You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 05, 2016, 06:51:18 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)  (Read 14759 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Lustful Bride

  • "Logic is for Squares."
  • Lady
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2014
  • Gender: Female
  • This is some personal text. There are many like it, but this one is mine!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
I think it's what feels like (but statistically probably isn't, intellectually) an increasingly frequent string of unstable psychos slaughtering civilians that is making people gung ho towards gun bans, rather than clowns like the Oregon bunch (whose grand casualty total was one of their own who refused to be arrested alive).

My feelings have, and continue to be, that the right needs to be the ones to propose gun legislation. Something moderate to mild along the lines of bills that have been previously proposed and shot down, like the one cited in that CNN article above that put gun shows under the same background-check requirements as gun stores (which is just common sense, the gun show loophole is amazingly stupid) and prohibiting the mentally ill or people with connections to terrorism from buying guns (which is also a good-sounding idea, though admittedly harder to police and more open to potential abuse). This would give the GOP's moderate wing a massive amount of good-faith credit (we're compromising, look!) and give them a bedrock of principle to stand against anything more extreme (we'll go this far but no further on principle).

 But right now the NRA has its hands around the throat of Congress and its head up the asses of the gun manufacturers, stifling any attempts at legislation. Meanwhile, every so often a deranged lunatic will shoot up a school or club or office building or something, and public outrage will continue to fester and grow at Congress's inability to 'do something', giving the far-left endless ammunition, pun intended and apologized for, to push their own harsher restrictions.

NRA does not give a shit about the rights of the people.(at least not anymore) Only how much money they can squeeze out of people. Even though they helped create a ban that kept mafia members from buying guns legally, not that it stopped them.

The right should not be the only one to make the laws because they will be too soft. And the left has no idea how guns work and is too harsh.

We need something in the middle but both sides are so corrupt and like spoiled children that it wouldnt work either and they would just throw tantrums like children for not getting their way 100%

(Oh god its so depressing in my world, someone save me! >_>)

Yeah the mental illness sort is... that's tricky, what criteria do we impose. And it feels wrong to deny them a right just because of something they didn't choose to have... but at the same time they are more likely to go on such sprees. *feels unclean singling people out like that*

« Last Edit: July 30, 2016, 12:18:08 AM by Lustful Bride »

Offline TheGlyphstone

It's not easy, that's for sure. Plus, there's the complication of right-to-privacy for your medical issues being breached - you might be getting treated for schizophrenia, and your medication is working, but being on some sort of registry means anyone who has access to that registry knows you're schizophrenic when legally only you and your doctor should be aware of it.

Offline Lustful Bride

  • "Logic is for Squares."
  • Lady
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2014
  • Gender: Female
  • This is some personal text. There are many like it, but this one is mine!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
It's not easy, that's for sure. Plus, there's the complication of right-to-privacy for your medical issues being breached - you might be getting treated for schizophrenia, and your medication is working, but being on some sort of registry means anyone who has access to that registry knows you're schizophrenic when legally only you and your doctor should be aware of it.

And then it sets a nasty precedent. What else do we start denying people rights based on?

Offline TheGlyphstone

 Not to mention the issue of what counts as 'ill' to begin with; I've been treated on and off for depression, which could be categorized as a mental illness even though I've never even remotely considered self-harm or harming others as a solution. A sufficiently broad interpretation of such a law could deny me my rights as a result.

I'd worry about it from the other way, since I'm naturally suspicious of slippery-slope arguments. What other rights could people deemed mentally ill be denied based on their medical records, and how would their confidentiality be protected? That's generally a stronger legal precedent, since it has a root cause rather than a root effect.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2016, 12:25:17 AM by TheGlyphstone »

Offline Lustful Bride

  • "Logic is for Squares."
  • Lady
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2014
  • Gender: Female
  • This is some personal text. There are many like it, but this one is mine!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Not to mention the issue of what counts as 'ill' to begin with; I've been treated on and off for depression, which could be categorized as a mental illness even though I've never even remotely considered self-harm or harming others as a solution. A sufficiently broad interpretation of such a law could deny me my rights as a result.

I'd worry about it from the other way, since I'm naturally suspicious of slippery-slope arguments. What other rights could people deemed mentally ill be denied based on their medical records, and how would their confidentiality be protected? That's generally a stronger legal precedent, since it has a root cause rather than a root effect.

Possibly voting since it could be deemed they aren't mentally competent for such a responsibility.

(Though id argue 70% of all human beings aren't either but whatev :P)
« Last Edit: July 30, 2016, 12:39:33 AM by Lustful Bride »

Offline Cassandra LeMay

Not to mention the issue of what counts as 'ill' to begin with; I've been treated on and off for depression, which could be categorized as a mental illness even though I've never even remotely considered self-harm or harming others as a solution. A sufficiently broad interpretation of such a law could deny me my rights as a result.

I'd worry about it from the other way, since I'm naturally suspicious of slippery-slope arguments. What other rights could people deemed mentally ill be denied based on their medical records, and how would their confidentiality be protected? That's generally a stronger legal precedent, since it has a root cause rather than a root effect.
Under the Brady law you will only land in the FBI background check database if you have been found by a court to be unfit to stand trial for mental health reasons, found a danger to self or others by a court, or have been involutarily committed.

Looks like the rules have been widened a bit recently, but - as far as I understand these matters - the basic reporting requirement is still a court order dealing with the mental health of a person. My understanding of the current rules is that the changes recently made essentially make some changes to the privacy rules governing certain health care providers, but do not create an actual reporting requirement. It's still on a "may report" basis, not a "must report" regulation in the recent rules.