So, what does this say about the gun owners debate?

[SUBMAN1]

No second chance here either. Doesn't matter the tool:

http://www.nationalledger.com/artman...72621320.shtml

A gun just is convenient. So what. Bad argument. Apples and oranges.

-S

[Schroeder]

I think the intention of the OP was, that the thought that a lot of mentally unstable people have guns is uncomfortable.

[Platapus]

Well that is a tricky question.

My opinion?

I am all in favour of helping the mentally ill and making sure that they are not inappropriately discriminated against. BUT

There has to be a point when society (medical field and LE) should be able to state that this one specific person has such a mental illness/disability/what ever PC term you want that they can not be allowed to do XXX (drive a car, purchase a weapon. etc.)

This is what seems to be missing in our society. We seem reluctant to make that final but, in my opinion, responsible step.

"Mr. Cho as of this date you are not permitted to purchase a handgun and all handguns you currently have will be confiscated until competent authority states that your mental state has improved to the point where you can be trusted with weapons.

You have the right to appeal this decision under the following procedures....."

And then this decision is transmitted to all appropriate databases. Everyone has a right to privacy, but when they voluntarily choose to, say, buy a handgun, some aspects of their privacy must be waived (criminal background check, mental health database....)

To me, there comes a point when a person's mental state (illness, disease, disability, ...) may reach a point where society has the right and responsibility to prevent specific activities for the best interests of society.

This decision should not be made arbitrarily but in some cases it must be made.

How many stories do we see in the news about people getting killed, children being killed and the story describes the perp as having mental health issues.

If the mental issues were sufficient to indicate a potential threat to society, then why should not society take the appropriate but humane steps to protect itself????

The kicker is, of course, at what point in the mental health spectrum does a person pass "the point"? Unfortunately the mental health profession is still struggling with that question.

[jpm1]

in France the only weapons which are in free sale are the 22LR and hunting guns caliber 12 , 20 which have a limited range and rifles which can be lethal but which rate of fire is limited even for these weapons you need to declare them at the town hall and during the transport the weapon has to be taken to pieces or jammed with a security system which jams the trigger for example . if you want a dangerous weapon like a M16 for example your need to ask for an autorization at the prefecture and only if your police record is virgin and if it appears that your are somebody stable on a psycological level the autorization's given under some condition use in your property or a in shooting range only

[August]

Originally Posted by mrbeast

What I'm trying to say is that many people who do commit suicide never really intend to do so, and if they were restrained from doing so to just a small extent then they may well decide against it.

You'd have a hard time proving that i'd guess.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by August

You'd have a hard time proving that i'd guess.

Yeah, that sounds like something pretty hard to prove and might be more a bias against the act of suicide (which is abhorrent to some).

[1480]

Suicide is also the leading cause of death amongst police officers. I wonder what the percentage of those gun owners were in law enforcement. In 16 years I've been to my fair share of death investigations (defined as a dead body without numerous gunshot wounds, stab wounds, fatal traffic crash) , half being suicide, a small portion later turn out to be a true who dunnit, the rest natural causes. I can only remember four being self inflicted gunshot wounds (two were fellow police). Some, the running car in the garage, two being defenestration, one accidental auto-erotic axphixyation. The majorty were hangings. The hangings always were found by family, and it was always in the home. 95% of the police suicides that I became aware of were done away from home. It is the second saddest thing to see, I don't what to think about the first. I lost a coworker this morning, shot and killed attempting to quell a disturbance right outside of our station. The savage charged him and during the struggle disarmed him and shot him once in the head. The savage was shot six times by responding officers after the savage pointed the gun at them. The murderer will likely make their court date. Sorry, just needed to pour this weight off my shoulders.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

I think the intention of the OP was, that the thought that a lot of mentally unstable people have guns is uncomfortable.

Mentally unstable people are not allowed guns in America, so quit feeling uncomfortable. Any doctor can have your guns removed. Maybe this isn't a good thing. Anyway, only recently, you right wo own a firearm has a course that can be persued to get re-instated. Prior to last year, if some doctor said you couldn't have a firearm (though he may not knowingly have known you had any in the first place and simply said you were mentally unstable), it was pretty much a life sentence.

-S

[August]

Originally Posted by 1480

Sorry, just needed to pour this weight off my shoulders.

I thank you for your service Sir and I will remember your co-worker in my prayers.

[Yahoshua]

Originally Posted by Enigma

I own firearms of the sporting variety, and I'd prefer to keep them. I don't own fireamrs designed to kill humans, however.

Would you say your hunting rifle is less deadly than an M-16 or AK-47?

Or do you have some fantasy that your rifle is "ok" because your firearm was "designed for hunting" therefore it is less likely to be stuck with the "stigma" of being a "people killer" rifle?

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Yahoshua

Would you say your hunting rifle is less deadly than an M-16 or AK-47?

Or do you have some fantasy that your rifle is "ok" because your firearm was "designed for hunting" therefore it is less likely to be stuck with the "stigma" of being a "people killer" rifle?

Let me help him!

Hopefully i am not taking the wind out of your sails - but a hunting rifle is MUCH more deadly than an M-16 or AK-47.

-S

[1480]

Originally Posted by August

I thank you for your service Sir and I will remember your co-worker in my prayers.

Thank you Sir! That was greatly appreciated.

[Yahoshua]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Well that is a tricky question.
There has to be a point when society (medical field and LE) should be able to state that this one specific person has such a mental illness/disability/what ever PC term you want that they can not be allowed to do XXX (drive a car, purchase a weapon. etc.)

This is what seems to be missing in our society. We seem reluctant to make that final but, in my opinion, responsible step.

"Mr. Cho as of this date you are not permitted to purchase a handgun and all handguns you currently have will be confiscated until competent authority states that your mental state has improved to the point where you can be trusted with weapons.

You have the right to appeal this decision under the following procedures....."

And then this decision is transmitted to all appropriate databases. Everyone has a right to privacy, but when they voluntarily choose to, say, buy a handgun, some aspects of their privacy must be waived (criminal background check, mental health database....)

The courts DID find Cho Seung-Hue mentally ill and incapable of caring for himself.

However, the court system did NOT forward this information to the NICS center which would've denied Cho the ability to purchase firearms with which he committed the VT massacre.

Being declared mentally ill already puts you under jurisdiction of a number of other laws (but the logic of how exactly a person whom is determined to be mentally ill can be trusted to follow the law on their own is beyond me).

Had the system we ALREADY had in place WORKED PROPERLY, the VT massacre would not have been committed with legally obtained firearms. That much I know for sure.


This is the court order I'm talking about:

[Yahoshua]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Let me help him!

Hopefully i am not taking the wind out of your sails - but a hunting rifle is MUCH more deadly than an M-16 or AK-47.

-S

A profiecient rifleman will make any of the above mentioned firearms a deadly weapon in his/her hands.

[Yahoshua]

Originally Posted by jpm1

in France the only weapons which are in free sale are the 22LR and hunting guns caliber 12 , 20 which have a limited range and rifles which can be lethal but which rate of fire is limited even for these weapons you need to declare them at the town hall and during the transport the weapon has to be taken to pieces or jammed with a security system which jams the trigger for example . if you want a dangerous weapon like a M16 for example your need to ask for an autorization at the prefecture and only if your police record is virgin and if it appears that your are somebody stable on a psycological level the autorization's given under some condition use in your property or a in shooting range only

Could you elaborate a little more on how Frances' system works?

eg. what form does one fill out, what crimes or conditions exactly would forbid a person from being allowed to possess firearms, and do you have a registration/licensing process?


Here in the U.S., in order to procure a firearm you must:

-Be 18 years old to purchase shotguns or rifles from an FFL dealer
-Be 21 years of age to purchase pistols from an FFL dealer
-Not be a convicted felon (committed any violent crimes or grand larceny that would be deemed a felony) unless your record has been cleared and the felony struck from your records.
-Not have been adjudicated mentally insane (unless your record has been cleared and the adjuciation struck from your record)
-Not be an illegal immigrant
-Not be a fugitive from justice
-Not have a restraining order or indictment of domestic voilence against you

You fill out a form called a 4473 which affirms all of the above and declares that you're the person buying the firearm and provide information that will correctly identify you.

Once you fill out the form, I call teh National Instant Check System and play "mother may...." with the FBI for about 2 minutes than you're either cleared to buy the gun or I tell you "there's a delay in the system please wait about 15 minutes" and wait for the cops to arrive. (smile)




The whole process takes less than 15 minutes.....unless you want a Class III firearm, that takes about 60 days. Because god forbid that I would take a machinegun costing $25,000 to $30,000 to the local subway restraunt and start a massacre there, it'd be even MORE dangerous if I had a sound supressor mounted on it!!