Last February, Trump signed a bill making it easier for people with mental illness to buy guns

[Skipper]

It did not attract a ton of attention at the time (nothing does these days) but about a year ago on February 28, 2017, Congress passed and Donald Trump signed a law revoking an Obama-era regulatory initiative that made it harder for people with mental illness to buy a gun.

Yet despite this effort to roll back even a very modest effort to restrain the ability of seriously incapacitated people from obtaining deadly weapons, this morning Trump tweeted that there were “so many signs that the Florida shooter was mentally disturbed,” implying that someone should have done something to report him.

But it’s Trump’s party — and Trump himself — who have consistently prevented the federal government from doing anything about this kind of situation. The Obama-era gun regulation wouldn’t have had a massive impact on gun violence in the US since it’s estimated that it would only affect about 75,000 people. And disability rights groups had their own objections to the bill so some liberal groups, including the ACLU, joined with the National Rifle Association in urging Trump to reverse it.

 

[Quetzal]

I wasn't crazy about Trump's rollback. Question - would the Obama regulations have stopped the shooter in Florida? (I am asking since that is what Trump's tweet was in reference to.)

 

[Revoltingest]

It did not attract a ton of attention at the time (nothing does these days) but about a year ago on February 28, 2017, Congress passed and Donald Trump signed a law revoking an Obama-era regulatory initiative that made it harder for people with mental illness to buy a gun.

Yet despite this effort to roll back even a very modest effort to restrain the ability of seriously incapacitated people from obtaining deadly weapons, this morning Trump tweeted that there were “so many signs that the Florida shooter was mentally disturbed,” implying that someone should have done something to report him.

But it’s Trump’s party — and Trump himself — who have consistently prevented the federal government from doing anything about this kind of situation. The Obama-era gun regulation wouldn’t have had a massive impact on gun violence in the US since it’s estimated that it would only affect about 75,000 people. And disability rights groups had their own objections to the bill so some liberal groups, including the ACLU, joined with the National Rifle Association in urging Trump to reverse it.

If the ACLU joins the NRA in favoring reversal, it suggests to me that the "mental illness" criterion
was overly broad. I wonder to what extent there was risk assessment for categories of illness
committing gun violence. (There's much to read thru, & I haven't done it yet.)

 

[Skipper]

I wasn't crazy about Trump's rollback. Question - would the Obama regulations have stopped the shooter in Florida? (I am asking since that is what Trump's tweet was in reference to.)

There is no way to know the answer to your question. But, it is obvious that making it easier for the mentally ill to obtain guns does not help the problem. The GOP and Trump own this massacre, but they will never admit it. Most will simply say, "Our thought and prayers are with them," but will do nothing constructive.

 

[suncowiam]

Who knows but blaming this on the mentally ill is barking up the wrong tree.

Let's do a thought experiment. What is a common scenario in all these massacres:

* Male
* Mentally unstable to clinically ill
* Guns

America has a higher rate of gun violence than most Western and civilized nations.

- Is there a discrepancy in the male population of these nations?

- Is there a discrepancy in the mentally ill population of these nations?

- Is there a discrepancy in gun ownership and gun laws in these nations?

I haven't even thrown actual statistics to this experiment. One could pretty much make an assumption here but why stop there?

Let's actually present the actual statistics. The correlation is clear! Gun violence is a factor of gun ownership and amount of enforceable legislation.

Overview of gun laws by nation - Wikipedia

List of countries by firearm-related death rate - Wikipedia

Other Western nations like UK, Australia, South Korea, Japan and many other countries proves a correlation of low gun violence with gun control.

I've presented this many times already on RF and clearly, it won't matter again this umph time.

Our second amendment is the problem. It addresses the original problem with an antiquated solution while allowing real tragedies to occur.

Also, I understand that there are and will always be responsible gun owners. I actually support their right to own guns, but only a proper gun control can allow these citizens to own guns while filtering out the "bad" guys. I have no idea who is a "good" guy versus a "bad" guy. These other western nations have a very strict and limited path to gun ownership which helps them maintain their gun violence under ours by large factors.

Back to the OP... Is it really about mental illness?

 

[Revoltingest]

There is no way to know the answer to your question. But, it is obvious that making it easier for the mentally ill to obtain guns does not help the problem. The GOP and Trump own this massacre, but they will never admit it. Most will simply say, "Our thought and prayers are with them," but will do nothing constructive.

Do you think every kind or only certain kinds of mental illness should prevent gun ownership?
A risk analysis based on evidence could separate the high from low risk types, & perhaps
ownership prohibition for select groups could get the blessing of all concerned.

This is analogous to the right to travel, wherein some people are denied a license for
medical reasons which make safe operation impractical. Of course, these criteria would
differ from gun ownership disqualifiers, but the same practical reasoning should apply.
Examples:
Narcolepsy would be dangerous for driving, but not for gun ownership.
Rage issues could disqualify someone for both.

 

[Nakosis]

I wasn't crazy about Trump's rollback. Question - would the Obama regulations have stopped the shooter in Florida? (I am asking since that is what Trump's tweet was in reference to.)

“Today we put a stop to one of the Obama Administration’s many attempts to legislate through regulation,” said Chairman Brady. “The Social Security Administration not only overstepped its mission with this regulation, it discriminated against certain Americans with disabilities who receive Social Security benefits. The agency should be focused on serving all of its beneficiaries, not picking and choosing whose 2nd Amendment rights to deny. Thank you to Chairman Johnson and Congressman Abraham for leading the House effort to reverse this harmful regulatory overreach and protect the rights of all Social Security beneficiaries.”

“Today was an important day for the Constitutional rights of individuals with disabilities,” said Chairman Johnson. “Just because someone has a disability does not mean they’re a threat to society. Needing help to manage your benefit does not make you dangerous. This resolution has strong support from the disability community, the NRA, and the ACLU. The Senate should act quickly to make sure the 2nd Amendment rights of individuals with disabilities are protected.”

Passed in the House: Johnson Resolution Protecting 2nd Amendment Rights - Ways and Means

Kind of a weird law. It affects people on social security who require help managing their benefits. I can understand some people on SS may have mental disabilities.
Apparently some folks including the ACLU thought this unnecessarily discriminated against some retirees.

If you needed help managing your SS benefits, the last administration felt this was a sign of mental incompetence. I don't know exactly what's involved with getting help to manage your SS benefits.

 

[Kapalika]

I don't think we can start depriving people of their rights just because it makes us uncomfortable. It's not a privilege, it's a right. In my state, so long as you've never been involuntarily committed to hospitalization (or otherwise deemed mentally unfit by a court), haven't committed a felony, or haven't ever been convicted of domestic abuse you can buy a gun.

I think that is a pretty fair standard. Barring people simply for being "mentally ill" doesn't help. Someone with anxiety isn't dangerous, actually would be a lot more cautious with a gun, ect. You can't just lump everyone together.

If we think that mental illness is the cause for all these shootings, perhaps we should actually invest in more mental health rather than thinking more gun control will fix the issue somehow. There are more guns in this country than people. Because of that no amount of gun control is going to change a thing as it's pretty easy to get a gun even when you're technically not supposed to (no amount of closing loopholes will ever stop this). And many of the shootings are ideologically motivated. We need a change in culture, if anything. And better access to affordable, quality healthcare.

Only then will we see a real solution.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The man is a felon now. He won't ever be allowed a firearm ever again.

 

[pearl]

There is way to say that it absolutely would have stopped him, but at least he might have been slowed down long enough for someone to intervene if not for the rapid fire gun he used.
We simply cannot wait until Congress acts. Each state has the power to restrict these weapons. Here in Massachusetts the AG issued a notice to all gun sellers and manufacturers in Massachusetts, warning that her office is stepping up enforcement of the state’s assault weapons ban, including a crackdown on the sale of copycat weapons.

Think about it,
A reported shooting at a South Florida high school on Wednesday marks the country’s 18th school shooting of 2018, just 45 days into the year.

That’s an average of one school shooting every 60 hours thus far in 2018, more than double the number of school shootings recorded in any of the previous three years in that same period. Those numbers are according to data compiled by the gun control advocacy organization Everytown for Gun Safety, which defines a school shooting as any time a firearm is discharged on or around a campus.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/school-shootings-2018_us_5a84a68ee4b0058d55659ae9

 

[Revoltingest]

There is way to say that it absolutely would have stopped him, but at least he might have been slowed down long enough for someone to intervene if not for the rapid fire gun he used.
We simply cannot wait until Congress acts. Each state has the power to restrict these weapons. Here in Massachusetts the AG issued a notice to all gun sellers and manufacturers in Massachusetts, warning that her office is stepping up enforcement of the state’s assault weapons ban, including a crackdown on the sale of copycat weapons.

Think about it,
A reported shooting at a South Florida high school on Wednesday marks the country’s 18th school shooting of 2018, just 45 days into the year.

That’s an average of one school shooting every 60 hours thus far in 2018, more than double the number of school shootings recorded in any of the previous three years in that same period. Those numbers are according to data compiled by the gun control advocacy organization Everytown for Gun Safety, which defines a school shooting as any time a firearm is discharged on or around a campus.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/school-shootings-2018_us_5a84a68ee4b0058d55659ae9

From the linked article, these school shooting look highly preventable, since law enforcement types were the "perps".....
Jan. 10: Grayson College in Denison, Texas
A student confused a training weapon with a real one and fired a bullet through a classroom wall. No students were injured.
Bullet fired through classroom at Grayson College

Feb. 5: Harmony Learning Center in Maplewood, Minnesota
A third-grader discharged a police officer’s holstered gun while participating
in a group activity at the K-12 school. No injuries were reported.

I find this last one odd....what kind of holster allows access to the trigger?
This would be an incredibly unsafe thing to issue to cops...or anyone.

 

[metis]

This is very much a moral and a religious issue, such as what's more important, having a proliferation of guns that has led this country to have many times more gun-related deaths than any other industrialized country in the world, or is it better to have more protection of our own people, including our children? Are we going to listen to our researchers and moral leaders, or are we going to listen more to the NRA and those who support them in Congress and the presidency so as for them to receive more campaign donations?

IOW, where is our heart really at?

 

[Revoltingest]

This is very much a moral and a religious issue....

It's also constitutional & practical.
As for the religious aspect, forgive me if I don't cite scripture.
I have a purely secular view of things.

 

[sun rise]

If the ACLU joins the NRA in favoring reversal, it suggest to me that the "mental illness" criterion
was overly broad. I wonder to what extent there was risk assessment for categories of illness
committing gun violence. (There's much to read thru, & I haven't done it yet.)

Do you have any evidence for that assertion? Because unless you do, I pay no attention to it.

 

[sun rise]

From the story, this was what was rolled back:

added people receiving Social Security checks for mental illnesses and people deemed unfit to handle their own financial affairs to the national background check database.

That sounds quite sensible to me and, absent any rational objection, the rollback shows the power of the gun-worshiping lobby.

 

[suncowiam]

It's also constitutional & practical.
As for the religious aspect, forgive me if I don't cite scripture.
I have a purely secular view of things.

If it wasn't for the constitution, in your opinion, who do you believe should own guns and what should be the process to allow them?

I can't believe you would think anyone can own a gun?

 

[Revoltingest]

Do you have any evidence for that assertion? Because unless you do, I pay no attention to it.

Read more carefully....& stop growling at me.
I posted what it "suggests" to me.
This is to raise a question for discussion about why the ACLU sided with the NRA.

 

[Revoltingest]

If it wasn't for the constitution, in your opinion, who do you believe should own guns and what should be the process to allow them?

Interesting question.
Without the Constitution, government could do whatever it wanted.
But without this document, I'd favor even more liberal (as in permissive) gun laws.

I can't believe you would think anyone can own a gun?

Are you asking me or telling me what I believe?

 

[suncowiam]

Interesting question.
Without the Constitution, government could do whatever it wanted.
But without this document, I'd favor even more liberal (as in permissive) gun laws.

Are you asking me or telling me what I believe?

Could you be more specific concerning who should own guns and what the process of allowing them to should be?

 

[Revoltingest]

Could you be more specific concerning who should own guns and what the process of allowing them to should be?

Are you referring to you hypothetical scenario with no Constitution,
or under current law?