Debating mental illness and gun violence

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Well the thing is gun salespeople hands are tied when it comes to this. They can only look at whether the person has been involuntarily committed past 72 hours or if the state deems the person mentally incapable, but if you are seeing a psychiatrist and are taking psychiatric medications, gun shop salespeople cannot deny you the purchase of a weapon. It is literally impossible if they know you are seeing a "shrink." You can literally walk in to a gun shop and pop some haldol pills in front of the gun salesman and they cannot deny you a weapon.

Not that most people seeing a psychiatrist or psychologist are a risk to themselves or others. Mental health is part of the issue, but let's not inadvertently demonize everyone with mental health issues.

 

[suncowiam]

Why wouldn't it? It works everywhere else with reasonable gun control

@Epic Beard Man, I think I understand your confusion with my statement.

I agree with gun control when it is properly enforced.

"Gun free zones", IMO, alludes to the loose application of gun control . Chicago is a prime example of a gun free zone. It is not capable of fully enforcing the laws so it is not seeing positive results. As I mentioned before, the first thing a gun free zone has to be able to do is to secure its borders. If it cannot secure the borders to not allow more guns then simply labeling it as "gun free" simply will not work.

 

[Curious George]

The thing is there is no stigmatization on seeking help in relation to gun laws.

I'm not even sure that makes sense.

 

[Mindmaster]

let me highlight the above:

Only true way for any gun shop to not sell you a weapon is if you have been involuntarily committed to a psychiatric facility beyond the 72 hour threshold. You can be on a 72 hour threshold and still purchase a weapon but if it is determined by a psychiatrist that you are meant to be there involuntarily past 72 hours you cannot buy a gun--or if the court decides you are mentally not competent. The issue here is that federal law does not mandate that mental health status be a part of the background check.

This depends on state laws, Illinois is pretty strict. If other states were as strict on the background check as Illinois the problem would be non-existent. It honestly needs to be stricter even than Illinois, on this issue specifically. Illinois also as a mandate to report: DHS: Illinois Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) Mental Health Reporting System

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Are you trying to get me to believe that criminals will just keep breaking the law and will still get illegal weapons- are you insane?


We better make everything illegal because you can commit murder with just about anything

I've grown around bloods and crips...You make gun free zones that gives them easy access to terrorize their enemies (different blood sets will shoot at different blood sets as well as crips). Surenos and Nortenos in Cali do not respect the law so what makes you think they'll just turn over their weapons? These people get guns funneled by the Cartel.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

I have no idea why you felt that was Trump related.

I don't live in SoCal. I live in NoCal.

NoCal as in North Carolina? Usually Northern Californians usually say "The Bay" but whatever....

The Trump related comment stems from your following comment:

" I wouldn't support a gun free zone in California if it can't control its borders "

Our borders have nothing to do with gun issues. We had gun issues well before immigration issues.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

On the subject you mentioned... Being mentally ill.

Why not have the APA (American Psychological Association) or the APA (American Psychiatric Association) consider a process on how to screen people for being mentally fit to own a guns. If I'm missing some other prominent mental health group, then include them too. Have them guide law enforcement with statistics and data to best build a plan.

You cannot because there are too many gray areas.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

I'm not even sure that makes sense.

In the previous post you alluded to the existence of a stigmatization of those with mental illness purchasing guns no?

My response is there is no current stigma of that sort.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The Australian gun control laws went into effect after the Port Arthur massacre in 1996. In the 20 since then there have 13 mass murders. The twenty years previous...14.

A most effective reversal.

I'm Australian.
Source?

 

[Curious George]

In the previous post you alluded to the existence of a stigmatization of those with mental illness purchasing guns no?

My response is there is no current stigma of that sort.

No. In a previous post I suggested giving critical thought to the stigmatization of seeking help that such laws promote.

Gun regulation discussions have considered testing and making public mental health records. Especially when calling for private sales background checks. The result would be that anyone wanting to pay the background check fees would have access to a person's medical health records as far as any gun regulation database would allow. Now if you do not think this creates a stigmatization for seeking help, which could lead to public records of your mental health, then you have not given the issue the critical thought necessary.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I'm Australian.
Source?

I'm North American.

Wikipedia, "List of Massacres in Austrailia."

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I'm North American.

Wikipedia, "List of Massacres in Austrailia."

That page includes 'massacres' where 2 people were killed, and arson. It's not credible.

 

[suncowiam]

NoCal as in North Carolina? Usually Northern Californians usually say "The Bay" but whatever....

The Trump related comment stems from your following comment:

" I wouldn't support a gun free zone in California if it can't control its borders "

Our borders have nothing to do with gun issues. We had gun issues well before immigration issues.

Yes it does, because if we want to implement a gun free zone then we have to ensure that no new guns enter the zone. If people can enter and exit freely without being vetted, then there's no way a free zone of anything can be implemented.

[Edited] NoCal should have NorCal. Yes, we go by the Bay also. Specifically, I live in the South Bay.

 

[suncowiam]

You cannot because there are too many gray areas.

I'll take your word for it because you said you work in that field.

I would tackle areas that are clear and cut, then continue studies with the gray areas to better define it.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

That page includes 'massacres' where 2 people were killed, and arson. It's not credible.

Gun deaths are gun deaths. The arson is a crime where multiple deaths occur. Dead is dead no matter the method.

Take their guns and they use another method.

And let's see. 2 dead and 5 wounded. If only he was a better shot.

 

[suncowiam]

That page includes 'massacres' where 2 people were killed, and arson. It's not credible.

I found it too. It's just a very loose definition of massacre.

I would assume if the same definition applied to the US, then the difference between US and Australia would be even more astounding when normalized.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

That page includes 'massacres' where 2 people were killed, and arson. It's not credible.

And your right, burning to death beats a gunshot to the head any day of the week.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I found it too. It's just a very loose definition of massacre.

I would assume if the same definition applied to the US, then the difference between US and Australia would be even more astounding when normalized.

Massacre: noun 1. an indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of people.

Now, you can get hung up on the title or you can grasp that gun control didn't stop the slaughter of people.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

That page includes 'massacres' where 2 people were killed, and arson. It's not credible.

Not really relevant to a discussion on firearms, either, really, is it?

 

[suncowiam]

Massacre: noun 1. an indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of people.

Now, you can get hung up on the title or you can grasp that gun control didn't stop the slaughter of people.

I would never say gun control totally stops the slaughter of people. What perfect world could actually implement that?

Everything is in relationship to each other. Australia's gun violence is much better compared to the US and that is simply because of gun control.

List of countries by firearm-related death rate - Wikipedia

Australia: 0.93
United States: 10.54.

Ok, it's not at 0 but definitely much better compared to US.