If we don't focus on the mentally ill how are background checks supposed to work?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

Lots of people say we need to close the private seller loophole (I favor making NICS available to private sellers) and toughen laws against straw purchases (I'm good with that).

Many also say most mentally ill people are not violent. I believe them but we should acknowledge that the violent ones are. Moreover, these stories always seem to be accompanied by the line, "the suspect had a history of mental illness." Eliot Rodgers, Aaron Alexis, Jared Loughner, Adam Lanza, Seunh-Hui Cho, James Holmes, etc. are all examples of spree killers that someone in authority suspected of being potentially violent and yet those in authority did nothing.

If the objective is to keep guns out of their hands they have to be brought before the authorities and, through due process, be adjudicated as unfit to enjoy their rights. That is the only way their names end up in the NICS to be flagged against selling guns to them.

And here's a weird follow-on thought -- maybe while we have them before the authorities we can get them the treatment they need to no longer be tormented by the demons that drive them to these horrendous acts. Basic human compassion would suggest we would want to relieve them of the suffering they endure.

[Warren Stupidity]

1. They don't. They are a fig leaf.

What works is strict regulation banning the possession of full and semi auto guns and controlling the use and possession of other guns.

A less effective interim step would be limiting the number of weapons an individual can own, and the amount of ammunition an individual can store.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

3. "controlling the use and possession of other guns"

How do you stop an annihilation killer who has no intention of surviving? Laws only work against those who hope to survive the encounter

[Warren Stupidity]

5. It's worked effectively elsewhere.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

6. Except when it hasn't.

[ananda]

9. Which isn't once or twice every damm day...

... now is it?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

10. On the contrary, every time there is a spree killer numerous laws have failed.

You cannot legislate against someone who is immune to consequence and you cannot keep someone who plans for months at a time from finding the means to enact their plans, see: Andreas Lubitz.

[ananda]

87. This is a non sequitur.

Good gun-control laws do have an effect on the frequency
of gun violence. That was my point.

Your point is that no law at all can prevent a determined
person from committing violence.

By inference, I think you are trying to create some sort of
backward argument against gun control.

But that is not a logical conclusion to the fact that gun control
laws DO have inhibiting effects on the majority of people.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

88. "Good gun-control laws do have an effect on the frequency of gun violence."

Why have guns laws become more liberal while the homicide and violent crime rate has been decreasing?

But that is not a logical conclusion to the fact that gun control laws DO have inhibiting effects on the majority of people.

Except a majority -- an overwhelming majority -- are not the ones who need to be criminalized.

[Adrahil]

4. A couple points....

Fully automatic weapons are already heavily restricted. Legal full auto guns are almost never used in the commision of a crime, and at this point, many are historical pieces. I have an acquaintence who is a WWI history buff and collector. He owns, a no-kidding WWI machine gun. But for the size and weight, he is certainly not going to rob a bank with it.

As for semi-auto guns... Good luck. Will never happen in this country, IMO. That would be like trying to put smoke back in the bottle.

Guns are things. They do not have a will of their own. Maybe one day gun control advocates will be able to ban broad swaths of weapons, but realistically, the best way to deal with this issue is to dela witht he reasons people kill other people, unless we intend to go door to door searching for guns.

[backscatter712]

68. I'm all for regulating guns based on the amount of hot lead that comes out of the barrel per second.

Obviously full-auto weapons are already almost illegal. Manufacture of new Class III weapons were banned during the Reagan administration, so the ones that are left are collector pieces.

Full auto weapons, obviously, can send a hell of a lot of hot lead out their barrels - rat-a-tat. That's why they're so destructive, and why even in gun-happy USA, they're hard to get.

Semi-auto weapons should also become hard to get - you can fire off one shot for each pull of the trigger, and you can pull the trigger repeatedly and rapidly - BOOM-BOOM-BOOM-BOOM! Depending on the magazine, you can fire off up to thirty rounds.

Maybe people should be restricted to firearms that require a secondary action between shots. Say like a pump-action shotgun, where you have to pump a new round into the chamber before you can fire again. Or how about a pistol where you have to manually cock it or rack the slide before you can shoot again, so it goes down to BOOM-clack-clack BOOM-clack-clack. Slows the amount of hot lead coming out the barrel.

Between that and reinstating the ban on high capacity magazines, that could be quite helpful in reducing the death toll.

[pipoman]

84. ..

Manufacture of new Class III weapons were banned during the Reagan administration,

Wrong, there are new class 3 sold every day...corporations can and do purchase them...

As for the rest see "in common use for lawful purposes"....semiautos are here until there is a constitutional amendment.

[Snobblevitch]

97. There is an AR-15 type gun manufactured in which the

bolt is in the ipen position yntil a butten is oushed racking a round into the chamber. The trigger can then be pulled to fire another round. The rate of fire is not slowed down too much.

[kelliekat44]

45. Kids who accidentally kill other kids with guns are not mentally ill...their Parents are. Not every

death by gunshot is at the hands of a mentally ill person.

[bemildred]

2. They don't. This is obvious. Look around. nt

[Lizzie Poppet]

7. Stopping disturbed persons isn't their main intent, anyway.

The main intent was preventing persons with felony criminal records from buying guns at retail stores (and, increasingly, from private sellers...we just enacted universal background checks here in Oregon). Preventing sales to people with (adjudicated) mental health issues was a secondary benefit, since they represent a much smaller total.

But you make a very good point: if we want the system to do a better job of denying firearms to people whose specific mental illness means arming them is a bad idea, we're going to have to have a national conversation about just which diagnoses should be added to the list of disqualifying conditions. This will be challenging if we wish to avoid stigmatizing and penalizing those who don't deserve it, but it's a challenge we need to meet.

[hunter]

8. As someone with a "mental illness" I take powerful meds for, I find your post highly offensive.

Nevertheless, since I haven't been hunting for decades, and it's not a skill I thought necessary to pass onto my children, I've no need to keep guns around.

I've been in many very rough and violent situations, and I've lived in very rough neighborhoods, but never once have I felt any desire to own a gun. Guns tend to turn ugly situations into tragedies.

Parents in my city, a city of much higher than average gun mayhem, generally don't want their kids to have anything at all to do with guns. Guns make kids gangsters or victims of gangsters and the police.

In all honesty I believe anyone who likes guns isn't qualified to own one, and that includes most cops.

"Oh, but I love target shooting!" seems like a silly reason to keep dangerous guns around.

Keeping a gun around for "self protection" just seems paranoid.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

12. First, if you choose to be offended that is your choice.

Second, I speak about a handful of violent people who need intervention -- and I call for them to get the help they need to bring them peace -- and that upsets you? What next? Gonna accuse me of poor-bashing for saying, "feed the poor"?

Third, while you're taking umbrage for me wanting to bring help to a handful of individuals you seem content to collectively slander 80 million people who will never harm an innocent person.

The fake outrage is tedious. You want to be offended? Go ahead, you worked hard enough for it.

[hunter]

20. It distracts from the actual issue -- gun fetishism in the U.S.A..

Gun love is just plain weird.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

21. Controllers are the fetishists.

Ignore the career criminals. Ignore the handful of mentally ill with violent proclivities. Ignore poverty. Ignore lck of education. Ignore safety training.

Fixate on criminalizing 80 million people because GUNZ!

[Chan790]

23. Well...

[Nuclear Unicorn]

26. Because self-defense is a right and the misuse and abuse by others does not abrogate those rights.

[kcr]

31. Who is trying to ban self defense? n/t

[Nuclear Unicorn]

37. Who is trying to own a nuclear bomb?

I can point to grabbers demanding to grab guns with a lot more ease than you can point RKBA advocates seeking ownership of nuclear weapons.

[kcr]

38. Aww. And you said, "go for it"

With a cute popcorn smilie, too.

So, I take it you concede then that no one is banning self defense. Good. Maybe you'll feel better now.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

39. I do not concede. Plenty of Controllers demand people be disarmed up to and including

violence to enforce their ends.

Your nuclear bomb, however, is a worn straw man.

[kcr]

40. You do not understand what straw man means

And for someone who seems so passionate on the subject, you don't fully get the whole concept of self defense.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

41. No one claims private nuclear bombs are a practical means of self-defense.

It's just an absurd argument Controllers prop-up to easily knock over. Hence, straw man.

you don't fully get the whole concept of self defense.

Such as...?

[kcr]

42. Except I wasn't claiming anyone was making that argument

I was using an analogy. It is not a straw man argument to say that you think you're entitled to guns for self defense, is it?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

43. Okay. So let's play with your stupid analogy, which is stupid.

Why would someone want a nuclear weapon to defend their home and community? Could they support the development cost? Could they afford to maintain it? Would they still have a home and community after the use of it?

But they can afford a rifle and ammunition and using a rifle would not devastate everything they're attempting to save. It's practical.

[kcr]

44. It's not stupid

What is stupid is you claiming your right to self defense actually has anything to do with it, which was what I was trying to demonstrate. So you have a right to defend yourself. I have a right to keep rats out of my house. Those things carry disease! Your contention that no one should abrogate your decision on what to do about it inspired me to use a nuclear bomb as an example of just how ridiculous that individualistic nonsense is. Until you figure out a way to build a rocket and launch to your own planet where nothing you decide affects anyone else, you do have limits. Everyone does.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

47. "Your contention that no one should abrogate your decision"

No, I said abuse/misuse by others does not abrogate my rights.

Can you cite an example where guilt of a crime for one person is used to abridge the rights of those who are not party to the crime?

[kcr]

48. I'm sorry, but it does.

For one thing, you still have the ability to defend yourself. You just have to do it another way. At some point I would think that individualists would realize that all the figurative bombs of free choice going off everywhere would actually make freedumb more difficult. It actually works to reduce choice for most people eventually because you either wind up dead or so miserable you don't care. But thinking big picture may be hard for some.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

50. I'm sorry but you can't just make stuff up.

You don't get to wave away people's rights and tell them to settle for less by fiat. Someone who is no threat to you is just that -- no threat to you or anyone else. You do not get to invade their lives and dictate terms to them under the fiction of "the greater good." Every tinpot two-bit pissant tyrant claims "the greater good." And I bet if a pried hard enough I could find your pressure point where you squeal "Individual rights! Individual rights!"

You can walk around paranoid about 80 million people who have no ill will towards you if you want but that is your choice and it's a damned silly choice at that. You can ignore the handful of mentally ill who are actually a threat but that too is a damned silly choice and inhumane to those who need help.

Assuming you're really in it for the greater good.

[HERVEPA]

53. I forget. What is the well-regulated militia that all you gun folks belong to?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

54. Title 10 USC Section 311. Which Supreme Court do you belong to?

[HERVEPA]

60. About Title 10 (I'll take what was obviuosly meant in The Constitution)

You can have the blood on your hands.

Title 10 of the United States Code outlines the role of armed forces in the United States Code.

It provides the legal basis for the roles, missions and organization of each of the services as well as the United States Department of Defense. Each of the five subtitles deals with a separate aspect or component of the armed services

[Nuclear Unicorn]

61. I see you're unfamiliar with Section 311

[HERVEPA]

63. I read it, Ms. Pomposity. I'll still take the obvious meaning of the Constitution (nt)

[Nuclear Unicorn]

64. The obvious meaning of the constitution that since the militia supplies its own arms

the right of the people to keep and bear arms must not be infringed. You'll also find variations on the theme in 44 state constitutions, some far more explicit than your strained interpretation.

[HERVEPA]

66. Pick and choose whatever BS you'd like. I'm done with your crap.

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government.[9] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".[10][11]

[Nuclear Unicorn]

67. Interesting citation. Let's look at it without your dubious lifting it out of context --

In addition the Justices held that the Second Amendment restricts only the powers of the national government, and that it does not restrict private citizens from denying other citizens the right to keep and bear arms, or any other right in the Bill of Rights. The Justices held that the right of the people to keep and bear arms exists, and that it is a right that exists without the Constitution granting such a right, by stating "Neither is it [the right to keep and bear arms] in any manner dependent upon that instrument [the Constitution] for its existence." Their ruling was that citizens must look to "municipal legislation" when other citizens deprive them of such rights rather than the Constitution.

The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the "powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police," "not surrendered or restrained" by the Constitution of the United States.[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Cruikshank

Emphasis mine.

Of course, the case you're citing is where racists, as private citizens acting under their own power, attempted to deny blacks their 2A rights. The majority opinion you cite states quite plainly that the majority believes the 2A prohibits only the government from infringing on the RKBA but citizens can infringe upon citizens.

It's hard to see how you think this opinion bolsters your contention about gun control when it declares Congress cannot infringe. I'm curious to know why you make common cause with a USSC decision that paved the way for --

African Americans in the South were left to the mercy of increasingly hostile state governments dominated by white Democratic legislatures; neither the legislatures, law enforcement or the courts worked to protect freedmen.[9] As Democrats regained power in the late 1870s, they struggled to suppress black voting through intimidation and fraud at the polls. Paramilitary groups such as the Red Shirts acted on behalf of the Democrats to suppress black voting. From 1890 to 1908, 10 of the 11 former Confederate states passed disfranchising constitutions or amendments,[10] with provisions for poll taxes,[11] residency requirements, literacy tests,[11] and grandfather clauses that effectively disfranchised most black voters and many poor white people. The disfranchisement also meant that black people could not serve on juries or hold any political office, which were restricted to voters; those who could not vote were excluded from the political system.

The Cruikshank ruling also allowed groups such as the Ku Klux Klan to flourish and continue to use paramilitary force to suppress black voting. As white Democrats dominated the Southern legislatures, they turned a blind eye on the violence. They refused to allow African Americans any right to bear arms.

A legacy every gun grabber can be proud of.



So, you thinking about starting a private paramilitary group to deny people their 2A rights? Because obviously Congress can't.

[hack89]

73. So both the President and the Demcratic party platform got it wrong

when they both claimed that the 2A protects an individual right?

[HERVEPA]

75. yup

[hack89]

76. I think I will go with the guy who taught constitutional law. Nt

[HERVEPA]

78. Yeh, you go with the dead kids.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

80. So what you're saying is, by your own rules, if you don't support reinstating Prohibition

you're going with dead kids killed in DUIs, sexual assault, domestic violence, disease, violent crime and deaths from alcohol poisoning.

Your rules.

[HERVEPA]

82. Apples and unicorns

[Nuclear Unicorn]

83. No. No, it's not. You can try to pretend the analogy is not apt but there is no argument you

can make against gun ownership that cannot be applied to alcohol. But arguments for gun ownership include hunting, sports and self-defense; none of which would apply to alcohol.

Controllers just squirm and bray at the analogy while attempting to wave it away because they have no argument against it.

[HERVEPA]

94. Enjoy your gun stuff for the next week. I'm off dancing in a gun-free zone with non-gunners.

[restorefreedom]

92. jury results

On Wed Oct 7, 2015, 06:32 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Yeh, you go with the dead kids.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7239224

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Way over the top.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Oct 7, 2015, 06:41 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: In the context of the discussion, I'll say leave it.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I really get tired of the gun suckers hyperbole and stretching the bounds of their defense regarding the right to bear arms. they pick and choose what they want that to mean, when it clearly states that it's a well regulated militia.

this whole thread by the gun suckers is just inanity at it's highest. they always try to make themselves the paragon of constitutional rights, but they always seem to forget the other rights of the constitution are just as important as the 2nd amendment.

this is so exhausting.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Agree with alerter
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I've seen way more over the top posts that are left without an alert. The gun issue brings out the worst in people so I want to know where everyone stands up front. Let it stand.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[HERVEPA]

93. Thanks for posting.

[restorefreedom]

95. no problem.

big fan of transparency.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

24. "Controllers are the fetishists."

I think this whole conversation just hit bottom.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

27. The Controllers hit bottom years ago when they started cheering violence against gun owners

[Gidney N Cloyd]

28. My mistake. _Now_ it's hit bottom.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

36. Is it the fact some Controllers have violent ideations or my temerity in pointing out the fact?

[LanternWaste]

58. I like to pretend everyone is ignoring the criminals too

I like to pretend everyone is ignoring the criminals too as it allows a dramatic lack of substance more palatable to the irrational mind. Bumper-stickers are cool... but are to conversations as bubble gum is to the four food groups.

[beevul]

70. Yeah?

How many threads in the last 5 days about the shooter?

How many threads in the last 5 days about guns?


Case closed.

[backscatter712]

11. Congratulations, you're a sucker for the old NRA right-wing manipulation.

The NRA and right-wing always steers the conversation to mental illness by having their shills in the media howl about "the crazies".

It's a classic manipulative tactic, designed to steer conversation away from gun safety regulation that might cut into gun manufacturer profitability, and towards a convenient scapegoat.

FACT: Most mentally ill are not violent. In fact, they're far more likely to be victims of violence.

FACT: Most violent people are not mentally ill.

FACT: You can't use mental illness to distinguish violent people from everyone else. If you think that's wrong, SHOW ME HOW. How are you going to use mental health diagnoses, psychological analysis, and so on, on large numbers of people, and have a rate of success even slightly higher than rolling dice?

But by all means, continue to scapegoat and stigmatize mental illness, and make hell of the lives of the most vulnerable among us, so you can keep your stupid fucking toys. Just understand that it won't do jack fucking shit to actually lower the death toll.

Watch John Oliver and be educated.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

13. FACT: I never said most mentally ill people are violent

In fact, my OP specifically states --

Many also say most mentally ill people are not violent. I believe them but we should acknowledge that the violent ones are.

FACT: I also ID'ed those spree killers who did have a diagnosed history of mental illness.

FACT: I don't watch videos about serious subjects 'splained by people who make their living being unserious.

FACT: Most gun owners aren't violent either. In fact, the vast overwhelming majority of them will never harm an innocent person.

FACT: It's easier to interdict a handful of dangerous individuals who have a history with law enforcement and medical professionals than it is to lay collective blame on 80 million.

[inwiththenew]

14. Mental health needs to get more attention but

We’ve dug ourselves such a deep hole that it is going to take a generation or two to get out of it. Short of an outright ban and confiscation which is not feasible either legally, politically, or logistically, I’m not sure what we do.

I think we need all the mental health records to be compiled and put into the database that the background checks to flag potentially dangerous individuals. But even that is probably not realistic for the reasons listed above. That would be a tough fight that would take some convincing from probably both mental health and privacy advocates. The unintended consequence of that though is that people will not seek mental health for fear of labeled or flagged as a potentially dangerous person.

I’ve seen the idea floated that gun owners undergo psychological evaluation but would a mental health professionals be given any type of immunity if they clear someone and then that person goes on a shooting spree or would they be liable?

Now don’t take this as a maintain status quo attitude because I think something needs to be done but quite honestly I don’t know what if I’m being honest with myself. Back to my first sentence I think it will honestly take a generation or two to change the attitudes of gun ownership in this country.

And honestly even if we eliminated all homicides (one person killing another) whether justified or not we still wouldn't even cut the gun deaths in half. It would only reduce them by about 40%.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

15. I don't think we need "all mental health records"

A mental healthcare professional alerted police to James Holmes prior to his going into the Aurora movie theater. Jared Loughner was known to police. Aaron Alexis had a history of treatment but still cleared a BGC for his weapon and a military security clearance. Cho was diagnosed. Eliot Rodgers' parents called police begging them to apprehend their son and were in the process of searching for him themselves when he went on his spree.

These souls do not suddenly materialize from thin air. There is a building progression. We can get them the help they need without stigmatizing those who are not a danger.

[backscatter712]

16. According to real research:

Prior history of violence has a real correlation with violence, MUCH more so than mental illness.

Just from what I've been reading, if you miraculously cured all the cases of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression, etc. in the world (which would be awesome), you'd cut the overall violence rate by about 4%.

And I'm talking about the total violence rate, with all the cases that don't make the headlines, not just the sensationalized mass killings.

There are several strong correlators with violence: prior history of violence (as I mentioned), substance abuse (so I'd be for blocking people from purchasing firearms if they have DUIs, or are addicted to meth, for example), and easy access to firearms. Documented history of mental illness is not a strong correlator.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

17. "you'd cut the overall violence rate by about 4%."

And spree killers make up less than 4% of violent crimes but that is what the grabbers are fixated on.

and easy access to firearms.

Which brings us back to my OP.

How can we keep guns from people with diagnosed problems such as Lanza, Holmes, Loughner, Rodgers, Alexis, Cho, etc. without identifying them to the background check system? That will require they be adjudicated unfit to own a gun. That means someone has to identify them and make the case to do so. That means we have to look to identify them -- and subsequently treat them.

[backscatter712]

18. Do what Australia did. n/t

[Nuclear Unicorn]

19. Yeah, about that often cited but seldom scrutinzed talking point --

The 1996 "National Firearms Buyback Scheme" took 660,959[2] long guns, mostly semi-automatic rimfire rifles and shotguns as well as pump-action shotguns, and a smaller proportion of higher powered or military type semi-automatic rifles. Because the Australian Constitution requires that the Commonwealth may only take private property in return for "just compensation," the Government increased the Medicare Levy, from 1.5% to 1.7% of income, for one year to finance compensation. The buyback was predicted to cost A$500 million.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_buyback_program#Australia

$500 million for 660,000 long guns, mostly centerfire rifles and shotguns -- two weapons least likely to find their way into a spree killing.

And at $760 a gun it would cost around $230 billion dollars here assuming it A) passes federal constitutional muster B) passes state constitutional muster C) civilians comply and D) law enforcement enforces the law. So far the answers are: No, No, No and No

[hunter]

22. Oh, it's not just the "spree killers."

It's the toddlers and children shooting one another, the gangsters and police shooting innocent people, the insanely jealous people, the suicides... it's a long list of atrocities.

US boy, 11, held for shooting dead eight-year-old neighbour

Why do some mass shootings make the news and some don't?

Guns have a remarkable capacity to turn the rougher aspects of our human existence into horrible tragedies.

Why bother with them?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

25. How does misuse and abuse by one person abrogate the rights of another?

Guns have a remarkable capacity to turn the rougher aspects of our human existence into horrible tragedies.

Why bother with them?

That's a personal decision. You're not entitled to make that decision for other people.

Moreover, those who presume to make those decisions for others are deciding that those who would use their guns solely for legitimate reasons be turned into criminals.

In your anti-gun Utopia, if a woman were to shoot a stalker that broke into her home with the intent to harm her how long should be sent to prison for possessing and using the means to defend herself?

[kcr]

32. I have the right to defend myself against pests in my house.

So, therefore, I need this nuclear bomb. I have made the decision that this is the way to take care of my problem. Do not abrogate my right to make choices for myself. Because my right to to decide how rid of these pests is my right and shouldn't be abrogated no matter how it affects anyone else. That is their problem and I won't abrogate that. The abrogatedness of people thinking that my choice is wrong is just one abrogate too far. So, I can definitely see your point of view that self defense is a right and therefore deadly weapons that also happen to be used to slaughter millions is the only way! Those dead people and their families can just figure out their own problems. Don't let them abrogate us, NU! Stay strong! Say no to abrogation!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

33. Go for it.

[Nevernose]

71. That's twisting the research, IMHO

About 4% of NICS rejects are turned over for prosecution. That's an entirely different issue: what law enforcement feels should be pursued. Law enforcement (primarily policy makers, not calling out cops) seem to be mostly concerned with bullshit like pot smokers and keeping The Poors in their place.

(And to be fair, most of those NICS prosecutions are total pains in the ass and result in no promotions -- there's no incentive -- because the powers that be don't think that stuff is important. That's a top-down thing, and one that is beholden to the massive corporate interests funding NRA lobbyists. I'm a gun-grabber, admittedly, but I also agree with the NRA's statement that "we don't enforce the gun laws already on the books.&quot

[branford]

74. It indeed is a "top-down thing,"

and the people at the top, our Democratic president and current and past attorney general, who constantly claim the need to use all levers to fight the blight of firearm violence, do nothing in this regard.

If such prosecutions, and enforcement of the laws we already have, are not a priority, I don't know how anyone can demand yet new laws, nor expect that they would be enforced.

[upaloopa]

29. Look we can't keep guns out of hands that should

not have them. That is plain as the nose on your face. Let's cut to the chase. The only way to keep guns away from those who would kill is to keep guns from everyone.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

35. You can no more keep guns from everyone than you can keep drugs from everyone.

[bettyellen]

30. the Columbine kids got their guns because no backround checks- end straw purchases!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

34. There are laws against straw purchases and I support those laws.

[bettyellen]

49. but they happen more often when they can get away with no paperwork- she would not have done it

if there was. It was just too easy to buy them. That needs to change.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

51. So, returning to the OP. How would UBCs matter unless the mentally ill were ID'ed and

if they are ID'ed why aren't they getting help that matters?

[bettyellen]

52. We can walk and chew gum at the same time. We need more mental health services- and

a stricter permitting process. It's never been on or the other, that is just silly. How told you that- the NRA?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

55. Stricter how?

[bettyellen]

56. You can look a million places for good proposals on gun regulations- why pretend you need me?

That's bullshit, just like the either/ or nonsense you floated above.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

59. I've seen lots of proposals undet the guise of "common sense" that would have no bearing while

likely infringe on rights.

Personally I'd favor opening NICS to private sellers, interdicting those with criminal records and broader social services.

I would absolutely oppose registration and bans on features such as capacity limits, shoulder stocks and pistol grips.

[Lee-Lee]

46. And the girlfriend who did the buying and straw purchases

was never even charged with a crime- despite admitting she broke the law in arming them.

Laws that don't get enforced may as well not exist.

[mainstreetonce]

62. That is such an important point

We have to enforce laws against gun suppliers with very strict penalties.

[LanternWaste]

57. Many also say most mentally healthy people are not violent.

"Many also say most mentally ill people are not violent. I believe them but we should acknowledge that the violent ones are"

Many also say most mentally healthy people are not violent. I believe them but we should acknowledge that the violent ones are.

[HereSince1628]

69. For policy it's not a question of if mentally ill are or aren't violent

When you focus a policy it has to be for a justifiable reason. In the case of focusing policy on mental illness to control gun violence, the question must be do the mentally ill represent a significantly different risk of gun violence from the general population. This is necessary because of constitutional protections for -all- citizens including the equal protection clause

The answer to whether there is such difference for all classifications of gun violence and all classifications of mentally illness compared to the general population is very decidedly -NO-.

When the question gets parsed into different pieces relative to the type of gun violence the answer for a role of mental illness in a specific type of gun violence is decidedly -YES-. Gun suicides are quite definitively linked to depression and anxiety.

But solitary gun suicides are not generally acts of social violence. Social gun violence is gun violence out in society, it includes things like the use of guns in robberies, road rage incidents, gang wars, terror attacks, that include intimidation and shootings in workplaces, schools, retail businesses and public spaces.

Social gun violence would be defined as gun violence that occurs outside of personal relationships, which are matters of domestic violence. Social violence general also excludes violence of persons held in institutions such as prisons, detention camps, and medical and psychiatric hospitals. Gun violence by the mentally ill in institutions is rare and what occurrence there is is outside consideration of "public" policies. Institutionalized persons with mental disorders are prohibited from firearms.

Broadly speaking social gun violence by the mentally ill is statistically uncommon and does not represent significantly increased risks over the general population, which in addition to non-mentally ill members of society also includes a very large number of perpetrators of criminal intimidation with guns, and smaller numbers of people who commit acts of gun violence during acute acts of anger, persons involved in gang violence, persons engaged in acts of terror/political intimidation/rebellion, and persons seeking vengeance, etc.

The public's concern about mentally ill and guns, as demonstrated by very limited concern about the largest category of gun violence--guns used to intimidate during crimes, and by comparison a hyperbolic concern about the acts of violence, is the role of mental illness in intentional mass gun murders in public places against random persons.

Even in this much narrower slice of gun violence in America the role of mental illness is not as clear as one might think, and doesn't clearly support building policies that focus on persons with mental illness.

Mother Jones constructed a database of such mass murders in the US incorporating publicly available information from the 1980s to 2012. Not all of them included guns, mass murders by car and by airplane were included. In that database, about 38% of the murderers could be linked to evidence of clinical mental illness (caveat: only ~20-25% of people seek clinical help for their mental health problems, although persons with more serious mental illness have a somewhat higher rate of help seeking--probably because their daily activities are more impacted by the disorders). Of the events recorded in the database near 60% of the murderers could be associated with 'some' history of symptoms which could be indicative of the presence of mental illness (caveat: symptoms of mental illness are qualitatively within the range of normal emotions, thinking and behavior, what makes them a disorder is the degree and duration of dysfunction brought about by those symptoms. Moreover, about 60 million Americans have some mental disorder each year, so a very large number of people who reach late adolescence and adulthood have experienced some symptoms of mental illness)

So what we can say is slightly more than half of mass murderers between the early 1980s and 2012 have -some- perceived association with mental disorders, although only about 1/3 of the mass murderers have records that would support that. About 66% of intentional mass gun murders in public places don't have a record of evidence that actually established presence of mental illness at all. And that uncertainty means that policies for reducing this specific type of gun violence can't be directed at any rationally narrowed group of mental disorders. Consequently, denial of civil rights to a class of people is very hard to justify in a way that meets court expectations of equal protection.

In recent years, suicide plus mass murder has been on the increase. Because suicide itself is definitively linked to mental disorders, it's very likely that these events are associated with mental illness. But it's not entirely clear -what- mental illness... depression? adjustment disorders? dramatic personality disorders--paranoid schizophrenia? bipolar disorder? borderline personality? What??

The number of these events is thankfully small, but that small size makes statistical significant association hard to obtain for any particular known mental disorder. And there is no reason at all to believe that the psychiatric industry has yet named -every- mental disorder that occurs. For example, Post Traumatic Embitterment, a disorder described in Germany (that includes what we in the US call going-postal) a disorder with good diagnostic clarity, and a disorder for which effective therapy exists, was intentionally left out of the new release of the APA's Diagnostic Manual, mostly it seems because professional reviewers didn't like the use of the terms 'post traumatic' in the name (they fear it is over-applied and would add confusion to PTSD).

How do legislators justify targeting a class of people who can't be shown to be accurately identified. Well they don't need any psychiatric medicine at all to justify policy. They can use public sentiment, which is to say, cultural bias and perhaps even prejudice against the mentally ill (in 2013 a survey was published that found 90% of Americans thought mentally ill shouldn't be institutionalized, but that same survey found 80+% of Americans didn't want a day care center for the mentally ill in their neighborhood, similar percents of Americans didn't want mentally ill persons as neighbors or on their team at work. In 2013, a national survey found that unemployment among the mentally ill was about 80). And public sentiment currently runs very strongly that mentally ill -ARE- the workable part of the problem of mass gun murders in public places.

What caretakers and advocates for persons with mental disorders and persons with mental disorders fear is further criminalization of mental illness and greater institutionalization of discrimination against persons with mental disorders under the rationale that -even the government finds them too dangerous to be treated as full citizens-.

I'm all for ending mass gun murders. If there were clear justification for identifying specific mentally illnesses as a significant part of the problem I'd be ok with targeting persons with those mental illnesses. But as it stands, even among persons with serious mental disorders just less than 7% per year engage in -any- non-institutional violence, which is just shy of 2 percent above the rate of any violent acts in the general population.

And to be clear, all this long reply is just to address the problem of trying to focus policy against persons with mental illness that have a clearly elevated risk so that any policy/law meets it's constitutional requirements.

[DustyJoe]

65. Private sales

Lots of people say we need to close the private seller loophole (I favor making NICS available to private sellers) and toughen laws against straw purchases (I'm good with that).

Agreed, I see firearm ads in the weekly shoppers where sellers state that the buyer meets the seller at a store where a FFL holder is for the NICS check. The only problem is that not all FFL dealers do 3rd party NICS checks or they charge widely different fees for the background check.

Maybe a set fee schedule for NICS checks so sellers/buyers know in advance the cost. This would place private sales in the same arena as online sales where a dealer in a different city only ships to a FFL dealer and the NICS is accomplished at a usual nominal fee $25 typical in my area.

Of course private sellers would have to initiate the process by requiring pickup of the firearm at a dealer, that would be hard to force any compliance without full registration of all firearms first to know non compliant sales. I just don't see that happening.

[madville]

72. The majority of firearm deaths (60%) are suicides

And it is estimated that 90% of those suicides are related to some type of mental illness.

It's a combination of easy access to firearms and a lack of available mental healthcare.

The problem for those advocating universal background checks is how do you get these individuals into the system? I don't know what the answer to that is without bringing up a whole bunch of privacy concerns.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

77. Japan, which recognizes no RKBA, has a suicide rate that dwarfs our own. People need help

not gimmicky prohibitions that do nothing.

[Recursion]

79. The "mentally ill" are not more violent than the rest of the population

Though they are more likely to be victims of violence.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

81. The violent ones are.

[LannyDeVaney]

85. If only any other country in the world had to deal with mental illness ...

Sux that it only happens in America.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

86. Mass killings by the dangerously mentally ill don't just happen in America, i.e. Andreas Lubitz

[Nuclear Unicorn]

90. No u!

How about an actual rebuttal with substance and arguable assertions.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

98. Yet everything you define as objectionable for the mentally ill

everyone is proposing be done to those who are not mentally ill or having a criminal history. Where's the logic in keeping 80 million people who are not a threat to anyone in a database.

By the way, it is a gross distortion of my argument to infer I propose this for all mentally ill individuals when I have repeatedly added the qualifier "dangerous." As I noted in my OP, spree killers such as Cho, Loughner, Lanza, Rodgers, Holmes, etc. did not materialize out of thin air. They had histories with law enforcement and mental healthcare professionals and were considered dangerous.

But hey, it's so much easier to criminalize 80 million non-dangerous people because that's how some show they really care.

[B Calm]

91. Never met a republican yet that wasn't mentally ill.