NRA Want to register mentally ill?

[silent ABAB]

I just came across this video and thought it was interesting seeing as how it applied. The hosts are being sarcastic by the way, I realized that at the last ten seconds though so I might as well spare the trouble. >.>
NRA: Register Mentally Ill, Arm Cops At All Schools - YouTube

 

[2010Dolby]

Just out of curiousity would the NRA ever actually consider restricting membership from the mentally ill? Because I have 7 guns and (obviously) only use them for hunting and self-defense. It would seriously offend me if anyone restricted gun rights from Aspies.

And apperently being an Aspie is considered being mentally ill. Whatever.

 

[silent ABAB]

Just out of curiousity would the NRA ever actually consider restricting membership from the mentally ill? Because I have 7 guns and (obviously) only use them for hunting and self-defense. It would seriously offend me if anyone restricted gun rights from Aspies.

And apperently being an Aspie is considered being mentally ill. Whatever.

I don't know why you would want to be in the NRA now that they said this, or before. It's over priced, gets you no benefits from buying a gun otherwise, and they're blaming shootings on mentally ill and specifically people with autism/asperger's. Besides, they don't have any pull in court so they can't restrict you from buying a gun anyway.

 

[Tarragon]

Just out of curiousity would the NRA ever actually consider restricting membership from the mentally ill? Because I have 7 guns and (obviously) only use them for hunting and self-defense. It would seriously offend me if anyone restricted gun rights from Aspies.

And apperently being an Aspie is considered being mentally ill. Whatever.

Just curious, how many times have you ever needed to use your gun in self defence? what happened when you did?

 

[Douglas_MacNeill]

It looks like the NRA is finally coming around to the problem as I understand it, in a left-handed way.

By that, I mean that you can either police the means or you can police the people. (Of course, I'm
proceeding from the assumption that controlling and reducing crimes like Newtown is a good thing.)

The NRA's proposed solution is tantamount to policing the people. Well and good--until you consider
that policing the people is one of the hallmarks of a police state. And a police state was precisely what
the American Revolution was waged against. ("No taxation without representation.")

On the other hand, policing the means requires the state to consider gun registries, firearms permits,
and dozens of other similar regulations. In return for this, however, the need for omnipresent surveillance
of the people is obviated.

Some may wonder why we should have to make the choice in the first place. Again, that would be an
NRA attitude. However, assuming that the choice must be made, policing the means does much less
harm to human freedom than policing the people.

 

[King_Oni]

The only thing that comes to mind now is; and bear with me, I'm not a US citizen and as such I don't own firearms since it's illegal to own in my country (unless under strict rules).

Let's assume that, people in the US have firearms in the house for protection. Since, I guess it's nonsense to claim that any US people buy firearms just to kill others for the heck of it. So basically, owning a weapon for selfdefense is a fine idea. Having rules that you can enforce with guns on your own premise... honestly, I don't see the problem. Over here we're having issues with burglars already and the fact that I can punch someone out. People have been fined and jailed for injuring a burglar. That's just as silly.

However; and here's my criticism in all of this, aside from the police state argument.

If we make it illegal for "disabled" people to own guns (and as such use them), do they get more protection? I mean; one of the main reasons people in the US have guns is for selfprotection. So basically it would make a difference in that disabled people are, by law, treated as more vulnerable. Do I get more patrol cars in my block just because I'm not allowed to defend myself like the rest? Or does that make me a.. well "sitting duck" for anyone who would want to break and enter because they might know (from whatever source) that I can and will not own a gun to defend myself.

So, the entire concept of why owning a gun would be "ok", in terms of the NRA, totally conflicts what they want here.

 

[silent ABAB]

The only thing that comes to mind now is; and bear with me, I'm not a US citizen and as such I don't own firearms since it's illegal to own in my country (unless under strict rules).

Let's assume that, people in the US have firearms in the house for protection. Since, I guess it's nonsense to claim that any US people buy firearms just to kill others for the heck of it. So basically, owning a weapon for selfdefense is a fine idea. Having rules that you can enforce with guns on your own premise... honestly, I don't see the problem. Over here we're having issues with burglars already and the fact that I can punch someone out. People have been fined and jailed for injuring a burglar. That's just as silly.

However; and here's my criticism in all of this, aside from the police state argument.

If we make it illegal for "disabled" people to own guns (and as such use them), do they get more protection? I mean; one of the main reasons people in the US have guns is for selfprotection. So basically it would make a difference in that disabled people are, by law, treated as more vulnerable. Do I get more patrol cars in my block just because I'm not allowed to defend myself like the rest? Or does that make me a.. well "sitting duck" for anyone who would want to break and enter because they might know (from whatever source) that I can and will not own a gun to defend myself.

So, the entire concept of why owning a gun would be "ok", in terms of the NRA, totally conflicts what they want here.

I think they might be trying to get people to go for their base concept that more people should have guns by also saying "Oh, but not those people, they're dangerous", making it seem like they're not full gun nuts. Or if they really support this honestly then they don't know much about about people with autism/asperger's other then they have bouts of anger and are antisocial.

 

[King_Oni]

I think they might be trying to get people to go for their base concept that more people should have guns by also saying "Oh, but not those people, they're dangerous", making it seem like they're not full gun nuts. Or if they really support this honestly then they don't know much about about people with autism/asperger's other then they have bouts of anger and are antisocial.

If you ask me.. the latter. There's a lot of people that do not have a clue about autism at all. And I don't see a lot being by the media to make clear what it actually is.

 

[silent ABAB]

If you ask me.. the latter. There's a lot of people that do not have a clue about autism at all. And I don't see a lot being by the media to make clear what it actually is.

Yeah that's what I was leaning towards seeing as it was the NRA. And yeah I agree with you on that point. The only real coverage they've done was a while ago with the horrible vaccine controversy, and even then they only explained it with it's cons.

 

[Soup]

Wayne LaPierre ought to be placed at the top of the list. Columbine had 2-count-em: 2 ARMED GUARDS present when Klebold & Harris did their thing. We saw how THAT turned out!

As far as Aspies having a gun, I don't consider Asperger's to be a mental illness & there is no compelling scientific evidence to classify it as one. Some Aspies may indeed be mentally ill but that's a different story. I'm more concerned about people with axes to grind, cause-mongers & injustice-collectors. This last group are much more likely to convince themselves that their 'cause' is righteous & that they have no alternative but go out blasting away. Whether it's the boss & co-workers, classmates, abortionists, environmentalists or gays they're against, this type of personality is an explosion looking for a justification.

People with personality disorders are IMO the scary ones: not so much some guy with schizophrenia or depression. Some schizophrenics have gone rampaging, but they are comparatively few. Get a guy with a personality disorder, have his life not go according to his script, add some disgruntlement & access to firearms & BOOM!

Another group that worries me when it comes to firearms are habitual substance abusers. Many in this latter group are self medicating for an undiagnosed personality disorder that causes them to keep stumbling as they try to move along in life. Not good. Even in the absence of a personality disorder, those who are drunk or stoned have a serious problem & the substances they abuse compromise their judgement. A person under the influence can make a choice to do something dire that they'd never otherwise even consider doing. Mant regret it when they sober up-but that doesn't help the victim much.

All these people claiming the need to defend themselves need to ask themselves serious questions about where they live, how their culture functions & what & who it is they're so afraid of as well as why, in a land that allegedly prizes freedom, are they living in fear of one another.

 

[Nolan1971]

What interests me is what criteria would be used to figure out who could safely own a weapon. I would never own one because my symptoms
make me impulsive enough to play with it in a unsafe way and I would never allow my nephew to have one as his issues are worse than mine.
I enjoyed archery and riflery at camp and would enjoy it for fun but I would not want the weapons in my home so I would have to leave them
at the range or in a friends care.

 

[Soup]

Why even have them in the first place? The self defence argument is thin compared to the facts around recent & historic shootings. Just on Christmas morning, some idiot father left a loaded hand gun on the kitchen table. His 2 yr old son grabbed the gun, pointed it at his own chest & pulled the trigger. BANG! One dead toddler. Who was this guy planning to shoot: Santa Claus? Did the Christmas pheasant make a break for the front door?

Some other idiot left his loaded gun in his back pocket & sat down in a movie theatre. Upon getting home, he realized he'd lost it BUT never filed a missing firearm report with the police. The same day, a school took a class of kids to see a movie & 2 eleven yr old boys found the gun. Fortunately, they didn't play with it or quietly smuggle it home but notified the teacher & the gun was spirited safely away. Another guy sat down with a loaded gun in his pocket in another movie theatre, the gun fired on its own & blew a hole in his @$$!!!

Too many guns are floating around out there accessible to unstable people. This Lanza woman was living in a town that had seen only 1 murder in the last decade. She had the rifle, 2 hand guns & 2 other guns. Who was she 'protecting' herself from: rogue Avon ladies? Her unstable son waited until she was sleeping, opened the basement 'gun safe' (what an oxymoron!) took her guns & murdered her in her sleep. This kid had no known history of violence & was no Arnold Schwarzenegger. So what if he liked a few violent video games: millions of people play them without magically morphing into maniacs.

Even the old tired 'then only criminals would have guns' argument is weak in countries like Canada & the US. The vast overwhelming majority of gun violence engaged in by criminals (gangsters, organized crime people etc.) is directed at other members & rival criminals. The odds of an ordinary person in America being shot by a Mafioso guy are next to nil. The odds of some gang banger crack-head in the ghetto taking the bus to your suburban neighbourhood to wreak havoc is also next to nil.

Plus, if your gun is un-loaded & locked in a safe somewhere & someone breaks into your home in the dead of night, what are you going to do: ask him to wait patiently so you can shake yourself awake, get the key to the safe, go open it, load & aim your weapon? Odds are that even if you irresponsibly & stupidly (like so many gun paranoids do) keep a loaded handgun in the night table drawer beside the bed, you'll wake up to find the bad guy pointing it straight at you. One can always cherry-pick & find the example of a home-owner who successfully defended himself using a fire-arm against an intruder but those are rare exceptional cases by far off-set by the amount who become enraged & shoot their wife, their kids, themselves or the kids find it, play 'bang-bang' & kill each other.

When will enough be enough?

 

[Nolan1971]

I do agree if I wanted to enjoy archery or riflery for fun I would just use the weapons they provide at the range.
I won awards when I was 10yrs old and it is the safe way to do it.
Of course when I was 10 I only used Bows, Compound Bows, BB, Pellet and a .22 rifle

 

[silent ABAB]

Why even have them in the first place? The self defence argument is thin compared to the facts around recent & historic shootings. Just on Christmas morning, some idiot father left a loaded hand gun on the kitchen table. His 2 yr old son grabbed the gun, pointed it at his own chest & pulled the trigger. BANG! One dead toddler. Who was this guy planning to shoot: Santa Claus? Did the Christmas pheasant make a break for the front door?

Some other idiot left his loaded gun in his back pocket & sat down in a movie theatre. Upon getting home, he realized he'd lost it BUT never filed a missing firearm report with the police. The same day, a school took a class of kids to see a movie & 2 eleven yr old boys found the gun. Fortunately, they didn't play with it or quietly smuggle it home but notified the teacher & the gun was spirited safely away. Another guy sat down with a loaded gun in his pocket in another movie theatre, the gun fired on its own & blew a hole in his @$$!!!

Too many guns are floating around out there accessible to unstable people. This Lanza woman was living in a town that had seen only 1 murder in the last decade. She had the rifle, 2 hand guns & 2 other guns. Who was she 'protecting' herself from: rogue Avon ladies? Her unstable son waited until she was sleeping, opened the basement 'gun safe' (what an oxymoron!) took her guns & murdered her in her sleep. This kid had no known history of violence & was no Arnold Schwarzenegger. So what if he liked a few violent video games: millions of people play them without magically morphing into maniacs.

Even the old tired 'then only criminals would have guns' argument is weak in countries like Canada & the US. The vast overwhelming majority of gun violence engaged in by criminals (gangsters, organized crime people etc.) is directed at other members & rival criminals. The odds of an ordinary person in America being shot by a Mafioso guy are next to nil. The odds of some gang banger crack-head in the ghetto taking the bus to your suburban neighbourhood to wreak havoc is also next to nil.

Plus, if your gun is un-loaded & locked in a safe somewhere & someone breaks into your home in the dead of night, what are you going to do: ask him to wait patiently so you can shake yourself awake, get the key to the safe, go open it, load & aim your weapon? Odds are that even if you irresponsibly & stupidly (like so many gun paranoids do) keep a loaded handgun in the night table drawer beside the bed, you'll wake up to find the bad guy pointing it straight at you. One can always cherry-pick & find the example of a home-owner who successfully defended himself using a fire-arm against an intruder but those are rare exceptional cases by far off-set by the amount who become enraged & shoot their wife, their kids, themselves or the kids find it, play 'bang-bang' & kill each other.

When will enough be enough?

I do know of one case where a man was robbed, but he investigated and found out who it was. He also found out the man was coming back for his washer and dryer(what?). Anyway, he waited at the main entrance room of the house with a shotgun. When the guy eventually busted in, he saw the guy but not the gun and tried to attack him with the crowbar he had on him. He was a pretty old guy so I imagine he couldn't man handle the crowbar out of his hands. He shot the guy, police came down, and filed that a well known drug dealer had been killed, then they were done. That's how it should be done all the time, except maybe not always kill them.

 

[Soup]

Here, you can't lie in wait like an armed ninja, waiting to murder a guy over a washing machine & a dryer. If you have reliable info that a thief is expected to rob you at a given time, you call the POLICE who lie in wait & arrest the guy. Seems strange that a 'known drug-dealer' would want some old man's used Matyag appliances... Sounds like there's more to this story than the public was told.

 

[silent ABAB]

Here, you can't lie in wait like an armed ninja, waiting to murder a guy over a washing machine & a dryer. If you have reliable info that a thief is expected to rob you at a given time, you call the POLICE who lie in wait & arrest the guy. Seems strange that a 'known drug-dealer' would want some old man's used Matyag appliances... Sounds like there's more to this story than the public was told.

That took place in KY, by the way. Anyway, I can have the retrospect of two sides also. I live in NJ where the gun laws are more strict then a nun teacher, but visit KY very often, a place where the gun laws are much more lenient. On that subject, I think that the gun laws here should be more like it there, although not to the dime since the population size is literally half of NJ in KY. I say this because right down the road, among many other towns here, there are gang areas where you cannot even walk down the road without having the chance of being mugged/killed. Many of the people who do those things have guns there, did they buy them legally? No. The people who DO live in that area though and are law abiding citizens, cannot even buy a gun because of all the fines there that are added on. Maybe around an hour away even, in Atlantic City, they have people shot everyday by muggers. My point is, the cops don't do **** around here unless they're state police. Not saying that they do absolutely nothing, it's just that being a cop means NOT letting the people you're supposed to be protecting get shot and killed daily. Even when you do call them though, honest as a loyal dog, they take over 20 minutes to get to where you're at.

 

[Soup]

" My point is, the cops don't do **** around here unless they're state police. Not saying that they do absolutely nothing, it's just that being a cop means NOT letting the people you're supposed to be protecting get shot and killed daily. Even when you do call them though, honest as a loyal dog, they take over 20 minutes to get to where you're at." - Silent ABAB

That is a very important point I've heard many every-day normal Americans express on different forums as well as on the news. There seems to be a law enforcement problem that is allowing these hoodlums in some areas, to have relative free rein to torment the general public.

Arming ordinary people hasn't worked or it would've solved the problem. Part of what complicates this is the intent factor of a predatory person. Sometimes, the crime is one of opportunity: a regular guy is distracted making a call on his mobile phone when suddenly they are set upon & mugged, It is usually all over by the time the person even gets their bearings & realizes that something has gone wrong. If you're carrying stuff or are just ambling along, someone watching you is preparing to pounce at an opportune moment. Often, they mug people when they've got their car keys out & are about to get into their car. Unless you're a trained cop, the likelihood is that you'll be caught by surprise whereas the assailant has planned his actions. You wouldn't have time to reach for a weapon, take aim & fire. Think about it: even at Columbine with 2 trained armed guards on-hand, those 2 boys pulled off that rampage. In the end, they weren't even shot by the guards but by their own hands.

People seem to believe that a gun will accord them almost supernatural power & security. With that weapon, they'll suddenly be able to protect their family. It is almost as ridiculous as actually thinking that if you buy a ballet tutu, tights & some toe shoes, you'll be able to dance like a ballerina because you've bought the gear. You may be able to hop about & flutter your arms, but that's about it. These young male shooters get geared up in all kinds of para-military type finery for their rampages. They have 3-4 guns where 1 will do (esp if the targets are unarmed terrified 6 yr olds or people watching a movie...).

Law enforcement & the media can count on society's short attention span, jadedness & just the fact that they're bust with their own lives. We tend to forget the real impact of all these shootings & murders in a haze of just being busy with life. Just yesterday in Vermont, a teen buy was cleaning a supposedly unloaded rifle when BLAM it fired out of nowhere, Unfortunately, the bullet went right into the head of his 12 yr old brother who died instantly. This was not a family of violent yahoos. They lived in the country & occasionally enjoyed going out hunting. They were by no means bad or irresponsible people & look at the price they wound up paying for this hobby. NOW, they're getting rid of all the guns in the home.

While I can see where target shooting or hunting can be enjoyable for some families, the risks engendered by the slightest error are catastrophic. This poor family will never be the same.

 

[silent ABAB]

" My point is, the cops don't do **** around here unless they're state police. Not saying that they do absolutely nothing, it's just that being a cop means NOT letting the people you're supposed to be protecting get shot and killed daily. Even when you do call them though, honest as a loyal dog, they take over 20 minutes to get to where you're at." - Silent ABAB

That is a very important point I've heard many every-day normal Americans express on different forums as well as on the news. There seems to be a law enforcement problem that is allowing these hoodlums in some areas, to have relative free rein to torment the general public.

As I said I don't think it should be extremely lenient here, just more affordable to citizens who want to stop break-ins. I know of multiple cases where my dad would be working in these towns and when he actually brought protection to where he worked (carpenter) the people who would rob him stop. But he has also taught me how to handle a gun, and how to never even point a gun at someone, even when you THINK it's unloaded. My point is also, is that some people get a bit to cocky about safety when it comes to handling guns.

 

[Soup]

I'm sorry to hear that your dad had to arm himself in order to avoid being robbed while simply trying to do his job! That's appalling. Clearly there are truly no simple monolithic solutions to the complex problems that give rise to gun-related violence. All of them will take both time & money to uncover & address. The hardest change necessary is the cultural one that glamorizes gun play as something macho & manly.

 

[silent ABAB]

I'm sorry to hear that your dad had to arm himself in order to avoid being robbed while simply trying to do his job! That's appalling. Clearly there are truly no simple monolithic solutions to the complex problems that give rise to gun-related violence. All of them will take both time & money to uncover & address. The hardest change necessary is the cultural one that glamorizes gun play as something macho & manly.

I agree fully.