Background checks

[DetBrowning]

Idk. I’m just tired of seeing innocent people getting killed.

I do not believe anyone here is not tired of seeing innocent people harmed, killed, etc. However, the solution is not in legislation, nothing, and I mean NOTHING good happens when a politician or bureaucrat puts their grimy self serving hands on it!

 

[Jim Watson]

Assume for purpose of discussion an effective background check procedure.
I was found not to have a record of criminal conviction or involuntary mental commitment and was graciously allowed to purchase a firearm.
But wait! That was then, this is now.
What is to say I am still a solid citizen who should be allowed to KEEP that firearm?

Implies a periodic background update. Better yet, a running update of convictions and commitments against past firearms purchases.

 

[AlexanderA]

Background checks don't work, gun bans don't work, magazine bans don't work, gun free zones don't work. It isn't a gun problem, it is a mental health problem. If someone is too damaged to be a functioning member of society, they shouldn't be on the streets.

Most mass shooters are not clinically "mentally ill." On the other hand, most mentally ill people are not murderers. Therefore, blaming mass shootings on mental illness is really a straw argument. Even if we locked up every "mentally ill" person (which in itself would be a gross human rights violation), there would still be mass shootings.

I agree that the other things that you mention don't work, either. What are left are two things: (1) we come to accept that a certain amount of gun violence is endemic and unavoidable, and/or (2) we arm everybody, so that if anyone gets out of line, they are gunned down immediately.

This is a sad commentary on where we are as a society.

 

[Miami_JBT]

Most mass shooters are not clinically "mentally ill." On the other hand, most mentally ill people are not murderers. Therefore, blaming mass shootings on mental illness is really a straw argument. Even if we locked up every "mentally ill" person (which in itself would be a gross human rights violation), there would still be mass shootings.

I agree that the other things that you mention don't work, either. What are left are two things: (1) we come to accept that a certain amount of gun violence is endemic and unavoidable, and/or (2) we arm everybody, so that if anyone gets out of line, they are gunned down immediately.

This is a sad commentary on where we are as a society.

Repeated events in the past few decades have shown that the majority of criminals who take part in mass shootings are mentally ill and they have a file thicker than a Hi-Point's slide chronicling such a repeated pattern of insanity. The Parkland Shooter had over thirty points of contact with law enforcement for being nuts. Yet he was swept under the rug. As have others, constantly.

As for the Lewiston ME shooter.

In July 2023, service members who were training alongside the Lewiston, ME shooter at West Point reported that he was behaving erratically and requested that law enforcement intervene. The shooter had complained of hearing voices and threatened to "shoot up" a military base in Saco. The New York State Police responded to the report and transported him to the Keller Army Community Hospital at the academy, where he was committed for two weeks for medical evaluation. That qualifies in my opinion as a reason to keep him off the streets. Dude wanted to shoot up a military location because the voices told him to. He had LE called on him because of his actions. That's a good reason to keep someone off the streets. This wasn't a few years ago where he got better afterwards, oh no, this was three months ago when he spent two-weeks in the looney bin.

As a former LEO, I can tell you from over a decade's worth of personal experience. Crazy people shouldn't be on the streets. The closures of mental health facilities by Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan was a horrible idea. These facilities need funding, right now, and people who are mentally ill need to get treatment and/or need to be kept off the streets. But since, society refuses to fund mental health treatment and the lawmakers have decided to cast them on the streets. Becuase the majority of the homeless are mentally ill who can't function in society. It is a problem that is just going to get worse and worse.

They have become a law enforcement problem and the way LE deals with the mentally ill is by arresting them for crimes. But everyone constantly calls on LE to be a damn counselor.

Are all mentally ill people criminals and murderers? Nope. But a good chunk of criminals and murderers are mentally ill. Furthermore, if you're going around openly telling people the voices want you to shoot and kill people, you shouldn't be on the streets.

Sorry, it doesn't work both ways.

Gun control has been proven to be an abject failure and so has letting the mentally ill loose on our streets.

 

[Anchorite]

Most mass shooters are not clinically "mentally ill." On the other hand, most mentally ill people are not murderers. Therefore, blaming mass shootings on mental illness is really a straw argument. Even if we locked up every "mentally ill" person (which in itself would be a gross human rights violation), there would still be mass shootings.

I agree that the other things that you mention don't work, either. What are left are two things: (1) we come to accept that a certain amount of gun violence is endemic and unavoidable, and/or (2) we arm everybody, so that if anyone gets out of line, they are gunned down immediately.

This is a sad commentary on where we are as a society.

Or “red flag” laws being passed. I’m not trying to derail this thread or get into a debate regarding such laws, but addressing the problem with passing laws seems to me to be both inefficient and ineffective. It seems to me we need more common sense approaches in behavior “grooming” so violence isn’t the response or the reaction. But I don’t have any answers or ideas.

I, for one, am tired of being penalized for the mis-deeds and criminal conduct of others.

 

[KKJ13]

You see, it all started when parents got in trouble for spanking their misbehaving kids. Only took a few decades and here we are.

 

[bearcreek]

Most mass shooters are not clinically "mentally ill." On the other hand, most mentally ill people are not murderers. Therefore, blaming mass shootings on mental illness is really a straw argument. Even if we locked up every "mentally ill" person (which in itself would be a gross human rights violation), there would still be mass shootings.

I agree that the other things that you mention don't work, either. What are left are two things: (1) we come to accept that a certain amount of gun violence is endemic and unavoidable, and/or (2) we arm everybody, so that if anyone gets out of line, they are gunned down immediately.

This is a sad commentary on where we are as a society.

I would add a third thing to that list. (3) We change the culture so that traditional morals are back in style. But yes, I would agree that a certain amount of violence with guns is unavoidable (people use the tools they have) and that everyone, generally speaking, should go armed. I would add that everyone who is going to go armed should get trained (most don't).

 

[Miami_JBT]

Or “red flag” laws being passed. I’m not trying to derail this thread or get into a debate regarding such laws, but addressing the problem with passing laws seems to me to be both inefficient and ineffective. It seems to me we need more common sense approaches in behavior “grooming” so violence isn’t the response or the reaction. But I don’t have any answers or ideas.

I, for one, am tired of being penalized for the mis-deeds and criminal conduct of others.

The entire premise of Red Flag Laws is a joke and an insult to the core bedrock foundation of our legal system. Innocent until proven guilty.

If the government claims someone is too dangerous to own firearms because they're mentally unbalanced, then they shouldn’t be on the streets in the first place. The government shouls be presenting a case that the person should not be in the streets. Simply taking guns away from someone, without due process I might add, doesn't solve the problem and only creates more.

The law-abiding are constantly punished for the actions of criminals and the mentally ill.

Criminals are criminals because they break the law. Murder has been illegal longer than Christianity has existed. Yet criminals still commit murder. The idea that we can legislate our way to safer streets by gun control is laughably bad.

What we can do is put criminals behind bars and the mentally ill in treatment facilities.

 

[Miami_JBT]

I would add a third thing to that list. (3) We change the culture so that traditional morals are back in style. But yes, I would agree that a certain amount of violence with guns is unavoidable (people use the tools they have) and that everyone, generally speaking, should go armed. I would add that everyone who is going to go armed should get trained (most don't).

The thing is, the mentally ill don't even need firearms. You had a nut job run down a crowd in a SUV during Christmas.

Hell, you had Andrew Kehoe kill 45 folks and injured another 58 at the Bath School in Michigan with gasoline. Dude locked the doors and burned the place down.

 

[jmr40]

More can and should be done to limit access to firearms. None of our rights are absolute. Never have been. There are limits on everything. There are ways to keep guns away from those who should never have one and still preserve the rights of those who should have them.

 

[Miami_JBT]

More can and should be done to limit access to firearms. None of our rights are absolute. Never have been. There are limits on everything. There are ways to keep guns away from those who should never have one and still preserve the rights of those who should have them.

No, not really.... limiting access doesn't do anything. Look at the most draconian states in the union. Criminals and the mentally ill still get them and commit violent acts against the law-abiding.

Mandatory Universal Backgrounds Checks
Mandatory Waiting Periods
Firearm Bans
Magazine Capacity Bans
Gun Free Zones
Permitting Requirements
High Fees
Carry Bans
Mandatory Storage Requirements
Etc....

Doesn't work and only harms the law-abiding. Criminals don't care.

We do not have a gun problem, we have a mental health problem. The mentally ill should not be loose on the streets.

 

[AlexanderA]

Repeated events in the past few decades have shown that the majority of criminals who take part in mass shootings are mentally ill

This depends on the definition of "mentally ill," and is why I put that term in quotes.

Granted, mass shooters are weirdos, but if they ever make it to trial, would they fit the legal definition of "insane" and thus escape culpability? Probably not.

As to defining them as "mentally ill," and thus institutionalizing them, before they go on a shooting spree, again, the standard is very high (and rightfully so).

So, you're not going to lock people up because of a pattern of strange behavior, threats, etc. There has to be an overt act, which is the mass shooting itself. By then, it's too late.

 

[doubleh]

We’ve not been able to solve the problem of people drinking to the point of intoxication and getting behind the wheel of a vehicle, so I’m not sure how I see that we’re going to solve the firearm and violence issue either.

And no one is advocating stopping the sale of alcoholic beverages today. Oh, wait, the nation gave into a bunch of nosey old bidddies back in the early 20th century and did that very thing, banning booze. How did that work out? It DID NOT. All it did was create a new class of criminal and many deaths among gangsters fighting over territory to sell their bootleg whiskey which John Q Public was eager to keep on buying. I wonder how many innocents last their lives in these shootings as collateral damage just because they wanted something the government had made illegal for no reason except to please a bunch of harpies that had no understanding of human nature.

No other thing gets blamed for unneeded deaths except firearms. Too d--- many people want to tell us how to live and when they eventually get rid of our firearms they will be able to do so and the general public will have to accept it as they have given up their means to rebel. Welcome back to the days of King George. The only difference will be that the colonists had firearms to fight back and we won't.

 

[doubleh]

I’m not saying let them know who has what, i am 1000% against that. I’m saying if John Doe gets admitted to a mental hospital or any sort of mental health meds, severe issue, etc. his ability to own guns is gone.

OK, let's put that in a little different context. Let us say YOU get a ticket for driving 25 mph over the speed limit. This makes YOU a menace to society. You should lose your ability to ever drive again. YOU get a ticket for DUI or texting, same thing. How's that going to work for YOU? Draconian solution? Certainly, but so is your's.

 

[mavs]

So do you think that guy should have a car? Sword? Pointy stick? Would you have this guy hanging out on your street where your kids play, as long as he could only obtain firearms illegally?

If someone is really going to kill people, they should probably be involuntarily committed. Just my opinion.

committed to where ?

 

[bdickens]

Calm down tough guy nobody wants your remington 700 30-06 and the half box of ammo that goes with it.

That is a bald-faced lie

If you walk in and look like a nutcase it should be delayed at least.

What exactly is "look like a nutcase?" Huh? What are the criteria? Who decides?

When they were handing out free money the local gang bangers lined a local chain of gun stores smelling like marijuana and not a single person questioned it because all they were worried about was $

I'm gonna go out on a limb and call this out as another bald-faced lie.

I also overheard a few straw purchases too.

It sounds like you have information that the ATF would love to get ahold of. Have you contacted them?

No one is trying to strip the 2a but something needs done

Another bald-faced lie.

My point was lets make it a little harder instead of you got the cash, here is a gun mentality.

Yet another bald-faced lie.

I see gun sales all the time on Facebook groups by some sketchy individuals. Especially when they are selling guns worth $600-800 for $200 and its yours.

It sounds like you have information that law enforcement needs to be aware of. Have you contacted them?

I’m saying if John Doe gets admitted to a mental hospital or any sort of mental health meds, severe issue, etc. his ability to own guns is gone.

Really? Any sort of mental health medications at all? Antidepressants? Anti anxiety medication? Treatments for ADHD? Is this forever or just the duration of the treatment?

What a fantastic way to discourage people from seeking the help they need!

Why do you insist on coming here and parroting anti-gun propaganda? Over and over. Every time something like this Maine shooting happens you pop up and start in with your anti-gun lies and fallacious arguments.

 

[CapnMac]

the person has mental health issues

The "who decides" matters. Not even any sort of majority of "mental health professionals" agree on what's healthy or not. Certainly not as a repeatable binary.

or any sort of mental health meds, severe issue, etc. his ability to own guns is gone.

About 2/3 of the US population is on some form of "mental health meds" and nearly 60% of that cohort is getting prescription meds.
The number of people "self medicating" (whether on scrips or not) is staggering.

But, let's presume the premise. That, there's only a few thousand disqualified people needing to be Prohibited. Where are we to get the manpower to physically go to each of those people's domicile and rifle them to seize all their weapons? Just where would the Court time from to issue all the required warrants? Do we also need to go investigate all their relatives, friends, etc., and potentially violate those people's 4th amendment rights, too?
These things snowball, and quickly.

with a $5 background check.

Mental Health exam, and a certificate, probably more like a US$500 expense, and a per each.
The mental health parts of NICS has been "broken" since 1983 (there are 7 States that have never given any mental health data to NICS, ever).

Any background check is only going to be as good as the data that has been input, which means its historical and data can be faulty. Conclusions draw from compromised data are not useful or reliable.

Exactly. And, if we wish to argue for a "real time" database, how do you cope with errors? Let alone the inertia of letting a bureaucracy be timely enough to be "real time" in the first place.

 

[Mosin77]

We can talk about reinstituting morality, religion, etc. I approve of these things. And this would help. But I think a lot of the “issues” here revolve around people who are either legitimately, clinically insane and need to be treated, reported, and documented as such…. With a lot more support for institutionalization of those who need it…….. Or people who don’t meet the clinical definitions of insanity but are completely marginalized or feel society has failed them. Maybe they’re right or maybe they’re wrong, but we need to look at this angle too. There’s a lot of people who feel alienated from modern society and don’t have good relationships or family to fall back on. As our society becomes more and more isolated (“every person alone with their smartphone”) this problem will likely only get worse. Without sounding too paranoid and conspiratorial, the powers that be have a vested interest in reducing us all to that level, because individuals are easier to control than groups. So unfortunately as long as this new trend in society continues I don’t foresee less people snapping, but more.

 

[HEAVY METAL 1]

As a retired medical professional [over the course of my career I worked in both psychiatric and physical medicine] I can tell you with certitude that many medical records have errors in them; some not so minor. Have you ever pulled your own medical records and gone over them? You just might be surprised! I have seen doctors write notes about a patient in the wrong patient's chart [yes, I called that to their attention immediately], and a host of other errors of lesser and greater magnitude. I was once assigned a patient with a diagnosis of pulseless nonbreather. She was very much alive.

Post #67 nails it my friends.

 

[Miami_JBT]

committed to where ?

Well, if Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan didn't slash public funding.... the mentally ill would be in facilities that can care for them instead of the streets.

 

[230RN]

It amazes me anyone with access to data in 2023 and who has the ability to process logical thoughts could possibly think more laws, especially enhanced BG checks, red flag laws, and/or limiting firearm access to law abiding citizens, would reduce homicides in any meaningful way.

That's as nice as I can be about this.

It doesn't amaze me at all. I see it as the product of an unrelenting long term strategy of repeated anti-gun propaganda asserting all kinds of "problems" with guns.

Even many in the firearms community have been victimized by this long term highly successful advertising campaign. It utilizes distortion of meanings ("assault weapon," "paranoia," "mostly peaceful," etc.) and intense repetition among other strategies.

We let it get this far before we started to be "woke" about this propaganda campaign and even some of us are emotionally attached to the idea that a well-thought-out, clearly stated prohibition against limiting individual possession of bearable arms ought to be ignored.

Remember... if "they" can ban any gun, "they" can ban them all. If "they" can limit mag capacities to ten, "they" can limit it to zero. The Second Amendment was crafted exactly so "they" could not.

Terry, 230RN

 

[mavs]

Well, if Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan didn't slash public funding.... the mentally ill would be in facilities that can care for them instead of the streets.

Yea, but they did....so now, committed where ?

 

[Miami_JBT]

Yea, but they did....so now, committed where ?

Florida State Hospital in Chattahoochee is still operating. If Uncle Sam can throw a couple hundred billion to foreign nations, it can throw it to states for mental health facilities.

 

[Jim Watson]

There used to be confinement for the criminally insane. Not much different from prison, I figure.

 

[AlexanderA]

The way things are going, we may reach the point where owning a gun (or even wanting to own a gun) will be seen by the psychiatric profession as evidence of "mental illness." So, the Catch-22: if you want a gun, automatically you can't have one because you are "mentally ill." The only people who could have guns, under this scenario, would be those required to have guns because of their jobs.

This is the problem with disqualifying people because of something as vague as "mental illness." At the very least, there has to be due process before a court, an open adversarial hearing, and an opportunity for the person affected to present his side.