- Status
L
LilyM
Guest
Mentally ill people cannot, in some circumstances, exercise their right to vote. Nor can they, depending on the nature of their mental illness, exercise their right to marry. Neither voting nor marrying is dangerous, unlike owning a gun.
Last edited:
No one tests for sanity at the voting booth.
No one tests for sanity to obtain a marriage license.
C
Cruciferi
Guest
Yet…
(10 characters)
(10 characters)
Last edited:
L
LilyM
Guest
If the result of an invalid vote or an invalidly contracted marriage was people possibly being physically injured or killed, I bet they would. Mind you, mental health screening prior to marriage might help screen out some folks who are likely to perpetrate domestic violence or the like, so it wouldn’t be the worst thing.LilyM:
No one tests for sanity at the voting booth.
No one tests for sanity to obtain a marriage license.
And, luckily, invalid marriages are easily annulled, and the odd vote that might be invalidated for mental incapacity usually makes no significant difference to an election result. No harm no foul in either case.
Just to be clear, of course I’m not saying anyone with any sort of mental illness should be prohibited, and I don’t think anyone else is. Those who pose a significant risk of violence toward themselves or others definitely should.
L
LilyM
Guest
No, background checks are only required in the US if you are buying from a licensed dealer. About 20 per cent of all gun sales are private sales from unlicensed vendors, so requiring no background checks. It’s called the “gun show loophole”.LilyM:
Where exactly are you getting this.
A background check is mandatory everywhere I know of.
Last edited:
I have yet to see a gun show sale without the subsequent background check as well.
L
LilyM
Guest
“Subsequent” means “after the fact” - I hope you don’t mean that the check only happens after the sale, I suspect it doesn’t.LilyM:
I have yet to see a gun show sale without the subsequent background check as well.
I am glad to see that the background checks happen. Possibly they are required by state rather than federal law? Or not being American I may be misinformed (and am happy to be corrected if so).
N
neophyte
Guest
Swiss gun control – let’s see: mandatory military service, mandatory machine gun with ammo in the house, mandatory yearly qualifiers, all the privately owned unregistered guns and ammo you want, a very lenient handgun licensing system, about half of the Cantons have no restrictions on carrying in public… you can buy bazookas, howitzers and low-grade artillery with less trouble than it is to get a building permit in some US cities.
Yeah, I could get with that. I’m surprised that you can.
Rationality has always served me better than hysteria.
Last edited:
Yes it does.
You said " Confiscate ALL the guns, temporarily , and return them to those who pass the mental health check and the background checks."
That is punishment (confiscation of their weapon) until they pass some test.
Guilty until proven innocent.
Correct, I misspoke.
U
upant
Guest
you talk about violent crimes but your chart is based only on the murder rate. violent crimes include much more than murder and in fact the UK
if you meant murder alone than yes we are higher than most but it is localized to larger cities and most of the country falls into the normal range of the rest of the world.
how do you know who has them?
Have there been reports of mental health issues? I have not read of any. What flag would have been raised?
That is fake news. Most gun shows require the vendors to do background checks. The private sales are the sales between non-vendors in the parking lots and sometimes on the floor of the show but it is not common and can not be stopped by a law. If two parties meet where one wants to sell and one wants to buy and both agree to do it without paperwork, no law will matter. Now some will say, but, it is against the law and some will obey the law. Yes, you are right, however, these same folks will usually buy inside the show because buying from the lot doesn’t give you a warranty and you don’t know what you are getting. This is a feel-good law.
The “gun show loophole” is a myth.
Any legitimate firearms vendor has an FFL.
They are required to do background checks on the all buyers.
There is no mechanism in place to track sales of anything from a private individual to another.
So any number attached to this is dubious at best.
Suspension of a civil right is punitive.
Requiring a test be passed before reinstatement means that they are assumed guilty first.
U
upant
Guest
what about the black market? I can go downtown and pickup a cheap Saturday night special for about a $100. It is old and worn but it will do the job in close range. If I want the top of the line I can custom order a semi auto pistol with red-dot and flashlight for $3-4k built from scratch in a local garage. Look on line for uppers and lowers and see what’s available
C
Cruciferi
Guest
Oh please! Determined Criminals don’t follow rules. They’ll circumvent your futile confiscation and purchase guns on the street.
You’ll never get every gun.
C
Cruciferi
Guest
I’m not laughing.
Oh I care. Believe me, I care. I just don’t agree with anything that you’re saying.
L
LilyM
Guest
By this logic we shouldn’t make laws restricting access to anything in any way shape or form - be it poisons, acid, narcotics, alcohol or what have you - or to any dangerous activity - skydiving, knife throwing or whatever - because “criminals don’t follow rules” and will do what they want anyway.
Nor, by exactly the same logic, should we be imposing licencing or training requirements on police, military, doctors or anyone else who has high levels of access to dangerous substances or weapons.
By the way the military at least, as part of their health checks of recruits, do screen their health histories for indications of mental health problems (diagnoses of mental illness, recorded suicide attempts or admissions to mental health facilities etc). Why go through such a process if none of it matters because people will ‘do what they want’ regardless?
Newsflash - not all criminals are determined, not by a long shot. This is why we are told to do things like rigging house lights to randomly switch on and off while we are out, or putting a “beware of the dog” sign on the fence even if you don’t have a dog. A truly determined criminal will break in anyway, but a staggering number of crimes are prevented by simply making things just a little bit difficult.
Such measures are far from futile. Heck, in the UK they have found that simply putting life size cardboard cutouts of police in shop windows or streets actually reduces crime rates.
Last edited:
Sums your argument up nicely.
But it still does not logically explain anything. Forcing people to turn in their weapons until they can prove they pass the test is a guilty until proven innocent approach.
You want to take privately owned property away and force a test upon people before they can have it back.
A test run before said property is obtained is not the same thing.
Your logic is in error.
- Status