Guns and the emotionally/mentally disturbed...could this work?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by mcdj, Aug 27, 2015.

  1. mcdj macrumors 604

    mcdj

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2007
    Location:
    NYC
    #1
    I am not pro gun. But I am realistic, and the reality, sadly, seems to be that guns aren't going anywhere in the U.S., no matter the number of massacres, shootings on live T.V., etc.

    But there has to be a better way to keep guns out of the hands of people who intend to cause random mayhem fueled by anger rooted in instability.

    In so many of these recent senseless acts of violence, there were warning signs. In many cases, there was documentation of these warning signs, from mental health professionals, and even from police.

    As it stands now, when you try to buy a gun, a background check is run. But all it checks for is prior convictions in a standard police database.

    What if there were another database? What if any time you were escorted out of a building by police, even if you weren't arrested, as was the case of the Virgina news reporter upon his termination at work, that police intervention was recorded, not as part of any criminal record, but as part of a special gun-only database?

    What if when your parents brought you to a hospital for a psychiatric work up, like Adam Lanza's mom did, and the doctors noted serious issues, as they did with Adam Lanza, it went into the gun-only database?

    This database would not affect your ability to get a loan, a job, a visa, etc. It is accessible ONLY when you try to buy a gun.

    It would not contain any details of an individual's run ins with the law (which could cover many things, including aggressive behavior, domestic violence, etc., anything reported to and responded to by police), or exact medical details. It would simply show a big red X next to the person's name. If you had some kind of aggravated run in with the law, or were deemed mentally problematic by a medical professional...you can not have a gun. Period.

    And by association, the parent of any minor with a red X report in the database likewise can not obtain a gun or a gun license.

    Maybe the record could be wiped clean after 10 years without incident. Ten years is lots of time for a distraught teenager to get help, or a disgruntled ex employee to cool down.

    Yes, it would be an invasion of privacy and infringe on some rights. Yes, some good kids who did something dumb won't get a gun for 10 years because of it. Too bad. We gotta figure out something.

    If there was any way this could work to keep even one shooting from happening, I'd be all for it.
     
  2. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #2
    No to most of it .

    If your PARENTS do turn you in then that one I might get on board with .
     
  3. mcdj thread starter macrumors 604

    mcdj

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2007
    Location:
    NYC
    #3
    I realize it's a far reaching radical idea with consequences I'm sure I haven't considered. Why not spell out some of the reasons you'd be against it instead of just a flat out no? "Flat out no" seems to be the mantra of the NRA.

    "Because 2nd amendment" holds less and less water every year.
     
  4. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #4
    You answered yourself towards the end of your own post. I'm not interested I infringing on people's rights like you are. I don't even like DUI check points.
    And I did not give you a flat out no
     
  5. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #5
    The reason most of this won't fly is because the Church of Gun who is in control of US gun policy, also has a fretful fear of central authority and national databases, contemplating things like black helos, jackbooted thugs, and black bag teams appearing at their home in the middle of the night.
     
  6. 556fmjoe macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2014
    #6
    No.

    Taking away Constitutional rights without due process is totally unacceptable, regardless of what those rights are.
     
  7. webbuzz macrumors 65816

    webbuzz

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2010
    #7
    Yes, that's it.
     
  8. webbuzz macrumors 65816

    webbuzz

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2010
    #8
    How can you be so sure?
     
  9. webbuzz macrumors 65816

    webbuzz

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2010
    #9
    That and adjudicated by a court.
     
  10. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #10
    There is a fine line between identifying troubled individuals in society and trampling on constitutional rights. Unfortunately there appears to be no practical way to analyze a person's demeanor when they are ordering a gun, especially in an environment guns for everyone!
     
  11. sodapop1 Suspended

    sodapop1

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2014
    #11
    Although I agree with most of your thoughts, the failure in your logic is that it assumes the purchase of a gun takes place immediately before a person goes on a killing spree which I do not believe is the case. A person can be of sound mind at the time of the gun purchase and subsequently have their mental health deteriorate. The only impractical solution, is to constantly monitor the mental health of all US citizens and then determine who we need to prevent from obtaining a gun and whose guns we need to take away. The more practical yet unrealistic solution is to just take away all guns.
     
  12. mcdj thread starter macrumors 604

    mcdj

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2007
    Location:
    NYC
    #12
    The above concepts, if in place and enforced at the time, could have prevented the news reporter/cameraman slayings and Sandy Hook.
     
  13. mcdj thread starter macrumors 604

    mcdj

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2007
    Location:
    NYC
    #13
    Because I'm suggesting a totally separate network, with proprietary software, accessible only by health care officials, law enforcement, and gun dealers.
     
  14. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #14
    no courts involved? anyone can turn you in ? GF? BF? simply claims it & your rights are gone?
    no thanks.
     
  15. chown33 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    #15
    On a purely technical level (leaving out all economic, political, ethical, and legal aspects), is there a persuasive argument that such a network could be built and maintained with the necessary constraints: giving access only to those who need it, and preventing all other access?

    In light of the OPM breach, I'm quite skeptical that such a network could be made and operated with the requisite security.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Personnel_Management_data_breach
     
  16. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #16
    Yeah, I'm sure it will be just as safe as AshleyMadison, Target, Home Depot, etc.

    Well said.
     
  17. Mac'nCheese macrumors 68030

    Mac'nCheese

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    #17
    That's too big an IF for some people probably.

    Anything can be hacked.
     
  18. samiwas macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #18
    Eh, it's the only argument they need. Might as well face it. America is the land of guns and gun death. It wouldn't matter if 100,000 people died next year from it. It simply does not matter. A right decided by a few dozen people over 200 years ago trumps all else. Because that's what freedom is. Just another thing America is exceptional(ly bad) at.
     
  19. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #19
    I would be open to having some type of training requirement to buy a weapon, I'm not sure that will solve the issue of crazy people killing people, but it would be good that all gun owners have a solid fundamental base in gun ownership.

    Kind of like a voting ID
     
  20. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #20
    I think that is the most likely to have any chance at succeeding. The OP's idea is too open to abuse, I'm not pro gun by any means, but considering they aren't going to go away altogether we should only send time trying to get things that will actually show a benefit through. The OP's idea is very open to abuse, for example would the reporter who was recently thrown out of Trump's event be banned from buying a gun? Also it seems quite likely that reporting would not be very consistent, even now things that should show up in a background check don't because they never ended up in the right database.
     
  21. FieldingMellish Suspended

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #21
    Ever since nut houses were evacuated and shut, people have wondered about the unstable and knives, the unstable and subway trains, and, of course, the unstable and guns.

    In a Frontline report is this snipping: Thus deinstitutionalization has helped create the mental illness crisis by discharging people from public psychiatric hospitals without ensuring that they received the medication and rehabilitation services necessary for them to live successfully in the community.

    I’d say that even those who had the rehabilitation and meds could and would wander off course and murder others, such as those in NYC that shoved people in front of oncoming subway trains.

    Such as this:
    http://nypost.com/2014/11/16/man-in-fatal-nyc-subway-hit-may-have-been-pushed/

    and this:

    http://thoughtcatalog.com/jim-goad/...after-being-pushed-in-front-of-subway-trains/

    Frontline’s report about deinstitutionalization is an eye opener:

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/asylums/special/excerpt.html
     
  22. mcdj thread starter macrumors 604

    mcdj

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2007
    Location:
    NYC
    #22
    Yeah, I really do try to remain open minded about it, but i have never heard a single eloquent pro gun argument...just a lot of obstinate parroting. Sometimes I really just wish I could get adopted by an Irish family.
     
  23. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #23
    NOT one more inch.................

    Sweden sounds interesting to me, maybe the Netherlands
     
  24. nbs2 macrumors 68030

    nbs2

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    A geographical oddity
    #24
    The problem you run into with many of these ideas is that it converts a Constitutional right into a privilege. And, much like driving, privileges are easily regulated and revoked. Rights (except for voting and guns on a state by state basis - which I find horrifying and baffling) are not. That's where the opposition rises. It's a fear that giving up some of that right today is just the camel's nose.

    To an extent they are right. If the gun control lobby is smart, they follow the gay rights game plan. 40 years ago, it was a desire not to be considered mentally ill. 20 years ago, it was not to be ostracized. 10 years ago, it was adoption. 5 years ago, it was civil unions. Last year, it was marriage. Small steps towards a larger goal. Restrict this group today, that gun tomorrow. Eventually, ban them all. What leads to gun right resistance is that they see that success and fear it. And that means you get "not one inch".

    My main issue with the initial proposal (among others) is adjudication. There is no due process and no way to account for changes in society. The mighty Wiki states that the WHO only declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1990. My understanding is that transsexuals are still in the DSM. You would have denied gays self protection until 2000, and would still deny them to transsexuals. Are you sure that's what you want?
     
  25. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #25
    eggsactly, no more.
     

Share This Page