Irresponsible gun owners (Page 7)

That is heart breaking. I had a similar experience. No where near that bad, and not for the same reasons, but the being forced to deal with a violent child with charges part I get. It was pretty tough. Plenty was tried, plenty was asked for, and it's like the only thing available was a jail. It should not be that way. I could not imagine it being even worse for the parent of a child to be ill as in this case, and that be the only answer.

no question that part of the solution is dealing with the mental health crisis - lack of services.

Started under Reagan - when all the state mental hospitals closed, and now we deal with difficulty getting insurance coverage for services.

This time of year I have so many patients come in depressed/anxious - not a day goes by where I am not screening someone for safety.

I do not understand why there are guns in homes with situations like this.

cut funding to virtually ALL state mental institutions (he did it in California as Governor then as president continued nationally). If you read the piece Pitt linked, our jails are now the default state mental hospitals.

Wingdale, NY - fairly close to Newtown, a large state mental hospital, closed in the 80s - one of the victims of Reagan's cuts.

As a country we have systematically cut funding to mental health.

Now, this impacts the mass shootings, but not (interestingly) the overall gun violence rates:

Gun Deaths

conservative backlash to the welfare state

'State mental hospitals were taken away by Governor Reagan in the seventies, and federal mental health programs were later taken away by President Reagan in the eighties.

When Ronald Reagan was governor of California he systematically began closing down mental hospitals, later as president he would cut aid for federally-funded community mental health programs. It is not a coincidence that the homeless populations in the state of California grew in the seventies and eighties. The people were put out on the street when mental hospitals started to close all over the state.

Seeing an increase in crime, and brutal murders by Herb Mullin, a mental hospital patient, the state legislature passed a law that would stop Reagan from closing even more state-funded mental health hospitals. But Reagan would not be outdone. In 1980, congress proposed new legislation (PL 96-398) called the community mental health systems act (crafted by Ted Kennedy), but the program was killed by newly-elected President Ronald Reagan. This action ended the federal community mental health centers'

cut funding

right from my previous post:

In 1980, congress proposed new legislation (PL 96-398) called the community mental health systems act (crafted by Ted Kennedy), but the program was killed by newly-elected President Ronald Reagan. This action ended the federal community mental health centers'

Regan closed California hospitals. As President, Congress sent a bill to him that got rejected... but it does not say on what grounds. How is a piece of legislation not going through closing all the state mental hospitals all over the country? How is it that 30 years later, with 12 years of democrat presidents going on 16 and Ted Kennedy still around and a overhaul of health care we are still blaming Regan for the dismantling of mental health facilities? The bit makes it sound like Kennedy was trying to have centers built or started, not Regan closing them.

it was the funding for them

once closed reopening is a whole other issue.

I guess I'm not getting it. Kennedy was proposing new legislation.

Not arguing, we need more help and resources for mental illness. This has been the case for a long time. Health insurance only covers minimal help. I'm not quite sure blaming Regan solves anything 30 years later. A lot of work could have been done in 30 years.

Not blaming him other than to say he started the trend of cutting funding for mental health.

the insurance industry jumped on that bandwagon very wilingly

Our grandchildren showed me very plainly how their generation thinks these days.  I will call it the reset generation.  Basically they really believe that no matter waht happens, all they have to do is push the reset button on the game and it all starts over, no harm no foul.

In addition, turn on any channel on TV or go to almost any movie showing and it is all about killing.

Now I grew up with Bonanza, cowboys and Indian wars, Gi Joe, and other shows about war and killing, but also Leave it to Beaver, Kung Fu, and My Three Sons.  There was violence, but no where near the level of today.  Hollywood is to blame not guns.

So as a doctor when these depressed/anxious peple come into see you, do you inform the local police.  Do you pick up the phone and call and say hey, Jack was here and he is off his rocker, you better keep an eye on him and make sure he doesn't have any guns?

I would imagine you don't.  I bet you can't because of some doctor/patient stuff, am I right?  Seems like that would be a good place to start.  A nut case is not going to go and fill out the required form and check the box that says, "yes I have mental problems"  But the doctor is going to sit back and say I can't tell anyone becuase it's the law.

WRONG!  If those citizens (be it private or part of the government) tried to infringe on our rights then yes the 2A gives us the power to prevent these infringements.

I agree.  However that is NOT was the current federal government is.  It has overstepped it's powers at every turn.  I would argue that right now it is even MORE important to have armed citizens.

That's funny.  You really believe that?  Look you obviously live in a world where things will work out the way they were planned.  I expect the opposite to happen.  And I'm prepared for that.

What?  So we have to enforce the MOST strict interpenetration that ANYONE wants?  Well there are people out there who do not want blacks or women to vote.  Do you have to enforce their interpretation of the laws?  No.  This is a democracy.  Plenty of people do not want more gun control.  Until this group becomes a minority then you cannot willy-nilly change the laws.

Not all states force you to buy alcohol in state stores.  In facts most in south do not.  And almost all states already have a background check in place.  Would not have stopped the CT shooter however.

I'm sorry you are using hyperbole now.  Please show me a single "drug store" (with the exception of some wacko combo drug store/gun shop owned by one guy in the middle of nowhere Iowa) where you can buy a firearm.

Ahh, there is the problem.  It is very difficult to get one committed for more than 72 hours (at least in my state) and there is no guarantee that folks will take there meds as out patients.  And HIPPA says you can't tell anyone who you are seeing. So it boils down to who's rights we are willing to violate.  At this point some people in the media and on the left have no problem infringing on 2nd amendment rights.  My guess is that's because has no direct impact on them.  We could medicate everyone and take away all guns, but the truth is murder would still occur.  In a free society, where we cherish liberty, bad things will happen from time to time.  I am willing to live with that risk in order to keep the freedoms we currently have. 

So "all semi-auto" weapons?  So you advocate going back a full century in technology.  So all semi-auto hand guns in your proposal would be illegal.  So the only hand guns that would be legal would be single action "cowboy" type handguns?

Additionally, in your proposal:  "what's an assualt weapon?"

Does this mean the federal government also has to give up semi-autos?  If not then this is a deal breaker for anyone who believes in the 2nd Amendment.

Actually it would.  You have a search and seizure issue.  The argument agains the drug testing and mental testing is the same argument used against mandatory drug testing for individuals receiving Food stamps or unemployment.  Typically, you can only effectuate a search or seizure of a person if there is reasonable suspicion that the person is engaged in criminal conduct.  It is a Constitutional right, both embodies specifically in the 4th Amendment and arguably in the penumbru of rights known as privacy rights.

Additionally, it's a stupid requirement.  It's stupid because it's a test only on a specific day, according to your proposal only on the day of purchase.  Thus, it would catch only the most hard core drug/alch users that were under the influence on the date of purchase.

So, yes in fact there is another problem with the Japan model as you've outlined it.

What about handguns? 

There's been a lot of talk on this board about "gun control", "gun legislation" with some people calling for the total ban of almost all modern firearms. 

The Sandy Hook incident is horrific in its very nature.  However being involved in the legal system for over 20 years and having aided legislatures in writing laws the one thing I can say emphatically, and without hesitation is the following:

Legislation that is fast tracked based upon a knee jerk reaction to some tragedy are seldom worthwhile.  The legislation so passed tends not to be well thought out, and typically causes extreme hardship to those that are the target of the legislation, those that are tasked with enforcing the legislation and those tasked with interpreting the legislation.

The gun situation in this country needs to be examed, but that is not the entire story in this latest tragedy.  We need a serious discusion about all of the factors, guns, mental health, public safety.

The fact is that even the prior Assualt weapons ban that lapsed in 2004 did not prevent mass shootings. 

This issue needs to be looked at rationally.  The notion of banning all guns immediately, and forcing gun owners to turn in their guns within two weeks or face imprisonment is not rational.  It is knee jerk, it is reactionary, and draconian.  And I dare say, regardless of your personal belief of what the 2nd Amendment means, I feel quite confident in saying that Founders would find the prospect of the government rounding up all weapons and imprisoning anyone who possesed a weapon abhorent to the notion of freedom and liberty.