• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Trump angling to ban those with mental illness from owning guns

jpk said:
If its restricted just to firearms I agree

We have a serious problem in the US as do many countries with people who are a direct threat to others

Personally I think there are a significant number of people who should not be loose on the streets at all BUT it needs to be a 0 or 1 thing AND it needs to involved due process
Click to expand...
What constitutes a mental health issue? how about the hundred of thousands of service members with PTSD ratings? What level of rating makes you a PP? Where is the threshold?
 
jpk said:
Clearly 39 popo responses to a house combined with 2 reports of actual threats to FBI to harm a pile of people exceeds any threshold that we could set dont you think?

This shit doesnt happen in a vaccuum........cases like the loon in vegas where there's no actual warning are exceedingly rare......
Click to expand...
Yeah, I get that. I have a legitimate concern. The DSM lists PTSD as a Mental Disorder. What would be the threshold or rating number that makes a veteran rated for PTSD a PP? 10%? 30%? 50%? 70%? Because this is exactly what will happen. Thousands of veterans getting "turn in your shit" letters.
 
jpk said:
Clearly 39 popo responses to a house combined with 2 reports of actual threats to FBI to harm a pile of people exceeds any threshold that we could set dont you think?

This shit doesnt happen in a vaccuum........cases like the loon in vegas where there's no actual warning are exceedingly rare......
Click to expand...

But to put this into law you have to specifically define;
What type of popo visits.
How many popo visits.
What type of FBI reports.
How many FBI reports.
Who is contacting the FBI/popo.
What other kinds, by who, and how many reports.

It's easy to say after the fact that there was a clear indication, but predefining the threshold in law is a lot more difficult. I wish we could trust people to use some common sense in determining the threshold, but reality is that some would abuse this.
 
jpk said:
How about we start by agreeing that there's a legitimate/demonstrated need and go from there
Click to expand...

Oh I think my other posts make it clear we agree on that. But while the problem may be clear, the solution is not and it may be that a MH approach is impractical. I would prefer an MH approach, but reality is what it is.
 
We go round and round, posting the same shit daily.

“There needs to be a mental health solution!”

“Granted. But what are the specifics?”

“I dunno! But there needs to be a mental health solution!”

It gets tiresome. CoastieRon, 42!, and I are raising legitimate concerns. If you’re going to advocate MH solutions, it’s incumbent on you to go further and suggest how they might be fair, effective, and constitutional. Enough with the rhetoric.

Sure, we could “start by agreeing there’s a legitimate need.” We could just as easily agree it’d be nice to provide a free car for everyone. But unless you’re Oprah, you’d better back up your free car rhetoric with something useful. Same with the MH fix.

This shit is hard. It’s why it hasn’t been solved already. Me, I’m NOT convinced a MH solution that’s constitutional would be effective, nor that an effective MH solution would be constitutional. Feel free to disagree, but come up with some specifics while you’re at it.
 
Picton said:
Sure, we could “start by agreeing there’s a legitimate need.” We could just as easily agree it’d be nice to provide a free car for everyone. But unless you’re Oprah, you’d better back up your free car rhetoric with something useful. Same with the MH fix.

This shit is hard. It’s why it hasn’t been solved already. Me, I’m NOT convinced a MH solution that’s constitutional would be effective, nor that an effective MH solution would be constitutional. Feel free to disagree, but come up with some specifics while you’re at it.
Click to expand...

It's also worth noting that when Oprah gave away those cars, they still weren't truly free..... lol. And much like oprahs cars, there's always a cost with this stuff, somewhere. I think the obvious problem is if scrutiny in MH increased on weird people, and it resulted in an easier PP status, I think that's going to turn into a self-blocking prophecy; EG, "oh the MH community is now more proactive about stopping weird f***os nao" but in turn on the back end you get people intentionally staying away from MH services for fear of some kind of punishment.

I think in this particular case there's also a weird "bridge" or decision point between "well this guy should have been prohibited by some MH thing" vs "this guy should have been prohibited for violating some kind of lawr".

I think it wouldn't have been difficult for the police to actually catch this POS breaking a law (and prosecute him for it) the thing is at the end of the day, one has to ask if that would have done
anything. . Say he killed someones dog and even if he got whacked with felony animal cruelty, whats he going to do, a couple of years? Then we get to pray that someone kills him in
prison, more or less. Then he gets out, wash rinse repeat, etc.

Of course if the school wasnt such a soft target, we'd likely be looking at the possibility of 1 great outcome (guy gets shot DRT before he can even attack) , a not so bad outcome (couple people get killed, bad guy still gets
smoked) , and a bad, but still less horrendous outcome politically (guy goes and smokes some adults at some other soft target instead, because the school has too much security or is perceived to have too much
security. )

-Mike
 
Picton said:
Well, it’s a LITTLE more objective than you’re making it sound. And plenty of lab tests yield false positives, too. When it comes down to it, most medicine is as much art as science.

And that’s the problem. Show me ANY 100% reliable way to predict violent behavior, and keeping guns from those folks seems like a no-brainer. But at that point, why not just precrime them and throw them in jail before they get a chance to hurt anyone? Hell, why not just euthanize them?

You see the ethical problems. So it’s good, in a way, that it’s a moot point. Because there’s no 100% reliable way to predict violent behavior. Until there is, any proposal like Trump’s is an infringement.
Click to expand...

"art"...you mean guess, definitely agree.
 
I already emailed the president and expressed how concerned and disappointed I was about him caving to the anti gunners. Hopefully the definition of better mental health screenings is giving states incentives to report already PP to the NICs database, not creating another class of PP
 
sig shooter said:
www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-us-canada-43158994

"Anyone adjudicated as mentally incompetent or dangerous to society should be prevented from getting a gun," said Mr Trump.“ seems like he’s ignorant to existing law.
Click to expand...

Ignorant of the law or not doesn't matter as long as he keeps pushing this as the standard. When it comes to Congress they can just say "OK, that's what the law already says, no further action required"
 
jpk said:
You want to go back and re-read my post?

Didnt say banning firearms per se.....said locking up people who are an overt threat to everyone else and explicitly said it needs to involved due process......

Cant argue that there are not people who have demonstrated they have no business being free

Hell...this turd in Fla had popo at his house 39 times

Was kicked out of school

FBI had two reports of overt threats.....

If he wasnt the poster child for my argument what is?

There also needs to be a process for returning people to public life complete with full rights
Click to expand...

The failure you mention is the reason I'm skeptical of any 'program' that would implement this process. I work with some of the smartest, bravest, kick ass people I've ever met. But like any big pool, there's a turd or two in it.
 
42! said:
But how? Be specific, not just it's a MH issue. What law would you pass that could be applied to everyone and only catch the crazies, without violating everyone's rights. And couldn't be abused.
Click to expand...
You know, You look like a statist when you go searching for government solutions to things.

I know, I know. In this case you only want someone else to some up with a government solution for you.
 
Jason Flare said:
You know, You look like a statist when you go searching for government solutions to things.

I know, I know. In this case you only want someone else to some up with a government solution for you.
Click to expand...

What did I ever do to you to deserve this trolling?
 
Jason Flare said:
You know, You look like a statist when you go searching for government solutions to things.

I know, I know. In this case you only want someone else to some up with a government solution for you.
Click to expand...

I think you misunderstand.

It’s not really 42! that is saying a .gov MH solution is what’s needed. On the contrary; he’s challenging the local statists to put their money where their mouths are.
 
sig shooter said:
I already emailed the president and expressed how concerned and disappointed I was about him caving to the anti gunners. Hopefully the definition of better mental health screenings is giving states incentives to report already PP to the NICs database, not creating another class of PP
Click to expand...

I'm watching the replay of Trumps meeting on CSPAN. As far as what he is saying in this meeting it does not sound like they are talking about someone on anti depressants. In his rambling way he is indicating people who are criminally insane. He mentioned needing to reopen mental health facilities where someone could go or be taken by their families and evaluated and treated when there are early warning signs. Otherwise there are currently not a lot of resources until someone commits a crime.
 
Jason Flare said:
If that’s the case I have misunderstood.
Click to expand...

What I've tried to do is acknowledge that it is clearly a MH issue but the nature of MH would make it impossible to come up with a practical solution that would have a significant effect. I left room for the idea of a court ordered non-confinement (i.e. at a local hospital) eval for someone who has demonstrated a risk through threats or acts (no confiscation or PP). After that, if there is a necessity, we have systems in place with due process. Actually, now that I think of it, this is less than we already have, since they can already lock you up due to threats or acts. So I guess it's more of a lesser option than going FR.

Again, this is a seriously flawed system but between the "we have to do something" and no ideas crowd, and the over the top throw everyone's rights away crowd, this little tweek approach seemed to be the least dangerous. I don't like it but I was trying to think up an MH approach.

Now putting aside the MH approach to fixing, or at least mitigating, the problem, and looking for something that will actually have an impact. I like what I heard from Ohio (I think it was Ohio). Some teachers/staff would have guns, nobody knows who, and a program of monthly training. It can't be worse than that f'ing a**h*** deputy sitting outside while kids are being killed. And the Sheriff screaming gun control to cover for his own department's failure isn't much better.

Now that we have that clear Jason can properly troll me
 

Similar threads

Lock up those guns.
2 3
Replies
72
Views
2K
Kevin_NH
Kevin_NH
Boston gang member who posed with guns on Snapchat goes to prison
2
Replies
31
Views
820
1sern
1
Incels with guns
2
Replies
36
Views
1K
chris_1001
chris_1001
Czechoslovak Group to Buy U.S. Ammo Makers with Financing from JP Morgan Chase
Replies
2
Views
153
Rockrivr1
Rockrivr1
Nevada Supreme Court Upholds Ban on So-Called ‘Ghost Guns’
Replies
4
Views
179
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
Back
Top Bottom