Those wacky lovebirds Not sure what to give your lover who is too mentally ill to manage their own affairs? The U.S. Senate has a great idea -- they'll be voting today to undo an Obama administration law that would have included the names of Social Security recipients with severe mental impairments to the federal firearms background check system. Not just anyone with a mental illness, mind you, because YES WE KNOW not all mental illnesses make people dangerous -- only people who are so mentally unstable that they need a third party to manage their affairs for them. The House already passed a bill repealing the regulation, using that awesome little 1996 turd of a law called the Congressional Review Act (CRA), the very same law that Congress wants to use to make it legal for
I read in the papers today that the NRA wants to drop restrictions on silencers too......
They do that all the time. Nothing new there.
That's great. So what are you going to do about all the suicides? Because the majority of people who commit suicide are not what one would call mentally disturbed, at least not in a way that can be seen and predicted. And the majority of gun deaths are suicides. The whole "mentally ill" thing is a red herring to keep people away from the logical solution - ban private ownership of guns, period. (The 2nd Amendment says nothing about OWNING guns, only keeping them.)
I still don't get how they managed that. WTF, SCOTUS???
The problem is, the majority of gun deaths by far are people who decide to kill themselves, not murders. And most of them aren't mentally ill. So this isn't actually going to do that much to prevent gun deaths. But it'll certainly do a lot to keep people from thinking about how most people die from guns. LaPierre and his gang of ghouls really don't want anyone thinking about that. We might end up deciding to ban guns, and we can't have that!
I'm for that, actually. If you're going to use a fucking gun, you don't get to hide the fact.
This is all a red herring since the majority of gun deaths are suicides, and gun suicides tend to be spontaneous and not the result of diagnosed mental illness.
Doesn't silencers help the shooter hide the fact he wants to go Bond, James Bond on whomever he/she chooses?
The shooter may think that, but silencers don't conceal anything. They don't silence the gun at all, they just make the bang somewhat less bangy. It's still fucking loud.
Oh I'm aware how silencers work: it doesn't do the "pfft" the movies make it out to be, more like a hard door slam.
Back to my point: anything that encourages gun use should still be discouraged and regulated. I think silencers fall under that umbrella.
Also: NRA. Anything they do, do the opposite.
Now is it undiagnosed because it's difficult to spot or undiagnosed because not enough effort goes into properly identifying and treating mental illness?
Having access to a gun makes that suicidal impulse easier to carry out. People can and do still do kill themselves impulsively in other ways too. I suspect those methods might require a little more commitment. I've had one coworker without obvious signs of depression hang himself and another with a long history of depression, PTSD and borderline personality disorder over dose herself on her anti anxiety meds.
Clearly society needs to protect itself from monsters like you.
You don't have a disagreement with me. You and I have a disagreement with the premise of this article that it's *obviously* a good idea to use having a payee as a marker for who should not be allowed to have guns.
If I was in charge the only way someone could get a gun would be to sign up for the National Guard or military reserves, and pledge to use that personal gun in all training and drill that they have to participate in. You know. bring back the "well regulated militia" part of it.
As you say, a lot if not most gun deaths are suicides. And a lot of those are impulsive suicides. Unfortunately, most people who kill themselves do not interact with the mental health system, much less are people with payees. That's just another reason that the premise of this article (and most of the comments) is wrong.
Kind of sounds like we're on the same page here, as far as the actual usefulness of what Zoom is trying to defend.