Welcome to Discuss Truth forums!

Would you like to join in discussion? Click here to sign up and become a part of our community today!

Sign Up

Is this particular loosening of a gun law a good idea?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Jason76, Feb 3, 2017.

  1. Jason76 Cat Moderator

    Posts:
    2,656
    Likes Received:
    549
    Gender:
    Male
    http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...coal-mining-guns/ar-AAmyAlJ?OCID=ansmsnnews11

    Even a conservative should be skeptical. :-?
     
    #1
  2. jimbob Cat Moderator

    Posts:
    2,650
    Likes Received:
    702
    Gender:
    Male
    I haven't established an opinion on this yet. I don't like the sounds of either one but the gun one sounds like the current regulation is pretty much unenforceable. (Who determines mental illness?)
     
    #2
  3. Jason76 Cat Moderator

    Posts:
    2,656
    Likes Received:
    549
    Gender:
    Male
    Being on a philosophy forum :) No, actually there are many ways via legal documents to prove mental illness. In fact, I cannot see why the NRA is opposed to the current law.
     
    #3
  4. jimbob Cat Moderator

    Posts:
    2,650
    Likes Received:
    702
    Gender:
    Male
    It just sounds too complicated for me Jason. More government? We need less government.
     
    #4
    Believer likes this.
  5. to7update Atom

    Posts:
    8
    Likes Received:
    4
    Gender:
    Male
    Well, I am not pro-guns, so the less guns out there, the better. The fact that they are trying to limit access to people who have mental illness is a very positive sign, because as you quoted, they can't even take care of themselves, so they are a bigger danger than others with a gun on their hands.

    Sure it's complicated, most likely on purpose, because before it's proven someone has a mental illness, they will still be able to have guns.
     
    #5
  6. Zyni Bacteria

    Posts:
    31
    Likes Received:
    23
    Gender:
    Female
    That's a good point. Since many "disorders" (or the word of the day) are diagnosed according to a manual that has things voted in or out of it by committee, anything can be dubbed mental illness. Also, many people are given antidepressants and other drugs that are typically seen as mental illness drugs, for issues that have nothing to do with mental illness.

    So, should someone who takes antidepressants for other issues be denied his right? Should we look more closely at people taking those drugs to make sure the drugs aren't making them ... less reliable? How would that work?

    I think it's a complex issue.

    I absolutely agree with this. The federal government has expanded far beyond what was intended by the founders. Many issues should be state issues.
     
    #6
    jimbob likes this.
  7. Jason76 Cat Moderator

    Posts:
    2,656
    Likes Received:
    549
    Gender:
    Male

    I think you're making this more complicated than needed, as the NRA is doing. Look, the NRA has stated that all guns should be allowed, given that the owners are stable. However, they're backtracking on this idea.

    I think most guns should be legal. Nonetheless, this is a good point. Apparently, the pro-gun advocates have no standards on who should own one.
     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2017
    #7
  8. to7update Atom

    Posts:
    8
    Likes Received:
    4
    Gender:
    Male
    I live in a country where we have no guns, and it's rare to see someone killed by a gun, considering we don't have any. So that is why I am extremely cynical in what concerns guns, as (forgive me for being simple) I see them as something to kill people, I don't see any advantage in them. They are just business I believe, the same as health and food industry, but way faster in what concerns being lethal.

    Mentally ill people would make this even worse yeah.
     
    #8
    KenBrace likes this.
  9. KenBrace Bird Administrator

    Posts:
    2,030
    Likes Received:
    565
    Very interesting. What country do you live in?
     
    #9
  10. Believer Bacteria

    Posts:
    41
    Likes Received:
    45
    Gender:
    Female
    The article talks about people on Social Security disability, which can be either from a mental or a physical disability, and it looks like the determining factor would be what drugs they have been prescribed.
    The truth is that SS disability does not provide much money to live on, and guns are expensive; so most people on SSI would not be out there wanting to spend their whole month's income to purchase a weapon.
    If the person is so mentally disabled that they are unable to manage their own pension check, then they are given a protective payee, and that person manages the pension check. In this case, the person would not even have a choice of whether they wanted to spend their money on a weapon or not, since the protective payee takes care of how the money is spent, and makes sure that the person has their rent and utilities paid, and enough food to eat.
    Although there are cases (which are always highly sensationalized) of times when a person who was deemed to be mentally ill has killed people with a weapon, the truth is that most people are killed by criminals who have illegally obtained (think stolen) weapons.
    The issue here is that all of the violent crimes that are committed in large cities like New York and Chicago are simply not reported on, and most people are not aware of all of the gang fights and robberies that lead to many deaths from gun violence in these cities.

    Since most deaths from guns are committed by people using stolen and illegal weapons, the answer to stop this killing is to stop the criminals with guns, and not worry about putting more restrictions on the average law-abiding citizen.
     
    #10
    Zyni and jimbob like this.
  11. Zyni Bacteria

    Posts:
    31
    Likes Received:
    23
    Gender:
    Female
    I respectfully disagree. I think people are making it too simplistic.

    @Believer also noted that the drugs prescribed may be a determining factor. Many people are given 'mental health' drugs for other reasons. Antidepressants are some of the most prescribed drugs in the US and often not for depression or other mental health issues. They are used for pain management, sleep issues, and even irritable bowel syndrome among many others.

    No one should be denied a tool with which to defend himself because he takes medicine that is prescribed 'off label.'


    Untrue. Most pro-gun people have the standard of keeping the guns from the criminals but not punishing law abiding citizens.
     
    #11
    Believer likes this.
  12. tonyb Bacteria

    Posts:
    32
    Likes Received:
    11
    Gender:
    Male
    I think the best way to curb gun violence is to retrieve guns from the hands of people. The less weapons in a society the less ease to reach one out of anger or provocation for a fight. It's unfortunate that some people in the world think that more of this weapon would bring the needed peace. More fire wouldn't stop a fire
     
    #12
  13. Believer Bacteria

    Posts:
    41
    Likes Received:
    45
    Gender:
    Female
    Disarming the population has always been an important method of the government or rulers of a country to have absolutely control over the people in the country. If the military are the only ones who are armed, then there is no chance of an uprising or revolt, regardless of how mistreated the people are; they know that they have no chance against an armed force of police or military.

    Also, @tonyb , the whole theory that if there were no weapons available to people then there would be peace is a totally FLAWED argument. For all of the thousands of years that people existed, and guns had never been imagined, there were still wars between countries, fights between people, and innocent people were murdered.
    So, the answer to having peace in the world has nothing to do with whether people are able to protect their families, or their homes from predators (human or animal); or whether they achieve this with guns or with spears.
     
    #13
    Zyni and jimbob like this.
  14. Zyni Bacteria

    Posts:
    31
    Likes Received:
    23
    Gender:
    Female
    Restricting gun ownership only takes guns away from law abiding citizens, since they are the only ones who follow the law and actually register their weapons. Criminals don't register. They don't turn in their weapons. Gun control keeps law abiding citizens from being able to defend themselves, their families, and their property, from criminals.

    It would be nice to think that making a law against guns would end violence, but it simply isn't true. Chicago has strict gun laws, and it also has the most shooting deaths in the country.

    Also, good post, @Believer. That's what the 2nd Amendment is all about.
     
    #14
    Believer likes this.
  15. Holmes22 Atom

    Posts:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    I try not to get too one sided on any of these large issues, because there are good points on both sides and I am all for personal freedom, but at the same time if the current trend is looking pretty grim in terms of numbers going up you just think that something, not sure what, but something needs to happen.
     
    #15
  16. Jason76 Cat Moderator

    Posts:
    2,656
    Likes Received:
    549
    Gender:
    Male
    He's from Portugal

    Possibly the US DrugWar is causing a lot of unnecessary crime - much as Prohibition did in the 1920s.
     
    #16
  17. jimbob Cat Moderator

    Posts:
    2,650
    Likes Received:
    702
    Gender:
    Male
    Good to see you are not totally blind to the truth.
     
    #17
    Jason76 likes this.

Share This Page