NBC video: gun buying sting

[JxPakman]

my $0.02 :

i kinda agree with the OP. mentally ill people shouldnt be able to buy or own firearms. as far as what determines a person mentally ill? i work in a pharmacy and i think anyone who is on any kind of psychotropic or antidepressant medication should not own a firearm period. a quick review of a persons prescription history could be a simple and fast way to determine mentally ill person. it wouldn't catch them all but i think its a good start. and i think smarter people than me can come up with better ways to determine a mentally ill person. but i am pretty adamant that anyone who is taking xanax, cymbalta , prozac, etc. by definition is mentally ill. and i can vouch for that, i deal with a lot of *******s at work.

if a person relies on medication to be able to function in society... NO GUNs.

[njineermike]

Evidently the "medial experts" here never heard of HIPAA

[Packy14]

Evidently the "medial experts" here never heard of HIPAA

hahah... I know more about HIPPA than you, I am 100% positive and would wager all the money you have on that.

[repubconserv]

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/261848...83194#48283194

Personally I don't think sales like this should be legal, there should be good background checks with mental health screening.

Uh... no. These types of transactions are already illegal in CA, yet they happen everyday anyway. If you already legally own a gun, it is ridiculous that you should HAVE to pass ANOTHER NICS check, and have to go through a gun shop (which you would not have to anyways if you did not care about legality)

[njineermike]

hahah... I know more about HIPPA than you, I am 100% positive and would wager all the money you have on that.

Then you should know that medical data is private on purpose, and cannot be released without prior consent. Or were you asleep for that part when it was explained to you?

[Packy14]

This whole thread is of course, a suggestion for a law that will never happen. As someone in the health profession, who interacts more often that I wish with mental unsound individuals, I wish there was more hindering the mentally unsound from getting a gun legally. End of story.

[NSR500]

OP = Adjudicated to be Mentally Defective

Must turn guns over ASAP.

As for FTF gun transactions in Texas, I'd only sell to a valid Texas CHL holder. Too many illegal dirtbags in Houston with fake ID.

[Deadbolt]

ooorrrrr

we could outlaw cars.

[Joe]

You want a gun? You must be insane. Now you cannot have any guns as only crazies want guns.

Understand?

[Joe]

Most biased anti-gun news "report" I've ever seen.

[SWalt]

I believe you share common ground with the membership here in that you do not wish to see insane people callously murdering others. It is a perspective I agree with completely.

There are effective ways of adressing that problem of people insane or otherwise deciding to coldly murder their fellow man. Factually speaking, increased government regulation of firearms is not one of them.






This analogy is flawed, because unlike the situation of a guardian over a toddler a spree shooter is an independent thinking person. Someone intent on committing planned atrocities such as the latest outrage cannot be stopped or deterred from their plans by anything except chance. The human mind is a devious machine.

Remember, just as easily as we can read the laws ...so can the bad guys. We read the laws and find ways to comply. The other side reads the regulations and finds ways to neutralize them. If a law says someone must endure ,say, a 6 month mental evaluation before purchasing a gun a demented madman simply will lie on the form, or accomplish a straw purchase as what happened in Columbine , or even join Law Enforcement to bypass the regulations if they are committed. Do not dismiss the latter situation as extreme hyperbole-one of Communist China's spree shootings was by a soldier of the PLA, and South Korea's worst shooting rampage was by a cop.

We can pass regulations all day to prevent disturbed people from getting guns, and all we do is inspire the demented murderers of the future to become more creative in bypassing them. If prohibition of acess works so well, why is it harder to buy a gun legally in some places than it is to score a baggie of Cocaine?




Your closing statement contradicts the foundation of your original post. Either you believe the government can keep people safe through laws and regulations-a philosophy I personally believe is a proven failure-or you believe the individual is empowered to make the best decisions for themselves. Under the first system, people are only empowered to die when the government fails. Under the second, people are empowered to do the right thing when no one else can.

^^^^

A most excellent post!

[nicki]

Have my flame suit on.

I am all for gun rights, but you know we have to be responsible.

If you are selling your gun to a friend or relative that you know is a responsible person, that's fine.

If you are selling to someone who shows you a valid CCW fine.

If I was in a "free state" and I was selling some guns, I would find a FFL dealer that I could run a quick insta-check to ensure I am not selling a gun to a prohibited person.

Sorry guys, but in my mind I would feel guilty if I sold a gun to a violent felon.

Trying to make background checks mandatory is a can of worms.

Instead how about the following, if you sell a gun to someone after doing a background check that comes back clean, you have NO CIVIL or CRIMINAL LIABILITY if they go on to do something bad with the gun.

On the flip side, if you sell a gun to someone without a background check and it turns out that they were a prohibited person when you sold them your gun, then you have both CIVIL and CRIMINAL LIABILITY.

While we are doing the background check, we can also check to see if the gun is "STOLEN".

For those of you who want untraceable guns, my suggestion is for you to just build your own gun.

This is an issue that is a loser for us with the general public, yes NBC did showed us in a bad light, but some of the answers they got were totally irresponsible.

Nicki

[707electrician]

Not that long ago there was a woman who got in her car and chased her ex-boyfriend on his motorcycle and hit another car that flipped over and caught on fire killing the driver. Should the person that sold her the car have been held liable?

Perhaps we need mental screenings before selling people cars.

Guns are not the only tool people use to commit crimes

[tenpercentfirearms]

Sorry that I have asked for a bit of deeper thought about how to ensure that responsible mentally sound people are the only ones that can legally acquire guns. I know that level of thinking is difficulty for some on here. I'll stop at that.

The problem with your desire is that who defines the word "responsible"? If you owe more than $20,000 in credit card debt are you responsible? Hardly. No guns for you. Did you have a child under the age of 18? Not being responsible, no gun for you anymore. Are you on government assistance? You are not responsible, no gun for you. Did you get a speeding ticket in violation of the vehicle code? That is not responsible, no gun for you.

If you don't understand that allowing the government or even the majority of citizens to define what a "responsible" citizen is, you are are allowing the government to control you, there isn't much more we can do for you. I do not want the government or anyone else defining responsible for me at the expense of my exercising my Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Who defines "mentally sound"? I still listen to New Kids on the Block occasionally. Is that mentally sound? This might or might not be me. Mentally sound? Ever gone to a psychiatrist? You probably aren't mentally sound.

And what happens when we discover that even mentally sound people sometimes deteriorate and become mentally unsound? Will your new law stop people from violating the law against murder and assault with a deadly weapon?

The reason we do not want to talk about your "common sense" gun control is we have already proven that your laws will not work. They do not stop people from violating other laws that have been established since the beginning of eternity. So take your silly ideas and bury them. They won't work, they don't work, and you don't have a leg to stand on.

[QQQ]

The problem with your desire is that who defines the word "responsible"? If you owe more than $20,000 in credit card debt are you responsible? Hardly. No guns for you. Did you have a child under the age of 18? Not being responsible, no gun for you anymore. Are you on government assistance? You are not responsible, no gun for you. Did you get a speeding ticket in violation of the vehicle code? That is not responsible, no gun for you.

If you don't understand that allowing the government or even the majority of citizens to define what a "responsible" citizen is, you are are allowing the government to control you, there isn't much more we can do for you. I do not want the government or anyone else defining responsible for me at the expense of my exercising my Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Bravo!