Assault weapons

[GChief]

Originally Posted by Ike Bana

I've been a licensed mental health professional since 1993. The conjobs have been harping on the "mental health" aspect of gun violence since Whitman.

The NRA has opposed any real "mental health" limits on licensing right from the beginning. Hell...the NRA thinks one can be legally blind and still get a gun license. Nobody on the right, not one politician, not one alleged "enlightened" conservative has ever come up with a workable plan to keep guns out of the hands of the "mentally ill." They don't even have a working knowledge of what "mentally ill" actually is...because if they did they wouldn't make stupid political comments like "we have to keep firearms out of the hands of the menatlly ill."

I know, let's spend our tax dollars to have every American over the age of 12, given a standard mental status evaluation, so that everybody in the country will have a record of whether they are "mentally healthy" enough to qualify for a gun license. You want your tax dollars spend on this Chief?

Even in the states with the most restrictive gun laws there's no way to be able to keep a gun out of the hands of someone who will shoot up a classroom. "Mental Health" is a fucking right-wing political canard that is spewed constantly to keep any real firearms regulation from happening.

What's your plan for keeping guns out of the hands of the "mentally ill", Chief? What does "mentally ill" mean to you, Chief?

Waiting....

PS - there are just as many "mentally ill" people per capita in the UK as there are in this country...and yet our gun homicide rate is 40 times the rate in the UK...FORTY FUCKING TIMES. "Mental health", my ass. One last thing, the people of this country are fucked up...comparative homicide (of all types) rates...

United States.........7.2 per one hundred thousand population (6.52 OF THOSE ARE GUN HOMICIDES)
United Kingdom......11.7 per MILLION POPULATION.

Yeah, your background leaves me confused as to why you don't see the mental health side of it, but hey it is what it is.

The NRA and their positions are idiotic, I left the NRA in the 90's. You are projecting their "beliefs" on me with your rage and loathing of your fellow Americans. Please show me were I have backed any NRA position, mental health does not count as it is part of the problem.

You can wait... but my position has been reasonable gun controls this whole discussion.

[Oerets]

There are many harmful items restricted in this country right now. Firearms laws fall short by a long shot.
Until the will of the greed driven Republican Party is a active participant in any meaningful legislation. No real solution will be forth coming. This Republican Party is showing us almost hourly what they have planned ahead for the country. With the latest coming from TN removals and WI talks of Impeachment of just elected Judge.

[GChief]

Originally Posted by Oerets

Firearms laws fall short by a long shot

Yes they do.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by GChief

It actually has the 10 rd mag that they come with in it. The other is the exact same rifle with accessories. My point it that the "assault weapon" thing is a moving target. Both are the same rifle yet the scary one would be banned. The high capacity mags are aftermarket. My AR15 came with a 5 and 10 rd mag, anything larger would need to be purchased by me.

I have a Blackhawk stock on my pump waterfowl hunting shotgun, it reduces felt recoil and has a pistol grip for more control. The current versions of "assault weapons" bans being pushed would would ban it because of looks. The function and capabilities do not change, they are exactly the same as with either "look". Well one change would be shooting 3.5" shells at geese all day, the Blackhawk stock makes it fell like just another 2.75" #8.

You say the problem is mainly people with some kind of disordered thinking. That being the case, you should realize that looks matter. War rifle looks feed warrior fantasies--you know, the kind that make people think they have great power because "they are trained and not outgunned."

But I'm willing to discuss function-only definitions. I'd suggest special license required for any semi-auto and/or detachable magazine weapon.

[finnbow]

The federal government already regulates cartridge capacity for shotguns used for migratory game birds (ducks, geese, doves ...). Maybe do the same for the broader civilian firearms industry. Give our schoolkids at least the same survival odds as a mallard.

[Mark B]

Originally Posted by GChief

The core case is someone making the decision to kill people.

Mass murder by guns in the United States is possible largely due to the killing power and killing volume of assault weapons, and assault rifles such as the AR-15 are the weapon of choice for these mass murderers.

The common sense goal should be to reduce as much as possible access to these weapons.

[Oerets]

Foolishly hoping or just plain ignorant are any who are still of the belief, once these Fascist ascend to power. If not the first, in the top five will be taking the firearms from everyone. First non supporters and opponents. Then once those have been removed the rest will be seized.

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by GChief

Yeah, your background leaves me confused as to why you don't see the mental health side of it, but hey it is what it is.

Of course you're confused. The only legitimate "mental health side of it" is the side where you gunners and your feckless politicians provide a model for how the "mental health side of it" is going to prevent those who are not mentally healthy from purchasing guns and war weapons. How is that going to work, is every American who wants a gun license going to be sent to a specially trained mental health professional for a specific evaluation on whether they are mentally healthy enough to own/carry a gun or a war weapon? Who's going to decide who is qualified to make that medical determination? Who's going to pay for it? Do you know what "mental illness" is? Do you know the differences between mood disorders, thought disorders, and affective disorders? Do you know what symptomology in each would suggest that one is not suitable for gun or war weapon ownership?

Or perhaps you already have a plan. Yeh...sure.

Originally Posted by GChief

You can wait... but my position has been reasonable gun controls this whole discussion.

That is a matter of opinion. In my humble clinical opinion there is no reasonable gun control that you would support that would have prevented 20 six year olds in a classroom at Sandy Hook Elementary School from being massacred...or 52 in the audience at a Las Vegas music festival from being massacred. If you have something, put it up here, for christ's sake.

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by Oerets

Firearms laws fall short by a long shot.

Originally Posted by GChief

Yes they do.

Any ideas why?

Still waiting for your ideas about how to apply "mental illness" restrictions to gun ownership that will prevent mass shootings by the "mentally ill".

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Ike Bana

That is a matter of opinion. In my humble clinical opinion there is no reasonable gun control that you would support that would have prevented 20 six year olds in a classroom at Sandy Hook Elementary School from being massacred...or 52 in the audience at a Las Vegas music festival from being massacred. If you have something, put it up here, for christ's sake.

In their heart of hearts, they know the answer involves stricter control of guns as is practiced in nearly every other First World nation. They just can't bring themselves to admit it for one of two reasons (or both). Shooting guns is fun and the tribe to which they belong opposes all gun control. It's really no more complicated than that. Everything else is noise meant to distract from these two fundamental (and fundamentally selfish) reasons.