Should felons and loonies in the US have a right to own guns?

[ChangoLanzao 0]

Quote

Quote

Does the military track the psychiatric health of soldiers? Do they have a method of weeding out the loons? Or do they just let anyone train and carry weapons?

Are you suggesting that private citizens should be required to undergo psychiatric evaluation before being allowed to own guns?

You didn't answer my question.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Does the military track the psychiatric health of soldiers? Do they have a method of weeding out the loons? Or do they just let anyone train and carry weapons?

Are you suggesting that private citizens should be required to undergo psychiatric evaluation before being allowed to own guns?

You didn't answer my question.

I'm not exactly an expert on the military, but I do believe that they make some effort to "weed out the loons".

But I think it's a little more complicated when it comes to "weeding out the loons" among the civilians who want to own guns.

So maybe now you can answer my question?

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

...who gets to decide who is loonie?

Warner Bros.?
Yosemite Sam owns guns and he's a looney.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>However as far as a "loonie" is concerned, well who gets to decide who is loonie?

A licensed doctor or a judge.

So when someone wants to own a gun, at what point does a doctor or judge get to decide if that person is a "loonie"? And at what point is someone too much of a "loonie" to own a gun? (Sex addict? Bipolar? Anxiety Disorder? Homicidal Maniac?)

Someone who is unstable enough that it's impossible to tell whether he is about to turn into one of those or not at any moment.

Well, there ya' go, folks. That includes every single man, woman and child on the face of the earth. It could be anyone that goes "postal". Some more likely? Yes.

Give the baddies and the fruitcakes guns and lock 'em up in a gang cell or Detroit.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[DFWAJG 4]

Under California law, once you have been admitted for Danger to Self/Danger to Others, there are prohibitions to your buying guns. I recall, during residency, having to fill out paperwork for patients that had to be reported to the local police agencies. Keep in mind, that the psychiatrically ill are more likely to become victims of violent crimes, than as perpetrators of violent crimes.
http://mabpro.com/community/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=74&Itemid=84

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Another post that confirms your belief that guns should be banned huh

Please link to any post I've made where I suggested that.

Last time you wrote the same LIE and were similarly challenged you were unable to come up with any.

www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3806711;search_string=gun%20sane%20rushmc;#3806304

your post

Quote

No criminal can obtain a gun from a citizen who doesn't own one.

Over 300,000 guns make their way from "law-abiding gun owners" to criminals EACH YEAR.

The thread that puts it all in context

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=3037627;page=1;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25;

Tell me sir kallend, how would you create the situation where a criminal could not get a gun from a legal owner???

Please everyone
read from about page 9

Well?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Correct, most aren't. That is why judges rely on the advice and councel of experts.

You forgot to answer the questions.... Here they are again:

"would you be OK with grounding a skydiver that was depressed until a judge said he was safe? Would you prevent a depressed person from driving a car till a judge said he was fine? "

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Someone who is unstable enough that it's impossible to tell whether he is about to turn into one of those or not at any moment.

And how about a shrink sign off to skydive or drive a car? You OK with those as well?

Quote

Does the military track the psychiatric health of soldiers? Do they have a method of weeding out the loons? Or do they just let anyone train and carry weapons?

Maybe YOU should know those answers before you try to make a point.

I know the answer having served.

[ChangoLanzao 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Does the military track the psychiatric health of soldiers? Do they have a method of weeding out the loons? Or do they just let anyone train and carry weapons?

Are you suggesting that private citizens should be required to undergo psychiatric evaluation before being allowed to own guns?

You didn't answer my question.

I'm not exactly an expert on the military, but I do believe that they make some effort to "weed out the loons".

But I think it's a little more complicated when it comes to "weeding out the loons" among the civilians who want to own guns.

So maybe now you can answer my question?

My point is that there IS a way to screen out the loons. I'm not an expert on the military or in psychological evaluation, but I think it needs to be done for civilians too. I don't know that it would be practical to do a full psych eval on everyone who buys a gun, but something should be done, especially for certain types of weapons that clearly are not needed for self defense. At the very least, the system should make it very difficult for a violent felon or someone who has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution in the past to have firearms.

The military doesn't just accept and hand out weaponry without training and evaluation to anyone who walks in off the street. Why should the City of Chicago be willing to stand by and allow unregulated gun sales to any loon who walks into a gun shop. Why should the city allow loons to open gun shops and sell guns. There has to be regulation, especially in a densely populated city. That's what Chicago is going to do and I think it makes sense.

[ChangoLanzao 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

>However as far as a "loonie" is concerned, well who gets to decide who is loonie?

A licensed doctor or a judge.

So when someone wants to own a gun, at what point does a doctor or judge get to decide if that person is a "loonie"? And at what point is someone too much of a "loonie" to own a gun? (Sex addict? Bipolar? Anxiety Disorder? Homicidal Maniac?)

Someone who is unstable enough that it's impossible to tell whether he is about to turn into one of those or not at any moment.

Well, there ya' go, folks. That includes every single man, woman and child on the face of the earth. It could be anyone that goes "postal". Some more likely? Yes.

Give the baddies and the fruitcakes guns and lock 'em up in a gang cell or Detroit.

Touché! I could have worded that better

[billvon 3,132]

>I don't see anywhere in his post that he said violent murderers should be given guns. . .

Exactly. That's the point of the post.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

My point is that there IS a way to screen out the loons. I'm not an expert on the military or in psychological evaluation, but I think it needs to be done for civilians too. I don't know that it would be practical to do a full psych eval on everyone who buys a gun, but something should be done, especially for certain types of weapons that clearly are not needed for self defense.

So then you ARE in favor of psychological testing for gun purchasers. Hmmm. What about people who get driver's licenses (40,000 deaths per year)? What about people who buy swimming pools (5,000 deaths per year)? What about people who drink alcohol (20,000 deaths per year)?

What's wrong with having firearms that are specialized for something other than self defense?

Quote

At the very least, the system should make it very difficult for a violent felon or someone who has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution in the past to have firearms.

It already does. Every purchase through a licensed dealer is personally approved by the FBI.

Quote

Why should the City of Chicago be willing to stand by and allow unregulated gun sales to any loon who walks into a gun shop.

See above.

Quote

Why should the city allow loons to open gun shops and sell guns.

The BATF licenses gun dealers, and they don't give them to loons.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

My point is that there IS a way to screen out the loons.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33678801/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

Quote

At the very least, the system should make it very difficult for a violent felon or someone who has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution in the past to have firearms.

And there has been.... since 1968.

You don't really know gun laws do you?

Quote

Under the GCA, firearms possession by certain categories of individuals is prohibited.

1. Anyone who has been convicted in a federal court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, excluding crimes of imprisonment that are related to the regulation of business practices.
2. Anyone who has been convicted in a state court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding two years, excluding crimes of imprisonment that are related to the regulation of business practices.
3. Anyone who is a fugitive from justice.
4. Anyone who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.
5. Anyone who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution.
6. Any alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States or an alien admitted to the United States under a non-immigrant visa. Aliens who have a tourist visa or student visa may possess guns if they have a current, valid hunting license.
7. Anyone who has been discharged under dishonorable conditions from the United States armed forces.
8. Anyone who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his or her citizenship.
9. Anyone that is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner. (added 1996)
10. Anyone who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (added in 1996 by the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban, or "Lautenberg Amendment.")

So I guess you are cool now huh?

Quote

The military doesn't just accept and hand out weaponry without training and evaluation to anyone who walks in off the street.

I thought: "I'm not an expert on the military or in psychological evaluation" ?????

So which is it? Do you know, or don't you know how the military does it?

Quote

Why should the City of Chicago be willing to stand by and allow unregulated gun sales to any loon who walks into a gun shop.

You clearly have no idea about gun laws.

Quote

Why should the city allow loons to open gun shops and sell guns.

You clearly have no clue about FFL's either.

[billvon 3,132]

>So when someone wants to own a gun, at what point does a doctor or
>judge get to decide if that person is a "loonie"?

For doctors, the same point they use to decide whether the person is a danger to themselves or others. There are medical standards for that decision.

For judges, the same point they use when to decide that a person is unable to manage their own affairs.

>And at what point is someone too much of a "loonie" to own a gun? (Sex
> addict? Bipolar? Anxiety Disorder? Homicidal Maniac?)

That's a slightly different question. Anyone convicted of a violent crime (rape, murder, armed robbery) should lose their right to own a gun permanently. They have proven that they cannot be trusted with the additional capacity for violence a gun provides.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

That's a slightly different question. Anyone convicted of a violent crime (rape, murder, armed robbery) should lose their right to own a gun permanently. They have proven that they cannot be trusted with the additional capacity for violence a gun provides.

That has been the case since 1968. 1994 added misdemeanor domestic violence.

[ChangoLanzao 0]

Quote

Quote

Someone who is unstable enough that it's impossible to tell whether he is about to turn into one of those or not at any moment.

And how about a shrink sign off to skydive or drive a car? You OK with those as well?

Quote

Does the military track the psychiatric health of soldiers? Do they have a method of weeding out the loons? Or do they just let anyone train and carry weapons?

Maybe YOU should know those answers before you try to make a point.

I know the answer having served.

Well, my question was an honest question. I would like you to tell me the answer. I don't know what the military does. Please tell me.

[ChangoLanzao 0]

Quote

Quote

My point is that there IS a way to screen out the loons.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33678801/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/
[/reply

It's not perfect.

Quote

Quote

At the very least, the system should make it very difficult for a violent felon or someone who has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution in the past to have firearms.

And there has been.... since 1968.

You don't really know gun laws do you?

I didn't say there wasn't.

Quote

Quote

Under the GCA, firearms possession by certain categories of individuals is prohibited.

1. Anyone who has been convicted in a federal court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, excluding crimes of imprisonment that are related to the regulation of business practices.
2. Anyone who has been convicted in a state court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding two years, excluding crimes of imprisonment that are related to the regulation of business practices.
3. Anyone who is a fugitive from justice.
4. Anyone who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.
5. Anyone who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution.
6. Any alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States or an alien admitted to the United States under a non-immigrant visa. Aliens who have a tourist visa or student visa may possess guns if they have a current, valid hunting license.
7. Anyone who has been discharged under dishonorable conditions from the United States armed forces.
8. Anyone who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his or her citizenship.
9. Anyone that is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner. (added 1996)
10. Anyone who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (added in 1996 by the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban, or "Lautenberg Amendment.")

So I guess you are cool now huh?

And I agree with this. What's your point? I didn't say there weren't such requirement in place already. I agree with these requirements.

• Quote

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I didn't say there weren't such requirement in place already. I agree with these requirements.

Then why did you say;

"At the very least, the system should make it very difficult for a violent felon or someone who has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution in the past to have firearms."

That certainly seemed to imply that you believed that no such requirements were already in place. If you knew all along that these restrictions were in effect, then what was the point of your statement?

You appear to me to just be back-pedaling to try and cover up your ignorance of gun laws...

[billvon 3,132]

>That has been the case since 1968. 1994 added misdemeanor domestic violence.

Agreed.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>Anyone convicted of a violent crime (rape, murder, armed robbery) should lose their right to own a gun permanently. They have proven that they cannot be trusted with the additional capacity for violence a gun provides.

agreed - however, it doesn't keep them from having weapons, as they can get illegal ones. Unless we lock up the felon, and commit the insane......

1 - it's a right - therefore there should be no pre-screen applied to law abiding citizens. (It's one thing to note they are violent criminals, or already mentally diagnosed as violent, as justification take away that right. It's a totally different thing to require a mental eval of someone as a pre-requisite for ownership when they've never exhibited either trait.)

2 - the actions of a citizen can result in them losing that right whether they are currently owners or were planning to be one eventually - absolutely

still not clear who disagrees with the above - I see a ton of strawhorses set up on this thread (by both sides) that claims a poster disagrees, but I haven't actually seen anyone that says it about themselves. I've also seen a lot of anal retentive vocalulary jockeying for the purposes of trollery as well. {{Except for just the nutball anti's that have no rational at all, just a naive end goal that would propose unwarranted pre-screen's.}}

Edit: at least this discussion is sane since we are talking about the behavior of people, not about inanimate property

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

That's a slightly different question. Anyone convicted of a violent crime (rape, murder, armed robbery) should lose their right to own a gun permanently. They have proven that they cannot be trusted with the additional capacity for violence a gun provides.

just for thought:

Would you also agree that anyone irresponsibly abusing their existing right to free speech also be stripped of that right? freedom to worship (or not)?

me? - I don't know, as how to go about taking away that right is a bit more difficult. As removing someone's right to speech (since "speech" is so crappily and vaguely defined in order to abuse it) would pretty much mean isolating them completely from society.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rushmc 23]

Has anyone on this site ever said that they think loonies and felons (very losely defined) should be allowed to have guns?

The issue , it seems to me, is how to go about keeping said weapons from them while not stepping on the rights of those who are not a loony or a felon.

Short of a total ban anyway

And I know, how to identify, screen and regulate this is not simple

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,132]

>Would you also agree that anyone irresponsibly abusing their
>existing right to free speech also be stripped of that right?

In theory, yes. If someone regularly yells "BOMB! BOMB! About to go off!" on airplanes - then yes, it would make sense to restrict their rights to make such claims.

But in a practical sense there's no way to accomplish that. About the closest you can come would be to restrict someone's right to access a computer if they regularly make online death threats or something like that. (Which I've seen done.)

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

And I agree with this. What's your point? I didn't say there weren't such requirement in place already. I agree with these requirements.

You said:
Why should the City of Chicago be willing to stand by and allow unregulated gun sales to any loon who walks into a gun shop.

And the clear point is they don't.... There is already a law about that and has been since 1968.

The point is since 1968 there has been a FEDERAL law saying that "loon's" can not walk into a gunshop and buy a gun.

You clearly didn't know that, otherwise you would not have made your earlier comment. ---- And that's fine to not know something. You may not have ever bothered to look into it before. But it does make your position look weaker when you make claims that are not true.

Quote

Well, my question was an honest question. I would like you to tell me the answer. I don't know what the military does. Please tell me.

They run a background check when you try to enlist. If you have any issues, they must be resolved before you are allowed to enlist. The list is almost identical to the one used for to buy a gun.

So the checklist is the same (basically) to buy a gun as it is to enlist.

During Basic there is very little, if any, official screening. Your DS/DI can recommend additional screening.

During service your COC can recommend additional screening and during and after deployments additional screening is offered and sometimes mandated. But it is a very simple question and answer session.

And in the case of the Ft Hood shooter.... he WAS a psychiatrist.

And you have still have issues and this is with an organization that basically "owns" you. So to try and model that for civilians would be impossible and unconstitutional.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Under California law, once you have been admitted for Danger to Self/Danger to Others, there are prohibitions to your buying guns. I recall, during residency, having to fill out paperwork for patients that had to be reported to the local police agencies. Keep in mind, that the psychiatrically ill are more likely to become victims of violent crimes, than as perpetrators of violent crimes.
http://mabpro.com/community/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=74&Itemid=84

ooh, good, someone qualified to talk on this subject.

do you have any immediate thoughts on the subject of possible changes to mental screening wrt gun purchases?

Ignoring the issue of scale, I don't see the notion of a positive checkoff before purchase going anywhere aside from a virtual ban because it seems like no doctor would want the liability of saying "he's safe, give him a canon."

It's much easier to create a no sell list based on criteria, but that has the potential consequence of discouraging people to seek care, esp given the legitimate fear that this list could be used for employment screening at high profile jobs (ex, pilots).