• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump action made it easier for mentally ill to buy guns

Goshin said:
Well frankly I'd like to see more actions such as you described above, instead of school shootings like this one where "no one was surprised" and the FBI had been notified but nothing was done.

As for gun control... you'd have to get really strict (as in possibly unconstitutional) in order to make a noticeable impact. Even then, you wouldn't stop many mass shootings. You have to ask if your Return On Investment is sufficient to justify the restrictions of a fundamental liberty, and IMO the answer is probably no.

Ban assault rifles and mags-over-10. Ok. Leaving aside that millions would not be turned in and continue in circulation in secret.... Next mass shooter brings two semi-auto handguns and twenty loaded mags. Ok well you ban semi-auto handguns, leaving just revolvers. Next mass shooter brings six loaded revolvers and twenty speed-loaders. Ok ban revolvers too... next mass shooter wears a rig for three or four sawn-off pump shotguns each loaded with 8 shells of 00 buck (9x.30 projectiles @) and kills two dozen people.

So maybe you say "ban everything" and I say "Charlie Hebdo... all those weapons were illegal in France".

Fifty years ago guns were more easily accessible than they are now. There was no background check, no NICs, as a general thing. Less paperwork, less scrutiny. A little further back we had high school rifle ranges and kids bringing their rifles to school for target practice. Yet we had fewer mass shootings and school shootings. What changed?

Not the availability of guns. People changed; society changed. You can't cure sickness that deep by treating symptoms.


But ok... let's try to treat the symptoms anyway, since maybe treating the disease is beyond us.

My suggestion... implement the kind of security my local schools have, and add sufficient armed guards to stop any shooter before he gets far. Probably do more good than any other measure I've heard.
Click to expand...

Like I said in the post you quoted, the only way to eliminate gun violence is to meltdown every gun and piece of ordinance on the planet and prevent any future manufacturing of either. Though more security might be helpful in the short term, it's a band-aid. Two of the biggest reasons that create violence like this need to be addressed: mental health treatment in this country and income issues. The former is woefully inadequate in this country for a variety of reasons. The latter is not about income INEQUALITY, but just income issues that many in the population struggle with. Both together create the larger issue of feeling socially isolated or inferior, which in and of itself creates a more significant mental health condition.

I don't believe that treating the disease is beyond us. However, I don't believe that most want to make the hard choices to actually treat the disease. I would cause too much compromise for folks.
 
tres borrachos said:
Those are all good questions, except the one about the cat, which I don't understand.

Who has defined these people receiving SS benefits as being mentally compromised already? I'm asking because I don't know.
Click to expand...

Some folks on SSDI were placed on it due to a severe mental health disorder. I have signed off on this for many clients. Some of which I wouldn't want to be within a zip code of a gun. Others who handling a gun wouldn't be an issue. I do not believe that ALL folks on SSDI should automatically lose their 2A rights, though some should. Depends on the situation.
 
Goshin said:
Nope. I don't want people who are dangerously mentally ill to have access to guns, as long as we're being reasonable and careful about how we define that.


But I have to point out that the only way to be sure they have no access is to institutionalize them. It's not like felons have any trouble getting guns illegally; functional psychopaths can get them too.
Click to expand...

It's a bit more complicated than that. There are some who's 2A rights should be suspended on a temporary basis. Extreme depression or someone in the middle of a manic episode could be an example. Then there are those for who the dangerousness of the mental illness is not transitory, but permanent. I would agree that most of these folks should be institutionalized, and I would like to see the institutionalization process become both a bit easier and there be more access to it... ie: more institutions.
 
Rich123 said:
I heard the sheriff say that people who are determined to committ mass murder are near impossible to stop. They could get a truck or car and mow down many at a time. I think that's a fair point but it's hard to do that in a building. Only a high output weapon can accomplish that sort of carnage in a building such as a school or event. Without a AR 15 Mr. Cruz couldn't have killed 17 innocent people.
Fufther more the mentally ill would have one less tool to commit their mayhem.
The president wants us talking about the mentally ill instead of talking about banning such weapons because the NRA uses Kremlin money to make Trump and the Republicans compliant.
Click to expand...

More idiotic hyperbole like the others.
 
Carleen said:
There was no thought put into Trump’s descion other than to undo an Obama policy. He is a vengeful immoral man.
Click to expand...

The decision was to undo an unconstitutional and extremely arbitrary law. There was already a call to remove it before he even became president. So don't go placing blame for this on him and stop with the slander.
 
Oborosen said:
The decision was to undo an unconstitutional and extremely arbitrary law. There was already a call to remove it before he even became president. So don't go placing blame for this on him and stop with the slander.
Click to expand...

When he stops, I’ll stop.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom