@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:Just like the Pro-choice movement?
Like most of them, it's human nature to react that way. Same with online ratings, most people give 1 star or 10 stars (or 5 or whatever maximum) and there is little middle ground.
Quote:If someone has been declared insane by a court then they are more than likely in an institution.
I don't think this is the case. I think the overwhelming majority of the mentally ill are free. I also think that many people are legally declared mentally unfit but not committed.
Quote: If they were declared insane, treated and deemed "cured" or at least no threat to anyone around them they should never-the-less be stripped of their 2nd Amendment right?
I don't really have much quibbling over the details in me. Honestly anything that gets close to the goal of disallowing the mentally unfit from gun ownership is a good thing. I would probably prefer it to err on the side of caution more than you because I don't see people denied the right to gun ownership being as bad as you do but ultimately it's quibbling over small details and I think many people agree on the broader goal of regulating gun ownership this way.
Quote:The vast majority of people who have been treated for mental illness do not pose a threat to society, and plastering a scarlet "I" (for insane) on them that enables the State to deprive them of rights is a "solution" driven by senseless fear.
I don't think it's a big deal. We regulate cars this way and it's not a big scarlet letter. I am of the opiniont that gun ownership should be licensed and qualified at least as well as driving is. That is all.
If it required a basic test of mental aptitude and gun safety and a background check for criminal record or mental illness it would be no more onerous than driving licenses are.
Quote:Often we learn after the fact that the mass shooter displayed numerous indications of mental illness but nothing was done. I certainly don't favor a society where everyone gets to report his or her neighbor as insane and watch them carted away, but certainly there must be ways to better enable intervention before a tragedy strikes.
I don't think that we can solve this part. That is, a decent percentage of the population has some mental illness but are not dangerous. It's usually only obvious who is after the fact.
But still, many times these people got their guns far too easily and if it were just as hard as getting a driver's license I think it would be a big improvement.
Quote:Typically after a mass shooting we find that none of the regulations proposed would have stopped it. The only way to eliminate the risk entirely is to eliminate private gun ownership entirely. That shouldn't happen and it isn't going to happen anytime soon.
I agree that it's not a perfect solution, and even a total ban on guns wouldn't be. Still, I think that gun ownership is at least as important to regulate as driving a car is and that isn't perfect either and many times imperfect ideas are worth pursuing anyway.
Quote:I'm sorry, I just don't buy that the Anti-Gun movement is operating in good faith. My evidence is the desire to prohibit anyone on the No-Fly list from owning a gun. Given how riddled with errors and devoid of due process this list is, this is a horrible idea that sounds like it make sense to the uneducated.
I think that the anti-gun movement has people of all types from those who want to completely ban guns to those who just want more regulation than there is now. I am sure there are also many different approaches to it, some less honest than others.
I personally think that there is not much value to society in gun ownership and am not against them being entirely proscribed. I also think that society will tend towards this in the long term and that realization is behind a lot of the distrust from gun rights advocates who see any compromise as hastening it. I think they are not right there, and think that reasonable compromises will actually change this trend. The absolutism in the gun rights position so far in the US is a big part of the dynamic that is causing a shift in thinking on guns.
I think at the very least that they should be regulated to the same degree that automobiles are. I think the most improvements to be had (in terms of reducing homicide) is in the lower-hanging fruit like that. I think that many people would be happy with that and a gun rights position that is not as uncompromisingly asbolute as it has been thus far will go a long way towards taking political heat away from this issue.
