|
jlf1961 -> RE: AND WHY ? (9/25/2016 2:43:03 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:
Of the largest mass shootings in US history, all but two were committed by people being treated for various mental and emotional conditions that would have blocked them from purchasing guns IF THEY HAD BEEN REPORTED to the authorities.
Maybe so, but without access to guns those troubled people would probably not have been able to commit mass murders.
In the United States, the death rate from gun homicides is about 31 per million people — the equivalent of 27 people shot dead every day of the year.
In other countries the rate is about one or two per million.
Clearly, the availability of guns is the major issue. Putting the blame on the privacy of mental health records is a strawman.
And, if seven million guns are stolen each year it may be due in some part to the irresponsibility of gun owners.
What part of "IF their mental condition had been reported to authorities would have preventing them from legally buying guns" do you not grasp?
Federal law prohibits the purchase and possession of firearms by people who fall within certain categories, such as convicted felons, domestic abusers, and people with specific kinds of mental health histories.1 Although background checks have prevented over two million people in these categories from obtaining guns,2 the federal law does not generally include other types of people identified by public health researchers as being at a significantly higher risk than the general population of being dangerous,
including:
Those who have been convicted of violent or gun-related misdemeanors;3
Those with a history of abusing alcohol or drugs4;
Those convicted of juvenile offenses;5 and
Additional people who have suffered from severe mental illness.6
That is the law, the classes of people who cannot legally purchase firearms.
Now, the mandatory back ground check should show those things up except:
1) Mental health professionals are not REQUIRED by ANY LAW to report those patients who suffer from the disqualifying conditions. In other words, unless they walk in and admit to having a disqualifying condition, there is no record of it outside the fucking doctor's office.
See a problem there?
2) State and local law enforcement agencies are not required to report any law violations to the national database that is used in the back ground checks. It is purely voluntary.
So the first two again are hit and miss, and only if some agency decides to put it into the database.
So, your solution Vincent is to make it illegal for anyone to purchase a gun regardless of their lack of criminal, mental or whatever disqualifiers?
So, I guess if one of your children breaks a rule, you punish all of them, even if they were not involved right?
I take it that you are not a real good student of history.
I suggest you look at the acts of parliament that directly led to the revolution.
But let me give you a few hints.
In South Carolina, the British army confiscated gun powder in private warehouses to keep it out of colonists hands.
In New England, british troops confiscated firearms, shot and powder.
That is the primary reason for the 2nd amendment.
But then lets look at some modern history.
When the Nazis came to power in Germany, one of the first things done was to make firearms illegal.
Stalin came to power and did the same thing, what followed was his famous purges, officials and soviet citizens that protested his programs.
Do I disagree that there is a problem with gun related crime in the US, no, there is a major problem with gun related crime in the US.
However, considering that there are laws that would eliminate most of the gun related crimes you people scream about, IF YOU PEOPLE WOULD ALLOW THEM TO BE ENFORCED AND GIVE THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES THE TOOLS TO DO JUST THAT.
I think it is ludicrous to believe a gun ban would work. I mean the prohibition of alcohol worked wonders, didnt it? The ban on drugs has worked out real well.
Just how effective has that $3.9 billion dollars spent last year on preventing drugs from getting into the country been?
How effective was the hundreds of millions spent during prohibition keeping booze out of the country?
How effective are the billions spent on keeping illegal aliens out of the country been?`
Now, let me explain the problems with a full gun ban, aside from the fact it just wont work.
AK knockoffs are being produced by the millions in back alley shops from India to Africa. They are not complicated to make.
I can make a 9mm sten submachine gun in my barn.
I can go to a buddy's machine shop and mill every part for an AK, AR series rifle in about 3 hours. I can make the tools to rifle the barrel in the same time.
If I really wanted to, I could machine the parts for anything from a WW 2 BAR to a 50 cal machine gun or a 30 cal 1919, or a 7.7mm minigun.
Why? Because all I have to do is download the specs off the internet and then convert them to a CAD/CAM program.
So, to ban guns in the US (a country notorious for breaking bans to begin with) you are going to have to restrict internet access, regulate machine shops to the point of having cops in every one of them 24/7, only because there is no way to tell who's machine shop produced what.
And all of that is dependent on IF you can get the people owning the 300 million plus legally owned guns to give them up.
And before you can even approach confiscation, you will have to have the 2nd amendment taken out of the constitution.
And should that happen, what is to stop someone at a future date deciding we dont need the rest of the amendments?
So, what is the solution?
Make it possible for the fucking gun regulations to fucking work and quite being all or nothing jackasses about gun control.
Because there is one thing an Executive order cannot do, and that is supersede the Constitution. FDR tried it and the Supreme Court kicked a lot of his executive order programs out the door as unconstitutional.
Before him, Lincoln did it, and again the Supreme Court shut his executive order down.
The funniest thing around is a Liberal saying that they support the constitution, and in the same breath talk about infringing on the second amendment.
|
|
|
|
