Turns out that the Louisville Bank shooter was a gun control advocate

Every gun rights thread we have here people are bending over backwards to defend their right to own guns. Turtledude practically makes a career out of arguing for it.

I take it you are opposed to them having having guns, so let me ask you how you would prevent it.

 

No sane person would argue that. We need to do better getting the nutcases into the data base for background checks.

 

For once we agree. Bravo. Maybe I'll drink one for Texas tonight, and it won't be Bud Light.

One of these maybe

 

clearly that poster didn't bother actually checking up on what I said or he completely ignored what several news sources reported. I laugh at that sort of oozing ignorance and laugh even more watching people point out to him how badly he missed

 

typical strategy.

1) say something no one disagrees with: insane nutcases should not have guns

2) suggest a "solution" that is advertised as limiting such a problem=requiring full mental screenings by qualified psychiatric doctors before someone can buy a gun

3) attack those of us who reject your solution by claiming we actually want to have nutcases armed when in REALITY

we attack your solutions because they are essentially a de facto attempt to ban gun purchases

 

Ok, so suddenly you agree. Good. How do you ensure they don't have guns? What is your solution?

Nonsense. To you having to stop at a red light, or having to flash your CCW card is a "ban on gun purchases".

You say "qualified psychiatric doctors". not me, so please don't insert your words in my mouth. I have explained my view countless times, so its time you stop twisting my words. Its not honest.

 

Not making people wait months, if not years, to be able to buy a gun. The current law does this

1) bans those adjudicated mentally incompetent from owning guns
2) requires those records to be part of the NCIS data base (this is an area that needs to be improved which I support)
3) requires doctors and other health care providers to notify law enforcement if a patient exhibits or manifests a clear danger to others-I support this too

but I also understand that some other "solutions" ignore other concerns. If everyone who feels a little "blue" is told that anything he tells his doctor will be grounds for a report to law enforcement, there will be a chilling effect upon people seeking treatment for any issue that people such as you might deem "mental illness" and the deleterious impact of violating well established patient-doctor (or penitent priest as well) privilege is huge and apparently something you have not considered. Because most mental illness issues are not indicative of someone being a danger to himself or others but if people don't seek treatment, the illness might well progress to the point where it does heighten the chance of dangerous anti social behavior. And those who demand scrapping the Privacy Act and normal privileges IGNORE That real possibility

Intelligent people understand that in a free society, not every individual problem can be addressed by a law. and those who pretend it can be, are obviously more interested in controlling others than actually solving problems

So yes, I REJECT YOUR PROPOSED SOLUTION and I ALSO REJECT your specious claim that if I don't accept your schemes, I support nutcases being armed.

 

In my post above, I explain why some DISHONESTLY claim that if we don't adopt their "solutions" we must want nutcases to be armed. It is as idiotic as claiming that if I don't support the police torturing suspects or illegally wire tapping peoples' phones or offices, I must want criminals to get away with murder

 

yep, adjudications of mental incompetence need to be in the data base and enforcing mandatory reporting laws -already in place-need to be enforced as well

 

Ok, we know for fact that the current law is not working, so I was asking what is your solution to fix the problem, and the rest of your post reveals that you would do absolutely NOTHING, which proves my point. You do NOT mind the mentally insane having guns. Thank you for proving my point once again.

You reject any attempt to fix the problem

I never said that. There you go again making stuff up. It has nothing to do with accepting my idea, you reject ANY idea, because you are more than happy with the insane running around and gunning people down.

Stop talking out of both sides of your mouth.

 

OK tell us how long it would take for someone to get that mental health evaluation you want them to get before they can buy a gun and explain how it would not be a violation of their constitutional rights I reject "solutions" that you claim would work but that are designed to delay or prevent people from buying guns

 

"Waa waaa. Gimme your gun"

 

For you everything is impossible.

I asked you what your solution and your response proved you are quite happy with the current situation where insane people gun down innocent citizens.

I take it you never worked in the private sector, or the military, so have never taken a mental assessment, but nothing stops you from reading about it.

 

Is it possible for you to more dishonestly represent what the man says anymore frequently than you have been doing?

 

yeah I prefer the current laws rather than the one you want to impose that would essentially ban new gun sales

 

This is common in his posts-he frequently claims he is not anti gun yet he wants people to have to wait years in order to buy a gun=and if you don't buy into his frantic "I NEED TO DO SOMETHING" hysterics over mentally ill mass shooters solution, he claims we want nutcases to have guns

 

OK posters-there were 20 million gun sales in the USA last year. the NSSF estimates at least 5.4 million of those were first time buyers. now let's assume that a legitimate mental health evaluation takes at least a half hour (google it-that is what the search found), that's 2.7 MILLION hours in a year of evaluations. there are about 45K psychiatric doctors in the USA and many are not accepting new patients. SO tell us-those of you who want an evaluation before a person with a clean record-can buy a gun. HOW LONG WILL IT TAKE to get that evaluation.

 

Sure thing.


As long as you're not mentally ill...

 

do you know what that means. I was a DOJ attorney for 24 years. I had all sorts of security clearances.

 

Then you're fine.

I've never advocated taking away YOUR guns.

 

you haven't called for bans on the sale of common firearms in a country you don't live in?

 

I'm sticking with advocated on these boards.

I am a lot less interested in the topic of gun control in the US than my posts suggest.

 

I cannot recall all you have advocated, my cursory research of your posts suggests you think Australian gun laws ought to be the rule here but if that is not accurate, I apologize in advance

 

I actually don't think our rules are suitable for the US. Semi-automatics are here to stay in the US.

I think there are things worth trying (to stop guns getting in the hands of bad agents) but they are impossible to try as the Right will see any move as pretense for a gun grab from the Left - which is probably true, actually.

 

What do you suppose I 'made up'?

Its estimated that half of all Americans will experience 'an episode' of mental illness in their lifetime. In many states, all those people would be permanently barred from having firearms according to current laws that amount to a 'history of mental illness' checkbox on a form that labels them as a 'prohibited person' indefinitely, even if their illness was not dangerous and/or their treatment was successful.

Also, we already have folks pushing to include sociopolitical orientations as 'mental illness':
https://www.madinamerica.com/2012/02/why-anti-authoritarians-are-diagnosed-as-mentally-ill/
https://mashable.com/article/mental-health-disinformation-conspiracy-theories-depression

Estimates of undiagnosed mental illness in the US are ~50% of bipolar, borderline, schizophrenia and other 'serious' mental illnesses that go untreated, and ~1 in 5 of all Americans have something diagnosable that is likely to go undiagnosed. If its not diagnosed, its not going to stop them from getting a gun (and its likely many are avoiding diagnosis and subsequent necessary, potentially life-saving treatment just so that they won't be stopped from getting a gun...).

And ftr, I don't oppose restricting the mentally ill from having firearms. I oppose doing that outside of due process. The right to bear arms is as much a civil right as freedom of speech and religion and travel and right to privacy and etc. No civil right can legitimately be revoked without due process. If someone is dangerous and can't have guns, that should be decided by a court first, after they have representation and an opportunity to present a defense. That is the process that is due before any of us lose any of our rights.