Bishop says tighter gun laws will help build culture of life

  • Thread starter Thread starter Prodigal_Son1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Monte_RCMS said:
If cocaine is available, then guns are available.

Maybe not in YOUR circle, but certainly, without question, to any non-lawabiding person.
Click to expand...
My “cicrle” and knowledge includes a life of working with criminals. So my disagreement and opinion is legitimate. The difference between guns and cocaine is that cocaine is an addition. Guns are not. An addict will take extraordinary risks to acquire a drug he wants, but may chose (and often does) to commit a crime without a gun rather than incur an additional risk.

I know violent gangs keep getting thrown out here. They are an exception to crime, not the rule.
 
Monte_RCMS said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prodigal Son1
Please share how background checks would impede a law abiding citizen?
How about in 2010 … how of the 76,142 rejected, 93.8% (71,420) were false positives, (e.g. they weren’t bad guys) and of those only 44 were prosecuted resulting in 11 felons & 7 domestic violence abusers, how unimpressive, oh wait, thats the NICS & USDOJ reporting these facts yet again, hmmmmmm.

At least 71,000 law-abiding people were impeded.

This kind of problem goes on all the time with the LEO bureaucracy.

The late Senator Ted Kennedy, RIP, was denied boarding by TSA because some criminal had the same name and information. There are numerous cases of “mistaken identity” or just plain incompetence or mischief on the part of law enforcement. Like it or not. [Mischief? Really? During Hurricane Katrina, law enforcement had a lot on their plates … so what did they do? They confiscated guns from law abiding citizens. And when the courts ruled the guns had to be returned, it turned out that the guns had been ruined.]
Click to expand...
250,000,000 guns in this country. It doesn’t sound like too many were impeded. Of course to know there was a ‘false detection’ seems to say there was a correction.
 
Monte_RCMS said:
Please share how background checks would impede a law abiding citizen?
How about in 2010 … how of the 76,142 rejected, 93.8% (71,420) were false positives, (e.g. they weren’t bad guys) and of those only 44 were prosecuted resulting in 11 felons & 7 domestic violence abusers, how unimpressive, oh wait, thats the NICS & USDOJ reporting these facts yet again, hmmmmmm.]
Click to expand...
Hmm, indeed. I tried to find that info on their websites and failed. Care to link your information? How many of those that supposedly have identity issues were able to obtain a weapon?

In reference to the number of those prosecuted, we check for warrants on a lot of people that show up at our doorstep. We find an active warrant on less than one and a thousand. From this, an illogical thinker might conclude that we are in the most law-abiding area in the world. A more critical thinker might realize that people with active warrants, knowing that we check, will not show up at our door. A better conclusion from the data is that not all felons are complete morons.

At absolute best, assuming a whole lot, the most those figures can suggest is that the system needs improvement, not that it is worthless.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
I guess our laws against murder, rape, robbery, drugs, etc. are all for appearances only. :rolleyes:

Those who idolize guns will put up any argument to see any regulations fail. See how that works? I know, or hope, no one really idolizes guns, but it’s the same as repeating ‘grabbers’ to those who try to discuss controls, minus eradication. It’s not an us against them argument. Hopefully all Americans are interested in whatever deterrents to prevent gun violence from taking place.

We currently have background checks for purchases from licensed dealers. It would seem the first common sense control would be to see that all go through the same background checks, even through private sales. I think the last background check I paid for, to purchase a gun, was $5. That was in the last few weeks.

So, to protect people without mental illnesses from evaluation, we will skip mental health requirements on all people, including those who actually have some type of mental illness?
Click to expand...
Rape, murder and theft are intrinsic evils and are always wrong.

Simply owning a gun is not an intrinsic evil. If it were, I would have no problem with an outright ban.
 
Monte_RCMS said:
Actually, the mentally ill people who shoot up our schools are well known to the police. BUT, they are not permitted to violate the rights of the mentally by putting them in mental hospitals. Even with ample due process. There are numerous “advocates” for the mentally ill who demand that the mentally ill be released into the open population. And then they run amok. And there is nothing that anyone can do … cannot require them to take their meds. Cannot institutionalize them against their will.

Read up on the scandals regarding deinstitutionalization.
Click to expand...
👍

This is the problem here, especially with the mass school shootings.

Want to solve that problem? Get mentally ill people proper treatment and make it illegal for them to get guns. Problem solved. Life goes on for the 99%
 
ComputerGeek25 said:
Rape, murder and theft are intrinsic evils and are always wrong.

Simply owning a gun is not an intrinsic evil. If it were, I would have no problem with an outright ban.
Click to expand...
The bishops speak on the easy access to guns, and the loss of innocent lives. Guns can be used for intrinsic evil. If they are easy to access and used in a gun violence crime, we have an obligation to address the problem, as we do with any intrinsic evil.
 
ComputerGeek25 said:
👍

This is the problem here, especially with the mass school shootings.

Want to solve that problem? Get mentally ill people proper treatment and make it illegal for them to get guns. Problem solved. Life goes on for the 99%
Click to expand...
In the meantime, don’t do anything to inhibit their access?

Is there an acceptable body count of innocent people killed?
 
Monte_RCMS said:
Actually, the mentally ill people who shoot up our schools are well known to the police. BUT, they are not permitted to violate the rights of the mentally by putting them in mental hospitals. Even with ample due process. There are numerous “advocates” for the mentally ill who demand that the mentally ill be released into the open population. And then they run amok. And there is nothing that anyone can do … cannot require them to take their meds. Cannot institutionalize them against their will.

Read up on the scandals regarding deinstitutionalization.
Click to expand...
I agree that the most good as far as mass shootings could be accomplished by addressing the issue of mental health. However, I will not levee all the blame at mental health advocates. De-institutionalization did not occur out of sympathy for the mentally ill as much as it did out of lack of sympathy by the public. It was a cost-cutting measure. Institutionalization is the most expensive form of mental health treatment. Out-patient treatment requires personnel for follow-up. We can not slash funding for the mentally ill like we have without dire consequences.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
The bishops speak on the easy access to guns, and the loss of innocent lives. Guns can be used for intrinsic evil. If they are easy to access and used in a gun violence crime, we have an obligation to address the problem, as we do with any intrinsic evil.
Click to expand...
And round we go again. There are a number of objects that can cause violence and kill and harm others.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
So, he’s for background checks to determine mental health. 😉
Click to expand...
Nope … not a background check to determine mental health.

Due process … for people already previously determined … by a group of concerned family members, LEO’s, doctors, judges, and others as part of the legal process … to be seriously mentally ill.

Right now, you can have the entire process and the ACLU will still step in, in favor of the mentally ill person, as having the right to live on a city sidewalk in a cardboard box.

The process of institutionalizing a mentally-ill person should be established well-enough such that someone can be determined to be a danger to themselves or others … but it’s almost impossible at this time.

But you already know that.
 
pnewton said:
I agree that the most good as far as mass shootings could be accomplished by addressing the issue of mental health. However, I will not levee all the blame at mental health advocates. De-institutionalization did not occur out of sympathy for the mentally ill as much as it did out of lack of sympathy by the public. It was a cost-cutting measure. Institutionalization is the most expensive form of mental health treatment. Out-patient treatment requires personnel for follow-up. We can not slash funding for the mentally ill like we have without dire consequences.
Click to expand...
Mostly false.

There are a lot of high-priced lawyers getting paid by “the system” to make sure severely mentally-ill patients stay out of institutions.

Out-patients? You cannot force someone in out-patient status to take his meds.
 
Monte_RCMS said:
Nope … not a background check to determine mental health.

Due process … for people already previously determined … by a group of concerned family members, LEO’s, doctors, judges, and others as part of the legal process … to be seriously mentally ill.

Right now, you can have the entire process and the ACLU will still step in, in favor of the mentally ill person, as having the right to live on a city sidewalk in a cardboard box.

The process of institutionalizing a mentally-ill person should be established well-enough such that someone can be determined to be a danger to themselves or others … but it’s almost impossible at this time.

But you already know that.
Click to expand...
Actually, I work on an ambulance and see people taken in for 72 hour evaluation under the Baker Act anytime a person shows to be a danger to themselves, or others. Law enforcement, or a doctor, can place a person in custody under the Baker Act. No one is stepping in their favor. Granted it does not reveal all those with mental illnesses. Most are only identifiable once they act on their particular illness. We’ve seen some recently that have shown too late.
 
Deinstitutionalization is and has been a complete failure from the very beginning.

gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRECB-1999-pt11/pdf/CRECB-1999-pt11-Pg15539-3.pdf

If you do a Google search for " ACLU deinstitutionalization ", there are many good finds, going back for years.

There is no end to the mischief created by the ACLU at great cost to the patients, the people and to society.

Here is a recent article on the subject, but there are many many more.

fedsoc.org

Madness, Deinstitutionalization & Murder

For those of us who came of age in the 1970s, one of the most shocking aspects of the last three dec...
fedsoc.org fedsoc.org

fed-soc.org/publications/detail/madness-deinstitutionalization-murder
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Similar to all of society preventing easy access to guns has proven to be a complete failure.
Click to expand...
But these mental patients are already know to be either dangerous or endangered … and can EASILY be treated by institutionalization.

This is not a subject for so-called “background checks”.

These people are already known to be a danger to themselves and/or to others.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top