Talking about it and doing something about it are two completely different things. I saw a lot of talk in that plan and very little action.
It all starts with dialogue...they used to say the same thing about women's suffrage ..you can water down the intent but it's an effort in the right direction
There has already been so much dialogue. They keep saying something must be DONE! Well starting a dialogue is great, but it doesn't guarantee that any actual steps will be taken to address the mental health crises in America.
What's going to come from doing nothing and just showing up at funerals? Anybody here got any better ideas about how to keep mentally ill people from easily obtaining weapons? I hate to think that writing my congressman is worthless because it's just a letter
I'm serious, I would ban the media from giving the name of the shooter. If the FCC can prevent you from saying words like fuck on the air, they can prevent the media from saying the name of a shooter who is desperate for attention. That would be my first move.
guarantees aren't ever part of a process...we're having a dialogue about it right now but doesn't stop us simply because they've been arguing forever about it.
In debate, if I were to propose a plan for gun control, I would need an agent of action. Example Who will provide this training? Where will the funds come from? We actually already have active shooter training. I've been in class when we've had to go through it. So is this assuming that there is better training, or places that do not conduct this training?
Background checks now in place to purchase guns are supposed to identify people that have mental health issues. However, the federal background check for gun purchases fails to catch many mentally ill people with violent backgrounds. 52% of all mass public shooters have already been diagnosed for a mental illness BEFORE committing a mass public shooting. Many of the mass shooters were seeing psychiatrists before their attacks. The real problem is, at this time, it is impossible for psychiatrists to identify mass public shooters. If they could, mass public shootings would decrease by 50%. I do not know enough about how the Fed background checks work, or what the problem is with the faulty checks of the mentally ill. However, this is one area that appears to need improvement.
I definitely agree that you have to start somewhere, but I truly believe the intent of Obama isn't with good motives. If that were the case, he would try extremely hard to tackle the major problems in inner cities and their gun violence. Maybe if these kids have jobs, they wouldn't be killing each other? It seems the most violent areas around the world have a very common denominator. They are all have an extremely poor majority.
There's two major issues that I see with trying to identify mental health risks and preventing them from buying a weapon: 1. Many shootings are done with stolen guns, so that right there would make background checks virtually irrelevant. The Clackamas Town Center shooting was with a stolen AR, so was the Reynolds High School shooting. So a background check would not have prevented either of those shootings. 2. If people think that they will be reported or prevented from owning a firearm if they see a psychiatrist, they simply won't see one. So that's problematic because then you have people who really should be seeing a professional, but won't because they don't want to have their freedom taken away.
I think @Denny Crane's proposal maybe solid with a few adjustments. Gun owners can be held responsible if their gun is used in a crime. Maybe not as extreme as he suggested, but enough to make sure gun owners are responsible with their storage of their weapons.
I think it could be something to look at. I don't think I would prosecute someone if their house was broken into and a firearm was stolen, but I would definitely look at prosecuting a parent who left their gun out where their kid could get it.
If you are a parent, and you do not take the time to properly educate your child and safely store your weapons, then you are negligent and accountable in the actions of your child. That's the way I look at it. If you bring them into this world, it's your responsibility to make sure they grow up to be a good human being. If a parent fails to identify the signs, and prevent these types of things from happening, then they have to be held responsible.
I do not believe seeing a psychiatrist will stop anyone from buying a gun. Many people going through a divorce or are having serious relationship issues seek professional help. Below is the actual wording of Form 4473 Federal Firearms transaction questionnaire, line F. The term “adjudicated mentally defective” is very vague and undefined. IOW, what the f*ck does that mean.
Well, that's not really what I'm saying. I don't think seeing a psychiatrist about your marriage is going to affect you, but if you have suicidal thoughts and you're afraid that they would take away your right to own guns, I could see some people avoiding professional help. Also, in terms of adjudicated mentally defective makes sense if you've been deemed unable to manage your own affairs, but it seems like people could be committed to a mental institution for a few different reasons that might not necessarily make them a threat to others.
