What is better, no guns, or more guns?

[Irv]

3 hours ago, Andy1 said:

The problem of gun violence should be addressed as a public health problem, similar to the way society addressed smoking and drunk driving. A culture of gun safety needs to be developed and promoted through PSAs. Some of the best advocates should be responsible gun owners. Education programs could address safe storage, theft prevention, safe use, removal of guns from the mentally ill, Red Flag laws, voluntary gun give back to police, reporting concerns to police, education on the risks associated with gun ownership, doctors should talk to parents of children about gun risks, funding mental health programs, etc. 

 

The goal should be to change the way society thinks about guns and gun ownership. Education health programs have worked with DWI and smoking, without banning cigarettes or alcohol.  

 

 

 

I originally thought this was a stupid post but then I re-read it and most of it makes sense.    

 

• Education programs could address safe storage, theft prevention, safe use (Agree 100%)

• Removal of guns from the mentally ill, Red Flag laws (Agree almost 100%.  If somebody is prescribed an anti-depressant - no gun?  That's the concern)

• Voluntary gun give back to police (I don't think there is any law stopping this now)

• Reporting concerns to police (I don't think there is any law stopping this now)

• Education on the risks associated with gun ownership (This exists and is provided by the NRA - Eddie The Eagle Program)

• Doctors should talk to parents of children about gun risks.  (Don't disagree, but not sure why Doctors need to do this.  Anybody can.  You can.)

• Funding mental health programs, etc. (Agree 100%)

   

  The goal should be to change the way society thinks about guns and gun ownership. Education health programs have worked with DWI and smoking, without banning cigarettes or alcohol.  (I don't think the average gang banger gives a crap about this)

[Andy1]

2 hours ago, Irv said:

 

I originally thought this was a stupid post but then I re-read it and most of it makes sense.    

 

• Education programs could address safe storage, theft prevention, safe use (Agree 100%)

• Removal of guns from the mentally ill, Red Flag laws (Agree almost 100%.  If somebody is prescribed an anti-depressant - no gun?  That's the concern)

• Voluntary gun give back to police (I don't think there is any law stopping this now)

• Reporting concerns to police (I don't think there is any law stopping this now)

• Education on the risks associated with gun ownership (This exists and is provided by the NRA - Eddie The Eagle Program)

• Doctors should talk to parents of children about gun risks.  (Don't disagree, but not sure why Doctors need to do this.  Anybody can.  You can.)

• Funding mental health programs, etc. (Agree 100%)

   

  The goal should be to change the way society thinks about guns and gun ownership. Education health programs have worked with DWI and smoking, without banning cigarettes or alcohol.  (I don't think the average gang banger gives a crap about this)

Yea, I don’t know what you do about the gang bangers other than enforce current laws. Half of Americans are idiots. They may be good people, but they are clueless. Some things like voluntary give back to police seem obvious but sometimes dumb people just need reminding that these are options if they have unwanted guns in their home. As for doctors, gun shootings are the number one cause of death to teens and younger. Kids are curious and too many get their hands on their parents guns. Teens go through emotional difficulties. People usually pay attention to their docs. It’s the same as if the parent has lead paint in their home. 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

NEWS YOU CAN USE: 

 

5 Ways to Protect Your Gun Rights and Those of Your Children.

 

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/5-ways-to-protect-your-gun-rights-and-those-of-your-children/

 

 

 

[ArdmoreRyno]

15 hours ago, Irv said:

 

 

 

 

• Removal of guns from the mentally ill, Red Flag laws (Agree almost 100%.  If somebody is prescribed an anti-depressant - no gun?  That's the concern)

 

 

This is the part I take issue with. 

 

Again, what is the standard of "mentally ill" that warrants losing your firearm rights? Right now, in nearly every state... it's being a danger to yourself or others. But what if a person is going through a loss of a loved one or divorce and are taking medication and seeking counseling for that? Do they lose their 2A rights? Should I have to report their private information to LEO? 

 

No. 

 

As for red flag laws... this violates so many constitutional rights. You should never lose a right without due process. 

[All_Pro_Bills]

19 minutes ago, ArdmoreRyno said:

 

 

This is the part I take issue with. 

 

Again, what is the standard of "mentally ill" that warrants losing your firearm rights? Right now, in nearly every state... it's being a danger to yourself or others. But what if a person is going through a loss of a loved one or divorce and are taking medication and seeking counseling for that? Do they lose their 2A rights? Should I have to report their private information to LEO? 

 

No. 

 

As for red flag laws... this violates so many constitutional rights. You should never lose a right without due process. 

You make a good point.  I could argue the standard of mentally ill is an inability to recognize reality and function in it.  But what is the baseline definition for reality?  An exception might be in cases where a person has made specific threats and taken specific actions to carry out some act.  Sadly, law enforcement and public health officials miss most of these, even the most obvious.  One reason is the behavioral health threshold of "evidence" to hold somebody against their will is very high. Most individuals, even those seeking voluntary treatment, are released after evaluation. 

 

The evaluation is highly subjective and as such there is potential for misdiagnosis and abuse of the statute.  On top of that you're dealing with Protected Health Information (PHI) which adds another complexity into the issue when it comes to disclosure.  

[Andy1]

33 minutes ago, ArdmoreRyno said:

 

 

This is the part I take issue with. 

 

Again, what is the standard of "mentally ill" that warrants losing your firearm rights? Right now, in nearly every state... it's being a danger to yourself or others. But what if a person is going through a loss of a loved one or divorce and are taking medication and seeking counseling for that? Do they lose their 2A rights? Should I have to report their private information to LEO? 

 

No. 

 

As for red flag laws... this violates so many constitutional rights. You should never lose a right without due process. 

As someone who is in the mental health field, do you think there is any mental health condition that would justify removing guns from a person’s possession?

[Irv]

35 minutes ago, Andy1 said:

As someone who is in the mental health field, do you think there is any mental health condition that would justify removing guns from a person’s possession?

If somebody is prescribed an anti-depressant - no gun?

[ArdmoreRyno]

34 minutes ago, Andy1 said:

As someone who is in the mental health field, do you think there is any mental health condition that would justify removing guns from a person’s possession?

 

Definitely. 

 

If they are looking to harm themselves or others, or have a recent history of attempts. Most states have this rule in place. Some states have policies where if you were inpatient, you can't buy/own a firearm until you can prove you're competent to do so. 

 

I'm not pro-removing of rights if you're someone (example) who attempted a long time ago and did not complete suicide but have taken the steps to get better, have a safety plan, etc.  A lot of fellow veterans have major PTSD, but that doesn't mean they should lose their 2A rights. 

 

Certain psychotic disorders or personality disorders. Schizophrenia for example. 

 

42 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

You make a good point.  I could argue the standard of mentally ill is an inability to recognize reality and function in it.  But what is the baseline definition for reality?  An exception might be in cases where a person has made specific threats and taken specific actions to carry out some act.  Sadly, law enforcement and public health officials miss most of these, even the most obvious.  One reason is the behavioral health threshold of "evidence" to hold somebody against their will is very high. Most individuals, even those seeking voluntary treatment, are released after evaluation. 

 

The evaluation is highly subjective and as such there is potential for misdiagnosis and abuse of the statute.  On top of that you're dealing with Protected Health Information (PHI) which adds another complexity into the issue when it comes to disclosure.  

 

You're 100% right on everything you said. Especially when you said it's "highly subjective" and there ARE misdiagnosis that takes place in the field ALL THE TIME. 

 

Imagine you live in San Fran and are completely anti-2A. You feel the country should rework the Bill or Rights and get rid of the rights to own a firearm. You're also a shrink (blanket term for any therapist) and you are so bias, you help aide LEO in removing as many guns from people as possible via misdiagnosing people. That could be so abused. 

[Andy1]

42 minutes ago, ArdmoreRyno said:

Definitely. 

 

If they are looking to harm themselves or others, or have a recent history of attempts. Most states have this rule in place. Some states have policies where if you were inpatient, you can't buy/own a firearm until you can prove you're competent to do so. 

 

I'm not pro-removing of rights if you're someone (example) who attempted a long time ago and did not complete suicide but have taken the steps to get better, have a safety plan, etc.  A lot of fellow veterans have major PTSD, but that doesn't mean they should lose their 2A rights. 

 

Certain psychotic disorders or personality disorders. Schizophrenia for example. 

Isn’t this what red flag laws are for? Maybe it’s all in the details of how the laws are worded.

[ArdmoreRyno]

18 minutes ago, Andy1 said:

Isn’t this what red flag laws are for? Maybe it’s all in the details of how the laws are worded.

 

That's the idea, but it's been abused. You can call in on a neighbor you don't like and say they have firearms and have threatened you... or an ex. Just to be spiteful (and it's happened). 

[B-Man]

48 minutes ago, ArdmoreRyno said:

 

That's the idea, but it's been abused. You can call in on a neighbor you don't like and say they have firearms and have threatened you... or an ex. Just to be spiteful (and it's happened). 

 

 

LIFE IN THE BLUE ZONES: 

 

Detectives Rep: New York Cops Are Too Busy With Red Flag Gun Confiscations to Arrest Violent Criminals.

 

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/detectives-rep-new-york-cops-are-too-busy-with-red-flag-gun-confiscations-to-arrest-violent-criminals/

 

 

https://www.timesunion.com/state/article/state-police-union-says-investigators-18093968.php?IPID=Times-Union-state-spotlight

 

 

https://www.timesunion.com/state/article/ERPOs-17268525.php

 

 

 

 

[Andy1]

When it comes to creating laws to remove weapons from individuals who may use them to kill themselves or others, no law or system is going to be perfect. So the question comes down to which side does the law lean towards - protecting people or leaving guns in the hands of mentally unstable individuals.
 

The police appear to support the intent of the laws but are currently overwhelmed by requests. At minimum, it sounds like a lot of mentally unstable people have guns that their family/friends are concerned about. In NY it sounds like we need more police staff to deal with the increased workload. That problem can be resolved over time. 

[Unforgiven]

Question to the the resident morons...ok for this guy to keep his guns amirite?

 

Michigan Man Gets Community Service for Shooting Anti-Abortion Campaigner

 

Richard Harvey, 75, was ordered to complete 100 hours of community service. Judge Suzanne Hoseth Kreeger also gave him a suspended jail sentence of two months and a delayed sentence of one year on probation.

Harvey pleaded no contest last month to felonious assault, careless discharge of a firearm causing injury and reckless discharge of a firearm.

Kreeger also must pay $347.19 in restitution and cannot have any contact with the woman he shot, 84-year-old Joan Jacobson.

 

https://www.9and10news.com/2023/05/24/michigan-man-gets-community-service-for-shooting-anti-abortion-campaigner/

[BillStime]

Never - ever vote Republican 

 

 

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

8 hours ago, Andy1 said:

When it comes to creating laws to remove weapons from individuals who may use them to kill themselves or others, no law or system is going to be perfect. So the question comes down to which side does the law lean towards - protecting people or leaving guns in the hands of mentally unstable individuals.
 

The police appear to support the intent of the laws but are currently overwhelmed by requests. At minimum, it sounds like a lot of mentally unstable people have guns that their family/friends are concerned about. In NY it sounds like we need more police staff to deal with the increased workload. That problem can be resolved over time. 

how do you deal with teenagers with handguns? That’s problem #1

 

these kids don’t realize the consequences and stupidity… like most adolescents you don’t appreciate the future you are squandering until you get there and look back. 

[ArdmoreRyno]

16 hours ago, Unforgiven said:

Question to the the resident morons...ok for this guy to keep his guns amirite?

 

Michigan Man Gets Community Service for Shooting Anti-Abortion Campaigner

 

Richard Harvey, 75, was ordered to complete 100 hours of community service. Judge Suzanne Hoseth Kreeger also gave him a suspended jail sentence of two months and a delayed sentence of one year on probation.

Harvey pleaded no contest last month to felonious assault, careless discharge of a firearm causing injury and reckless discharge of a firearm.

Kreeger also must pay $347.19 in restitution and cannot have any contact with the woman he shot, 84-year-old Joan Jacobson.

 

https://www.9and10news.com/2023/05/24/michigan-man-gets-community-service-for-shooting-anti-abortion-campaigner/

 

Not sure why you're even asking that. He plead no-contest to a felony. That's how you automatically lose your gun rights. 

[B-Man]

 

 

Gun control laws are not the answer.

 

 

Bloody Memorial Day Weekend, Chicago Style: 51 Shot, 12 Killed

 

 

https://redstate.com/mike_miller/2023/05/29/bloody-memorial-day-weekend-chicago-style-51-shot-12-killed-2-year-girl-found-gun-and-shot-herself-n753091

 

 

 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

[Tommy Callahan]

8 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

LMAO. Yeah. Attempted confiscation would be a hell of a show. and not in a good way.

[aristocrat]