The article goes on to describe the slipshod methods that allow drug abusers and even criminals to end up not making the NICS database.Ohio has identified 26,876 mental health cases and forwarded those since the state passed a law in 2004. But 23 states and the District of Columbia have submitted fewer than 100 mental health records to the federal database.
Seventeen states submitted fewer than 10 mental health records, and four states haven’t submitted any records.
The whole system needs to be revamped. Then we need background checks on all gun sales, licensing of all gun owners and registration of every gun sold.
The irony about all the arguments against this is that the ones making the arguments would be little affected. Law-abiding mentally-sound individuals would continue to have their precious guns under the most stringent of gun control systems.
But, if those regulations about background checks, registration and licensing were in effect, can you imagine how many unfit prople would be prevented from getting guns? Common sense and honesty is all it takes to see this is the right way to go. Opposition is immoral.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
"Ohio has identified 26,876 mental health cases and forwarded those since the state passed a law in 2004. But 23 states and the District of Columbia have submitted fewer than 100 mental health records to the federal database."
ReplyDeleteMaybe there is just far more crazy people in Ohio than those other states and DC. I've been to the Jackson, OH Wal-Mart--it is a possibility.
Once again, you're restricting rights of people who have been committed of no crime. If by background checks, you mean criminal convictions, I don't object, especially if such records are public and free. When you toss in mental health records, though, you introduce lots of potential for abuse.
ReplyDeleteOpposition is immoral? Trying to take away rights is immoral.
Mikeb302000,
ReplyDeleteBackground checks on all sales, licensing of all gun owners, and registration for every gun sold? How does that correct the fact that states aren't reporting criminal and mental health records to NCIS?
Can't you see that your proposals have nothing to do with the problem that you claim to want to solve?
GC wrote:
ReplyDeleteBackground checks on all sales, licensing of all gun owners, and registration for every gun sold? How does that correct the fact that states aren't reporting criminal and mental health records to NCIS?
Duh? We want cooperation of states with the data base to be made mandatory, AND licensing of gun owners, AND registration for guns sold AND strict requirements for gun safe and secure storage.
THOSE things in combination would make an enormous improvement.
What I don't want to do is to deny people legal gun ownership, particularly those who hunt or enjoy shooting sports, or even self-defense in their home where appropriate.
Greg Camp:
ReplyDeleteDisingenuousness on your part does not lead to gullibility on our part.
100% state compliance with the provisions in the original bill would allow the feds and the states, working in concert, to remove guns from the hands of those who were a danger to themselves or others--base on arrest records and mental health screening. KKKrazzeepants people running around with gunz or just normally nutty folks, for that matter, creates the opposite of a "free and polite society".
You obviously have no concern for anyone but yourself--none.
The stated problem was that states aren't reporting to NCIS. The obvious solution is to require states to report to NCIS. If someone goes crazy with a gun that he bought in a private sale, that's not a fault of the state not reporting criminal and mental health records. That's a different problem. In addition, you're using a pile driver to insert a thumbtack into a cork board.
ReplyDeleteLet's also add the fact that there are hundreds of millions of guns in this country already. What about all of those? If your proposal becomes law, we collectors suddenly have a powerful motivation to make some quiet deals with those guns that were never registered in the first place.
Since words kill people all the time, why don't we register people's words. We can also register people who use bad and offensive language and ban them from any type of public speech.
ReplyDeleteWhy should I give up one of my rights? Would you give up your free speech rights?
How did it go for the jews in Germany when they had their guns confiscated?
No thanks! You are just another hitler type wanting people to register the only thing that may keep themselves and their family members alive.
Cars kill more people than guns, why don't we just eliminate cars to protect the children.
You are a kook!
"Let's also add the fact that there are hundreds of millions of guns in this country already. What about all of those? If your proposal becomes law, we collectors suddenly have a powerful motivation to make some quiet deals with those guns that were never registered in the first place.
ReplyDeleteNovember 28, 2011 7:13 PM"
Well, there goes the whole LGO meme, eh?
Anonymoron@9:03PM:
So much fail in so few words.
Either you don't come here often or can't read. All of your talking points have been refuted many, many times.
Just as a thought exercise, go up to the next person you don't like and start rattling off, assaultweppinstyle, your most cherished racial slurs, ethnic insults and whatever else is rattling around in that nearly empty skull of yours. Tell me how dead that person is when you are finished--if you still have the ability to speak.
I agree that something as general as "mental health cases" could be a problem, particularly when tied to politics. Would anyone with a prescription to Prozac or Lexapro be denied gun ownership? I think there would have to be a list of very specific diseases and disorders -- recognized by psychiatry to have a great enough potential for the sufferer to harm himself or others -- to warrant denying 2nd A. rights.
ReplyDeleteTom is on to the right idea. How much to legislators know about mental health? If there's just some blanket law that bans guns to anyone who is known to a mental health professional, that could include someone visited a counselor after a death in the family up to someone who thinks that his neighbor's dog is telling him to kill people.
ReplyDeleteAnd before Dog Gone swings into action, the simple fact is that we don't trust any promises to be reasonable.
Greg conveniently left out this part:
ReplyDelete"The whole system needs to be revamped."
and he asked me this: "Can't you see that your proposals have nothing to do with the problem that you claim to want to solve?"
By revampinig the system I mean precisely the problem of failure to report must be corrected.
The background checks and screening I'm always talking about will be more along the lines of my one-strike-you're-out than the luke-warm felonies only disqualifier.
Greg Camp sez:
ReplyDelete"How much to legislators know about mental health? If there's just some blanket law that bans guns to anyone who is known to a mental health professional, that could include someone visited a counselor after a death in the family up to someone who thinks that his neighbor's dog is telling him to kill people.
And before Dog Gone swings into action, the simple fact is that we don't trust any promises to be reasonable.
November 29, 2011 12:18 PM"
I think you need to read this:
"The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition (DSM-IV), the diagnostic standard for mental health professionals in the United States, lists the following symptoms for paranoid personality disorder:
suspicious; unfounded suspicions; believes others are plotting against him/her
preoccupied with unsupported doubts about friends or associates
reluctant to confide in others due to a fear that information may be used against him/her
reads negative meanings into innocuous remarks
bears grudges
perceives attacks on his/her reputation that are not clear to others, and is quick to counterattack
maintains unfounded suspicions regarding the fidelity of a spouse or significant other"
from here (http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/paranoia)
Democommie,
ReplyDeleteThe key word in what you cited is "unsupported." Do I really have to show you the many times that one government after another has violated the rights of citizens? Do I really have to show you how your side doesn't like private ownership of guns and wants them banned?
How about this--have you ever spoken favorably about gun rights? If you'd quit fighting with the version of me that you prefer, you'd find that I see through your smoke.
Mikeb302000,
Yes, I read the statement that the whole system needs to be revamped. I'm including that in your massive overreaction. You're hunting mice with a howitzer.
By the way, does your one strike rule apply to cars? If I dent my fender on the mailbox, will I be banned from driving for the rest of my life?
Your real goal is to eliminate private ownership of firearms. That's what all of your proposals lead to. You're not fooling anyone.
Greg sussed me out, or so he thinks.
ReplyDelete"Your real goal is to eliminate private ownership of firearms. That's what all of your proposals lead to. You're not fooling anyone."
Mikeb302000,
ReplyDeleteYou remind me of that Beatles song, "I wanna hold your hand. . ." Yeah, that's all the singer wants. Sure. And if the girl believes that, then I have some land a few miles east of Daytona that I'd like to sell her.