Who should be denied the right to own guns?

Bexar said:

Wasn't the domestic violence and restraining order added post 1968 GCA?

Click to expand...

And they might add further restrictions on who can own guns in the future. Anything from not having health insurance, being in debt, bankruptcy, owing taxes and getting government assistance.

Right now in some areas of the country being in debt can prevent you from getting your carry permit, get someone thrown in jail and..or worse.
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110723200139AAW7ZFn

So how do we keep people from committing crimes and out of jail? I think the "Scared Straight" program where juveniles who are in trouble are sent to listen to convicted violent criminals in prison is a great idea. Make drug education awareness programs mandatory as well. Why not make both required courses for all students in all grades before they get their diploma? I guess the subject of crime prevention is probably better left for another thread on some other site.

.

Double Naught Spy said:

LOL, leadcounsel, that isn't what the poll stipulated and you know it. Twisting the wording around to misrepresent the wording and to couch it into a more emotional argument does not actually address the issue.

Click to expand...

Then what does it stipulate? The options in question from the poll are very straight forward:
‘Those convicted of a misdemeanor violent crime’
and
‘Those reported by psychiatrists to be suffering from mental deficiency/specific illnesses’

If you were convicted of a having fist fight 15 years ago, you would be ‘convicted of a misdemeanor violent crime’ and would not be able to own a gun. By voting for that option in the poll, that is one of many consequences you just agreed to. Same is true for the other option. What if you went to a marriage counselor 10 years ago and he prescribed an anti-depressant. And what if he reports you to some ‘authority’ as having a mental deficiency/specific illnesses? After all, depression is considered a mental illness.

leadcounsel and others have done a very good job in pointing out how slippery the slope is with ‘common sense’ gun control and how people really need to think about what they are agreeing too (whether voting for it in a simple forum poll or when voting for your gov rep who may share similar ‘common sense’ values).

Unintended consequences are the bane of ‘good intentions’.

The mental illness part bothers me a lot.
We can't just prohibit everyone who is "suffering from a specific mental illness". Making any diagnosis criteria to prohibit someone would cause nearly 20% of the American population to immediately be unable to legally own firearms. Most conditions that are labeled as mental illness has nothing whatsoever to do with whether a person is violent or a criminal.

By this criteria people who suffer from anorexia, bulimia, arachnophobia, OCD, anxiety disorder and many other harmless (to others that is) conditions would be prohibited.

There is the misconception in America that everyone who suffers from a mental illness are schizophrenic, have delusions, are criminals etc. Most are in fact fully functional people who just have a few issues they're dealing with.

The mental illness part bothers me a lot.

Click to expand...

It bothers me too.

Imagine victim of an assault or perhaps even a rape victim ends up getting reported to some "list" because they sought out counseling and might have been prescribed anti-depressants.

Now the victim cannot get a carry permit or even purchase firearm to defend themselves in the future because they are on some "list" and found themselves in the "prohibited class".

.

Non-Conformity & Creativity Now Listed As A Mental Illness By Psychiatrists


http://www.collective-evolution.com...-listed-as-a-mental-illness-by-psychiatrists/

I am actually more shocked by the 15% who think rights should never be stripped. For the life of me, I don't see how you can keep armed people in jail or prison.

Click to expand...

There was no option on the poll for people who are actually locked-up. Even so, I think they still have a right to own guns, they just are denied access to them while they are incarcerated.

Were guns a big problem in our country for its first almost 200 years? No? That suggests it was a politically manufactured problem in the 1960's.

Were guns a big problem in our country for its first almost 200 years? No? That suggests it was a politically manufactured problem in the 1960's.

Click to expand...

Precisely.

Oh, but we live in ever so much more dangerous times now than when ... oh ... wait, no we don't.

a politically manufactured problem

Click to expand...

Indeed.

The homicide rate in the US of A is about where it was 105 years ago.
Something to think about.


http://kondratiefflongwave.com/kondratieff-cycle-wave/violent-crime/

That's a nasty rise in the homicide rate following the 1968 GCA that brought us the whole concept of the 'prohibited person' ...

There was no option on the poll for people who are actually locked-up.

Click to expand...

IMHO there's a reason for that. If you include the way it actually was prior to 1968 in the poll it raises questions about the 68 GCA.

Again JMHO, but I think the last thing the Brady Campaign/CSGV/VPC/MAIG/etc want is for people to start questioning whether the 68 GCA actually accomplished anything. They'd prefer us to believe that the way it is now is the way it always has been and if you say that this person or that person shouldn't fall under the 'prohibited' class (which was created in 1968) then you'll just be labeled as "wanting to put guns in the hands of criminals". After all, who wants that?

happygeek said:

That's a nasty rise in the homicide rate following the 1968 GCA that brought us the whole concept of the 'prohibited person' ...

Click to expand...

I think your graph reading is a little off...

The rate in the 70s and 80s isn't higher than the rate in the 50s and 60s prior to 68?

After following this thread since its inception and giving the concept of denying the tools of self-defense to certain people, I propose that President Obama, Joe Biden, and all elected progressive lawmakers be denied the right to arm themselves, as well as any leftist Hollywood elitist. Ban them from having armed body guards as well.

happygeek said:

The rate in the 70s and 80s isn't higher than the rate in the 50s and 60s prior to 68?

Click to expand...

The rise in rates begins about 1960. It stops rising in about 72.

Without the source data, can't tell exact years, but i am not sure how you are blaming a 1968 piece of legislation for a rate increase that starts in 1960.

Who said I'm blaming the 68 law?

Again JMHO, I'm blaming something else entirely that falls outside the scope of THR. For that matter I credit the drop that began in 1991 on something else that falls outside the scope of guns.

What I am doing is questioning whether the 68 GCA actually accomplished anything, especially given how bad it got in the decades following. The homicide rate went up after the 68 GCA, and it stayed up for decades (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0873729.html).

The 68 GCA created the entire concept of a 'prohibited person', which is what this poll is about. The problem is there's no option for "the same people who couldn't have one in 1967".

Steel Horse Rider said:

After following this thread since its inception and giving the concept of denying the tools of self-defense to certain people, I propose that President Obama, Joe Biden, and all elected progressive lawmakers be denied the right to arm themselves, as well as any leftist Hollywood elitist. Ban them from having armed body guards as well.

Click to expand...

I have been saying this for a long time. Anyone who wants, endorses, votes for, writes legislation, supports legislation and supports groups that restrict Second Amendment rights. They should be forever banned from possessing a firearm and ammunition. This includes politicians, the Hollywood crowd, media and anyone else. They should be able to practice what they preach.

.

The amount may go up, but the percentage will pretty much stay the same. It is just simple arithmetic, we have more people here than in the 50's through the 80's.

happygeek said:

That's a nasty rise in the homicide rate following the 1968 GCA that brought us the whole concept of the 'prohibited person' ...

Click to expand...

This statement seemed to link the 1968 GCA to a "nasty rise in the homicide rate."

I guess I misunderstood you. What did you mean by this statement?

This statement seemed to link the 1968 GCA to a "nasty rise in the homicide rate."

I guess I misunderstood you. What did you mean by this statement?

Click to expand...

Maybe I didn't mean anything and was just trying to point something out

Who said I'm blaming the 68 law?

Again JMHO, I'm blaming something else entirely that falls outside the scope of THR. For that matter I credit the drop that began in 1991 on something else that falls outside the scope of guns (and gun laws).

What I am doing is questioning whether the 68 GCA actually accomplished anything, especially given how bad it got in the decades following. The homicide rate went up after the 68 GCA, and it stayed up for decades (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0873729.html).

The 68 GCA created the entire concept of a 'prohibited person', which is what this poll is about. The problem is there's no option for "the same people who couldn't have one in 1967".

Click to expand...

Huh, I'd seen the overall homicide numbers before, but I'd never seen someone put together a table from the FBI UCR showing the % of homicides committed with firearms over the decades before: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004888.html

Steel Horse Rider said:

After following this thread since its inception and giving the concept of denying the tools of self-defense to certain people, I propose that President Obama, Joe Biden, and all elected progressive lawmakers be denied the right to arm themselves, as well as any leftist Hollywood elitist. Ban them from having armed body guards as well.

Click to expand...

The trouble with that option is, these days, I doubt any single president would last more than twelve months in office, if they even survive the election process at all, regardless of their motives and actions. Some crazy fool will kill them for whatever their philosophy... or just for the thrill. We live in a very sick world today.

^ Very true Mike. There are nutjobs out there who would make the attempt. It doesn't matter what political party or what man is in office, it would happen.
Someone assassinated Garfield because it was "god's will", the assassin claimed. What did Garfield ever do? Hell, he wasn't in office but 4 months. He didn't have time to do anything, good or bad.
That should tell us something.

Most, if not all of the poll includes already restricted individuals. With that said, please explain the purpose of the poll.

GS

Those adjudicated to be suffering from specific mental illnesses

Click to expand...

Everyone else seems to have interpreted this as "ANY specific mental illness".
I interpreted this as: some mental illnesses are worse than others. The SPECIFIC mental illness that would disqualify might include: delusions, hallucinations, schizophrenia, psychotic breaks, etc.

Does anyone here truly believe that someone suffering from schizophrenia or a psychotic break with reality should have a gun? There are a LOT of very specific violent mental illnesses. It is quite likely Adam Lanza suffered from one.

As a group, gun owners are going to have to let some psychiatrists disallow some mental illnesses. Otherwise, the Adam Lanzas, Chus, James Holmes, etc of the world will end up driving support for more general gun control.

I will answer, as to the questions posed, although vage, and ambiguous.


Who do you think should be denied the right (perm./temp.) to own guns?
All convicted felons. The THUG chooses, not the victim.


Those adjudicated to be mentally defective - defined as clinical 'morons'.

Those adjudicated to be controlled substance users--these are felons.

Those reported by psychiatrists to be suffering from mental deficiency/specific illnesses
--this can be used as a weapon, as it is being done to our military vets.

Non US citizens and those lacking lawful permanent residency status--all invading llegal immigrants, from any country.

Those dishonorably discharged from the US Armed Forces--no gun, no vote, no driver's license, no CCW license, no sportsman's license.

Fugitives from justice--are usually already felons.

I've always found it odd that dishonorable discharge permanently bars you from passing a background check.

My personal opinion on the "no fly" list is:

Violent crime convictions in which there are weapons or serious injuries involved.
An actual conviction related to domestic violence.
People with certain mental disorders making them potentially unsafe.
People here illegally (since we can't verify history).
People who abuse substances that alter your mind or make people dangerously paranoid.