In order to have less crazy gun notes, the sane people have to give something up? This makes sense to you?
We have reasonable gun control, you want more, then you need to give up something. Compromise isn't just gun owners giving you what you want.
Actually, I would gather that the more guns we have the safer we are. People kill themselves on sitting lawn mowers accidents, we going to ban those too? You are probably one of those people who have never owned a gun making ignorant generalizations. A large majority of gun owners keep their firearms locked up and safe. This is an interesting site: http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
I oppose a lot of NRA nuttiness, and I'm an NRA member. But I continually give them money nonetheless, because they're far and above the most effective political counterweight to the gun banners. I know a ton of members who think the same. We may disagree, but in the face of a common enemy we know to circle the wagons. The gun grabbers have provided decades of practice.
by interesting you probably mean cherry picked facts.
No thanks.
I'm always surprised that leftist/Democrats get so angry that an organization like the NRA which is privately funded does what the people that join the organization pay it to do.
It seems that rightist/Republicans get angry when a federal agency such as the Center for Disease Control engage in highly partisan advocacy pseudoscience against the interests of 1/2 the people that are paying for it.
A phantom menace at best that you are fighting.
Separately, imo, gun fanatics like you are the exact reason we have so much violence in this country. Obsessed about keeping your killing machine. This is one of the priorities of your life. Sad and scary.
"Probably?" So you don't even know? You just made up your own fact to dismiss his... funny!
The only suckers in the situation are the ones who think gun control will actual help prevent violence.
What phantom menace? When you've got the fucking president and reps and senators constantly saying they will BAN firearms and magazines that's no phantom menace.
It's a fucking threat is what it is. And you meet that threat with appropriate response, which is "hell no!"
What do you know? You don't even know if I clicked on the link. Funny that.
I do have an idea this site only mentions cherry picked facts that are favorable to the anti-gun control crowd.
It doesn't mention Australia where after they actually did a gun buy back program and do not allow citizens to buy semi-auto firearms capable of being fed with high capacity magazines without review. Since that drastic step they have not had a mass murder to this date.
Go pound sand.
Australia didn't have many shooting mass murders to speak off besides that one to begin with.
I do have an idea this site only mentions cherry picked facts that are favorable to the anti-gun control crowd.
It doesn't mention Australia where after they actually did a gun buy back program and do not allow citizens to buy semi-auto firearms capable of being fed with high capacity magazines without review. Since that drastic step they have not had a mass murder to this date.
While this approach would definitely not take place in the U.S. not only because the of 2nd Amendment, but also because of differences in population, and the probability that even before the mass murder in Australia precipitated a firearms buy back program the U.S. severely outpaced Australia in firearms per capita.
Even not talking about any sort of firearms ban or magazine capacity limit the NRA, which no longer serves its average member so much as the Firearms Manufacturers, screams like a stuck pig even when the idea of closing gun show loopholes for background checks are discussed.
The NRA exists now to enable firearms manufacturers to move more product as much (if not more) than it does to follow it's original intent when founded which was to teach marksmanship and fire arms safety.
Go pound sand.
Do you even know what's on a 4473 and what's checked in background check? Here's a little hint, mental illness is covered.
So the Batman movie theater shooter, the Virgina Tech shooter and other shooters were sane otherwise they wouldn't have have gotten firearms good to know.
Go back to abusing yourself while your gun collection is displayed on your table.
They committed a felony when they purchased the weapon.
Another way of saying the checks as they stand are inadequate. don't worry your little head though the NRA will protect you from the bad ole boogey-man
So they did a sane thing instead of waiting around for the next one to happen.
Since we can't and won't do what Australia did why don't we do something else like look at limiting access to firearms to mentally ill people.
Yes it might run into patient client privilege issues but weighing the rights of a person with a mental illness who might go batshit and slaughter people in a public place and the rights of people who not get murdered something has to give.
I'd rather the person with mental issues having a hell of a more difficult time obtaining a gun.
at least in MD, mental health is covered when you fill out the forms to purchase a handgun.
not sure about regulations on long guns (shotguns, rifles)
An updated edition of a mental health bible for doctors could mean that soon no-one will be classed as normal, experts warned today.
Diagnoses for 'disorders' could be based on symptoms including toddler tantrums, mild mood swings and binge eating.
Sweeping changes are being made to the U.S Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), which influences practitioners around the world.
However, leading British mental health experts have warned the revisions could devalue the seriousness of mental illness and label almost everyone as having some kind of disorder.
One suggestion of the American authors is a new diagnosis of 'Psychosis Risk Syndrome' which singles out people thought to be at risk of developing a psychotic illness such as schizophrenia.
Criticism
Validity and reliability
The most fundamental scientific criticism of the DSM concerns the validity and reliability of its diagnoses. This refers, roughly, to whether the disorders it defines are actually real conditions in people in the real world, that can be consistently identified by its criteria. These are long-standing criticisms of the DSM, originally highlighted by the Rosenhan experiment in the 1970s, and continuing despite some improved reliability since the introduction of more specific rule-based criteria for each condition.[4][32][33][34]
Proponents argue that the inter-rater reliability of DSM diagnoses (via a specialized Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID) rather than usual psychiatric assessment) is reasonable, and that there is good evidence of distinct patterns of mental, behavioral or neurological dysfunction to which the DSM disorders correspond well. It is accepted, however, that there is an "enormous" range of reliability findings in studies,[35] and that validity is unclear because, given the lack of diagnostic laboratory or neuroimaging tests, standard clinical interviews are "inherently limited" and only a ("flawed") "best estimate diagnosis" is possible even with full assessment of all data over time.[36]
Critics, such as psychiatrist Niall McLaren, argue that the DSM lacks validity because it has no relation to an agreed scientific model of mental disorder and therefore the decisions taken about its categories (or even the question of categories versus dimensions) were not scientific ones; and that it lacks reliability partly because different diagnoses share many criteria, and what appear to be different criteria are often just rewordings of the same idea, meaning that the decision to allocate one diagnosis or another to a patient is to some extent a matter of personal prejudice.[37]
Well at least you're admitting that gun control laws don't work.
With the giant, big enough to fly a formation of C-5 galaxies through, gunshow loopholes? How effectively are these background checks supposed to work?
At least you haven't denied what you do while looking at your gun arsenal.
In order to have less crazy gun notes, the sane people have to give something up? This makes sense to you?
A phantom menace at best that you are fighting.
Separately, imo, gun fanatics like you are the exact reason we have so much violence in this country. Obsessed about keeping your killing machine. This is one of the priorities of your life. Sad and scary.
"Probably?" So you don't even know? You just made up your own fact to dismiss his... funny!
You have yet to explain this loophole. You will fill out a 4473 and have a background check when you purchase a gun at a gunshow.
I'll make it real simple for you...there is NO GUNSHOW LOOPHOLE.
Even more simple, it is a felony if you purchase a weapon and are mentally deficient. It is ILLEGAL. It is illegal to purchase a firearm if you use controlled drugs as well. It's illegal if you have a restraining order against you. Have you ever purchased a firearm or actually filled out ATF form 4473?