Let's try something...

[Okla-homey]

kinda out of the ordinary.

Can we discuss, civilly, what to do about the fact we obviously need a "crazy filter" between disturbed people and access to firearms.

As it now stands, you can buy a gun, legally, unless you have been adjudicated as mentally incompetent. Now that's fine, but let's face it, very few people are ever declared incompetent by a court.

So, given pretty stout confidentiality of mental health records by federal and state statutes, is there a way we can make it tough, if not impossible, for the mentally disturbed to purchase or own firearms?

:pop:

[Soonerson1975]

Nothing that wouldn't cost an arm or a leg.

[Blue]

Who's to decide who is mentally disturbed? Whats the criteria?

[Soonerson1975]

Who's to decide who is mentally disturbed? Whats the criteria?

All message board posters are barred from getting a gun.

[KantoSooner]

Personally, I would be okay with requiring a safety course and a psych screening, paid for by the applicant.
I realize that I am about to take incoming fire. My $0.02

[SoCaliSooner]

Based on the population size and the amount of crazy people and guns available, the only reason we need more legislation is entirely for political purposes. Drunk drivers kill more people than guns used by crazies...or criminals.

[Leroy Lizard]

Personally, I would be okay with requiring a safety course and a psych screening, paid for by the applicant.
I realize that I am about to take incoming fire. My $0.02

On the surface, that appears reasonable. Why won't it work?

Here's why:

Those who want firearms banned will simply require that the fee for screenings be raised every year to the point where no one can afford them. Also the requirements to pass the psych screening would become so stringent that only I would be able to pass.

There are solutions out there. It is just too bad that there are also people out there that will use the opportunity these solutions afford to effectively ban guns from all but the very fortunate.

I want every American who is mentally stable and doesn't have a serious criminal record to be able to defend himself or herself, and I want that freedom extended to the poor as well, since they often live in high-crime areas and cannot afford high-tech security. Ensuring that they know how to operate a firearm is fine with me, as is a reasonable background check. Take away the anti-gun hotheads (like Obama) and I am confident something could be worked out. But as long as they're in the picture, we're not going anywhere.

[FirstandGoal]

The biggest problem is you can't fix stupid. Or crazy. Or both.

Granted we don't have the most perfect system out there, but when you think about the population of the US, the availability of guns and the percentage of crazy/and or stupid people out there, we do pretty good.

Realistically speaking, there's no perfect screening process and all it will end up doing is making it harder and more expensive to obtain a firearm.

[Penguin]

I saw on the news that some states have the state police in charge of issuing gun permits. That sounds like a great idea for all states. If you want a gun permit, you're going to have to talk to a state trooper for a little while. A trained, experienced policeman should be able to sniff out crazy.

Anyone who gives off the crazy vibe should be blacklisted. Everytime he gets pulled over or has any contact with police, search him and make sure he doesn't have a weapon.

[yermom]

that's just a tad subjective though.

for the most part, i agree with Leroy (please don't neg me)

the massive amount of data involved with keeping track of all this and the records, etc... seems cumbersome and Big Brotherish

trying to keep gun dealers and HIPAA integrated and secure seems pretty daunting

[Curly Bill]

Yup, us "gun nuts" don't want to give an inch, fearing that the other side is gonna try and take a mile.

I'm sure they feel the same way about us.

[SicEmBaylor]

I'm concerned with what the criteria would be to determine whether or not someone's mental illness should preclude them from owning a firearm. There are some who would say the simple desire to own a gun is a big enough mental illness to preclude someone from owning one. There are always going to be those people...

Simple depression is considered a mental illness, but should depression alone preclude someone from gun ownership? What about anxiety?

I just don't see how you could design a just and objective system to determine whether a person has the temperament or mental competency to own a firearm.

[SicEmBaylor]

Also, I really really hate "preventive" style laws. It reeks of Minority Report to me.

[Blue]

I saw on the news that some states have the state police in charge of issuing gun permits. That sounds like a great idea for all states. If you want a gun permit, you're going to have to talk to a state trooper for a little while. A trained, experienced policeman should be able to sniff out crazy.

Anyone who gives off the crazy vibe should be blacklisted. Everytime he gets pulled over or has any contact with police, search him and make sure he doesn't have a weapon.

Thats a great idea, Comrade. :rolleyes:

[FirstandGoal]

I'm concerned with what the criteria would be to determine whether or not someone's mental illness should preclude them from owning a firearm. There are some who would say the simple desire to own a gun is a big enough mental illness to preclude someone from owning one. There are always going to be those people...

Simple depression is considered a mental illness, but should depression alone preclude someone from gun ownership? What about anxiety?

I just don't see how you could design a just and objective system to determine whether a person has the temperament or mental competency to own a firearm.

I was just getting ready to post something very similar to this myself.

What about women who are PMSing? What about people who have to take anti-depressants short-term (for example they had cancer) and who are now completely okay?

It becomes a very slippery slope

[soonervegas]

Ok i am as uneducated as you can get when it comes to fire arms (hence I do not have one) but what is the need for the average American to have anything other than a standard pistol or shotgun?

I am not anti-gun, but don't see the need for the fire power available out there right now....

[SicEmBaylor]

I was just getting ready to post something very similar to this myself.

What about women who are PMSing? What about people who have to take anti-depressants short-term (for example they had cancer) and who are now completely okay?

It becomes a very slippery slope

Women who are PMSing shouldn't be anywhere near society as a whole much less a firearm!

[yermom]

Ok i am as uneducated as you can get when it comes to fire arms (hence I do not have one) but what is the need for the average American to have anything other than a standard pistol or shotgun?

I am not anti-gun, but don't see the need for the fire power available out there right now....



well, the SHTFers might point to what happened in NOLA when Katrina hit

[SicEmBaylor]

Ok i am as uneducated as you can get when it comes to fire arms (hence I do not have one) but what is the need for the average American to have anything other than a standard pistol or shotgun?

I am not anti-gun, but don't see the need for the fire power available out there right now....

Because the 2nd Amendment is not about what someone else thinks another citizen "needs." It isn't about the right to hunt. It isn't even about the right to defend your person.

The 2nd Amendment exists as a solemn promise from the Founders directly to the citizens of this country independent from and bypassing the Government itself. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure that the citizens of this country are ultimately in control of their liberty and to ensure they have the ability to protect that liberty from a tyrannical government. The 2nd Amendment is about ensuring personal liberty.

[SicEmBaylor]

For someone to advocate the idea that the government should limit the very tool the citizens have for ensuring limits to the power of that government is simply the height of insanity in my mind. It's like a hen voluntarily giving a wolf the key to the hen house.

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

Ok i am as uneducated as you can get when it comes to fire arms (hence I do not have one) but what is the need for the average American to have anything other than a standard pistol or shotgun?

I am not anti-gun, but don't see the need for the fire power available out there right now....
Ban all sports cars, there is no need for that kind of horsepower

[soonervegas]

Ban all sports cars, there is no need for that kind of horsepower

Is there a need? Other than to make up for what you lack in your pants.

[Penguin]

Thats a great idea, Comrade. :rolleyes:


Scared of the police? That right there should tell everyone that you shouldn't own guns.

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

Is there a need? Other than to make up for what you lack in your pants.
You want other people to decide what you personally need?

[Blue]

Scared of the police? That right there should tell everyone that you shouldn't own guns.

My uncle is a state trooper. Try again.

Just mark my opinion the same as Sicems on this matter.

[Blue]

Scared of the police? That right there should tell everyone that you shouldn't own guns.

Oh and its a good thing you don't make the rules.

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

Scared of the police? That right there should tell everyone that you shouldn't own guns.
I fear their monopoly of force

[yermom]

word.

[Curly Bill]

Scared of the police? That right there should tell everyone that you shouldn't own guns.

Joseph Stalin? That you, you police state lovin old fool?

...and we thought you were dead. :O

[sooner59]

Count me in with Sicem. We own a few dozen guns....pistols, rifles, shotguns. A few are strictly for defensive purposes. A few are just for fun because they are fun to shoot. Most are for hunting. Regardless, it a tough wall to climb when you only have to scroll down to amendment 2 to find the right to own a gun. It is too subjective to interview and blacklist people. The police do not have that right anyway.

I wonder if there could be something like needing 3 references or something. If you can't find 3 people in the world that believe you are capable of owning a gun, then that probably says something. I understand that even that isn't fair or possible due to the 2nd amendment. It is just going to be really hard to do anything because of the digging in on both sides.

[Jacie]

Perceived risk vs. actual risk

If it is a numbers game then all backyard swimming pools should be filled in before we even begin to talk stricter gun control . . .

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Buzz, Woody!

[Penguin]

Okie dokie. There is no problem. We want to restrict who gets a gun without restricting who gets a gun.

The South Oval is awesome.

[Blue]

I don't. The gun laws are fine the way they are. You can't stop every bad thing from happening.

[SicEmBaylor]

I don't. The gun laws are fine the way they are. You can't stop every bad thing from happening.

This is the most reasonable thing that's been said.

[soonercruiser]

Because the 2nd Amendment is not about what someone else thinks another citizen "needs." It isn't about the right to hunt. It isn't even about the right to defend your person.

The 2nd Amendment exists as a solemn promise from the Founders directly to the citizens of this country independent from and bypassing the Government itself. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure that the citizens of this country are ultimately in control of their liberty and to ensure they have the ability to protect that liberty from a tyrannical government. The 2nd Amendment is about ensuring personal liberty.

+4....with SicEmBear
If we want to discuss it further, I suggest we meet at the gun range!
:eek:

[sooner59]

This is the most reasonable thing that's been said.

Agreed. I couldn't think of one reasonable thing to add/change/bitchabout. If someone wants a gun bad enough, they are going to find a way to get one.