Support NeoGAF

[Goldenroad]

Why can't you implement a law that mentally impaired people are not allowed to decide on gun laws either?

 

[CadetMahoney]

But why?

New tests need to be done, and they think those tests can be unscrupulous and a roundabout way to deny people guns.

Kinda like how they use "undue burden" to make it hard for poor women to access abortion. Forced ultrasounds etc. They know that game already lol.

 

[Ray Wonder]

So... extreme vetting then?

Besides, isn't this ALL nonsense until the gun show loop is closed???

Uhm, absolutely. If the end outcome is the removal of someone's constitutional rights, you have to make sure you're doing that for a justifiable reason.

Why can't you implement a law that mentally impaired people are not allowed to decide on gun laws either?

Now we're just slinging insults at the expense of mentally ill people that're losing their rights, like wtf is this?



I have to leave this thread.

 

[PInk Tape]

Amazing.

I wonder what the GOP and those "democrats" wouldn't do for money.

 

[Goldenroad]

U

Now we're just slinging insults at the expense of mentally ill people that're losing their rights, like wtf is this?

There is a difference between having a mental illness and being mentally unfit to own a gun (or hold public office). No one wants to strip rights away from people with mental illness, just to ensure that people who have the kinds of mental illness that might cause them to go shoot up shopping mall, (or allow people to do so), maybe do not have access to weapons that would enable them.

 

[Ray Wonder]

There is a difference between having a mental illness and being mentally unfit to own a gun (or hold public office). No one wants to strip rights away from people with mental illness, just to ensure that people who have the kinds of mental illness that might cause them to go shoot up shopping mall, (or allow people to do so), maybe do not have access to weapons that would enable them.

Yes, that's been my point this entire thread. And this rule is unfit to do that.

Indeed. The criticism of the no-fly list was that there is no real vetting or transparency or due process for who gets on there. So it's too easy to lose rights.

On the SSA rule, the idea was that at least a judge has deemed you to be disabled due to a mental health issue, thus determining you eligible for SSA to begin with. So there is some judicial review and oversight before getting on the list.

Yeah, I can see that being used to give legitimacy to the rule, but I don't have confidence that the vetting process to give you SSA benefits is good enough to strip away your gun rights.

 

[Sectorseven]

Are these people allowed to drive?

 

[sturgboski]

Your copy of the Constitution must read different from mine, like:

Sure I mean if you and the rest of the gun supporters can read so much into that one sentence amendment to say everyone can get whatever weapons they want, regardless of capacity, safety, etc then yeah you can then take what I said and read whatever you want into it. I guess by that measure, do you know of a place to buy rocket launchers? They seem useful for hunting and family protection.

 

[Goldenroad]

Yes, that's been my point this entire thread. And this rule is unfit to do that.

Eliminating the rule doesn't fix the root of the problem though. Maybe they could amend the rule, but to put lives in danger because FREEDOM does not seem like the right solution. I mean, we're not talking about denying people basic human rights here like food, water, clean air, education, health care etc. It's owning a consumer good. I'd be good with them stripping that "right" from every single person, police and military included.

 

[Ray Wonder]

Eliminating the rule doesn't fix the root of the problem though. Maybe they could amend the rule, but to put lives in danger because FREEDOM does not seem like the right solution. I mean, we're not talking about denying people basic human rights here like food, water, clean air, education, health care etc. It's owning a consumer good. I'd be good with them stripping that "right" from every single person, police and military included.

It needs to be a new rule. Not a changed version of this rule. I'm not saying there shouldn't be a rule. I'm saying this rule shouldn't be the rule.

 

[Glix]

An attempt to be reasonable. After educating myself on this it seems very similar to the muslim ban, except that its intentions were good.

In trying to stop something considered "dangerous" they overstepped and peoples rights are being violated due to the splash damage.

Hence why the ACLU was against this measure.

In a good, and fair world, the resources would be available to vet gun owners better and both parties would sit down and re write this law to make it more narrow.

But we all know that isn't going to happen.

 

[DavidDesu]

This is basically just a license now to kill/lock up yet more black people, this time black people with mental health issues that end up buying a gun to do something silly.

Don't worry, the mentally ill white people will be given several ultimatums and spoken to in a rational manner when dealing with police and their situations will be de-escalated. Black people will be shot and asked questions later. AMERICA.

 

[Metaphoreus]

On the SSA rule, the idea was that at least a judge has deemed you to be disabled due to a mental health issue, thus determining you eligible for SSA to begin with. So there is some judicial review and oversight before getting on the list.

Not true. SSA makes the determination. In doing so, they're only interested in whether the disability renders you unable to work, not whether it makes you incapable of safely handling a firearm, or renders you a threat to yourself or to others. In assigning a representative payee (another element to their rule), it considers only whether it's in the interest of the beneficiary to make payments to the representative payee, regardless of the legal competency of the beneficiary. In other words, there's no fit between SSA's findings and the statutory disqualification for owning firearms.

Sure I mean if you and the rest of the gun supporters can read so much into that one sentence amendment to say everyone can get whatever weapons they want, regardless of capacity, safety, etc then yeah you can then take what I said and read whatever you want into it. I guess by that measure, do you know of a place to buy rocket launchers? They seem useful for hunting and family protection.

Nobody reads the Second Amendment as an unlimited license to own any weapon whatsoever. Stop wasting time with such inane strawmen.

 

[Ray Wonder]

This is basically just a license now to kill/lock up yet more black people, this time black people with mental health issues that end up buying a gun to do something silly.

Don't worry, the mentally ill white people will be given several ultimatums and spoken to in a rational manner when dealing with police and their situations will be de-escalated. Black people will be shot and asked questions later. AMERICA.

Nope, this isn't it at all.

 

[Wilsongt]

Who were the fucking Democrats who voted for it?

 

[ErasureAcer]

Who were the fucking Democrats who voted for it?

Republicans.

 

[holygeesus]

I'm gonna admit to here and now being in no way an expert on gun laws of your country, but is it true that any ex-felon can not legally own a firearm? Why would you restrict someone potentially rehabilitated, yet open the floodgates completely to the mentally impaired?

 

[Ray Wonder]

Who were the fucking Democrats who voted for it?

Republicans.

Disability advocates

 

[LoserMakesGood]

Until someone who's mentally unstable lights up one of their asses.

This legit the only way gun control will ever come about. But then you remember that it has already happened several times before and nothing happened.

 

[Mohonky]

I understand this decision, but it still makes me laugh when people say we should look at it on a case by case basis because it infringes on peoples 'constitutional rights' to oen firearms.

Its that consitutional right that is the problem to begin with....

People should have to prove they have reason to own a firearm and that they are fit to be responsible of that ownership. The American way is everyone gets to own a gun until proven otherwise, otherwise of course, usually being after others have been seriously hurt or killed.

It seems so weird to look at America from the outside and wonder how it can be so different to other 1st world nations.

 

[J2 Cool]

Yeaa. Stopping crimes before they happen...then this

 

[jmizzal]

All this hilarious overreaction to terrorism and yet they make it even easier to buy a gun inside their own country. How can they be this evil?

Yup these are the people who do mass shootings in America, at least they tell us they are mentally ill

 

[Shabutaro]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...ntally-ill-gun-buying-ban-20170213-story.html

There's not really any data showing that people with mental illness that are unable to manage their money commit more violet gun crimes. I don't think a blanket ban on allowing the disabled to buy fire arms based on your gut that the mentally impaired shouldn't have guns make sense if there's not data supporting it. We know that people with mental illnesses don't commit a significant portion of gun violence, so whats everyone's evidence that this is a bad vote? Allowing the government to take away rights without substantial reason is a poor choice and I think they voted right on this one.
Obviously more strict gun laws need to be in place, but they need to be done more reasonably and responsibly than this.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

I'm gonna admit to here and now being in no way an expert on gun laws of your country, but is it true that any ex-felon can not legally own a firearm? Why would you restrict someone potentially rehabilitated, yet open the floodgates completely to the mentally impaired?

Ex felons can't legally own a firearm. But if they try and their background check fails that's a felony. But generally felons that try to obtain a gun legally (which is illegal...they're not allowed to try...to lie on their background check and say "Im not a felon") don't get prosecuted.

 

[Suikoguy]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...ntally-ill-gun-buying-ban-20170213-story.html

There's not really any data showing that people with mental illness that are unable to manage their money commit more violet gun crimes. I don't think a blanket ban on allowing the disabled to buy fire arms based on your gut that the mentally impaired shouldn't have guns make sense if there's not data supporting it. We know that people with mental illnesses don't commit a significant portion of gun violence, so whats everyone's evidence that this is a bad vote? Allowing the government to take away rights without substantial reason is a poor choice and I think they voted right on this one.
Obviously more strict gun laws need to be in place, but they need to be done more reasonably and responsibly than this.

If you can't manage your own money, why do you think that same person would be able to manage owning a gun?

 

[Shabutaro]

If you can't manage your own money, why do you think that same person would be able to manage owning a gun?

But its unfair for you to assume that. Its not rooted in any evidence. Its an unbacked claim that's being used to take away the rights of people. The court ruled that they cannot manage their own money, but the judge didn't rule on to their competence to own fire arms and its wrong to correlate the two. Theres no ruling in these people cases that involved evidence of competence to handle firearms or weapons and there's no reason to think people with mental illness who are unable to work or manage their resources are more violent than the general population
This rule would be fair if there was evidence, and there may be, but until the claims can be substantiated this blanket ban is a gut reaction and an over reach.

 

[A Link to the Past]

But critics say the rule was too broad and unfairly stigmatized the disabled.

Eat shit fuck faces, you don't care about disabled people.

 

[Metaphoreus]

If you can't manage your own money, why do you think that same person would be able to manage owning a gun?

You've got the question backwards. Given that we're talking about a constitutional right, what makes you think a person who can't manage his or her own money can't safely handle a gun? Try to answer without stereotyping a diverse group of individuals.

Eat shit fuck faces, you don't care about disabled people.

The Autistic Self Advocacy Network, National Disability Rights Network, National Council on Disability, National Disability Leadership Alliance, and the ACLU (PDF) don't care about disabled people?

 

[show me your skeleton]

Are these people allowed to drive?

really



really?

 

[PHOENIXZERO]

Well I know where I'm taking my grandmother with dementia on her 94th birthday!

 

[Suikoguy]

I thought the bar for taking away the right of someone to manage their own finances was pretty high. I would think the overlap would be substantial, nearing total.

 

[Metaphoreus]

I thought the bar for taking away the right of someone to manage their own finances was pretty high. I would think the overlap would be substantial, nearing total.

You would be wrong, particularly in this case, where the SSA is only interested in whether the beneficiary is actually unable to work because of some mental health issue and whether it is in the interest of the beneficiary to appoint a representative payee. Neither of those inquiries answer the question of whether the person is incapable of safely handling a firearm, or whether the person is a threat to himself or to others.

 

[Shabutaro]

I thought the bar for taking away the right of someone to manage their own finances was pretty high. I would think the overlap would be substantial, nearing total.

But the ability to own a gun was not being assessed when the right to manage their finances was. And I feel it sets a very bad precedent to strip people of rights based on baseless conclusions and stigma.

 

[appaws]

Hooray for due process!

This is the right decision.

It's so obvious that people are not reading the thread, and not following the story closely at all, just coming in with "NRA bad...blah blah" knee jerk reactions.

Look at Mammoth's posts in the first page. Click a link. See why disability organizations and the ACLU support this move. At least give a thought to a nuanced issue that cannot be just based on "Obama good, Republicans bad."

 

[SeaOfMadness]

But its unfair for you to assume that. Its not rooted in any evidence. Its an unbacked claim that's being used to take away the rights of people. The court ruled that they cannot manage their own money, but the judge didn't rule on to their competence to own fire arms and its wrong to correlate the two. Theres no ruling in these people cases that involved evidence of competence to handle firearms or weapons and there's no reason to think people with mental illness who are unable to work or manage their resources are more violent than the general population
This rule would be fair if there was evidence, and there may be, but until the claims can be substantiated this blanket ban is a gut reaction and an over reach.

and there IS a way to fix this so everyone (?) is satisfied. It just needs to be rewritten to include the good and exclude the bad, so to speak

 

[StrategyFan]

it's all part of the long-game

when medical science advances and the classification of mental impairment can expand to include more of the white-supremacist-rapture-is-coming nutjobs, they don't want their base to lose "gun rights"

 

[Fisty]

More people shooting up public establishments means more fear. More fear means more "protection". That's one hell of a play, GOP.

 

[TyrantII]

If you ever wanted to know if cartoon Villians could work in real life, the GOP is doing its damnest to show ya'll.

 

[fastford58]

I love guns and own many, but this is fucking dumb.

 

[AndyD]

Yeah, I can see that being used to give legitimacy to the rule, but I don't have confidence that the vetting process to give you SSA benefits is good enough to strip away your gun rights.

Not true. SSA makes the determination. In doing so, they're only interested in whether the disability renders you unable to work, not whether it makes you incapable of safely handling a firearm, or renders you a threat to yourself or to others. ....

I agree an SSA mental health/disability determination does not go into the safety/threat determination. Then again, neither does a felony conviction for non weapon related offense, or third strike laws for minor crimes.

I just meant that unlike the no fly approach, at least in this case there was some transparent legal determination, even if not directly on point.

My question is how do you have a safety evaluation related to weapon possession/ownership? Do we create a safety court? Where anyone can petition against an individual's ability to posess/buy? Can't make it voluntary as those with mental health issues can't quite volunteer for it.

it's all part of the long-game

when medical science advances and the classification of mental impairment can expand to include more of the white-supremacist-rapture-is-coming nutjobs, they don't want their base to lose "gun rights"

PTSD is being pushed to be seen as a disability. If a similar rule stands eventually, a huge number of military and police veterans would lose their right to own/possess guns if they choose to go the disability route. And they are huge gun customers/fans.

 

[thepotatoman]

Who were the fucking Democrats who voted for it?

No filibuster is allowed on the disapproval of rules that were put in place in the last 6 months. Veto is allowed, so you can only really take advantage of this after the president changes.

Crappy thing is that the next democratic president will need congress approval to put it back in place, which under current senate rules could be filibustered.

 

[War Eagle]

Hooray for due process!

This is the right decision.

It's so obvious that people are not reading the thread, and not following the story closely at all, just coming in with "NRA bad...blah blah" knee jerk reactions.

Look at Mammoth's posts in the first page. Click a link. See why disability organizations and the ACLU support this move. At least give a thought to a nuanced issue that cannot be just based on "Obama good, Republicans bad."

Bingo. I don't think most people in here actually have read through it. I (as a gun owner an gun right supporter) am ALL FOR gun reform, especially in consideration with mental health. However, a broad blanket ban is just simply unreasonable and unconstitutional. What would constitute 'mentally disabled?' Like what was said, insomnia, eating disorders, but what else? ADHD, OCD, Gender Identity Disorders, Tic Disorders... etc.

I think this law definitely needs to be rewritten, but something more succinct and clear. Obviously people with psychotic disorders, schizophrenia, dementia, suicidal levels of depression or anxiety, violent levels of PTSD... etc should not have access to firearms. No one in their sane mind would argue that.

 

[Grazzt]

Your country is mentally ill.

 

[Suikoguy]

You would be wrong, particularly in this case, where the SSA is only interested in whether the beneficiary is actually unable to work because of some mental health issue and whether it is in the interest of the beneficiary to appoint a representative payee. Neither of those inquiries answer the question of whether the person is incapable of safely handling a firearm, or whether the person is a threat to himself or to others.

OK i'll admit I was wrong.

In such a case, that bar is not high enough with the overlap not being sufficient.

I'll still contend that someone like my Grandma with Alzheimer's who would fall on that list should not have a gun, but it would need another test since that bar is not set high enough on it's own.

 

[Marvie_3]

Can we get rid of the NRA please?

 

[grap3fruitman]

I guess the mentally ill need a way to protect themselves when the cops come "knocking."

 

[Seik]

Sounds normal, folks at the senate want to be able to protect their families, right?

EDIT: Sorry about that, that's insulting for the mentally impaired.

 

[Ray Wonder]

I agree an SSA mental health/disability determination does not go into the safety/threat determination. Then again, neither does a felony conviction for non weapon related offense, or third strike laws for minor crimes.

I just meant that unlike the no fly approach, at least in this case there was some transparent legal determination, even if not directly on point.

I dunno, I think you start inching into precarious territory once you start making comparisons between the mentally ill and felons/criminals.

My question is how do you have a safety evaluation related to weapon possession/ownership? Do we create a safety court? Where anyone can petition against an individual's ability to posess/buy? Can't make it voluntary as those with mental health issues can't quite volunteer for it.

Idk, that's for smarter people than I to figure out. Probably psychology people.

 

[rokkerkory]

Wow did something good for once

 

[AndyD]

I dunno, I think you start inching into precarious territory once you start making comparisons between the mentally ill and felons/criminals.

This comparison is solely for the fact that a felony conviction makes you ineligible to buy guns. That there's no mechanism to take away old guns is a whole another debate (inventory/register and repossession mechanism).