Gun Control & the urgency of "Doing Something"

Discussion in 'What's On Your Mind?' started by KrazyKat, Dec 22, 2012.

  1. Rugape

    Rugape Original Member

    I am not in favor of any kind of database past the family and those that help treat someone with mental illnesses (and then only the kind needed to keep the diagnosis/treatment right). This is part of the problem as well, the fact that so many people are trying to nationalize things instead of letting them be handled on a local level. The people of a specific region would be better suited to determine what is culturally "normal" for that region (and consequently what would be far enough outside of "normal" to warrant intervention), and therefore better able to help families determine a course of action if one is needed.

    Even with psychological assistance from specialists, these scenarios only yield a tiny percentage of success. The problem seems to be the wide variety of mental illnesses and the differing social norms and mores and upbringing... The challenges of identifying someone that needs help are daunting, and being fairly understanding of human nature, but grossly illiterate of psychological processes for determning illness, makes me unqualified to identify a better path to get people help. Even if we improve our process by 100% over the next year, we would still only catch one in 50 people (on an exceptional week) that would go on to do something of this nature. There are people that snap every day, they just don't do as much damage as this recent one. You are right Krazy, all of us (including psychologists) do a terrible job of predicting these types of behaviors - whether through willful blindness or just not noticing.
     
    nachtnebel likes this.
  2. nachtnebel

    nachtnebel Original Member

    Agree. When has federalizing anything solved a problem in a satisfactory way? Everything's gotta be a round peg, and if you're a square one, that's just your tough luck. Absolutely don't want a national database, yet under Obamacare, we have one effectively don't we? The information is now available to the federals if you use insurance for psychological help.

    As Rugape says, the problem is a really tough one unless you want ANY visit to a psychologist or psychiatrist to result in an immediate flag that will show up when a NICS request is made during a firearms purchase or that would trigger a police visit to collect firearms. These things HAVE to be adjudicated on a case by case basis. It may be reasonable to make certain particular and well known and agreed upon diagnoses to result in firearms removal, provided there is a judicial way to appeal.
     
    Rugape likes this.
  3. KrazyKat

    KrazyKat Original Member

    Teachers (like the one who flagged the doodler in NJ) are not mental health professionals. God forbid if "normal" is the litmus. Social misfits are more likely to be artists and innovators than dangers to anyone, unlike angry self-absorbed young men.

    I don't think there is any substitute for a non-existent mental health care infrastructure there is no incentive to build because it's not a profit center. Of course if they could incarcerate everyone who is not "normal" then maybe there's some money in it. Maybe start by jailing everyone without insurance?

    Like the psychosis spectrum? That was not the profile in Newtown. But, OK. Will that make people feel safer? Cause not too many people who are floridly psychotic are driving around with high-capacity arms to carry-out planned killings.
    Accepting that, you've NICS tagged the people who HAVE been treated, not the ones who haven't.

    I almost hope the mental health aspect is ignored under this political climate. I pray that what you describe is as far as this goes, and the only rights that go along with it. DHS with a DSM is a recipe for Third Reich-style disaster.
     
  4. nachtnebel

    nachtnebel Original Member

    I don't disagree with this. It's not something that admits of an easy solution. The remedies I've suggested are somewhat like the driving laws in California, where a diagnosis of certain medical conditions (things leading to sudden blackouts/unconsciousness) leads to confiscation of the driver's license. As you point out very well, this doesn't catch the folks who haven't been diagnosed yet, nor does it catch those who really should not be driving regardless. My 90-year old father in law was driving long past the time he should have been, in a Mr. Magoo like state, but there was no legal way to get him off the road. The only thing in the end that got him out of his car was a failure to pass the written driving test, and even then, he got a three month extension. A car is a lot more lethal in terms of pure energy than a firearm..

    as a side note, what about the man who ran over 23 grade school kids with a car two days ago? Are we going to ban cars?
     
  5. KrazyKat

    KrazyKat Original Member

    Insurance, Nachtnebel, has come to the rescue.
    All gun owners could now need to be qualified and insured:
    http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/healthcare/274547-insurance-policy-against-gun-violence
     
  6. nachtnebel

    nachtnebel Original Member

    wow. that was quick. and who, praytell, do you suppose sponsored that idea...

    oh wait, insurance companies only drop you AFTER a claim. So, yeah, this idea would in fact work to prevent REPEAT offenders. So you'll just get to shoot up a schoolyard once... :(
     
  7. KrazyKat

    KrazyKat Original Member

    My dear Nachnebel, you misunderstand. You wouldn't be able to just buy a policy. That's not the "free market" they have in mind. The insurance companies would be the arbiters OF your second amendment rights, consent by virtue of your desire to exercize your rights anywhere at all.
     
  8. nachtnebel

    nachtnebel Original Member

    oh, I see. by "invisible hand" these clowns are actually meaning the invisible middle finger...
     
  9. KrazyKat

    KrazyKat Original Member

    Or prevent you from owning (not carrying, not purchasing) owning a gun if you had been robbed of two or more of same.
    Folks that have not looked at the Hill post Insurance Policy Against Gun Violence really should. Here's a comment:
    I think my earlier remark about locking people up who don't have insurance was far more prescient than I imagined.
     
  10. Frank

    Frank Original Member

  11. RB

    RB Founding Member

    Not such a stretch.

    All around the country your bank provides everyone's account information to each States Attorney General so they can identify any funds you may have to support child support orders. Behind on child support and need to renew your drivers license? I am not advocating against child support court orders, I personally think it should be a law enforcement issue, just not your local bank getting involved.

    Some of you might be surprised to see how government mandates financial organizations to supply account information without court orders or warrants but it happens everyday. FINCEN sends out a lists of names and every financial institution must search records to see if the names on the list has any accounts.

    Here in Texas if your property taxes are not paid you can't renew the registration on your motor vehicle. What one has to do with the other I don't know.
     
  12. Frank

    Frank Original Member

    Texas, like several other states, has a personal property tax. That's the tax being referred to.
     
  13. RB

    RB Founding Member

    Yeppers, if you own your home out right government can still take it from you if you don't pay your property taxes.
     
  14. Frank

    Frank Original Member

    That's a real estate tax. Personal property tax is a tax on cars, boats, airplanes, farm animals, things like that.
     
  15. RB

    RB Founding Member

    No, we pay property tax instead of a state income tax. The only state tax on a vehicle is a sales tax paid at purchase, not a property tax. If it was a property tax it could be deductable when filing federal taxes. Also if vehicles were taxed as property it would be an annual tax which is not the case.
     
  16. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    Just another way to kick poor people around -- the harder it is for the poor to make ends meet, the more government through these idiotic non-sequiturs will make it even harder.
     
    Elizabeth Conley likes this.
  17. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    Gun control is such a smashing success in Chicago that they just had their 500th homicide this years. It used to be "a murder a day in Chicago" -- guess that wasn't enough. But never fear, the corrupt local apparatchiks are slapping each other on the back for their alleged "overall crime reduction", having "slowed the increase in violence".

    Chicago Tribune: Chicago police confirm 'tragic number' of 500 homicides
     
    Elizabeth Conley likes this.
  18. Elizabeth Conley

    Elizabeth Conley Original Member

    http://reason.com/blog/2012/12/28/record-high74-percentoppose-handgun-ban

    No matter what the lame stream press states, pretends or implies, the U.S. is not a nation of ninnies. Yes, we have our share of ninnies, but most of us are sensible. The vast majority of Americans aren't in favor of gun grabbing:

    We don't have a whole lot to worry about. The lame stream is really excited about the possibility of some gun grabbing, but it isn't happening.

    Even I favor some gun restrictions. I didn't think Mr. Spengler was a good candidate for gun ownership. I thought he was the kind of guy the feds had in mind when they banned gun ownership for convicted felons. (I don't agree that all felons should be deprived of their right to bear arms, but adults who bash grannie's head in with a hammer forfeit the right to own a gun as far as I'm concerned.) When this silly wench

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/28/firefighter-slayings/1796797/

    bought guns for Spengler, she wronged society grievously. I hope they throw the book at her. Note that Spengler told police how he got his weapons. Sociopaths are like that. Sociopaths are loyal to no one. I'd feel sorry for her, but buying him guns was 7 shades of wrong.
     
  19. nachtnebel

    nachtnebel Original Member

    IF she bought them for the guy. She bought them. He possessed them at the time of the murders. He claims in his note she gave them to him, but doesn't he have a credibility issue? He had opportunity and motive to steal them, as the woman claims. The prosecution has a looong way to go to prove this. the press, as is their custom, has already convicted her.
     
  20. Elizabeth Conley

    Elizabeth Conley Original Member

    Fair enough. Thanks.
     

Share This Page