiagnosed mental illness, because you can't undergo treatment for something that hasn't been diagnosed. This means that there is no record - which would be under doctor-patient confidentiality, by the way. Even if there is a record of their diagnosis and treatment plan, and even if confidentiality is breached, how do you know that a person is compliant with their treatment plan?

What you propose is a terrible idea, and completely unenforceable.
Click to expand...
Just because, to quote a little from the link I poked at before -

If a person has schizophrenia, the likelihood that they will kill a stranger has been estimated, according to research, at one in 144,000. So, it's popular for politicians to say “Oh, I did something.” The myth is you have to be “crazy” to do something like this. So retrospectively, you look at people and you say, wow, this obviously – that guy should have been branded. But the truth is that most of the people, even of these anecdotes, were people who were very early on in their illness, who had not been identified as seriously mentally ill, who wouldn't have been on the list anyway. There's a couple of exceptions for that. So for the most part, it's stuff that's easy to sell as to say “I did something really important.” But alcohol accounts for a great deal more violence than mental illness does.
Click to expand...
 
Hercules56 said:
Its not the subject of this thread, but ATF could require a letter from a PhD from anyone receiving any psych meds in order to possess a gun. Or we could simply require a letter from a PhD within the last 5 years stating person is mentally healthy to possess a firearm. Other nations do this, and it is legal as we already ban folks who have been institutionalized by a judge from possessing a gun.

If you wanna discuss this more, make a new thread.
Click to expand...
Could you please provide a list of nations that require a letter from a PhD?
 
Last edited:
shemp said:
Could you please provide a list of nations that require a letter from a PhD?
Click to expand...
Nations with mandatory mental health checks for firearm ownership include Germany, which requires psychological assessments for applicants under 25, and Japan, which performs psychological evaluations and family interviews as part of its background checks. Other countries with robust background checks that may include mental health records, references, and security inspections are Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom.
www.csmonitor.com

In Europe, preventing gun violence often starts with mental health

In Germany and Switzerland, stopping shooters isn't just about strict gun laws. They also have extensive networks – social, governmental, and medical – to watch for and treat those who become unstable and may threaten public safety.
www.csmonitor.com www.csmonitor.com
 
Tomorrow trump will sign an Executive Order changing DoD to War Dept. Problem is, instead of 60 votes in the Senate, Google AI (I know) says a simple majority will do.

It's becoming surreal.
 
newyorkguy said:
Tomorrow trump will sign an Executive Order changing DoD to War Dept. Problem is, instead of 60 votes in the Senate, Google AI (I know) says a simple majority will do.

It's becoming surreal.
Click to expand...

Unless it directly affects the budget, no law can pass the Senate without 60 votes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom