So what do we know

Because mental competency is subjective. There are clear cases where a person is mentally incompetent. There are other cases where someone is not mentally incompetent but some liberal nut job psychologist who hates guns will use the law to deny him a firearm based upon a subjective interpretation of mental competence.

 

It's not going to pass. And such things have happened before. And note this guy should not have been able to buy a gun any way. He'd already been under state psychiatric care for threatening to murder his classmates in high school.

 

There is nothing to preclude applicants from signing a waver for the sole purpose of their background check. It almost certainly would not catch all maniac's bent on violence but it equally certainly would make a difference.

That's just unmitigated, unproven and unlikely hysteria.

 

It certainly won't pass if it's not tried. Link?

 

It's not going to pass because we have no reason to trust your leadership.

 

Who's"we"?

"I" am retired, I'm done leading.

 

We anyone who believes the 2nd is the ultimate guarantor of all the others.

 

You seem to have ignored the 2/3 of my post that stipulated that even if we were to get rid of HIPAA protections...

-If somehow we overturned HIPAA protections and made it so doctors could share personal medical information, the last thing that we would want is to disincentivize the mentally ill from seeking help by creating a real fear that seeking that help will result in the forfeiture of their 2nd amendment rights.

- If you were to try to have a required anonymous psychiatrist visit and their subsequent approval prior to being allowed to have a gun, people can very easily fool a psychiatrist. Psychiatrists only know what a person tells them, and if they do not tell them about hearing voices etc., the doctor has no way of actually knowing. They might be able to spot someone trying to hide their illness that at that very moment is a raving lunatic, but crazy people are almost never always a raving lunatic. Those tend to be sporadic periods, and all they would have to do is go get a gun at a moment when they are not a raving lunatic.

 

So this guy who is an obvious fringe NUTCASE, is somehow representative of something main stream? Are you implying that anyone of worth agrees with this crazy? And if so, the black guy who drove his car through white children was obviously representative of the Democrat party? Just trying to wrap our heads around your position=)

 

That doesn't preclude common sense measure to ensure firearm safety.

 

Yes, on purpose. But OK, here ya go.

IF they refuse to sign a waver, maybe they shouldn't own a fire arm. IF you have a mental problem that makes you violent, you should get it handled before purchasing a fire arm.

This is just had wringing, that would not come to pass.

 

You must have misunderstood this stanza. It was referring to the notion of getting the information from their regular doctor or mental hospital etc., which would in fact be the only actually reliable way of identifying the mentally ill.

Stating if they refuse to sign a waiver they shouldnt own a firearm does not address what was said even a little bit.

Huh?

Aside from someone that is at that very moment a raving lunatic which is a very small percentage of the time for a mentally ill person that sometimes is a raving lunatic, you cannot identify a mentally ill person if they want to keep that information from you.

"Wringing that would not come to pass"? That doesn't make any sense as a response to what I said.

I used to sell antipsychotics for a living, and have had this exact conversation with countless psychiatrists. They only know what a patient wants to tell them. This is not some far-fetched concept. It is a well-worn axiom within this particular specialty. If a person chooses not to tell you about the existence of their psychotic symptoms, you have no way of knowing of those psychotic symptoms.

There is nothing about this that constitutes handwringing which is what I think you were trying to say. If there were a way to keep legal guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, I would be 100% onboard. Unfortunately, that simply is not a practical reality.

 

I didn't misunderstand any thing you've said. I just flat disagree with you.

 

Why do you say that? Be specific.

 

If you didnt misunderstand anything I said, then your responses that did not respond to what I actually said, was a strange choice.

One would have instead expected an explanation as to why you disagreed.

 

His actions seem to have been motivated by the great replacement conspiracy theory. The most popular white nationalist in America, Tucker Carlson, regularly spouts that garbage on his show on Fox News.

It could be possible that he was radicalized elsewhere, but the odds are good that he was influenced by the most prominent purveyor of racist ramblings that is Tucker Carlson.

 

Joe Biden

“An unrelenting stream of immigration, nonstop. Nonstop. Folks like me who are Caucasian of European descent for the first time in 2017 will be in an absolute minority in the United States of America. Absolute minority. Fewer than 50 percent of the people in America from then and on will be White European stock. That’s not a bad thing. That’s a source of our strength.”

Thats what he said in 2015. And his immigration policies show that he is following through. Tucker shows video of Bidens statements above and Tucker is accused of spouting the great replacement conspiracy theory??????
The so called "great replacement conspiracy theory" holds that a cabal of nefarious Jews are the conspirators. Joe Biden is Catholic.

 

Seem to be motivated, odds are good he was influenced by... The fact is, I haven't heard anyone claim that the shooter was motivated by illegal immigration (the context of the Carlson clips). Have you?

 

And none of the people he mentioned were conservative speakers.

 

Remind us: which political group is constantly saying white people are bad?

 

It already is part of the background check to buy a firearm.

Have you ever purchased a firearm?

 

Really? Because I’m pretty sure the democratic administration is currently in the throes of a scandal where they weaponized the FBI and the patriot act against parents who were angry at the school boards.

Not sure it’s a leap to say they would weaponize psychologists against law abiding gun owners.

 

I don’t care.

 

Can’t imagine he would take the theory and apply it to his preferred hated minority, right? That would be crazy.

 

I haven't read the manifesto itself, but have read pieces that have been released.

In chilling detail, the accused shooter laid out in a 180-page manifesto why he wanted to kill, how he came to believe a racist conspiracy theory and then recorded himself driving to a supermarket on Jefferson Avenue and carrying out the attack.

Gendron insists that his views weren't influenced by his parents, friends or anyone else in his life. Instead, he writes, it started when he was 16 and pandemic boredom drove him into the darker corners of the web.

"I was not born racist nor grew up to be racist," he said. Gendron points to posts on 4chan and other sites that cater to white supremacists as connecting him with the hate-filled theories.

"I never even saw this information until I found these sites," he wrote.

Gendron subscribes to the racist "great replacement" theory, which holds that white people should fear losing their traditional culture to immigrants and other people of color whose population is growing faster than that of whites of European descent.
https://buffalonews.com/news/local/...cle_b8d90e34-d477-11ec-8319-d730ba162ec9.html

This explains the sentiments of NY politicians who are calling on media sites to flag and delete any of these discussions of the hate filled theories - at least to me.