What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

Incorrect. It was for anyone who was both receiving social security benefits for a mental illness AND whose mental illness was severe enough to warrant someone else to handle their affairs be denied purchase. It did pass. It was removed under the CRA.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-guns-some-deemed-mentally-impaired/97299756/
Geezer's right. The statute which prohibits persons who have been confined to a mental institution or adjudicated mentally incompetent from possessing a gun is still there.
 
Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

Geezer's right. The statute which prohibits persons who have been confined to a mental institution or adjudicated mentally incompetent from possessing a gun is still there.

He wasn't referring to that provision. Nor was I.
 
Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

Well, I wrote this.

You do realize that the law right now is that if you've been confined in a mental institution, or if you've been adjudicated as a mental defective or incompetent, it is illegal to possess a firearm? That position is actually supported by the NRA.

Then you wrote this.

It actually isn't. They lobbied to remove restrictions like that just recently. It passed the CRA and was removed from the books a month or two ago.

So, you can imagine the source of my confusion when you type this.

He wasn't referring to that provision. Nor was I.
 
Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

The smokers comment lost me...
You are much more likely to die from smoking than from a violent interaction with another human being. Your family is also much more likely to die (2nd hand smoke) from sequelae to smoking.

The most strident voices clamoring for "gun control" are the very same people who hire armed guards to protect themselves. The fine print in all of their proposals allows private security firms to continue to carry guns.

Here's an idea:
-- if you really want strict gun control, no armed guards for you. Or,
-- for those of us who cannot afford armed guards, we get to own guns to protect our homes and our families.


The real underlying issue here is not "gun control," it is mental health.

I think almost all of us could agree on a few things:
-- mentally ill and mentally unstable people should not be allowed to use guns
-- violent criminals should not be allowed to use guns
-- terrorists should not be allowed to use guns.

The underlying factor in all cases is not "gun control" it is responsible citizens vs threats to society.
Maybe this is a sx of where you live. Most of the people I know or know of 'stridently calling for gun control' are those who directly have been affected by gun violence.

I believe that they would have included gun safety education as part of the elementary school curriculum, and every child would learn how to load, shoot, and store a gun safely before they entered secondary school.

Notice that it is the 2nd amendment; that places it as a very high priority. An armed, educated, and moral citizenry is the best protection against tyranny and the best guarantor of personal freedom and societal welfare.
Look up the history (way too lazy to type pages) there were reasons this was in the constitution and it had to do with protecting the COMMUNITY. It was also in a time where people used guns for survival- hunting, etc and it was probably unlikely most people living outside of a city was without one. Not because they wanted to play at shooting things.

Here's the core question who feels the need to carry. Why?

do you think society is so crazy and scary that you NEED to have some deadly weapon on your hip at all costs?

Really?

....

It's almost as if people think they are constantly in a situation similar to where cops make the excuse that they feared for their life.

The more I go on, the more I think people who openly carry are just scaredy cats. And all I do is look down on them, as they are so scared in life.
THis begs the question I originally asked. Why are we the only civil society who thinks we should be afraid of a risk that is miniscule- The marketing from the gun manufacturers is brilliant and effective. Create a need and fill it.

Statistically, if you had a family then purchasing a gun would make them less safe.
Tons of research has showed this but people are of course going to be the exception.

Although I know countless numbers of people who have conceal/carry permits, I know only one person who actually carries a handgun at all times. This person is not a man, so as far as I know she is not compensating for the size of her sexual organs. She is 29 years old. She is a college graduate with a post-graduate degree. She makes well over $100,000/year in her profession and she was an ardent and vocal Hillary supporter.

Personally, you could have knocked me off my chair when I saw her handgun. I asked why, and her response was basically, "it makes me feel safer."

I always think it's a mistake to assume that the way you view the world, and threats in it, is exactly how everyone else views it. I don't know what past experiences in her life have caused her to make this decision, but she's a smart young woman and I doubt very much it was just because she wanted to walk around showing how tough she is.

We all have to make our own decisions in life, but I support the right of people like my friend to make those decisions. I support the right of people, if they choose, to carry a handgun assuming they've obtained the permit now required.

Personally, I've never wanted to. Why, even though I'm a pretty avid supporter of the right to carry? A variety of reasons. I don't really want one more object to carry around with me, and possibly lose. I think showing that you have a handgun potentially escalates a situation that may not have escalated on its own, because the other guy is now more frightened. And frankly, there might come a time when I'm just too tempted to use it, and I really have no desire to shoot someone.

But that's just me. I think posters here need to stop projecting their fears, thoughts and world views onto everyone else.
THis is so screwed up. THis is like the people who are phobic about things like plane crashes, wearing seatbelts trapping them, etc. Again- what kind of society are we that we listen to this, think it is normal and in some cases applaud her for being proactive? If she wanted to carry a bowie knife I bet there would be a bunch of people who would say that she was being silly (and probably a few who wouldn't)If you did this in other countries they would think you had something wrong with you and wonder if you should get help (unless, perhaps, you were filthy rich and at risk for kidnapping?)

Talk to people in other countries and they can't fathom this obsession or the paranoia
 
Last edited:
Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

Well, I wrote this.



Then you wrote this.



So, you can imagine the source of my confusion when you type this.

I was just as confused by you stating the NRA supported keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and yet they lobbied to do the opposite of that.
 
Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

I was just as confused by you stating the NRA supported keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and yet they lobbied to do the opposite of that.
You were confused because I didn't write that. I'll explain your confusion to you.

The law is that if you've actually been confined to a mental institution, or if you have been adjudicated mentally incompetent, you can't possess a firearm. I don't think anyone disagrees that should be the law, including the NRA.

What you are referring to is efforts opposed by the NRA to boot strap a bunch of crap onto the meaning of the word "adjudicated." Adjudicated means a judge or agency assigned to make such determinations has actually done so, and they actually make a determination of mental incompetence.

The NRA has fought efforts to add onto that definition things like a social security claim where someone claims they suffer from a mental illness, like depression, and as a result can't earn a living, but never intended to claim they are "mentally incompetent" because they clearly aren't. A lot of people suffer from depression in this country right now. Do we want to travel down the road of saying they are mentally incompetent?
 
Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

You were confused because I didn't write that. I'll explain your confusion to you.

The law is that if you've actually been confined to a mental institution, or if you have been adjudicated mentally incompetent, you can't possess a firearm. I don't think anyone disagrees that should be the law, including the NRA.

What you are referring to is efforts opposed by the NRA to boot strap a bunch of crap onto the meaning of the word "adjudicated." Adjudicated means a judge or agency assigned to make such determinations has actually done so, and they actually make a determination of mental incompetence.

The NRA has fought efforts to add onto that definition things like a social security claim where someone claims they suffer from a mental illness, like depression, and as a result can't earn a living, but never intended to claim they are "mentally incompetent" because they clearly aren't. A lot of people suffer from depression in this country right now. Do we want to travel down the road of saying they are mentally incompetent?



you're wrong.

The NRA fought the requirement to have the SSA report recipients who have been deemed unable to manage their own affairs due to “marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease” for inclusion in the NICS database.

Collecting social security disability for depression or something like that is not enough for inclusion, the person needs to be so mentally compromised that they are unable to manage their affairs.
 
Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

The right of survival overrides the 5th commandment.

If you say so...problem is survival is never really the problem with most of this. But I am sure Jesus would be carrying if he was alive. Wait he was Black so probably not ;)

Kill or be killed...I think that was in John right?
 
Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

If you say so...problem is survival is never really the problem with most of this. But I am sure Jesus would be carrying if he was alive. Wait he was Black so probably not ;)

Kill or be killed...I think that was in John right?

Austin 3:16
 
Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

you're wrong.

The NRA fought the requirement to have the SSA report recipients who have been deemed unable to manage their own affairs due to “marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease” for inclusion in the NICS database.

Collecting social security disability for depression or something like that is not enough for inclusion, the person needs to be so mentally compromised that they are unable to manage their affairs.

Exactly. There were actually something like five or six inclusion criteria, ALL of which had to be met.
 
Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

You were confused because I didn't write that. I'll explain your confusion to you.

The law is that if you've actually been confined to a mental institution, or if you have been adjudicated mentally incompetent, you can't possess a firearm. I don't think anyone disagrees that should be the law, including the NRA.

What you are referring to is efforts opposed by the NRA to boot strap a bunch of crap onto the meaning of the word "adjudicated." Adjudicated means a judge or agency assigned to make such determinations has actually done so, and they actually make a determination of mental incompetence.

The NRA has fought efforts to add onto that definition things like a social security claim where someone claims they suffer from a mental illness, like depression, and as a result can't earn a living, but never intended to claim they are "mentally incompetent" because they clearly aren't. A lot of people suffer from depression in this country right now. Do we want to travel down the road of saying they are mentally incompetent?
As someone who has taken care of completely incompetent people who were still legally competent this is kind of scary. My best story- I had someone believe and act on 'if thine eye offends thee- pluck it out'- not once but twice- but was still legally competent. Her sister, was no more competent (crazier, in fact) and no one in the extended family wanted to expend the $$ required to declare either of them. The medical facility, likewise, didn't want to spend the $$ either. There she sat, crazier than a loon, but still competent and we were unable to treat her because she refused.

So how do they decide who is competent to legally own and carry a gun? I would feel a whole lot better if you had to show some sort of knowledge and competence (the other kind) before you got a license to play
 
Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

So how do they decide who is competent to legally own and carry a gun? I would feel a whole lot better if you had to show some sort of knowledge and competence (the other kind) before you got a license to play

This would require a nation of grownups. The NRA will reign supreme as long as the right is trapped in ChildWorld.
 
Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

The NRA is just one big and brilliant marketing firm for the gun manufacturers. When I was a kid they were much more sane.
 
Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

Personally, you could have knocked me off my chair when I saw her handgun. I asked why, and her response was basically, "it makes me feel safer."

Sounds like her version of pepper spray. Just about every woman I know carries pepper spray in her purse. Most women I know also have taken a self-defense course. Most of them don't carry a gun mostly because of the hassle involved in getting licensed (which varies greatly from state to state, btw).
 
Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

The NRA is just one big and brilliant marketing firm for the gun manufacturers. When I was a kid they were much more sane.

If you really, truly want to take on the NRA, get someone to go into the inner cities and enroll the Bloods and the Crips and MS-13 members in the NRA.


It would be really interesting to see how the NRA would respond if MS-13 asked to open a chapter in Staten Island, say....
 
Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

Sounds like her version of pepper spray. Just about every woman I know carries pepper spray in her purse. Most women I know also have taken a self-defense course. Most of them don't carry a gun mostly because of the hassle involved in getting licensed (which varies greatly from state to state, btw).

I don't know anyone who carries a gun for safety. I think I know one person who carries pepper spray- she got sucked into one of those pyramid schemes for women's self defense and that was one of the things she got a party favor :eek: Other than that the women I know are basically sane and don't believe the crud about a bogey man behind every corner. Maybe it would be diff if I lived in Boston but even those who I know who live in cities don't have stuff. I guess that shows that it is very dependent on what part of the country you live in.

edit- that doesn't mean I would walk alone in the wrong part of town or do something that put me at risk. Caution isn't a bad thing
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top