I agree with this bishop. I do believe we need stricter gun laws. Now, don’t get me wrong, I support the 2nd Amendment. However, I do not believe that the 2nd Amendment means we can have unlimited access to weapons and/or guns. If that were the case then your average citizen would be allowed to own an armed F-22 Raptor fighter jet or an armed tank if they wanted to. I know that’s a little bit of an extreme example but I think its gets my point across.
I see nothing wrong with responsible, non-criminal citizens owning guns. However, for those who have serious mental illnesses such as myself I believe they should be banned from owning guns. Either that or they should be able to own them but only so long as some sort of supervisory actions are taken to insure that the gun can’t be used in a massacre or other crime. I would say that at every appointment with a psychiatrist they would be screened for potentially violent thoughts. If violent thoughts occur then the weapon should be immediately removed from their premises and not given back until they no longer have such thoughts. I would also advocate that those who exhibit symptoms of serious mental illness or who have mental illness but are not under treatment should not be allowed to own a weapon. Now, don’t get me wrong, most people with mental illness are peaceful and would never commit a crime. However, it seems that the latest massacres were committed by mentally unstable criminals.
I also feel that there should be enhanced and strictly enforced laws requiring all guns to be kept under lock and key so that they are safely away from children and anyone else who shouldn’t have their hands on them.
I also support a ban on assault weapons and weapons with large magazines.
I just really don’t see the reason for people to own such weapons. I mean, come on, you don’t need a machine gun to go deer hunting. There is no reason for your average citizen to own a machine gun except for maybe as a hobby. Now, if someone wants to own one as a hobby then they should be allowed to but they must first undergo very strict screening and criminal background checks before being allowed to own one. I’d also recommend a mental health screening.
Finally, I am strongly in support of extensive background checks on ALL people purchasing a gun. I believe such background checks should include any crimes committed in foreign nations as well.
On one last note, I do wish that all primary care physicians and/or nurse practitioners would do regular mental health screenings of all patients. This is not just because of guns either. There are a lot of people out there with depression and other problems that aren’t being treated because they’ve never been diagnosed. I really feel that this step would greatly enhance the quality of mental health care in this nation which is quite poor anyway.
What is the official definition of an “
assault weapon”?
Actually, the definition seems to be “
anything you want it to be, especially if it looks scary … such as being painted black or has a handle.”
Large capacity magazines support the defender, not the offender. Cases of women defending their homes and persons, trapped in a closet with their kids, use their entire load of ammo and don’t have a way to reload. A large man can absorb a lot of bullet hits. And a person shooting normally would only score one hit in five or ten shots even at close range; whereas a home invader would most likely have better skills.
A few shots may work against one home invader, but we have YouTube evidence that often home invaders work in pairs or in fours. You need an AR-15 with a large capacity magazine to run them off. For women, an AR-15 with a short stock is an ideal home defense weapon. It has MINIMUM recoil, for one thing. It is light and easy to handle in a confined space such as a hallway or from a closet retreat space.
Mental health screenings as you described are extremely subjective. So anyone could be put away on that basis.
HOWEVER, a review of the nutcases who carried out many of the recent mass shootings turn out to have LONG HISTORIES of psychiatric diagnoses.
In some cases, the courts have REFUSED to institutionalize them.
So, it would be reasonable to have a court review people with long histories, etc. The problem is that organizations protesting the institutionalization of mental patients have won in court the RELEASE of legitimately institutionalized mental patients … because their rights were deemed to have been violated.
Does this make any sense?
It’s a little like not requiring criminals to register their illegal guns because the civil rights groups deemed that such registration would violate the Fifth Amendment rights of the criminals … not making this up.
So, until the law gets changed back, we will be having numerous potentially dangerous people walking around.
So, under the criteria you listed, law-abiding citizens could be locked up, but criminals and certified nutjobs could not be locked up.
