I would change mental health to mental fitness. Someone with anger issues should not own a gun yet anger isn't classified as mental illness.
Psychological screenings should be part of the process for obtaining a gun license.
I would change mental health to mental fitness. Someone with anger issues should not own a gun yet anger isn't classified as mental illness.I absolutely agree, and I think that's part of what I'm getting at when I call the "mental health" component of the gun debate a canard.
Family of four, two full-time employed parents at minimum wage.
80 hours a week, yea it's tough to splurge on a decent TV. Now try as a single parent
Please elaborate. I get the feeling you're not brushing elbows with people who are living through tough situations on a regular basis.So under 4% of the working population. Gotcha.
Please elaborate. I get the feeling you're not brushing elbows with people who are living through tough situations on a regular basis.
Great, thanks. Next time people are up in arms about increasing minimum wage, this is what I can reference. It impacts such a small percentage of the workforce that it's a non issue.The BLS shows 2.7% of the working population works for min wage or less. I was being generous. Your scenario of 2 min wage workers with 4 children is most definitely a fraction of that 2.7%.
And people making less than min wage are usually in the food service industry making tips that put them above min wage.
https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage/2016/home.htm
I absolutely brush elbows with people living in tough situations.
The Second Amendment doesn't need to be repealed, it just needs to be interpreted as it was written and intended to be interpreted. That's with involvement in a well-regulated militia being a condition for bearing arms.
I'm going to blow your mind here and let you know I wasn't talking about myself, but rather the people out there, and the TV was a stand-in for whatever "luxury" item you want to put in its place. I will assume guns.What job are you working that requires 80 hours a week to afford a decent TV?
Do all your arguments drift into absurdity fallacy? I'm guessing yes.I could say the same about drugs, alcohol and lots of other things. Owning scissors makes it more likely you will hurt yourself with them compared to living in a scissor free home. Anything can be dangerous if misused or when an accident happens. And, remember, 99.99%+ of all guns are never used to hurt anyone legally or illegally. Not to mention the whole 2A thing.
Can we outlaw smoking to save lives? That's far more of a negative health risk and not mentioned in the Constitution anywhere. My parents smoked in the home and in the car until I was 10, and I see the same behavior all the time. Don't you care about those kids?
I'm not trying to minimize the death of a single person from gun violence, but I disagree that banning just a few more guns or passing just a few more laws will put a dent in the problem.
Sure they're allowed firearms now, unless they're underage or have committed a crime which would otherwise disqualify them. We do not specifically screen any more than we screen for any other psychiatric disorder. Someone could be diagnosed with these conditions without having actually committed any violence/crimes. So again, are we taking rights away from people who are "at risk" for committing violence? If so, what other groups are "at risk?"
Define "handle the responsibility" in granular terms. As you've mentioned, that's a fairly vague target.
An irrational fear that mental health could be used to create a second class of citizenry? I don't think so. Look at the history of institutionalization and then backlash of deinstitutionalization in our country.
Do we? Look at half the shit Ted Nugent has said in his life, has anyone taken away his guns?
Why? Just because one has either diagnosis, does not mean he or she has ever been violent. There are certainly people who do not have these diagnoses who have been violent (though perhaps not criminally?) in the past who still have rights to firearms. There are some very high functioning schizophrenics and certainly those with BPD out there that you probably don't know carry the diagnoses in your day to day interactions. Define "intensive vetting" in granular terms.
Why not? Home defense, hobby shooting, etc. For the same reasons one without the disease spectrum would. Should they lose the right because they have a medical condition? If so, at what stage? With which diagnoses? You've already said you think those with SCPT/BPD should not have access to firearms without at least "intensive vetting," but what about someone with a Parkinson spectrum disorder, something like I mentioned Lewy Body Dementia who can have some features which are common (hallucinations, prefrontal inhibition, etc.).
That's my point, it's almost impossible to create a clear delineation, so what's the point in even having the discussion?
What I'm saying, again overall, here.. is that you're oversimplifying a lot of this and it's not remotely "clear and clean" enough to write any number of laws to delineate who should and should not have firearms based on "mental health conditions" or other medical problems. It's a red herring.
Sure they're allowed firearms now, unless they're underage or have committed a crime which would otherwise disqualify them. We do not specifically screen any more than we screen for any other psychiatric disorder. Someone could be diagnosed with these conditions without having actually committed any violence/crimes. So again, are we taking rights away from people who are "at risk" for committing violence? If so, what other groups are "at risk?"
Define "handle the responsibility" in granular terms. As you've mentioned, that's a fairly vague target.
An irrational fear that mental health could be used to create a second class of citizenry? I don't think so. Look at the history of institutionalization and then backlash of deinstitutionalization in our country.
Do we? Look at half the shit Ted Nugent has said in his life, has anyone taken away his guns?
Why? Just because one has either diagnosis, does not mean he or she has ever been violent. There are certainly people who do not have these diagnoses who have been violent (though perhaps not criminally?) in the past who still have rights to firearms. There are some very high functioning schizophrenics and certainly those with BPD out there that you probably don't know carry the diagnoses in your day to day interactions. Define "intensive vetting" in granular terms.
Why not? Home defense, hobby shooting, etc. For the same reasons one without the disease spectrum would. Should they lose the right because they have a medical condition? If so, at what stage? With which diagnoses? You've already said you think those with SCPT/BPD should not have access to firearms without at least "intensive vetting," but what about someone with a Parkinson spectrum disorder, something like I mentioned Lewy Body Dementia who can have some features which are common (hallucinations, prefrontal inhibition, etc.).
That's my point, it's almost impossible to create a clear delineation, so what's the point in even having the discussion?
What I'm saying, again overall, here.. is that you're oversimplifying a lot of this and it's not remotely "clear and clean" enough to write any number of laws to delineate who should and should not have firearms based on "mental health conditions" or other medical problems. It's a red herring.
How many mass shootings are tolerable? Does it reach an intolerable number where it becomes "rational" (since we don't want to be moved by emotions, heavens no) to repeal 2A?What troubles me is that, if the goal is to truly halt mass shootings, our only real recourse may be to become the UK. Repeal the 2nd amendment and collect all the guns.
If the root of the problem is the sheer prevalence of guns in the US, as I think fskimospy would argue, then what good is it restricting the type of firearm? I suppose you might ban anything semi-automatic, but then you're left with two problems: (1) with the 2nd amendment still in place that's not likely to happen, and (2) killers may still resort to single-shot lethal weapons such as pump shotguns, as occurred in the Washington Navy Yard shooting.
Another question is, at what point are guns considered controlled enough? If we do everything the Parkland students want, and two weeks later a school shooting occurs using two handguns, is it likely that the narrative will be that guns are sufficiently controlled and no further restrictions are needed?
My point is that there doesn't seem to be any principle here. The difference between a lesser version of gun control and a severe version is simply that there haven't been enough mass shootings to emotionally move people to the extremes.
Early SCOTUS cases can be easily (and I think rightly so) interpreted to allow for broader gun rights. In one case about the right to have a sawed-off shotgun the SCOTUS used a test (wrongly so IMO) that said your gun rights were restricted to guns/arms that were commonly used by the military and that sawed off shotguns were not used by the military. I.e., machine guns would have been OK (they were only outlawed later and I don't know, or can't remember, that anybody contested it).
(I saw they erred in that test because the military did, in fact, used shotguns with a short barrel.)
Edit: I think that recent SCOTUS cases have narrowed our gun rights, contrary to your assertion. IIRC, Heller went contrary to the early case and basically said we have no rights to military grade weapons.
Fern
How many mass shootings are tolerable? Does it reach an intolerable number where it becomes "rational" (since we don't want to be moved by emotions, heavens no) to repeal 2A?
So constitutional rights don't apply to legal adults 18-20?No.
However, I do think there should be universal background checks even for private sales, there should be universal mandatory waiting period of 3-7 days, and I do think firearms sales should be restricted to 21+ years old. It is infuriating that NRA/GOP not only opposes these proposals, but chooses to openly attack gun violence victims instead.
Pretty sure when they wrote the Amendment there were no repeaters, no automatics, etc. There were only flintlocks and whatnot. Yet today anything that discharges a projectile and can be operated by one person is called a firearm, except for the very firearms that were intended to be protected by the Second Amendment when it was written.
If you wish to expand the meaning of the Second Amendment to include any weapon that someone can hold and discharge a projectile you are constantly expanding and changing the meaning to reflect the time.
If you can change the meaning that way than you should be able change the meaning of the Amendment in other ways as well.
So, who should decide what weapon I use for self-defense?Repeal it. Owning a specific weapon is a privilege not a right.
You have a natural right to self defense. You don't have a natural right to use whatever weapon you want.
See amendment 21. Guess not always.So constitutional rights don't apply to legal adults 18-20?
Is this one of those all or nothing threads? You're either for grabbing all the guns or we shouldn't do anything?
What troubles me is that, if the goal is to truly halt mass shootings, our only real recourse may be to become the UK. Repeal the 2nd amendment and collect all the guns.
If the root of the problem is the sheer prevalence of guns in the US, as I think fskimospy would argue, then what good is it restricting the type of firearm? I suppose you might ban anything semi-automatic, but then you're left with two problems: (1) with the 2nd amendment still in place that's not likely to happen, and (2) killers may still resort to single-shot lethal weapons such as pump shotguns, as occurred in the Washington Navy Yard shooting.
Another question is, at what point are guns considered controlled enough? If we do everything the Parkland students want, and two weeks later a school shooting occurs using two handguns, is it likely that the narrative will be that guns are sufficiently controlled and no further restrictions are needed?
My point is that there doesn't seem to be any principle here. The difference between a lesser version of gun control and a severe version is simply that there haven't been enough mass shootings to emotionally move people to the extremes.