Stop blaming the NRA for failed gun control efforts

I'm not a mental health expert, but I'd say that no, not all of them are.

 

The Militia Acts of 1792 provided for comprehensive gun owner registration that was a de facto gun registration.

Just like having a right to own a firearm for protection We the People have the right to protect ourselves from those who pose a danger to ourselves.

 

So when we look at firearm deaths are see that 2/3rds of them are suicides doesn't that give us reason enough to consider that the mentally unstable who are suicidal are a danger to themselves just by being in possession of a firearm?

Just consider this scenario for a moment. If the firearm suicide rate was reduced by 90% and mass killings by the mentally unstable were reduced by 90% what would be left?

Eliminating the deaths by the mentally unstable would effective reduce firearms deaths to primarily crimes and accidents, right?

That would move the focus OFF of gun control and on to better law enforcement which would be a POSITIVE for all law abiding gun owners.

How is that NOT a win-win for all sides?

 

Were stage coach drivers, ferrymen and Congressman allowed to own guns? Were men older than 45 allowed to own guns?

Yes, but you can't disarm anyone you think might be a threat to you.

 

What does that have to do with gun/owner registries?

Where did I claim that I wanted to do that?

All along I have FOCUSED specifically on the mentally unstable.

Deal with that problem ALONE and EVERYONE benefits.

 

What percentage of those you consider "mentally unstable" commit suicide? What percent of suicides are by means other than guns? Are suicidal people a danger to themselves without a gun?

You've pulled the 90% number out of your fourth point of contact. About half of those who commit suicide do so with non-firearm means, means that are readily accessible to anyone. Since 1999, the gun suicide rate grew 13%. The non-firearm suicide rate grew 88% over that same time to almost 12k per year.

You seem to think that your plan would be 90% effective, or even more. It wouldn't be. It's a nice conjecture, though.

Because it won't stop gun suicides, it won't stop school shootings and it won't stop mass shootings, and the last two have to have 100% success or the GCAs will continue to call for gun control.

 

Stage coach drivers, ferrymen and Congressmen and men over 45 were exempt from militia duty. They still owned firearms. Women also owned firearms, and they weren't part of the militia. Your registration of gun owners is woefully incomplete.

You consider all "mentally unstable" to be a threat to your feelings. You want to disarm them. If disarming the mentally unstable because of a perceived threat is Constitutional, why isn't disarming everyone who is a perceived threat to your impression of Life, LIberty, and Pursuit of Happiness? You would be setting a precedent that could easily be extended.

 

no, i prefer the "Patton Doctrine" of argumentation and getting the other fellow to resort to fallacy for his Cause, first.

 

You did NOT read what I ACTUALLY posted!

I am referring to ONLY suicides INVOLVING firearms. The other suicides are not relevant to the point that I am making.

When you consider ONLY firearm suicides how many do you imagine are NOT related to mental instability?

How many of the mass killings are done by people who are mentally unstable?

Give me your percentages in those two firearms categories if you believe mine to be wrong.

 

No, other methods are relevant to firearm suicide numbers as they are easy substitutes for firearms. Just because you don't have a gun doesn't mean you can't commit suicide. If the goal of keeping guns away from those who are mentally unstable is to prevent their suicide, then it's suicide that's the issue. You aren't trying to do anything to actually prevent them from committing suicide, just not with firearms.

How many mass killings are there? You can't get a registry of everyone that's mentally unstable. It's against the law.

You haven't given any.

 

I don't speak for the NRA; but as an experienced and highly trained shooter.

Usually when someone like you speaks of "child safety features" they demand things like making the slides on a semiautomatic pistol to be too hard for a 12 year old to rack, or a trigger pull too hard for a 12 year old to pull.... making said firearm almost impossible to shoot accurately in the hands of even trained adults.

Then there's things like the infamous (and comical) video of an antigun governor trying to demonstrate how easy it was to use a combination lock on a pistol, and he couldn't get it open for a press conference; hardly as stressful as a life-and-death self-defense scenario.

And THAT is a bald-faced lie. Notice how all of the proposed "smart gun" laws exempt police? Considering how many cops get shot with their own guns after losing fights with suspects, you would think police departments would immediately jump all over a viable, functional "smart gun" design. But they haven't. Why? That's because there hasn't been a single "smart gun" design that has passed even the most rudimentary durability testing. All of the thumbprint models fail to function if there is any dirt on the hand of the user; inconvenient if, say, you've been wrestling with a subject who then breaks away and pulls a deadly weapon on you. They also don't work through sweat or blood; elements often part of confrontations. Mechanical code safeties are also too difficult and time consuming to manipulate under stress, especially in circumstances where the difference between life and death turns on the ability of an officer to be able to draw and fire instantly.

Clearly, you wouldn't know "credible" if it slapped you across the face.

 

NICS should allow all licensed pychiatriasts, doctors, social workers to call in to report their patient is not safe to possess a gun. this would be a temporary NICS hold until a full hearing can be held and a judge agrees for a permanent ban.

person will then be banned from possessing or purchasing a firearm, until gun rights are restored by a appeals process

 

What a totally stupid idea. The American Academy of Pediatrics is rabidly anti-gun and had its members interrogate their patients about guns in their home and lectured parents, that led to a long court case in Florida when a parent refused to answer the pediatricians questions about guns in her house and the pediatrician refused to provide medical services to her children.

The American Psychological Association (APA) is also extreme Left and fanatically anti-gun.

Imagine if the anti-gun fanatic AAP and APA could impose their political agenda by just making a call and blocking peoples right to own or purchase a firearm.

And those politically motivated and far left social workers? Don't be so assinine.

 

I agree, I graduated the program, Medical School
Early 1982 in Spain, and one reason that turned me off to Medical Practice was Partisan Politics in Medicine and letting unqualified non Physicians make decisions out of bounds.

Even a General Practioner of Medicine if not qualified in Psychiatric practice is not qualified to diagnose complex mental issues and diseases.

Diagnosis of Mental illness is not as cut and dry as a simple long bone fracture, that is revealed on an
X-Ray, Mental illness requires a diagnostic armature building levels of corroborating data until enough information is gathered to make an accurate diagnosis of any particular condition.

Many mental disturbances are caused by temporary imbalances that with time and new modalities can be normalized and proper mental function achieved or regained, restored.

 

To answer your question:

Link:

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2...016-saw-another-decline-suicides-japan-21897/

https://www.humanium.org/en/child-suicide-in-japan-the-leading-cause-of-death-in-children/

Suicide is a very complex set of societal issues and mental illness is merely an ancillary issue as is situational depression, and once the cause is removed, as in Bully tormentors, the depression tends to go away.

 

Then actually cite where, on their own website, they have stated such to be the case. The claim was made by yourself, therefore the requirement of proof is also upon yourself.

 

If these individuals who are mentally unstable are known to be dangerous, then there is literally no legitimate reason for them to remain free in society. Instead they should be confined to the appropriate facility until they are either no longer a danger to themselves and others, or for the duration of their natural life, whichever comes first.

Or is it being claimed by yourself that dangerous, mentally unstable individuals are perfectly capable of remaining in society, and not presenting a threat to anyone, so long as they do not legally possess a firearm?

If individual who need help the most do not seek it out, more needless deaths will continue to occur. And such will be the fault of yourself, and everyone else who engages in the act of politicizing mental health, and looking for a way to use it against others.

Shut up, and stop being a part of the problem.

 

This argument was debunked the first time it was presented, and it is no more credible now.

Those who are legally exercising their constitutional rights, and engaging in responsibility, do not present a danger to the public. Therefore nothing can be done about them. as they are not the problem.

 

And exactly what evidence will such a denial be based upon? What will the physician in question be able to cite and present as actual evidence to support their claim that would stand up in a court of law, and amount to more than just their mere opinion?

Constitutional rights cannot be infringed upon, on the basis of a mere opinion, being presented by one who does not even have to rely on hard science to justify their position.

 

Obama sold firearms to mexican drug cartels.

One of his friends is a terrorist.

One of his friends is the most anti-Semitic human in the US.

Bet you voted for him anyway.

 

How's that Australian suicide rate doing nowadays?

What with all the firearm laws and stuff it must be great right?

 

Let us analyze those two statements,

Do you realize what was said ?

Only suicides by firearms matter !

So why is that ?

Hangings account for more deaths Worldwide than Firearms, I guess death by means than Firearms just are not Sexy enough to trigger a fetish response, much like Auto-erotic asphixia.

By the way, less than 10% of Suicides can be directly atttributed to mental illness, except as an ancillary or secondary and in some cases tertiary cause.

Let us analyze those two statements,
Do you realize what was said ?

Only suicides by firearms matter !
So why is that ?

Hangings account for more deaths Worldwide than Firearms, I guess death by means than Firearms just are not Sexy enough to trigger a fetish response, much like Auto-erotic asphixia.

 

By the way, less than 10% of Suicides can be directly atttributed to mental illness, except as an ancillary or secondary and in some cases tertiary cause.

 

statements and actions by the patient indicating he is a danger to himself and/or others

 

so u think all ex-felons should be locked up for life?