A lot of other diseases are cured.

That's why, when they show up to take the veteran's guns, they should take their car, driver's license, butcher knives, steak knives, non-safety scissors, pocket knives, knitting needles and hatpins. Did I forget anything???

Mentally ill, veterans or not, should be kept far away from firearms.

violent crime, than perpetrators.

I second this. Mentally ill folks should not have access to these kinds of weapons.

It's a hell of a lot harder to kill as many people at once with a knife than a gun.

The "gun nuts" are the people who obsessively buy and collect guns for reasons beyond self defense.
Half of the firearms in the US belong to just 3% of people (source). This is completely unnecessary. And having guns lying around the house often leads to death during what is typically a small domestic situation.

Mentally ill, meaning somebody who suffers from a mental health condition that makes them more susceptible to harm themselves or somebody else with a gun. Or has had a history of mental illness, diagnosed by a mental health professional.

There is a big difference between an 80-year-old living alone who wants a gun for self-protection, and a mentally ill person who wants a gun just for the hell of it.

So not all mentally ill people, then? Can we agree on that? And certainly not people who just need help managing their limited finances.


Not by a Veteran's Administration bureaucrat, right? And would you have any problem with the mental health professional's opinion being reviewed by a judge? The last time I checked, we didn't give medical health professionals carte blanche to decide whose rights to restrict.

Yeah, I think I was pretty clear about not all mentally ill people. I specifically said "susceptible to harm themselves or somebody else with a gun". Not somebody with minor anxiety issues or something like that.

If somebody has obvious mental health issues, past suicide attempts, etc., why should it need to be reviewed by a judge? Sure, go ahead, but if it's serious mental illness, then what's the point?

My point is, guns are obviously dangerous, and are way more easy to kill a large group of people quickly with than something like a knife. I don't see why a diagnosed schizophrenic person should readily have access to firearms in the name of freedom. Restricting rights is a minor issue compared to the effects of gun violence.

Because we are a nation of laws. The denial of rights is a legal process. It should not be left to a healthcare professional to make a final determination on a legal matter. We are ruled by laws, not by doctors.


Do you really believe that? Would you ay the same about stop-and-frisk? Michael Bloomberg thought it was very effective in reducing crime in New York City.

Once you start justifying the denial of rights, how do you decide where to stop?

OK, so the healthcare professionals could testify. I still see no reason why a severely mentally ill person should be allowed to buy a firearm.

Yes, I do really believe that. I said restricting gun rights is a small issue compared to the amount of people dead from gun violence. I do not agree with stop-and-frisk. I also don't think people with severe mental illnesses should have access to guns.

Gun rights aren't the same as typical human and American rights. It's a right to a weapon. That is completely different than normal American rights.

There would be less gun violence if we had slightly more restrictions. It's been proven. At this point, it's a debate between our rights to bear arms and safety. Putting some more restrictions on buying arms doesn't make the US a country void of rights. It means that there's more restrictions of buying firearms.

No, it hasn't been proven. In fact, the largest plurality of criminology studies shows that it has no effect (the next largest is the "more guns, less crime&quot . Some ER doctor publishing a flawed study in a medical journal, where it isn't peer reviewed by experts in the subject, or simply not peer reviewed at all. At best, these studies are examples of post hoc ergo propter hoc. The last restrictions did nothing, slightly more will do nothing. If it were that simple, Brazil, Mexico, and Venezuela would be less violent. Two have stricter gun laws than the UK, the other completely bans private ownership.
"studies" by any advocacy groups should be closely scrutinized if not dismissed out of hand.

Worldwide, there is no correlation between gun ownership, or gun laws, and crime. There is with the GINI Coefficient, a very strong one at that.

Yes, it has. http://www.bradycampaign.org/our-impact/campaigns/background-checks

http://www.bradycampaign.org/key-gun-violence-statistics

Whether you choose to look into these links is your business, or if you think the well-researched, well-respected Brady Campaign is a load of shit, then that's your business as well. But I don't see the issue with slightly stricter regulations, regardless of if some people don't think they do anything.

Obviously places like Switzerland have high gun ownership rates, and low crime rates. But the gun buyers go through a long process before buying the arms.

No, they are not well respected, well researched, or any such thing. They are just well funded by a foundation and a couple of billionaires.
They are dishonest, just like the anti-pot crusaders were in the 1930s.
http://debunkthebradycampaign.blogspot.com/

I don't care if you don't have an issue with "slightly stricter regulations" or not. Of course, you wouldn't. You wouldn't be negatively affected by it. That should not be what public policy should be based on. It should be based on if it works or not. True, most of Europe restricts guns more than we do. They also restrict abortion a lot more than we do. I know people who wouldn't have an issue with slightly stricter abortion restrictions like, say Germany. The argument would be that the right to choose is different than other rights because it always ends in a human death. See how that works? An attack one right is an attack on all rights.

Not only Switzerland but also Iceland, Norway, Canda, Finland, Czech Republic are a few. France is kind of in the middle with New Zealand. Switzerland is more like Michigan as far as their purchase permit system goes. Only Canada has a long process. Not even the UK is that long. The difference is that they don't have the level of wealth inequality (remember the GINI Coefficient?). I was a "Bernie Bro" for a reason.

If you want to see a long and cumbersome process of getting a legal gun, see New Jersey, DC, USVI, and Mexico.

Since we know, based on the Wright-Rossi studies, criminals and gangs don't go to gun stores. Since most of our murders are drug dealers killing each other, how would they be affected by any regulation?
If you seriously want to save lives, these are the policies that will do more:
improved mental health, because 2/3 of all gun deaths are suicides. That is only half of all suicides. Also, China has more Sandy Hook level mass school murders than we do. It just happens to be crazed adults taking out kids with an edged weapon. Their mental health system is worse than ours.
Fix the economy and close the wealth gap
End the drug war. Not only the gang wars, Heroin ODs kill more people in this country each year than guns ever did.

Simple answers to complex problems are not solutions.

One more thing, what do you know about current gun laws?

Foundations are always founded by a couple of rich folks. Everyone knows that. Do you oppose the NRA too? The Brady Campaign uses facts and statistics.

I wouldn't be negatively affected by it because I don't want people with mental issues having arms. So you're saying that if we have stricter gun regulations, the country would crumble and people would die? If the laws were slightly stricter, we'd lose all our rights? That's just not true.

If these gun owners are really law-abiding, good people (which of course they mostly are), they should not take issue with going through some extra hoops to prove that they are.

Yes, I'm familiar with the GINI Coefficient. You really aren't teaching me anything. And I agree with closing the wealth gap. Heroin and other drugs are different because you can't go on a heroin massacre. It is a different topic and should be treated differently.

What do you propose to decrease gun violence, then?

I am familiar with gun laws per state and country. What exactly are you asking? Kind of a broad question. In my (blue) state of Washington, we have pretty lenient gun laws. Most people I know think those laws should be more lenient. It's a big topic of discussion where I live, due to most of my neighbors being big gun fanatics (I don't live in the country, either. I live in a suburb of Seattle).

Again, what do you think would solve the gun issue? Or do you deny that there is one?

Would you agree that requiring voters to present approved IDs at the polls is a good idea?

If these voters are really law-abiding, good people (which of course they mostly are), they should not take issue with going through some extra hoops to prove that they are.

Think of the last election.We could compare a list of valid voter IDs checked in by election officials to the number of votes cast. It would virtually eliminate the possibility of adding/subtracting votes from either candidate by tracking each total separately.

There is a difference. The NRA, and the other gun rights organizations, are made up of millions of dues paying members. They are grassroots. Also, the NRA was started by a couple of Union generals in the 1870s. The Brady Campaign are just a few rich people. They would not exist without the Joyce Foundation. If you go to, say, an NRA convention you will find people of all incomes and walks of life. Go to a Brady Campaign fundraiser, you will find all rich people in black tie. Also, they do not use facts, nor do they use honest statistics. When they say "children" they include gang shootings of up 25-year-olds. They lie often. They drag up the usual logical fallacies, usually ad hoc and appeal to emotion.

Look at free speech and Europe and Canada, or the acts of the extreme left and right here.

That's not how rights work. the State has to prove they aren't. BTW, you are using a logical fallacy.

Part of the same problem. Part of the drug problem is the gang problem.

I gave you my list. It will not only reduce "gun violence", but also reduce all violence. My pet peeve about "gun violence". Whenever I see Brady or Bloomberg use the term it tells me that they don't care about violence, it is really about guns using a term that appeals to emotion. IOW, they are busybodies and authoritarians who don't like guns. To be rather blunt, I don't think they care about dead people unless it serves their purpose. They dishonestly lump gun suicides with gun homicides and call it "gun violence". That tells me that 48 percent of all suicides and 40 percent of all murders are nonissues to them. They don't care because they can't be used for propaganda.

Yes, you have a poorly written UBC written by Mike Bloomberg's paid lawyers and lobbyists. Everytown or MDA is 100 percent astro turf. Watts is a former PR executive for Monsanto and Wellpoint before she opened her own shop. She is a Bloomberg employee, as were all the collecting signatures.

We don't have a gun problem, we have a gang problem. Spree murders, which happen everywhere, are very rare. That is why those, and gun accidents, make nation wide news. Peoples' rights should not be restricted based one black swan events. They are unpredictable and unstoppable.

OK, but the ultimate decision rests with the judge. And please remember that the OP was not about "severely mentally ill" people. It was about veterans who need help managing their finances, and have then been unilaterally declared "mentally incompetent" by the VA.


Actually, no you didn't. You said that restricting rights was a small issue.


Now you want to get picky-choosy about which rights you're going to restrict. Then you're going to have to provide some data to show that gun-control laws are more effective than other restrictions on rights, such as stop-and-frisk. Can you show that?


What are "normal American rights" if not something that is guaranteed by the Constitution? How much more "normal American" can you get?


Umm... no, it hasn't. There are many restrictions now on the books that have done little or nothing to reduce gun violence. The AWB that was Federal law for 10 years and is now state law in CA, NY, CT, etc. is a case in point.

I was getting off topic and sorry about that, folks. I was speaking in a general sense, and yeah, I know. Not supposed to do that. Yes, I read the article.

I meant gun rights. It is a battle between 2A supporters and lives. If you feel the Second Amendment is more important than lives, OK. That's what it boils down to. The 2nd Amendment as is written talks of "a well regulated militia" to have the right to bear arms.

The right to own arms is completely different than the right to free speech or the right to own property. You can't kill people with free speech or owning property.

82% of people stopped during stop & frisk were innocent. States with stricter gun laws had a 42% lower mortality rate than states with looser gun laws (from Harvard Medical School Researchers).

Again, what do you think will solve the problem? More guns? Should we just dump a box of firearms at a mental facility and wait for them to all shoot each other? Do you think people with criminal pasts should be allowed to access arms?

It is nothing of the kind. Your radical simplification does a disservice to both sides of the issue. Let's look at some similar proposals.

Many lives could be saved if speed limits were lowered to 40 mph nationwide. If you oppose that, then you think that driving fast is more important than lives. Many lives could be saved if using a cell phone while driving meant a mandatory ten years in prison and the loss of your driving privileges for life. If you oppose that, then you think that texting is more important than lives. An outright prohibition on alcohol, with severe penalties for any infraction, could save countless lives that are lost every year to alcohol-related crimes, accidents, and diseases. If you oppose prohibition of alcohol, you think that booze is more important than lives.

See how that works?


And 18% were not. That's a lot of guns and drugs taken off the street. Anti-gun guru Michael Bloomberg was a fervent supporter of stop-and-frisk, crediting it with drastically lowering NYC's gun-death rate. So ... if you oppose stop-and-frisk, you think that privacy is more important than lives. Does that sound about right?

BTW, I oppose stop-and-frisk.


How was that statistic derived? How did the researchers determine the strictness of gun laws? Do they consider NY a strict state because of its universal background checks or a lax state because no training is required for the issuance of a concealed-carry permit? Does the "mortality rate" distinguish between suicides and homicides? Between murder and justifiable homicide? How is the strictness of a state's gun laws relevant to murders committed by people who obtained their guns illegally? How does the poverty level in these states correlate with the mortality rates?

You mght want to read this article before you tout those findings:

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/10/gun-laws-deaths-and-crimes/


Hyperbole is not your friend.

Why don't control nuts understand this?

As usual, the media has abdicated its responsibility for balanced reporting by failing to report that the ACLU AND advocate groups for the mentally disabled are comfortable with this new proposition.

Vets who are mentally ill are still reported, as they should be.

Vets who "need another person to help them with their finances" are not mentally ill.

...is a mental health professional with training in that area as a doctor or equivalent, that's okay. What kind of place would the VA be if part of their help for a vet is to take away some of his rights without a hearing or appeal with a decision by a bureaucrat?

Unfortunately, most articles discussing that bill are not interested in telling the truth about the bill.

What changed is that the VA is no longer allowed to declare a person "mentally incompetent" solely because that person needs help managing finances.

I'm not familiar with the International Business Times, but I'm not impressed with an editorial standard that equates "mentally incompetent" with "mentally ill" and that allows such an unnecessary use of "singular they."

The previous rule assumed a person was mentally defective* if they need help with managing their affairs. That is not the standard that the rest of us are held to. In effect it punishes veterans for their veteran status by imposing a lower threshhold for having gun rights revoked.


* This is without doubt an indelicate term and not meant as an insult to anyone suffering from mental illness. I only use it because that is the term used in the text of the law itself.

Then 16 year ok'd then back to the old Wild West.

http://libertarianstandard.com/2010/04/07/how-wild-was-the-wild-west-in-fact/

Last edited Mon Apr 10, 2017, 12:01 PM - Edit history (1)

Or are you going by the basically fake news clickbait sensationalized title in the OP. Article isn't really fake news but the title certainly is. Although nowhere in the article, and I suspect they ommited it intentionally, do they mention the specifics of the actual Bill that can be found here:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/629

and summery of the Bill as follows and directly quoted:

"This bill prohibits, in any case arising out of the administration of laws and benefits by the Department of Veterans Affairs, any person who is mentally incapacitated, deemed mentally incompetent, or experiencing an extended loss of consciousness from being considered adjudicated as a mental defective for purposes of the right to receive or transport firearms without the order or finding of a judicial authority of competent jurisdiction that such person is a danger to himself or herself or others."

So the click bait title says "House Passes Bill Allowing Mentally Ill Veterans To Own Guns" but the actual Bill simply states that some doctor at the VA can't put a veteran on the FBI no buy list (National Instant Criminal Background Check System) without due process.

To the anti gun folks... You do believe in do process right? Your day in court?

I also have to wonder about the OP's motives for posting what he more than likely new was an inaccurate sensationalized title to an article that conveniently leaves out the true nature of the Bill.

"To the anti gun folks... You do believe in do process right? Your day in court?"

I have come to the opinion that some here don't, they only believe in the parts of the bill of rights that they want/need.