Good thing California has strict gun laws

[UCFWayne]

Instead of slowing the purchase of guns until you can make sure people are deemed mentally stable, your solution is locking up people who are mentally unstable but don't pose a public threat so you can preserve the ability to buy guns unrestricted.

thats not what i said at all. we have plenty of laws on the books that arent enforced across the board. if they were that would help fix a piece of the problem

there is no one solution to fixing the problem. opening up mental health facilities again would help fix another piece of the problem.

but then again youre just a childish troll as evidenced by your previous posts. perhaps you dont like the idea of mental health facilities opening back up again because you know a family member would admit you.

 

[sk8knight]

"Bring back insane asylums"

What a take. Wow.

If you talk to staff at hospitals and at the private mental health facilities, things have gotten worse since they closed the state facilities overall. Hospitals aren't able to deal with it, the private facilities are overwhelmed to the point where all some of them can do is drug the patients out of their minds, and police respond to crisis situations but aren't there to prevent them (nor is it their job to do so). I think it's obvious that our culture needs a more robust mental health system and a better overall understanding among our populace on mental issues. I'm a small government libertarian, but I'd be in favor of a government solution if that's what it takes (and if there were some way to make it efficient and effective, 2 things government is horrible at).

 

[Knight_Classes_begin_7pm]

I love that you question the intelligence of other people on this board.

Thanks Bro. You have to. Some do not see the big picture or look outside of Faux News or the NRA monthly.

 

[fried-chicken]

thats not what i said at all. we have plenty of laws on the books that arent enforced across the board. if they were that would help fix a piece of the problem

there is no one solution to fixing the problem. opening up mental health facilities again would help fix another piece of the problem.

but then again youre just a childish troll as evidenced by your previous posts. perhaps you dont like the idea of mental health facilities opening back up again because you know a family member would admit you.

Perhaps I'm not for trampling on people's rights when they aren't causing harm to society.

 

[UCFWayne]

Perhaps I'm not for trampling on people's rights when they aren't causing harm to society.

 

[Knight_Classes_begin_7pm]

Instead of slowing the purchase of guns until you can make sure people are deemed mentally stable, your solution is locking up people who are mentally unstable but don't pose a public threat so you can preserve the ability to buy guns unrestricted.

They just don't understand broheim. Guns are fully legal in Japan and most countries, but giving them out like candy to kids in a candy shop will bring up problems (just a few). It's 2018 not 1776. The NRA, Ammo, and Gun Manufacturers want to sell as many guns and related killing machines as possible. WHY????????? To make money. They don't give 2 craps about who/what dies by the gun or how.

 

[fried-chicken]

Read what they did to Rosemary Kennedy because she was aggressive defiant

How about I just tell you. When she was young they cut open her skull and used a metal tool to stir her brain while asking her questions. When she could no longer recite the Lord's Prayer they stopped.

She was 23 and live the rest of her life in assisted living.

She hadn't committed any crime but her family used political power and had her deemed mentally unstable to get the procedure done.

I'm sorry if you're for preemptive imprisonment for mental issues but you're wrong and you don't have to look that far back to find out why.

 

[fried-chicken]

This dude shouldnt have been able to buy a weapon. There are probably over 10,000 people as deranged as him out in the world who will never act. They will live weird lives but won't hurt anyone.

None of those 10,000 need to be preemptively locked up when you could just make it so they don't have access to guns.

 

[sk8knight]

Instead of slowing the purchase of guns until you can make sure people are deemed mentally stable, your solution is locking up people who are mentally unstable but don't pose a public threat so you can preserve the ability to buy guns unrestricted.

In Florida, as in many other states, people cannot purchase, or receive from a transfer, firearms if they have been deemed a threat to themselves or others by a doctor unless they have proven to a judge that they aren't a threat (doctor's analysis of no threat for last 5 years for Florida, I think), or have been committed to a mental institution, or are habitual substance abusers to the point of impairment. Any organization with a license to be able to make a mental health claim (i.e. physicians, mental health facilities, hospitals, and police for Baker Acts) have the responsibility to file paperwork that will show in a background check. This background check will prevent that person from legally buying a firearm at a dealer or at a gun show. Judges in criminal cases may require forfeiture of firearms already possessed. There are also now orders of firearm protection to limit the ability to possess and purchase firearms. There are other cases where judges and police can relieve you of your firearms.

So, let me ask you, given these laws already in place, what legislation would you like put in place above and beyond what is there in order to effect "slowing the purchase of guns until you can make sure people are deemed mentally stable"?

 

[fried-chicken]

In Florida, as in many other states, people cannot purchase, or receive from a transfer, firearms if they have been deemed a threat to themselves or others by a doctor unless they have proven to a judge that they aren't a threat (doctor's analysis of no threat for last 5 years for Florida, I think), or have been committed to a mental institution, or are habitual substance abusers to the point of impairment. Any organization with a license to be able to make a mental health claim (i.e. physicians, mental health facilities, hospitals, and police for Baker Acts) have the responsibility to file paperwork that will show in a background check. This background check will prevent that person from legally buying a firearm at a dealer or at a gun show. Judges in criminal cases may require forfeiture of firearms already possessed. There are also now orders of firearm protection to limit the ability to possess and purchase firearms. There are other cases where judges and police can relieve you of your firearms.

So, let me ask you, given these laws already in place, what legislation would you like put in place above and beyond what is there in order to effect "slowing the purchase of guns until you can make sure people are deemed mentally stable"?

Instead of only not allowing guns to people who have been deemed unsafe. (This rule should remain)

All gun buyers must be deemed safe to operate a gun before they are allowed to own one.

 

[UCFWayne]

Instead of only not allowing guns to people who have been deemed unsafe. (This rule should remain)

All gun buyers must be deemed safe to operate a gun before they are allowed to own one.

i dont think fc understands why the 2nd was put in place. he probably thinks it was about hunting.

 

[sk8knight]

Instead of only not allowing guns to people who have been deemed unsafe. (This rule should remain)

All gun buyers must be deemed safe to operate a gun before they are allowed to own one.

Ok, on the surface maybe that’s a good suggestion. Let’s look deeper.

- There is a constitutional right to possess a firearm. We don’t require tests for people to assert their constitutional rights. Rights are recognized as such specifically because they are natural and not granted by the government, and also to ensure that they are not infringed by government.
- You have a right to due process. This means that there is some process by which the government has to justify taking away your rights if necessary and you have the ability to contest. Innocent until proven guilty. Mentally healthy until proven otherwise. Making you prove mental health by default also gives the government too much power in that now they can set an ambiguous bar to prohibit an overly large part of the citizenry from possessing firearms. This sets the stage for abuse of power issues.
- You have a constitutional right to life and liberty. Defense of self is a cornerstone to securing your right to life. Firearms provide you the ability to respond in proportion to a criminal attempt upon your life. Therefore, taking away that ability should be done with the utmost of discretion. Taking it away by default should never be the case. Similarly, requiring anything that imposes a financial burden, such as an exam or a license, is unfairly discriminating against poor people who cannot afford the exam or license.

That’s just a few of the constitutional issues that I see with requiring people to be adjudicated well in order to obtain a firearm.

 

[sk8knight]

I want to add that the people most likely to need to use a firearm are those in poorer, more crime-ridden areas. Laws that impose some barrier to firearm ownership unfairly target those who are most likely to need them.

 

[UCFBS]

Wanna see common sense gun laws...look at japan.

How's that working for their suicide rate? That's the common argument here in the US against guns, when people look at the statistics (and realize mass shootings aren't remotely a problem).

If you want to see US without legal gun ownership ... look at the Philippines. Their organized crime rate is extremely similar to the US, unlike Australia or Europe.

 

[UCFWayne]

I want to add that the people most likely to need to use a firearm are those in poorer, more crime-ridden areas. Laws that impose some barrier to firearm ownership unfairly target those who are most likely to need them.

why does he hate the poor?