Poll: Most Don't Believe Stricter Gun Control Policies Will Prevent Mass Shootings

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Quote

"adjudicated by a court" is a LOT different than rifling through private counseling records.....

Lapierre nonetheless says the group is now working with longtime ally Rep. John Dingell, Democrat of Michigan, on a bill to ensure that mental-health records are entered into a FBI database that is used for background checks of gun buyers.

From the same article.

And I agree that if someone is mentally ill to the point that a judge has declared them unsafe, then that sort of record should be available for background checks. But it looks like the emotional response to the VA Tech incident is going to lead to mental health records being shared that have no business being shared. As usual, we get scared and start throwing our rights out the window, thinking that is somehow going to make us safer.

[Lindsey 0]

Quote

Quote

Are you suggesting that everyone who wants to buy a gun should get a doctor's signature first?

Come to think of it, why not?

Because no doctor in their right mind would sign such a piece of paper. You've got nothing to gain and a helluva lot to lose.

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

So your position is that there should be no law if that law can be circunvented in some way. That pretty much leave us with anarchy.

No, go ahead and make the law; it seems like a good idea. I'm just saying that I don't think it will prevent another mass shooting, and it likely won't do much to keep mentally ill people from getting guns. So it's probably not the right solution. But unfortunately I don't have a better solution to offer.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Are you suggesting that everyone who wants to buy a gun should get a doctor's signature first?

Come to think of it, why not?

Because no doctor in their right mind would sign such a piece of paper. You've got nothing to gain and a helluva lot to lose.

It would serve very well as a barrier to gun ownership, much like the suggestion that people should drive to their sheriff station for permission first. Easy for the rich in urban areas, very hard for the poor in remote areas. It's a poll tax for guns.

How many of us have a mental health doctor? Even if any were willing to legally vouch for us, that's a couple billable hours. $500?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

So, are you willing to sacrifice doctor-patient privacy for the sake of a new gun control law that won't work?

So, John, lemme get this straight . . .

You would not be in favor of a law that would prohibit the sale of guns to people with mental deficiencies? Does that about sum it up?

In fact, you're actually saying that you're in favor of selling guns to persons known to be at risk to themselves and the public at large; correct?

Pretty classless strawman here, quade. His statement has no resemblence to your version of it. (and wtf is with the cheap shot in white type on a latter posting? Grow a pair)

The reasons for doctor-client (or lawyer-client) priviledge are very strong and outweight the minimal perceived gain in safety here. And as I suggest, I think removing that privacy would lead to a decrease in safety as many people would choose not to seek help knowing that their xanax/prozac/whatever prescriptions would become public records.

[quade 4]

Quote

Pretty classless strawman here, quade. His statement has no resemblence to your version of it.

Actually, not a straw man at all. It was a question that HAD to be asked base on his exact words.

Quote

(and wtf is with the cheap shot in white type on a latter posting? Grow a pair)

How the heck else can I document that I made a prediction about the Future without the risk of altering the timeline? Of course, now that you've "revealed the secret" the timeline is now forever altered. Damn you time paradox!

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

Our position on this is crystal clear: If you are adjudicated by a court to be mentally defective, suicidal, a danger to yourself or to others, you should be prohibited from buying a firearm ~ Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President, NRA.

Which is what struck me as so "odd" about John's position on the subject.

There's nothing odd about it, because what I said matches what LaPierre said.

P.S.
Spare me the cute "white" text comments about me, that only clever people can figure out how to view.

[ExAFO 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Most Don't Believe Stricter Gun Control Policies Will Prevent Mass Shootings

Well, it hasn't yet, has it?

Ciels-
Michele

How do you know how many have NOT happened?

That's a nice bit of specious reasoning there, Professor.

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Our position on this is crystal clear: If you are adjudicated by a court to be mentally defective, suicidal, a danger to yourself or to others, you should be prohibited from buying a firearm ~ Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President, NRA.

Which is what struck me as so "odd" about John's position on the subject.

There's nothing odd about it, because what I said matches what LaPierre said.

Well, now THERE'S a bit of revisionist history!

Quote

P.S.
Spare me the cute "white" text comments about me, that only clever people can figure out how to view.

Ok, you're spared.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

Are you suggesting that everyone who wants to buy a gun should get a doctor's signature first?

Come to think of it, why not?

Because doctors have their own personal biases and interpretations and this would lead to wildly uneven determinations and enforcement. The system we have now requires objective measurements, not someone's personal opinion. And that's the way it should be.

This would lead to doctor-shopping, for someone who is known to be lenient in issuing permission.

And you would need to have a huge system of government-approved doctors to make these evaluations.

You're talking about a multi-billion dollar bureaucracy, that in the end, would accomplish nothing. What everyone like you keeps forgetting is that the criminal will ignore all this bullshit, and just steal a gun, or buy one on the street, and do their crime anyway. They don't need no steenkin' permission from a shrink to commit crime.

It's also a violation of constitutional rights - you can't deny someone their right to own a gun, just because some doctor's personal opinion is that he doesn't want you to have it.

Perhaps we should also have mental evaluations done on citizens before allowing them to vote? What about driving? Shouldn't we weed out people prone to road rage? What about drinking? Shouldn't we weed out those prone to drink to excess?

Sheesh.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Well, now THERE'S a bit of revisionist history!

Look here, Mr. Moderator. There's no reason to be a ----. You said your piece, and I said mine. Let it go at that. The readers here can decide for themselves. You don't need to stoop to such bullshit tactics like the one above. Especially since you're a moderator, and should be setting an example for civil discourse.

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

Well, now THERE'S a bit of revisionist history!

Look here, Mr. Moderator. There's no reason to be a ----. You said your piece, and I said mine. Let it go at that. The readers here can decide for themselves. You don't need to stoop to such bullshit tactics like the one above. Especially since you're a moderator, and should be setting an example for civil discourse.

Let's see . . . did I call you an "a ----"? I don't think so.

Don't lecture me about your concept of "civil discourse" because to my way of thinking it's laughable at best.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

This would lead to doctor-shopping, for someone who is known to be lenient in issuing permission.

And you would need to have a huge system of government-approved doctors to make these evaluations.

and then we'd find that certain doctors approved purchases by more future killers than the ones, and will declare them as crime enablers. (though in reality, they'll be the ones that do 90% of the evals)

Then they'll be put out of business and it will become impossible to find a doctor thereafter.

(this is exactly what happens to gun stores in the Bay Area)

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Don't lecture me about your concept of "civil discourse" because to my way of thinking it's laughable at best.

His concept is a lot closer to the one that should be adopted by a moderator.

so...would you like to confirm that you don't believe in the privacy of medical records?

[quade 4]

Quote

His concept is a lot closer to the one that should be adopted by a moderator.

In your opinion?

Quote

so...would you like to confirm that you don't believe in the privacy of medical records?

Asked and answered counselor. (In detail, with examples and a reference to a government web site.) Just scroll back a little.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

You infer too much. Making the leap from "last weeks' bloodshed" to "mass shootings" (plural) is both misleading and unwarranted by any evidence that you presented.

So you don't consider last week's Virginia Tech shooting to be a "mass shooting"?

Golly.

Try reading instead of jerking the knee.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

"Most Don't Believe Stricter Gun Control Policies Will Prevent Mass Shootings"

Michelle: Well, it hasn't yet, has it?

kallend: How do you know how many have NOT happened?

Enlighten us, kallend - tell us how many have not happened.

Try reading what is written for a change, John.

It is impossible to claim that no mass shootings have been prevented.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[likearock 2]

Quote

Isn't one too many? It took me a minute just to find two: one in 1987, another
in 1996. They passed the firearms bill in 1997.

Makes it kinda tough to say that gun control has had an effect.

How do you figure? They had at least two mass shootings within 10 years. As a result, they passed the law in 1997 and there haven't been any mass shootings since. Do we have to wait another 10 years before we say there's an effect?

BTW, did you read those links?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

How do you figure? They had at least two mass shootings within 10 years. As a result, they passed the law in 1997 and there haven't been any mass shootings since. Do we have to wait another 10 years before we say there's an effect?

you're not a statistician.

and as they said, nothing now precludes another such event. There are millions of guns in England still.

[Enrique 0]

The way I see it, no matter how strict the background checks are, they will not show if someone has been harassed in school lately or if they are going to be fired from their jobs. Crazy people will still be able to buy a gun.

In addition, there seems to be no tolerance for anyone or anything. The police are trigger happy, the President of the U.S. is bomb and Country-invasion happy... it is the way of the gun. You move in a way that I think is threatening, I'll shoot you. If I dislike you, I'll shoot you. If I don't like your type of government or your foreing policy, I'll invade and level you with bombs. That seems to be the norm, the set example, hence we cannot ask people to act differently... it is what they see their leaders do.

Just a thought.

[likearock 2]

Quote

Quote

How do you figure? They had at least two mass shootings within 10 years. As a result, they passed the law in 1997 and there haven't been any mass shootings since. Do we have to wait another 10 years before we say there's an effect?

you're not a statistician.

and as they said, nothing now precludes another such event. There are millions of guns in England still.

The question was never whether we could preclude any occurrence. It's obvious that that isn't possible under any circumstances. The question is "did the UK law have an effect in preventing some mass shootings?"

So if you think that it didn't, please answer this question: how much longer do we have to wait before we can say that there has been such an effect?

[Lindsey 0]

So if you think that it didn't, please answer this question: how much longer do we have to wait before we can say that there has been such an effect?

Given the small number of incidents and the many other variables (besides the availability of guns) that likely played into those incidents, to be able to say that taking the Brits' guns away had any effect at all will take a lot more than time....no matter how long you wait.

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[likearock 2]

Quote

So if you think that it didn't, please answer this question: how much longer do we have to wait before we can say that there has been such an effect?

Given the small number of incidents and the many other variables (besides the availability of guns) that likely played into those incidents, to be able to say that taking the Brits' guns away had any effect at all will take a lot more than time....no matter how long you wait.

Okay, fine. It will take more than time to convince you. We can have another 10, 20, even 50 years of peace in the UK while enduring sporadic Virginia Techs over here. From what you say, it won't make a difference to you. So tell me then, what exactly would it take to show you that a gun control law can have an effect on the frequency of mass shootings? Or is there nothing?

[Lindsey 0]

So tell me then, what exactly would it take to show you that a gun control law can have an effect on the frequency of mass shootings? Or is there nothing?

I already believe that they *can* or *might*. I just don't know that they DO. I need more than an emotional plea by people desperate to forward their political goals to convince me that there is a real, tangible benefit to society to ban gun ownership. Even recognizing a benefit, though, is not enough to make me willing to give up individual freedoms. It would have to be a really big benefit.

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[billvon 2,993]

>So, are you willing to sacrifice doctor-patient privacy for the sake of a new
>gun control law that won't work?

When keeping such a secret puts other people in danger - yes.

No new laws BTW. They're already on the books. Some of the bureaucracy just doesn't work well; that allows errors like this one.