Great idea.Only one small problem.It's frequently
only after a tragedy that the homicidal maniac become known to be a homicidal
I know of a few who should be put away.
Let me get this straight.... their proposal, incarcerate people because they
might become a threat, and that is not a violation of our rights as provided
under the constitution. Checking to see if you are a mentally ill person
before selling you a weapon - that there is a clear violation of our
constitutional rights.I am a gun owner, and enjoy using them. But
I see no reason why a quick background check to see if one is mentally ill
before selling guns or ammo to this person is a problem for the NRA. People go
under deeper background checks before boarding a flight then they do to buy a
firearm.Again - lack of sensible compromise seems to be the mantra.
We would be more willing to lock up thousands of mentally ill people in the
chance they might act out - and pay for their incarceration, rather then simply
have a check that would prohibit these people from buying guns.Guns
are a right, and a responsibility. Why is that so hard to agree upon.
This is the game:The gun manufacturers and sellers figured out, years ago,
how to transform the NRA into a front for their businesses.First, they
spread the lie that "bearing arms" is not about raising a militia or
joining in an organized defense -- it does not mean "owning guns" --
however, there is nothing wrong with reasonable and safe gun ownership.Average Americans have heard years of scare tactics about Government
takeovers, confiscation, etc etc.-- all of this intended to block laws that
would result in the sale of fewer guns and less ammo, costing the industry
potential profits.Average Americans have been sold a cruel lie that inner
city people are less worthy than they are, and are just going to find guns and
shoot one another, no matter what.If firearms and ammo were
regulated reasonably, like cars and driving, sales of handguns, which are so
profitable, would be much less. Sales of ridiculous amounts of ammo would stop.
People are making money from sales to the wrong people, and blame
"criminals"Folks in rural areas who are Christians need to
accept gun control to help avoid these deaths that take place every day in
this reckless attempt to villainies those that suffer mental illness rather then
have an honest debate about violence and gun control is sickening even for the
No what we really need is to ban all guns which look cosmetically like they
might be a military style gun.We need to ignore the crazies among
us, giving them the help they need won't help at all.---Or so one would think by reading a lot of letters to the editor and
listening to many of our politicians.
Perhaps we should increase background checks, both in what they check and where
sales are checked, to reduce the availability of guns to some who obviously
should not have them.
Fine... incidentally stockpiling heavy weapons and ammo likely correlates with
Let's take some of our most heinous shootings.Columbine: Dylan
Klebold and Todd Harris had no prior criminal record but had access to a cache
of weapons.The shooting at the military base in Texas: The guy had
no previous record and was a soldier in good standing. Obviously he had access
to weapons.The shooting in at the Colorado theater: Guy was a
little weird but had no past criminal history and again gained access to
weapons. THe Sandy Hook shooting: No prior criminal record but Mom
had a huge cache of weaponry.The VA Tech shooter had no past
criminal history.So in most cases, mass shootings are not done by
Ted Bundy type or some released murderer on parole. They are most often
committed by relatively young males (white mostly) that are mentally unstable.
Their parents are often clueless and often provide the very weapons used in the
attacks. It seems like in some cases violent video games are watched by the
shooters in mass amounts. I guess saying there could be a connection there is
opening up a huge can of worms.
The issue is not a criminal record. Criminal record is what the background check
checks. The issue is mental illness. These shootings all have mental illness as
a factor, and the family and friends, and even the doctors of these shooters
knew they were troubled, but had no legal means of keeping them safe, and
society safe from them. But NAMI wants us to think that 80% of the
population is mentally ill, and that mental illness is normal. It is not normal,
and those hearing voices need intense treatment and supervision, not privacy and
seclusion.Not an NRA member, but they are absolutely right on this
The Connecticut school killer was STOPPED by a background check, because his
problems were documented in the system.The difficulty is deciding
"how crazy" someone has to be before they get committed, and therein
lies the disagreement. Some mental health zealots say you must never restrict
the liberties of even the craziest person, until after they have acted. But
many of their liberal friends say [see above] that "anyone who wants a gun
must be crazy and therefore prohibited from getting one."When
all the definitions and standards and criteria for a bill are in writing, then
we can discuss the merits.Many of the mass killers WERE being
treated with psychotropic medications, and perhaps that is a criteria which
should trigger a ban on gun possession. Violent video games seem to be a
frequent addiction, so that is another criteria.The NRA knows that
those who seek to ban all guns want incremental steps towards "Goldilocks
gun control" where every gun is too big, or too small, or prospective buyers
are too young, too old, too rural [see above!] or too urban.Freedom
is not without risks.It's not the guns, it's criminals and
I would suggest that the culture of guns in America, of which the NRA is a prime
supporter, has made us all potential 'homicidal maniacs'. Their tactic
of blaming others while promoting the addition of infinitely more guns into
society is ludicrous. And we refuse to see it, on a monumentally hypocritical
scale. For example, let's play with the wording:Freedom is not
without risksIt's not the guns (or liquor, or cigarettes, or cars),
it's criminals and crazies (or drunk drivers or smokers or unlicensed
drivers). Every time someone tells me regulating guns won't work i tune
A monumental problem appears to be that a large number of disturbed, and/or
mentally ill individuals, cherish their membership in the National Rifle
The NRA are not called gun crazy for no reason. Listen to some of these people
talk as to why they need assault weapons and tons of ammunition.
Didn't St. Regan close the mental institutions and assured the public that
people like this are safe if they take their meds? Save a few bucks at the
risk of the general population. Now we yell "Lock up" these people or
is it really get them out of sight.Oh my, if investing in mental
hospitals again is the answer, what will it do to my "taxes"? They will
scream NO to this or building new jails and hiring staff. Any thought of a
waiting period between buying and ownership will assault the Constitution.I am of a mind that the extremist who demand no controls, who
Gerrymander their districts and depend on very deep pockets and voter
suppression just might have won their cause. They won the "right" for
anyone to own a firearm immediately..... But murdered the same Constitution for
everyone to get there.Shame on you.
Now that we have" mandatory healthcare" It would be easy to include
mandatory mental health checkups. What matter is a trillion or so more on the
debt? Of course we would soon learn that we are all nuts.
"I would suggest that the culture of guns in America . . .has made us all
potential 'homicidal maniacs'. Hutterit:Speak
About 160 mil. in 2008 and 150. mill in 2012 voted. Presidential elections
normally split 45-55.So basically, a quarter of the country go one
way, another quarter of the country goes another, and half of the country
don't really care/don't pay attention/think it's too
complicated/think "both sides are equally bad".A Sandy Hook
mother went on Maddow's show and explained to how she didn't even know
what a filibuster is.Which of the 3 categories above do you think
she fit into? But all of a sudden when political failure comes to roost in your
backyard, politics cease to be complicated. All of a sudden it's no longer
abstract and immovable. All of a sudden it becomes pretty clear, pretty black
and white.While half the country sits on their posteriors watching
the latest America's Next Whatever and refuse to look at what goes on
beyond the fences in their backyards, one party is doing everything it can to
destroy the country and hand what's left over to the wealthy, while the
other wonders why we allow our political system to be overrun by lunatics.
There are certainly "homicidal maniacs" out there that have, as of yet,
committed no crime. And I am confident that some of our healthcare
professionals know about some of them.Can someone please tell me how
we could possibly prevent "homicidal maniacs" from buying guns without a
background check?Basically, the NRA is looking to point towards ANY
solution that does not affect gun ownership. In fact, most of their solutions
involve more guns.Big surprise with that. As is always the case -
FOLLOW the MONEY
The NRA spins paranoia of the government to sell more guns. Maybe a reasonable
approach may calm down people with large capacity guns designed to assault and
kill, not hunt deer.
UtahBlueDevil--I'm surprised you would own a gun, when Obama would wish you
didn't.I am surprised our country would send weapons to
maniacs in Egypt, Mexican cartels, etc.Doesn't make sense.
I was thinking the same thing, Itsjstmeagain. Reagan ended federal spending on
mental health in the '80s and many hospitals shut down, sending patients
to live on the streets. I think this anti-society - put the responsibility on
irresponsible states - huge turkey is coming home to roost.
NO homeowner or hunter needs an assault rifle, PERIOD.
why do gun owners and shooting sports people need lost of guns and ammo? why do
golfers need lots of club and golf balls. They both enjoy their sports and
equipment. People get killed with both by fanatics and homicidal types. Remember
the little girl who was killed by the Kennedy relative with a golf club? Any number of things are available for killers use to perform their
crimes. No, guns are not just to commit murder, they are used mostly by law
abiding citizens to shoot at targets and for hunting legally.The NRA
is for gun owners and they promote training, safety, and our Second Amendment
Ok people, lets see what happens when you ban guns. Liberals say that thing
will be better for the world if we ban guns. Lets see what what has happened to
Australia when they banned their law abiding citizens from owning guns.From WND "Crime up Down Under" there we find that crimes comitted
using guns increased by 45% after the ban.From "Increased gun
control lead to increased gun violence in Australia" in the Examiner we find
that criminals were using guns more and more to commit crimes.The
lesson we should learn here is that banning guns just disarms the law-abiding
people and makes them bigger targes for criminals and mentally disturbed people.
Where are all the "shall NOT be infringed" - on anyone, for any reason,
even the homicidal maniacs - pro-gun 2nd amendment constitutionalist gun nuts
today?Cat got their tongues?
"Liberals say that thing will be better for the world if we ban
guns."You may find a few liberals who want to "ban guns"
but very very few.We already ban fully automatic weapons, and that
is generally supported by even the NRA.You have created a classic
straw man argument.
@ mike in sandy, define an assault rifle. The navy yard killer just used a
simple shotgun is that in the parameters of an assault rifle? Describe your
concept of an assault rifle, by caliber, loading mechanism, number of cartridges
it carries, color, stock, and what ever more. And then identify what of those
characteristics should make it wrong for a homeowner, farmer, hunter, rancher to
not own it. Keep in mind a 4.5mm projectile can kill as well as a 50mm
@Redshirt1701"Ok people, lets see what happens when you ban guns.
"The vast majority of people in favor of increasing gun
regulation are only looking to strengthen some gun laws like increasing
penalties for trafficking, applying background checks to more gun purchases,
limited the number of rounds in a magazine... all things filibustered by Senate
To "atl134" but those don't work either. Just look at Chicago or
Washington DC. What criminal will worry about the penalty for traficing? What
criminal gets a background check before buying a gun?You want to
give the guy with a brain tumor an asprin because it makes the symptom go
away.Come back when you have a solution to the mentally ill,
drugged, and violence addicted people that want to harm others.
The NRA opposes any effort to get the maniacs off the street. Ironic,
We can possibly name one GOP terrorist in the last 50 years....but I can
seriously name 10 liberal democrat terrorist in the last two years. Ban guns
from Libs and you will have no gun deaths!
Here is were I have a problem with the logic often espoused on these threads,
first people claim that guns are not any part of the problem but rather it is
only the criminals that use them. Then they claim that if law abiding citizens
are not allowed to own guns the gun crime rates will go up. So if it is true
that guns are not a factor in the crime then why would law abiding citizens need
guns as a response, why would a knife or a bat not do just as well to defend
ourselves if the gun is not an important factor?
Did somebody equate golf club violence with gun violence? Did I actually read
that?I believe in the second amendment but at the same time with
freedom and rights comes responsibility.But back to the golf club.
Not following the logic in that one...I guess the Sandy Hook killer could have
brought his Mom's golf clubs and the death toll would have been the same.
To "Sorry Charlie!" which is easier to conceal when you go out to dinner
at Olive Garden. Your Louisville Slugger bad, or a Glock 23?In your
home, sometimes just getting a shot gun ready to fire makes enough of a distinct
noise that criminals run.Look at it this way. If a criminal broke
into your house and was determined to find you and kill you, would you want to
have to get within swinging distance (and hope you have room to swing a bat)
before you can defend yourself or would you rather be able to defend yourself at
"@Mike in SandySandy, UTNO homeowner or hunter needs
an assault rifle, PERIOD."Most human suffering, and un-natural
deaths have come from governments. I am more than glad to see our citizens
armed. That's a reason this country hasn't been attacked.Questions for you! What kind of weapons have our government been giving other
countries? Where have Mexican cartels got their weapons from? Why does Obama
want a civilian army, and how are they going to be armed?
@redshirtYou seem to have missed the point but from your comment I
assume you agree the gun is a factor despite claims to the contrary.
Truth, do you have any idea at all what truth really is?
@worf..... I have many guns.... not just a gun. i've been collecting them
for nearly 40 years. And I don't have the time to waste hunting either...
I just like to shoot them.As to where the cartels' get their
guns....... most recent numbers show they came from gun shops and gun shows in
the US - not the US government. I know you wish the single event represented a
trend, but unfortunately facts just don't support.But if you
really want to talk about the government providing drug runners with weapons,
lets just get Oliver North to tell us all about it. It seems the Reagan
administration had the practice down to a science. But in the end, that has
absolutely nothing to do with the NRA.
Hutterite, old man, LDSlib, Sandy Mike, etc:Why is it that when
someone commits a crime with a gun, all the 'progressives' want to
punish the people that didn't do it?
Howard BealProvo, UT"Let's take some of our most
heinous shootings.Columbine: Dylan Klebold and Todd Harris had no
prior criminal record but had access to a cache of weapons."Yes
to prior, albeit non-violent records. Yes to prior mental health issues. No to
a cache of weapons. Guns were basically bought off the street."The shooting at the military base in Texas: The guy had no previous
record and was a soldier in good standing. Obviously he had access to
weapons."Obvious red flags that he was an Islamic radical.
Today's PC military did not investigate. "The shooting in
at the Colorado theater: Guy was a little weird but had no past criminal history
and again gained access to weapons."A little weird? He
described his plan for mass murder in a notebook and to his psychiatrist
(allegedly).I could go on but I think you get the point. The real
discussion needs to be how to stop the mentally ill from harming people even if
it is with a knife as we saw here in Utah today.