Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
Tue Oct 6, 2015, 07:31 AM Oct 2015

If we don't focus on the mentally ill how are background checks supposed to work?

Lots of people say we need to close the private seller loophole (I favor making NICS available to private sellers) and toughen laws against straw purchases (I'm good with that).

Many also say most mentally ill people are not violent. I believe them but we should acknowledge that the violent ones are. Moreover, these stories always seem to be accompanied by the line, "the suspect had a history of mental illness." Eliot Rodgers, Aaron Alexis, Jared Loughner, Adam Lanza, Seunh-Hui Cho, James Holmes, etc. are all examples of spree killers that someone in authority suspected of being potentially violent and yet those in authority did nothing.

If the objective is to keep guns out of their hands they have to be brought before the authorities and, through due process, be adjudicated as unfit to enjoy their rights. That is the only way their names end up in the NICS to be flagged against selling guns to them.

And here's a weird follow-on thought -- maybe while we have them before the authorities we can get them the treatment they need to no longer be tormented by the demons that drive them to these horrendous acts. Basic human compassion would suggest we would want to relieve them of the suffering they endure.

99 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
If we don't focus on the mentally ill how are background checks supposed to work? (Original Post) Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 OP
They don't. They are a fig leaf. Warren Stupidity Oct 2015 #1
"controlling the use and possession of other guns" Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #3
It's worked effectively elsewhere. Warren Stupidity Oct 2015 #5
Except when it hasn't. Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #6
Which isn't once or twice every damm day... ananda Oct 2015 #9
On the contrary, every time there is a spree killer numerous laws have failed. Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #10
This is a non sequitur. ananda Oct 2015 #87
"Good gun-control laws do have an effect on the frequency of gun violence." Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #88
A couple points.... Adrahil Oct 2015 #4
I'm all for regulating guns based on the amount of hot lead that comes out of the barrel per second. backscatter712 Oct 2015 #68
.. pipoman Oct 2015 #84
There is an AR-15 type gun manufactured in which the Snobblevitch Oct 2015 #97
Kids who accidentally kill other kids with guns are not mentally ill...their Parents are. Not every kelliekat44 Oct 2015 #45
They don't. This is obvious. Look around. nt bemildred Oct 2015 #2
Stopping disturbed persons isn't their main intent, anyway. Lizzie Poppet Oct 2015 #7
As someone with a "mental illness" I take powerful meds for, I find your post highly offensive. hunter Oct 2015 #8
First, if you choose to be offended that is your choice. Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #12
It distracts from the actual issue -- gun fetishism in the U.S.A.. hunter Oct 2015 #20
Controllers are the fetishists. Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #21
Well... Chan790 Oct 2015 #23
Because self-defense is a right and the misuse and abuse by others does not abrogate those rights. Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #26
Who is trying to ban self defense? n/t kcr Oct 2015 #31
Who is trying to own a nuclear bomb? Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #37
Aww. And you said, "go for it" kcr Oct 2015 #38
I do not concede. Plenty of Controllers demand people be disarmed up to and including Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #39
You do not understand what straw man means kcr Oct 2015 #40
No one claims private nuclear bombs are a practical means of self-defense. Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #41
Except I wasn't claiming anyone was making that argument kcr Oct 2015 #42
Okay. So let's play with your stupid analogy, which is stupid. Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #43
It's not stupid kcr Oct 2015 #44
"Your contention that no one should abrogate your decision" Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #47
I'm sorry, but it does. kcr Oct 2015 #48
I'm sorry but you can't just make stuff up. Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #50
I forget. What is the well-regulated militia that all you gun folks belong to? HERVEPA Oct 2015 #53
Title 10 USC Section 311. Which Supreme Court do you belong to? Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #54
About Title 10 (I'll take what was obviuosly meant in The Constitution) HERVEPA Oct 2015 #60
I see you're unfamiliar with Section 311 Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #61
I read it, Ms. Pomposity. I'll still take the obvious meaning of the Constitution (nt) HERVEPA Oct 2015 #63
The obvious meaning of the constitution that since the militia supplies its own arms Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #64
Pick and choose whatever BS you'd like. I'm done with your crap. HERVEPA Oct 2015 #66
Interesting citation. Let's look at it without your dubious lifting it out of context -- Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #67
So both the President and the Demcratic party platform got it wrong hack89 Oct 2015 #73
yup HERVEPA Oct 2015 #75
I think I will go with the guy who taught constitutional law. Nt hack89 Oct 2015 #76
Yeh, you go with the dead kids. HERVEPA Oct 2015 #78
So what you're saying is, by your own rules, if you don't support reinstating Prohibition Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #80
Apples and unicorns HERVEPA Oct 2015 #82
No. No, it's not. You can try to pretend the analogy is not apt but there is no argument you Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #83
Enjoy your gun stuff for the next week. I'm off dancing in a gun-free zone with non-gunners. HERVEPA Oct 2015 #94
jury results restorefreedom Oct 2015 #92
Thanks for posting. HERVEPA Oct 2015 #93
no problem. restorefreedom Oct 2015 #95
"Controllers are the fetishists." Gidney N Cloyd Oct 2015 #24
The Controllers hit bottom years ago when they started cheering violence against gun owners Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #27
My mistake. _Now_ it's hit bottom. Gidney N Cloyd Oct 2015 #28
Is it the fact some Controllers have violent ideations or my temerity in pointing out the fact? Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #36
I like to pretend everyone is ignoring the criminals too LanternWaste Oct 2015 #58
Yeah? beevul Oct 2015 #70
Congratulations, you're a sucker for the old NRA right-wing manipulation. backscatter712 Oct 2015 #11
FACT: I never said most mentally ill people are violent Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #13
Mental health needs to get more attention but inwiththenew Oct 2015 #14
I don't think we need "all mental health records" Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #15
According to real research: backscatter712 Oct 2015 #16
"you'd cut the overall violence rate by about 4%." Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #17
Do what Australia did. n/t backscatter712 Oct 2015 #18
Yeah, about that often cited but seldom scrutinzed talking point -- Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #19
Oh, it's not just the "spree killers." hunter Oct 2015 #22
How does misuse and abuse by one person abrogate the rights of another? Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #25
I have the right to defend myself against pests in my house. kcr Oct 2015 #32
Go for it. Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #33
That's twisting the research, IMHO Nevernose Oct 2015 #71
It indeed is a "top-down thing," branford Oct 2015 #74
Look we can't keep guns out of hands that should upaloopa Oct 2015 #29
You can no more keep guns from everyone than you can keep drugs from everyone. Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #35
the Columbine kids got their guns because no backround checks- end straw purchases! bettyellen Oct 2015 #30
There are laws against straw purchases and I support those laws. Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #34
but they happen more often when they can get away with no paperwork- she would not have done it bettyellen Oct 2015 #49
So, returning to the OP. How would UBCs matter unless the mentally ill were ID'ed and Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #51
We can walk and chew gum at the same time. We need more mental health services- and bettyellen Oct 2015 #52
Stricter how? Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #55
You can look a million places for good proposals on gun regulations- why pretend you need me? bettyellen Oct 2015 #56
I've seen lots of proposals undet the guise of "common sense" that would have no bearing while Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #59
And the girlfriend who did the buying and straw purchases Lee-Lee Oct 2015 #46
That is such an important point mainstreetonce Oct 2015 #62
Many also say most mentally healthy people are not violent. LanternWaste Oct 2015 #57
For policy it's not a question of if mentally ill are or aren't violent HereSince1628 Oct 2015 #69
Private sales DustyJoe Oct 2015 #65
The majority of firearm deaths (60%) are suicides madville Oct 2015 #72
Japan, which recognizes no RKBA, has a suicide rate that dwarfs our own. People need help Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #77
The "mentally ill" are not more violent than the rest of the population Recursion Oct 2015 #79
The violent ones are. Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #81
If only any other country in the world had to deal with mental illness ... LannyDeVaney Oct 2015 #85
Mass killings by the dangerously mentally ill don't just happen in America, i.e. Andreas Lubitz Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #86
This message was self-deleted by its author postatomic Oct 2015 #89
No u! Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #90
This message was self-deleted by its author postatomic Oct 2015 #96
Yet everything you define as objectionable for the mentally ill Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2015 #98
This message was self-deleted by its author postatomic Oct 2015 #99
Never met a republican yet that wasn't mentally ill. B Calm Oct 2015 #91
 

Warren Stupidity

(48,181 posts)
1. They don't. They are a fig leaf.
Tue Oct 6, 2015, 07:42 AM
Oct 2015

What works is strict regulation banning the possession of full and semi auto guns and controlling the use and possession of other guns.

A less effective interim step would be limiting the number of weapons an individual can own, and the amount of ammunition an individual can store.

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
3. "controlling the use and possession of other guns"
Tue Oct 6, 2015, 07:48 AM
Oct 2015

How do you stop an annihilation killer who has no intention of surviving? Laws only work against those who hope to survive the encounter

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
10. On the contrary, every time there is a spree killer numerous laws have failed.
Tue Oct 6, 2015, 11:25 AM
Oct 2015

You cannot legislate against someone who is immune to consequence and you cannot keep someone who plans for months at a time from finding the means to enact their plans, see: Andreas Lubitz.

ananda

(29,299 posts)
87. This is a non sequitur.
Wed Oct 7, 2015, 12:20 PM
Oct 2015

Good gun-control laws do have an effect on the frequency
of gun violence. That was my point.

Your point is that no law at all can prevent a determined
person from committing violence.

By inference, I think you are trying to create some sort of
backward argument against gun control.

But that is not a logical conclusion to the fact that gun control
laws DO have inhibiting effects on the majority of people.

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
88. "Good gun-control laws do have an effect on the frequency of gun violence."
Wed Oct 7, 2015, 12:27 PM
Oct 2015

Why have guns laws become more liberal while the homicide and violent crime rate has been decreasing?


But that is not a logical conclusion to the fact that gun control laws DO have inhibiting effects on the majority of people.

Except a majority -- an overwhelming majority -- are not the ones who need to be criminalized.
 

Adrahil

(13,340 posts)
4. A couple points....
Tue Oct 6, 2015, 07:55 AM
Oct 2015

Fully automatic weapons are already heavily restricted. Legal full auto guns are almost never used in the commision of a crime, and at this point, many are historical pieces. I have an acquaintence who is a WWI history buff and collector. He owns, a no-kidding WWI machine gun. But for the size and weight, he is certainly not going to rob a bank with it.

As for semi-auto guns... Good luck. Will never happen in this country, IMO. That would be like trying to put smoke back in the bottle.

Guns are things. They do not have a will of their own. Maybe one day gun control advocates will be able to ban broad swaths of weapons, but realistically, the best way to deal with this issue is to dela witht he reasons people kill other people, unless we intend to go door to door searching for guns.

backscatter712

(26,355 posts)
68. I'm all for regulating guns based on the amount of hot lead that comes out of the barrel per second.
Tue Oct 6, 2015, 05:56 PM
Oct 2015

Obviously full-auto weapons are already almost illegal. Manufacture of new Class III weapons were banned during the Reagan administration, so the ones that are left are collector pieces.

Full auto weapons, obviously, can send a hell of a lot of hot lead out their barrels - rat-a-tat. That's why they're so destructive, and why even in gun-happy USA, they're hard to get.

Semi-auto weapons should also become hard to get - you can fire off one shot for each pull of the trigger, and you can pull the trigger repeatedly and rapidly - BOOM-BOOM-BOOM-BOOM! Depending on the magazine, you can fire off up to thirty rounds.

Maybe people should be restricted to firearms that require a secondary action between shots. Say like a pump-action shotgun, where you have to pump a new round into the chamber before you can fire again. Or how about a pistol where you have to manually cock it or rack the slide before you can shoot again, so it goes down to BOOM-clack-clack BOOM-clack-clack. Slows the amount of hot lead coming out the barrel.

Between that and reinstating the ban on high capacity magazines, that could be quite helpful in reducing the death toll.

 

pipoman

(16,038 posts)
84. ..
Wed Oct 7, 2015, 10:10 AM
Oct 2015
Manufacture of new Class III weapons were banned during the Reagan administration,

Wrong, there are new class 3 sold every day...corporations can and do purchase them...

As for the rest see "in common use for lawful purposes"....semiautos are here until there is a constitutional amendment.

Snobblevitch

(1,958 posts)
97. There is an AR-15 type gun manufactured in which the
Sat Oct 10, 2015, 12:07 AM
Oct 2015

bolt is in the ipen position yntil a butten is oushed racking a round into the chamber. The trigger can then be pulled to fire another round. The rate of fire is not slowed down too much.

 

kelliekat44

(7,759 posts)
45. Kids who accidentally kill other kids with guns are not mentally ill...their Parents are. Not every
Tue Oct 6, 2015, 03:09 PM
Oct 2015

death by gunshot is at the hands of a mentally ill person.

 

Lizzie Poppet

(10,164 posts)
7. Stopping disturbed persons isn't their main intent, anyway.
Tue Oct 6, 2015, 10:42 AM
Oct 2015

The main intent was preventing persons with felony criminal records from buying guns at retail stores (and, increasingly, from private sellers...we just enacted universal background checks here in Oregon). Preventing sales to people with (adjudicated) mental health issues was a secondary benefit, since they represent a much smaller total.

But you make a very good point: if we want the system to do a better job of denying firearms to people whose specific mental illness means arming them is a bad idea, we're going to have to have a national conversation about just which diagnoses should be added to the list of disqualifying conditions. This will be challenging if we wish to avoid stigmatizing and penalizing those who don't deserve it, but it's a challenge we need to meet.

hunter

(38,586 posts)
8. As someone with a "mental illness" I take powerful meds for, I find your post highly offensive.
Tue Oct 6, 2015, 11:16 AM
Oct 2015

Nevertheless, since I haven't been hunting for decades, and it's not a skill I thought necessary to pass onto my children, I've no need to keep guns around.

I've been in many very rough and violent situations, and I've lived in very rough neighborhoods, but never once have I felt any desire to own a gun. Guns tend to turn ugly situations into tragedies.

Parents in my city, a city of much higher than average gun mayhem, generally don't want their kids to have anything at all to do with guns. Guns make kids gangsters or victims of gangsters and the police.

In all honesty I believe anyone who likes guns isn't qualified to own one, and that includes most cops.

"Oh, but I love target shooting!" seems like a silly reason to keep dangerous guns around.

Keeping a gun around for "self protection" just seems paranoid.

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
12. First, if you choose to be offended that is your choice.
Tue Oct 6, 2015, 11:32 AM
Oct 2015

Second, I speak about a handful of violent people who need intervention -- and I call for them to get the help they need to bring them peace -- and that upsets you? What next? Gonna accuse me of poor-bashing for saying, "feed the poor"?

Third, while you're taking umbrage for me wanting to bring help to a handful of individuals you seem content to collectively slander 80 million people who will never harm an innocent person.

The fake outrage is tedious. You want to be offended? Go ahead, you worked hard enough for it.

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
21. Controllers are the fetishists.
Tue Oct 6, 2015, 12:53 PM
Oct 2015

Ignore the career criminals. Ignore the handful of mentally ill with violent proclivities. Ignore poverty. Ignore lck of education. Ignore safety training.

Fixate on criminalizing 80 million people because GUNZ!

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
37. Who is trying to own a nuclear bomb?
Tue Oct 6, 2015, 02:31 PM
Oct 2015

I can point to grabbers demanding to grab guns with a lot more ease than you can point RKBA advocates seeking ownership of nuclear weapons.

kcr

(15,403 posts)
38. Aww. And you said, "go for it"
Tue Oct 6, 2015, 02:39 PM
Oct 2015

With a cute popcorn smilie, too.

So, I take it you concede then that no one is banning self defense. Good. Maybe you'll feel better now.

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
39. I do not concede. Plenty of Controllers demand people be disarmed up to and including
Tue Oct 6, 2015, 02:44 PM
Oct 2015

violence to enforce their ends.

Your nuclear bomb, however, is a worn straw man.

kcr

(15,403 posts)
40. You do not understand what straw man means
Tue Oct 6, 2015, 02:47 PM
Oct 2015

And for someone who seems so passionate on the subject, you don't fully get the whole concept of self defense.

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
41. No one claims private nuclear bombs are a practical means of self-defense.
Tue Oct 6, 2015, 02:54 PM
Oct 2015

It's just an absurd argument Controllers prop-up to easily knock over. Hence, straw man.


you don't fully get the whole concept of self defense.

Such as...?

kcr

(15,403 posts)
42. Except I wasn't claiming anyone was making that argument
Tue Oct 6, 2015, 02:56 PM
Oct 2015

I was using an analogy. It is not a straw man argument to say that you think you're entitled to guns for self defense, is it?

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
43. Okay. So let's play with your stupid analogy, which is stupid.
Tue Oct 6, 2015, 03:00 PM
Oct 2015

Why would someone want a nuclear weapon to defend their home and community? Could they support the development cost? Could they afford to maintain it? Would they still have a home and community after the use of it?

But they can afford a rifle and ammunition and using a rifle would not devastate everything they're attempting to save. It's practical.

kcr

(15,403 posts)
44. It's not stupid
Tue Oct 6, 2015, 03:05 PM
Oct 2015

What is stupid is you claiming your right to self defense actually has anything to do with it, which was what I was trying to demonstrate. So you have a right to defend yourself. I have a right to keep rats out of my house. Those things carry disease! Your contention that no one should abrogate your decision on what to do about it inspired me to use a nuclear bomb as an example of just how ridiculous that individualistic nonsense is. Until you figure out a way to build a rocket and launch to your own planet where nothing you decide affects anyone else, you do have limits. Everyone does.

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
47. "Your contention that no one should abrogate your decision"
Tue Oct 6, 2015, 03:25 PM
Oct 2015

No, I said abuse/misuse by others does not abrogate my rights.

Can you cite an example where guilt of a crime for one person is used to abridge the rights of those who are not party to the crime?

kcr

(15,403 posts)
48. I'm sorry, but it does.
Tue Oct 6, 2015, 03:33 PM
Oct 2015

For one thing, you still have the ability to defend yourself. You just have to do it another way. At some point I would think that individualists would realize that all the figurative bombs of free choice going off everywhere would actually make freedumb more difficult. It actually works to reduce choice for most people eventually because you either wind up dead or so miserable you don't care. But thinking big picture may be hard for some.

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
50. I'm sorry but you can't just make stuff up.
Tue Oct 6, 2015, 04:26 PM
Oct 2015

You don't get to wave away people's rights and tell them to settle for less by fiat. Someone who is no threat to you is just that -- no threat to you or anyone else. You do not get to invade their lives and dictate terms to them under the fiction of "the greater good." Every tinpot two-bit pissant tyrant claims "the greater good." And I bet if a pried hard enough I could find your pressure point where you squeal "Individual rights! Individual rights!"

You can walk around paranoid about 80 million people who have no ill will towards you if you want but that is your choice and it's a damned silly choice at that. You can ignore the handful of mentally ill who are actually a threat but that too is a damned silly choice and inhumane to those who need help.

Assuming you're really in it for the greater good.

 

HERVEPA

(6,107 posts)
60. About Title 10 (I'll take what was obviuosly meant in The Constitution)
Tue Oct 6, 2015, 05:04 PM
Oct 2015

You can have the blood on your hands.

Title 10 of the United States Code outlines the role of armed forces in the United States Code.

It provides the legal basis for the roles, missions and organization of each of the services as well as the United States Department of Defense. Each of the five subtitles deals with a separate aspect or component of the armed services


Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
64. The obvious meaning of the constitution that since the militia supplies its own arms
Tue Oct 6, 2015, 05:20 PM
Oct 2015

the right of the people to keep and bear arms must not be infringed. You'll also find variations on the theme in 44 state constitutions, some far more explicit than your strained interpretation.

 

HERVEPA

(6,107 posts)
66. Pick and choose whatever BS you'd like. I'm done with your crap.
Tue Oct 6, 2015, 05:29 PM
Oct 2015

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government.[9] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".[10][11]

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
67. Interesting citation. Let's look at it without your dubious lifting it out of context --
Tue Oct 6, 2015, 05:46 PM
Oct 2015
In addition the Justices held that the Second Amendment restricts only the powers of the national government, and that it does not restrict private citizens from denying other citizens the right to keep and bear arms, or any other right in the Bill of Rights. The Justices held that the right of the people to keep and bear arms exists, and that it is a right that exists without the Constitution granting such a right, by stating "Neither is it [the right to keep and bear arms] in any manner dependent upon that instrument [the Constitution] for its existence." Their ruling was that citizens must look to "municipal legislation" when other citizens deprive them of such rights rather than the Constitution.

The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the "powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police," "not surrendered or restrained" by the Constitution of the United States.[4]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Cruikshank


Emphasis mine.

Of course, the case you're citing is where racists, as private citizens acting under their own power, attempted to deny blacks their 2A rights. The majority opinion you cite states quite plainly that the majority believes the 2A prohibits only the government from infringing on the RKBA but citizens can infringe upon citizens.

It's hard to see how you think this opinion bolsters your contention about gun control when it declares Congress cannot infringe. I'm curious to know why you make common cause with a USSC decision that paved the way for --

African Americans in the South were left to the mercy of increasingly hostile state governments dominated by white Democratic legislatures; neither the legislatures, law enforcement or the courts worked to protect freedmen.[9] As Democrats regained power in the late 1870s, they struggled to suppress black voting through intimidation and fraud at the polls. Paramilitary groups such as the Red Shirts acted on behalf of the Democrats to suppress black voting. From 1890 to 1908, 10 of the 11 former Confederate states passed disfranchising constitutions or amendments,[10] with provisions for poll taxes,[11] residency requirements, literacy tests,[11] and grandfather clauses that effectively disfranchised most black voters and many poor white people. The disfranchisement also meant that black people could not serve on juries or hold any political office, which were restricted to voters; those who could not vote were excluded from the political system.

The Cruikshank ruling also allowed groups such as the Ku Klux Klan to flourish and continue to use paramilitary force to suppress black voting. As white Democrats dominated the Southern legislatures, they turned a blind eye on the violence. They refused to allow African Americans any right to bear arms.


A legacy every gun grabber can be proud of.



So, you thinking about starting a private paramilitary group to deny people their 2A rights? Because obviously Congress can't.

hack89

(39,171 posts)
73. So both the President and the Demcratic party platform got it wrong
Tue Oct 6, 2015, 10:47 PM
Oct 2015

when they both claimed that the 2A protects an individual right?

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
80. So what you're saying is, by your own rules, if you don't support reinstating Prohibition
Wed Oct 7, 2015, 09:29 AM
Oct 2015

you're going with dead kids killed in DUIs, sexual assault, domestic violence, disease, violent crime and deaths from alcohol poisoning.

Your rules.

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
83. No. No, it's not. You can try to pretend the analogy is not apt but there is no argument you
Wed Oct 7, 2015, 10:00 AM
Oct 2015

can make against gun ownership that cannot be applied to alcohol. But arguments for gun ownership include hunting, sports and self-defense; none of which would apply to alcohol.

Controllers just squirm and bray at the analogy while attempting to wave it away because they have no argument against it.

restorefreedom

(12,655 posts)
92. jury results
Wed Oct 7, 2015, 04:26 PM
Oct 2015

On Wed Oct 7, 2015, 06:32 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Yeh, you go with the dead kids.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7239224

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Way over the top.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Oct 7, 2015, 06:41 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: In the context of the discussion, I'll say leave it.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I really get tired of the gun suckers hyperbole and stretching the bounds of their defense regarding the right to bear arms. they pick and choose what they want that to mean, when it clearly states that it's a well regulated militia.

this whole thread by the gun suckers is just inanity at it's highest. they always try to make themselves the paragon of constitutional rights, but they always seem to forget the other rights of the constitution are just as important as the 2nd amendment.

this is so exhausting.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Agree with alerter
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I've seen way more over the top posts that are left without an alert. The gun issue brings out the worst in people so I want to know where everyone stands up front. Let it stand.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

 

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)
58. I like to pretend everyone is ignoring the criminals too
Tue Oct 6, 2015, 04:55 PM
Oct 2015

I like to pretend everyone is ignoring the criminals too as it allows a dramatic lack of substance more palatable to the irrational mind. Bumper-stickers are cool... but are to conversations as bubble gum is to the four food groups.

 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
70. Yeah?
Tue Oct 6, 2015, 09:54 PM
Oct 2015

How many threads in the last 5 days about the shooter?

How many threads in the last 5 days about guns?


Case closed.

backscatter712

(26,355 posts)
11. Congratulations, you're a sucker for the old NRA right-wing manipulation.
Tue Oct 6, 2015, 11:29 AM
Oct 2015

The NRA and right-wing always steers the conversation to mental illness by having their shills in the media howl about "the crazies".

It's a classic manipulative tactic, designed to steer conversation away from gun safety regulation that might cut into gun manufacturer profitability, and towards a convenient scapegoat.

FACT: Most mentally ill are not violent. In fact, they're far more likely to be victims of violence.

FACT: Most violent people are not mentally ill.

FACT: You can't use mental illness to distinguish violent people from everyone else. If you think that's wrong, SHOW ME HOW. How are you going to use mental health diagnoses, psychological analysis, and so on, on large numbers of people, and have a rate of success even slightly higher than rolling dice?

But by all means, continue to scapegoat and stigmatize mental illness, and make hell of the lives of the most vulnerable among us, so you can keep your stupid fucking toys. Just understand that it won't do jack fucking shit to actually lower the death toll.

Watch John Oliver and be educated.

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
13. FACT: I never said most mentally ill people are violent
Tue Oct 6, 2015, 11:40 AM
Oct 2015

In fact, my OP specifically states --

Many also say most mentally ill people are not violent. I believe them but we should acknowledge that the violent ones are.


FACT: I also ID'ed those spree killers who did have a diagnosed history of mental illness.

FACT: I don't watch videos about serious subjects 'splained by people who make their living being unserious.

FACT: Most gun owners aren't violent either. In fact, the vast overwhelming majority of them will never harm an innocent person.

FACT: It's easier to interdict a handful of dangerous individuals who have a history with law enforcement and medical professionals than it is to lay collective blame on 80 million.

inwiththenew

(979 posts)
14. Mental health needs to get more attention but
Tue Oct 6, 2015, 11:46 AM
Oct 2015

We’ve dug ourselves such a deep hole that it is going to take a generation or two to get out of it. Short of an outright ban and confiscation which is not feasible either legally, politically, or logistically, I’m not sure what we do.

I think we need all the mental health records to be compiled and put into the database that the background checks to flag potentially dangerous individuals. But even that is probably not realistic for the reasons listed above. That would be a tough fight that would take some convincing from probably both mental health and privacy advocates. The unintended consequence of that though is that people will not seek mental health for fear of labeled or flagged as a potentially dangerous person.

I’ve seen the idea floated that gun owners undergo psychological evaluation but would a mental health professionals be given any type of immunity if they clear someone and then that person goes on a shooting spree or would they be liable?

Now don’t take this as a maintain status quo attitude because I think something needs to be done but quite honestly I don’t know what if I’m being honest with myself. Back to my first sentence I think it will honestly take a generation or two to change the attitudes of gun ownership in this country.

And honestly even if we eliminated all homicides (one person killing another) whether justified or not we still wouldn't even cut the gun deaths in half. It would only reduce them by about 40%.

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
15. I don't think we need "all mental health records"
Tue Oct 6, 2015, 11:52 AM
Oct 2015

A mental healthcare professional alerted police to James Holmes prior to his going into the Aurora movie theater. Jared Loughner was known to police. Aaron Alexis had a history of treatment but still cleared a BGC for his weapon and a military security clearance. Cho was diagnosed. Eliot Rodgers' parents called police begging them to apprehend their son and were in the process of searching for him themselves when he went on his spree.

These souls do not suddenly materialize from thin air. There is a building progression. We can get them the help they need without stigmatizing those who are not a danger.

backscatter712

(26,355 posts)
16. According to real research:
Tue Oct 6, 2015, 11:52 AM
Oct 2015

Prior history of violence has a real correlation with violence, MUCH more so than mental illness.

Just from what I've been reading, if you miraculously cured all the cases of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression, etc. in the world (which would be awesome), you'd cut the overall violence rate by about 4%.

And I'm talking about the total violence rate, with all the cases that don't make the headlines, not just the sensationalized mass killings.

There are several strong correlators with violence: prior history of violence (as I mentioned), substance abuse (so I'd be for blocking people from purchasing firearms if they have DUIs, or are addicted to meth, for example), and easy access to firearms. Documented history of mental illness is not a strong correlator.

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
17. "you'd cut the overall violence rate by about 4%."
Tue Oct 6, 2015, 11:57 AM
Oct 2015

And spree killers make up less than 4% of violent crimes but that is what the grabbers are fixated on.


and easy access to firearms.

Which brings us back to my OP.

How can we keep guns from people with diagnosed problems such as Lanza, Holmes, Loughner, Rodgers, Alexis, Cho, etc. without identifying them to the background check system? That will require they be adjudicated unfit to own a gun. That means someone has to identify them and make the case to do so. That means we have to look to identify them -- and subsequently treat them.

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
19. Yeah, about that often cited but seldom scrutinzed talking point --
Tue Oct 6, 2015, 12:11 PM
Oct 2015
The 1996 "National Firearms Buyback Scheme" took 660,959[2] long guns, mostly semi-automatic rimfire rifles and shotguns as well as pump-action shotguns, and a smaller proportion of higher powered or military type semi-automatic rifles. Because the Australian Constitution requires that the Commonwealth may only take private property in return for "just compensation," the Government increased the Medicare Levy, from 1.5% to 1.7% of income, for one year to finance compensation. The buyback was predicted to cost A$500 million.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_buyback_program#Australia


$500 million for 660,000 long guns, mostly centerfire rifles and shotguns -- two weapons least likely to find their way into a spree killing.

And at $760 a gun it would cost around $230 billion dollars here assuming it A) passes federal constitutional muster B) passes state constitutional muster C) civilians comply and D) law enforcement enforces the law. So far the answers are: No, No, No and No

hunter

(38,586 posts)
22. Oh, it's not just the "spree killers."
Tue Oct 6, 2015, 01:04 PM
Oct 2015

It's the toddlers and children shooting one another, the gangsters and police shooting innocent people, the insanely jealous people, the suicides... it's a long list of atrocities.

US boy, 11, held for shooting dead eight-year-old neighbour

Why do some mass shootings make the news and some don't?

Guns have a remarkable capacity to turn the rougher aspects of our human existence into horrible tragedies.

Why bother with them?

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
25. How does misuse and abuse by one person abrogate the rights of another?
Tue Oct 6, 2015, 01:15 PM
Oct 2015
Guns have a remarkable capacity to turn the rougher aspects of our human existence into horrible tragedies.

Why bother with them?

That's a personal decision. You're not entitled to make that decision for other people.

Moreover, those who presume to make those decisions for others are deciding that those who would use their guns solely for legitimate reasons be turned into criminals.

In your anti-gun Utopia, if a woman were to shoot a stalker that broke into her home with the intent to harm her how long should be sent to prison for possessing and using the means to defend herself?

kcr

(15,403 posts)
32. I have the right to defend myself against pests in my house.
Tue Oct 6, 2015, 02:19 PM
Oct 2015

So, therefore, I need this nuclear bomb. I have made the decision that this is the way to take care of my problem. Do not abrogate my right to make choices for myself. Because my right to to decide how rid of these pests is my right and shouldn't be abrogated no matter how it affects anyone else. That is their problem and I won't abrogate that. The abrogatedness of people thinking that my choice is wrong is just one abrogate too far. So, I can definitely see your point of view that self defense is a right and therefore deadly weapons that also happen to be used to slaughter millions is the only way! Those dead people and their families can just figure out their own problems. Don't let them abrogate us, NU! Stay strong! Say no to abrogation!

Nevernose

(13,081 posts)
71. That's twisting the research, IMHO
Tue Oct 6, 2015, 10:05 PM
Oct 2015

About 4% of NICS rejects are turned over for prosecution. That's an entirely different issue: what law enforcement feels should be pursued. Law enforcement (primarily policy makers, not calling out cops) seem to be mostly concerned with bullshit like pot smokers and keeping The Poors in their place.

(And to be fair, most of those NICS prosecutions are total pains in the ass and result in no promotions -- there's no incentive -- because the powers that be don't think that stuff is important. That's a top-down thing, and one that is beholden to the massive corporate interests funding NRA lobbyists. I'm a gun-grabber, admittedly, but I also agree with the NRA's statement that "we don't enforce the gun laws already on the books.&quot

 

branford

(4,462 posts)
74. It indeed is a "top-down thing,"
Tue Oct 6, 2015, 11:00 PM
Oct 2015

and the people at the top, our Democratic president and current and past attorney general, who constantly claim the need to use all levers to fight the blight of firearm violence, do nothing in this regard.

If such prosecutions, and enforcement of the laws we already have, are not a priority, I don't know how anyone can demand yet new laws, nor expect that they would be enforced.

upaloopa

(11,417 posts)
29. Look we can't keep guns out of hands that should
Tue Oct 6, 2015, 01:23 PM
Oct 2015

not have them. That is plain as the nose on your face. Let's cut to the chase. The only way to keep guns away from those who would kill is to keep guns from everyone.

 

bettyellen

(47,209 posts)
49. but they happen more often when they can get away with no paperwork- she would not have done it
Tue Oct 6, 2015, 03:54 PM
Oct 2015

if there was. It was just too easy to buy them. That needs to change.

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
51. So, returning to the OP. How would UBCs matter unless the mentally ill were ID'ed and
Tue Oct 6, 2015, 04:29 PM
Oct 2015

if they are ID'ed why aren't they getting help that matters?

 

bettyellen

(47,209 posts)
52. We can walk and chew gum at the same time. We need more mental health services- and
Tue Oct 6, 2015, 04:31 PM
Oct 2015

a stricter permitting process. It's never been on or the other, that is just silly. How told you that- the NRA?

 

bettyellen

(47,209 posts)
56. You can look a million places for good proposals on gun regulations- why pretend you need me?
Tue Oct 6, 2015, 04:49 PM
Oct 2015

That's bullshit, just like the either/ or nonsense you floated above.

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
59. I've seen lots of proposals undet the guise of "common sense" that would have no bearing while
Tue Oct 6, 2015, 04:55 PM
Oct 2015

likely infringe on rights.

Personally I'd favor opening NICS to private sellers, interdicting those with criminal records and broader social services.

I would absolutely oppose registration and bans on features such as capacity limits, shoulder stocks and pistol grips.

 

Lee-Lee

(6,324 posts)
46. And the girlfriend who did the buying and straw purchases
Tue Oct 6, 2015, 03:13 PM
Oct 2015

was never even charged with a crime- despite admitting she broke the law in arming them.

Laws that don't get enforced may as well not exist.

mainstreetonce

(4,178 posts)
62. That is such an important point
Tue Oct 6, 2015, 05:10 PM
Oct 2015

We have to enforce laws against gun suppliers with very strict penalties.

 

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)
57. Many also say most mentally healthy people are not violent.
Tue Oct 6, 2015, 04:53 PM
Oct 2015

"Many also say most mentally ill people are not violent. I believe them but we should acknowledge that the violent ones are"

Many also say most mentally healthy people are not violent. I believe them but we should acknowledge that the violent ones are.

HereSince1628

(36,063 posts)
69. For policy it's not a question of if mentally ill are or aren't violent
Tue Oct 6, 2015, 08:24 PM
Oct 2015

When you focus a policy it has to be for a justifiable reason. In the case of focusing policy on mental illness to control gun violence, the question must be do the mentally ill represent a significantly different risk of gun violence from the general population. This is necessary because of constitutional protections for -all- citizens including the equal protection clause

The answer to whether there is such difference for all classifications of gun violence and all classifications of mentally illness compared to the general population is very decidedly -NO-.

When the question gets parsed into different pieces relative to the type of gun violence the answer for a role of mental illness in a specific type of gun violence is decidedly -YES-. Gun suicides are quite definitively linked to depression and anxiety.

But solitary gun suicides are not generally acts of social violence. Social gun violence is gun violence out in society, it includes things like the use of guns in robberies, road rage incidents, gang wars, terror attacks, that include intimidation and shootings in workplaces, schools, retail businesses and public spaces.

Social gun violence would be defined as gun violence that occurs outside of personal relationships, which are matters of domestic violence. Social violence general also excludes violence of persons held in institutions such as prisons, detention camps, and medical and psychiatric hospitals. Gun violence by the mentally ill in institutions is rare and what occurrence there is is outside consideration of "public" policies. Institutionalized persons with mental disorders are prohibited from firearms.

Broadly speaking social gun violence by the mentally ill is statistically uncommon and does not represent significantly increased risks over the general population, which in addition to non-mentally ill members of society also includes a very large number of perpetrators of criminal intimidation with guns, and smaller numbers of people who commit acts of gun violence during acute acts of anger, persons involved in gang violence, persons engaged in acts of terror/political intimidation/rebellion, and persons seeking vengeance, etc.

The public's concern about mentally ill and guns, as demonstrated by very limited concern about the largest category of gun violence--guns used to intimidate during crimes, and by comparison a hyperbolic concern about the acts of violence, is the role of mental illness in intentional mass gun murders in public places against random persons.

Even in this much narrower slice of gun violence in America the role of mental illness is not as clear as one might think, and doesn't clearly support building policies that focus on persons with mental illness.

Mother Jones constructed a database of such mass murders in the US incorporating publicly available information from the 1980s to 2012. Not all of them included guns, mass murders by car and by airplane were included. In that database, about 38% of the murderers could be linked to evidence of clinical mental illness (caveat: only ~20-25% of people seek clinical help for their mental health problems, although persons with more serious mental illness have a somewhat higher rate of help seeking--probably because their daily activities are more impacted by the disorders). Of the events recorded in the database near 60% of the murderers could be associated with 'some' history of symptoms which could be indicative of the presence of mental illness (caveat: symptoms of mental illness are qualitatively within the range of normal emotions, thinking and behavior, what makes them a disorder is the degree and duration of dysfunction brought about by those symptoms. Moreover, about 60 million Americans have some mental disorder each year, so a very large number of people who reach late adolescence and adulthood have experienced some symptoms of mental illness)

So what we can say is slightly more than half of mass murderers between the early 1980s and 2012 have -some- perceived association with mental disorders, although only about 1/3 of the mass murderers have records that would support that. About 66% of intentional mass gun murders in public places don't have a record of evidence that actually established presence of mental illness at all. And that uncertainty means that policies for reducing this specific type of gun violence can't be directed at any rationally narrowed group of mental disorders. Consequently, denial of civil rights to a class of people is very hard to justify in a way that meets court expectations of equal protection.

In recent years, suicide plus mass murder has been on the increase. Because suicide itself is definitively linked to mental disorders, it's very likely that these events are associated with mental illness. But it's not entirely clear -what- mental illness... depression? adjustment disorders? dramatic personality disorders--paranoid schizophrenia? bipolar disorder? borderline personality? What??

The number of these events is thankfully small, but that small size makes statistical significant association hard to obtain for any particular known mental disorder. And there is no reason at all to believe that the psychiatric industry has yet named -every- mental disorder that occurs. For example, Post Traumatic Embitterment, a disorder described in Germany (that includes what we in the US call going-postal) a disorder with good diagnostic clarity, and a disorder for which effective therapy exists, was intentionally left out of the new release of the APA's Diagnostic Manual, mostly it seems because professional reviewers didn't like the use of the terms 'post traumatic' in the name (they fear it is over-applied and would add confusion to PTSD).

How do legislators justify targeting a class of people who can't be shown to be accurately identified. Well they don't need any psychiatric medicine at all to justify policy. They can use public sentiment, which is to say, cultural bias and perhaps even prejudice against the mentally ill (in 2013 a survey was published that found 90% of Americans thought mentally ill shouldn't be institutionalized, but that same survey found 80+% of Americans didn't want a day care center for the mentally ill in their neighborhood, similar percents of Americans didn't want mentally ill persons as neighbors or on their team at work. In 2013, a national survey found that unemployment among the mentally ill was about 80). And public sentiment currently runs very strongly that mentally ill -ARE- the workable part of the problem of mass gun murders in public places.

What caretakers and advocates for persons with mental disorders and persons with mental disorders fear is further criminalization of mental illness and greater institutionalization of discrimination against persons with mental disorders under the rationale that -even the government finds them too dangerous to be treated as full citizens-.

I'm all for ending mass gun murders. If there were clear justification for identifying specific mentally illnesses as a significant part of the problem I'd be ok with targeting persons with those mental illnesses. But as it stands, even among persons with serious mental disorders just less than 7% per year engage in -any- non-institutional violence, which is just shy of 2 percent above the rate of any violent acts in the general population.

And to be clear, all this long reply is just to address the problem of trying to focus policy against persons with mental illness that have a clearly elevated risk so that any policy/law meets it's constitutional requirements.











DustyJoe

(849 posts)
65. Private sales
Tue Oct 6, 2015, 05:28 PM
Oct 2015
Lots of people say we need to close the private seller loophole (I favor making NICS available to private sellers) and toughen laws against straw purchases (I'm good with that).


Agreed, I see firearm ads in the weekly shoppers where sellers state that the buyer meets the seller at a store where a FFL holder is for the NICS check. The only problem is that not all FFL dealers do 3rd party NICS checks or they charge widely different fees for the background check.

Maybe a set fee schedule for NICS checks so sellers/buyers know in advance the cost. This would place private sales in the same arena as online sales where a dealer in a different city only ships to a FFL dealer and the NICS is accomplished at a usual nominal fee $25 typical in my area.

Of course private sellers would have to initiate the process by requiring pickup of the firearm at a dealer, that would be hard to force any compliance without full registration of all firearms first to know non compliant sales. I just don't see that happening.

madville

(7,423 posts)
72. The majority of firearm deaths (60%) are suicides
Tue Oct 6, 2015, 10:38 PM
Oct 2015

And it is estimated that 90% of those suicides are related to some type of mental illness.

It's a combination of easy access to firearms and a lack of available mental healthcare.

The problem for those advocating universal background checks is how do you get these individuals into the system? I don't know what the answer to that is without bringing up a whole bunch of privacy concerns.

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
77. Japan, which recognizes no RKBA, has a suicide rate that dwarfs our own. People need help
Wed Oct 7, 2015, 07:00 AM
Oct 2015

not gimmicky prohibitions that do nothing.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
79. The "mentally ill" are not more violent than the rest of the population
Wed Oct 7, 2015, 09:28 AM
Oct 2015

Though they are more likely to be victims of violence.

 

LannyDeVaney

(1,033 posts)
85. If only any other country in the world had to deal with mental illness ...
Wed Oct 7, 2015, 10:11 AM
Oct 2015

Sux that it only happens in America.

Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #90)

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
98. Yet everything you define as objectionable for the mentally ill
Sat Oct 10, 2015, 10:01 AM
Oct 2015

everyone is proposing be done to those who are not mentally ill or having a criminal history. Where's the logic in keeping 80 million people who are not a threat to anyone in a database.

By the way, it is a gross distortion of my argument to infer I propose this for all mentally ill individuals when I have repeatedly added the qualifier "dangerous." As I noted in my OP, spree killers such as Cho, Loughner, Lanza, Rodgers, Holmes, etc. did not materialize out of thin air. They had histories with law enforcement and mental healthcare professionals and were considered dangerous.

But hey, it's so much easier to criminalize 80 million non-dangerous people because that's how some show they really care.

Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #98)

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»If we don't focus on the ...