Agreed but lets be clear here. I am not saying the rational person doesn't encounter rage, but if you are allowing rage to get to that level where you grab a gun, then you have an anger management issue. That is a mental illness in my eyes. I can get furious and be fucking ready to put my fist through a wall, but I still understand that killing someone is a terrible idea. Do you not agree?
Isn't that where the joke about rednecks comes from where it starts with "Hold my beer and watch this!"
But I don't own a gun and I do own knives, a car, and a lot of alcohol. I'd rather you give up your gun than me give up any of those things.
I don't own alcohol and I do own knives, a car and several guns. I'd rather you give up your alcohol than me give up any of those things. What makes one more important than the other?
I think you can understand in your day to day life that killing people is wrong and still encounter an instance where it suddenly (and fleetingly) feels like the right thing to do. I don't think that that necessarily raises to the standard of having continuing mental illness. I am not even sure if that's an issue of "temporary insanity". I think the people I am describing should still be held accountable by the law.
I really like the thought process and agree with some parts of the argument you are making. I don't think most people suffer from a condition which allows temporary insanity. I think a lot of people get extremely angry and don't pull their gun. I also believe that those who carry a weapon should be further scrutinized to the point of being able to encounter moments of rage and have training on conflict de-escalation. This should also be mandatory for all law enforcement as well. Overall I don't excuse those who suffer from temporary insanity nor do I believe it is something easily solvable. However, I think it is a situation which is GROSSLY underfunded and honestly, if we took the marketing dollars spent on both sides of the gun argument and devoted it towards simply improving the mental illness diagnosis and treatment, I think we would see much more results than broad gun legislation.
Well you are definitely entitled to your opinion. Thankfully for me, your opinion is a minority in this country. Guns have been a staple for protection in our country for 100s of years. I believe you wish they were banned and you are welcomed to have that opinion. No one is forcing you to own a gun, nor are they forcing you to support guns. You are free to spend as much time and money working to outlaw guns. I understand this is a very sensitive topic and I am trying to approach it with respect and consideration for both sides. I obviously am one who enjoys the right this country provides to own a firearm and I appreciate the right I have to protect myself with such a firearm. I also understand the exercising of such rights does indeed carry a large amount of additional responsibility. Perhaps that is an exception in this country and this would lead me to think we have a gun education issue. My father was a cop, and therefore I was raised around firearms and educated to the benefits and inherit dangers that a firearm brings. Obviously, that makes me luckier than some others.
I don't disagree that education efforts and recognizing/treating mental illness are important. I just think that things like universal background checks and gun registries could also help limit the number of guns floating around this country over time and that would help limit the number of gun deaths as well.
Do you think the cop who shot a black man in Charleston had a mental illness? No amount of firearm training will make guns safe in this country. Congratulations on having an opinion that prevents progress. Eventually we will do the right thing and ban guns.
That's the thing -- guns aren't safe. They're inherently dangerous. I personally don't think that means that they should be banned, but it does mean that they should be regulated pretty extensively both by the government and individual gun owners.
Gun registries is a very delicate subject. I support the idea overall, but I think it comes with some significant challenges. I think if there were an honest discussion, a solution could be found, but I think both sides of the argument are so firmly entrenched with their ideas that a compromise would be difficult. The challenge I see is the one we hear about all the time. Criminals are not going to register their guns. Honest gun owners who have a relative low chance of committing a violent crime will be a large percentage of those participating and if that is the case, then how large of a benefit do you recognize? Background checks I support completely for both private sales and gun shop sales. No argument there. However again, private sales will be less effected as most honest people will participate, but will the ones most inclined to violent crimes? That is to be determined...
Often "illegal" guns were once legal guns that were stolen. A registry will make it easier to track them.
Yes I believe the police officer who shot ABSOLUTELY had a mental illness and should be locked up forever. Honest question watson, do you think someone who behaves like he did, in shooting a person in the back is of sound and rational mind? Do you think there is anyone out there who can argue he was sane when he did that to another human being?
(1) Who is talking about a gun ban? (2) Even if government regulation would not be 100% effective, why throw the baby out with the bathwater?
I agree with the theory and disagree with the implementation. Here is my point, yes they were registered when legal, but if a registry helps locate them once stolen, then why are we not recovering the gun at that point? A gun registry does nothing to prevent a stolen gun from being used in a violent crime in my eyes. A criminal who steals a gun isn't going to go update the registry.
Seriously asking this question and not being difficult, but who the fuck is arguing to call every mistake a mental illness? That is so freaking narrow minded in my eyes. Shooting someone in ANY situation is never going to be a "mistake". At the least it is GROSS negligence. In situations of defense, it is STILL murder. It may be justified, but it is the act of knowingly taking the life of another human being. Who the fuck thinks that could ever be considered a "mistake"???
Do you not read what you're typing? You're literally calling every gun crime the result of mental illness.
THF, you aren't finishing the thought here. You say that you think we should invest more in mental health reform. No issue there. I think everyone can agree that that is an issue that is long overdue. then you say that you don't think gun regulation is a good idea. But, what do you do with those people that show mental health issues that flag as being prone to violence? That's why I said that mental health and gun regulation issues are going to have to go hand in hand.
I can respect your opinion, but my position is we are being too narrow minded in our definition of mental illness. We need to expand both the definition, treatment, diagnosis, everything to a much broader base which covers a lot more.
Please feel free to educate me where you think I am wrong. I don't claim to be the end all of the discussion. There are a lot of individuals who are much more educated than I am who have argued the topics on both sides much longer than I have. I am simply defending my opinion. Which probably isn't even worth the two cents most get lol.
No I apologize if I mis-communicated or misspoke. I am not calling gross negligence a mental illness in any shape form for fashion. There is definitely a separation from unsafe gun behavior which results in the death or injury of another or themselves and the act of pointing a gun at someone else, and pulling the trigger. The act of unsafe gun behavior should absolutely be a crime which has a strong penalty, and the idea of pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger is a mental illness in my eyes which also needs punishment but also treatment.
Maybe this is a difference of opinion, but a justified shooting in defense in my eyes is still the murder of another human. It may not include a punishment but I know if I have an intruder enter my home which results in my shooting and killing that person in defense, I know that even in the situation where it is an open and shut obvious delf defense case, that I will be brought in front of the grand jury and have my shooting evaluated as a murder to see if it were justified or an act which would require a trial to determine the legality of such murder.
Because today we are too narrow in our definition in my eyes. We are too limited with the diagnosis and treatment of mental illness. For example PTSD. We need to broaden the definition of those who are evaluated and diagnosed and we definitely need to spend more on education, treatment, support and help for those suffering from it. The idea of sending some veterans to the VA and letting them get shit treatment is a disgrace in my eyes. Also PTSD doesn't only effect those who served. We need to get started on programs to eliminate the stigma of a mental illness. If it is embarassing to admit to a mental illness, that alone will reduce those who come forward for treatment. It is such a huge problem, we need really smart people focused on multiple angles of attacking this problem. Similarly to the way the armed forces attack the idea of eliminating a threat, we need the same type of resources and effort being put into tackling this problem.
The problem is that crazy people don't realize they're crazy. And even if they do seek help, you can't have a psychologist strip someone of their right to a gun if they haven't done anything worthy of it.
I am a gun owner and I totally agree with this. They are dangerous and all the safety mechanisms to make them safer mean nothing without basic education on how to use one. All firearms are not created equal and they all take some getting used to. Much like a person needs to pass a written test AND a driving test to be able to drive. A vehicle is and can also be considered a dangerous weapon. It can kill when handled improperly. I would have no problem with being put through a similar general knowledge exam of firearms and the laws that are applied by your state.
The idea behind a comprehensive gun registry isn't that it will completely eliminate the possibility that somebody illegally obtains the firearm and prevents a single crime. But, it can prevent the same gun from being used multiple times (which is often the case). A comprehensive licensing/registration program would impact criminal gun use by making it easier to trace firearms used in crimes and to prosecute those who possess them later. I think that its efficacy isn't the issue so much as the cost, which would be staggering. Either way, most gun deaths come from accidents or people shooting others they know with legally-purchased firearms.
Agreed, but through better use of interviews and evaluations I think we can uncover those who are more likely to commit a violent crime. I think definitely more evaluation should be used to filter out those who would wish to carry a weapon. It may not find those criminals who refuse to be licensed and refuse to follow the practice for legal carrying, but I think those individuals are going to refuse to obey most laws related to firearm safety. And I definitely think a psychologist should be able to limit or restrict a person's 2nd amendment rights with due process.
No, it's not opinion. Murder has a definition -- the intentional killing of another human being with malice aforethought. If you were acting in self-defense and not with malice, then it is by definition not murder.
The private sale issue is why I think the registry has to be part of it too. It's a means of punishing the illegal sale. Without the objective evidence of ownership a registry provides and the paper trail that comes with it, convictions for those types of sales become more difficult to come by, imo. It's a slow fix to diminishing the numbers of guns out there and there probably won't be any objective evidence of its efficacy for a long time (if ever). But I think the idea of impressing upon the populace the importance of responsible gun ownership would be beneficial. I think the vast majority of people in this country and on this board are for some gun control laws even when they think they aren't. Too often the debate is framed as "taking away guns" instead of talking about the awesome responsibility of owning a machine designed to end another person's life.
I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but I don't necessarily think that "broadening" is the proper approach. I think narrow definitions but more diagnoses is probably best.
New approach in Indiana and Wyoming. Right to hunt being put on the ballot Eliminate the need for guns and make you dependant on the Gubment for food
The added debit of a buy back program, the lost jobs, they won't get all of them, they'll probably sell them to people in other countries we don't want having guns, any problems seen in the war on drugs, etc.
In the state of Texas, which was my basis for definition (probably should have been more clear), the definition of murder has several definitions but the most broad definition as found in Title 5, Section 19.02 is murder being defined as "(1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual;" It does not require malice or aforethought which is where we differ. But I am happy to concede your point and use an alternative word to reduce any disagreement on the subject.