justtray: Bravo Two: justtray: We're waiting for that massive mental health overhaul plan. Lay it on us whenever you think we're ready for it. Be sure to explain where the funding comes from as well, can't wait to hear your response on that.

I've been a proponent of imposing a 5% tax on guns and ammunition sales in this country specifically to fund mental health care initiatives. Further, a percentage of a nominal (sub-$50) fee on background checks from everyone could be used as well.

I've also been telling my general practitioner that I would like to see him have a resident psychiatrist or a psych to whom he sends people with mental issues and concerns to for evaluation, and a much clearer system of psychologists being published/available with ratings in some form of standard directory along with all medical professionals.

This is getting there. There's already a federal 11% tax on ammo. NFA has a tax stamp option, which I would like expanded.

As for the psychiatrist the biggest problem with mental health is that you can't force anyone to do anything or to stay committed unless they do so on their own accord. And crazy people don't think they're crazy. So what's your solution to that?

An expansion of the NFA is doable if the ATF classifies other weapons as NFA items, but the tradeoff there would have to be a significant expansion of the ATF to add personnel to handle the increase in paperwork being processed. Right now, NFA stuff already takes a while to process, and that's with a relatively low volume for items people don't normally buy (due to restricted availability and cost).  If you extend NFA to include other types of firearms, then a 6-month processing time will grow exponentially.  Further, an overhaul of the ATF in general would be useful in order to reduce its instances of abuse and misuse of their decisions on various firearms topics in order to support piss-poor law enforcement. Rather, i think enforcement of firearms laws should be an FBI thing, and should require judicial oversight with the ability of the accused to have legal information and representation (which the ATF does not provide now, often conducting investigations in secret and conducting raids on falsified data without due process).  Further, the NFA is nothing more than a glorified taxing and registration process to begin with, so, what's the point?

As to the crazies who won't voluntarily take their medications, processes can be put in place to bring back involuntary commitment (not sure if this is the right word in the context). For example, if a three-doctor panel agrees with the diagnosis of the psychologist, and prescribes mandatory inpatient treatment due to a history of failure to continue treatment or posing a danger to self or others, etc., then they may recommend to issue an order to have the person committed for treatment with evaluation of condition every, say, 60 days with other requirements placed on them.

Few people that suffer the level of mental disorder that would induce them to harm themselves or others, and those that DO suffer those mental illnesses deserve to be treated and placed in a space where they may remain relatively happy and well cared for without being able to harm themselves or others.

sodomizer: May, 2013: Killer uses rock and stick to bash four peoples' heads in.

June, 2013: Congress introduces background checks for gravel and stone purchases, and a tree registration program.

Yep. You are the dumbest person alive.

skozlaw: nvmac: If everyone had a vagina, there would be fewer deaths from vagina violence.

Useless without pics

Too much pus, even for FARK.

/it's a slow death

<i>justtray: We're waiting for that massive mental health overhaul plan. Lay it on us whenever you think we're ready for it. Be sure to explain where the funding comes from as well, can't wait to hear your response on that.

I've been a proponent of imposing a 5% tax on guns and ammunition sales in this country specifically to fund mental health care initiatives. Further, a percentage of a nominal (sub-$50) fee on background checks from everyone could be used as well.</i>


OK lets really fund it!

We can have a 50.00 dollar fee on ballots and we can also charge for voter registration CA-CHING!
Then to insure we have enough lets do a say a penny a word "mental health" surcharge on all media,including sights like FARK you know it is important to fund this and really what is a couple of dollars when it is for the good of the Nation.

Please don't give me any of that "but the Constitution" Crap either since it only shows you want to not help the mentally ill!

IamSoSmart_S_M_R_T: Publikwerks: andrewskdr: Publikwerks: Listen, you can try and make this out to be an Obama joke, or try and make out knives to be more dangerous than a gun somehow, but the fact of the matter is that this is what Sandy Hook would  have been like had we had no second amendment and all firearms were banned or highly regulated.

Kepp making your jokes. Obviously, it's not too high a price.

6 year old children would have been able to defend themselves against a knife wielding adult as well as adult-age college students are able to defend themselves?  yeah sure

No, but they might have lived.
http://www.salon.com/2012/12/17/the_chinese_lanza_had_a_knife_all_22 _s choolkids_survived/

Chinese-made goods always crap out.

Reportedly, the attacker intended to maim and to disfigure rather than to kill.

Fatal stabbing attacks in Chinese schools have occurred.

stonicus: Bravo Two: Honestly? because if someone wants to commit suicide, they will commit suicide

Most people who fail on a suicide attempt do not attempt it again.  Repeat attempts were rare (7%) after failed suicide attempts.  Making it harder to succeed the first time saves lives.

And making available programs to treat suicidal behavior doesn't, nor prevents injuries in the first place?

mbillips: Tomahawk513: Bravo Two: udhq: Bravo Two: Now subtract roughly 60% of that number which are suicides...

Why?

Are we supposed to ignore the well-established fact that gun bans significant cut suicide rates?

Why should we draw an artificial distinction between a behavioral disease violently attacking others versus it's own host body?

Honestly? because if someone wants to commit suicide, they will commit suicide, and for those who choose to do so because they are suffering from a physical condition that they have no way to cure, they should be allowed to do so. Further, I absolutely believe that if you wish to end your life, that is your choice as an adult, but you should attend counseling with your family members first so you understand the implications of the decision.

Why should we stigmatize suicide when there are legitimate reasons to do it, to the point of using it as a strawman to inflate gun-related death rates to argue for gun control, when it's an issue that hardly involves guns and is more about the problems the person is suffering from?

NOPE.  For at least 33% of people, they will not commit suicide if it is inconvenient.  Moreover, 94% of those who attempt but do not succeed at committing suicide do not attempt again.  Suicide is an impulsive behavior.  Euthanasia is something completely, totally different than I am generally in favor of, but the insanely vast majority of suicides do not fall into this category.

Yep, and gun suicides tend to be WAY more successful than people who try pills or CO2 from their car exhaust (protip: if you have a modern car, there's not enough CO2 in the exhaust to kill you in the time it takes to burn a tank of gas).

So, the answer is to make guns harder to get, rather than to attempt to provide help and resources for those people that would try to commit suicide?

As someone who HAS attempted to commit suicide, I think it's much more important that people have the resources to get out of that state of mind than it is to rely on the methods being used being much more difficult to achieve success with, considering the life-long effects such attempts can have on someone who doesn't die from their attempt.

BigBooper: PC LOAD LETTER: How did so many get stabbed? Were they sleeping or something? Were all the chairs and tables bolted down? Knife vs table. Table generally wins.

IKR! If I was there, I would have given him a round house kick straight to the head! I'm a tenth level black belt in an obscure martial art that you've probably never heard about. I'm only one level away from being able to kill with a look. But still, I'm able to kill with most objects, and of course my bare hands and fists. How do you kill with a straw you ask? It's easy, believe me. There are ways. You don't wanna know about it, believe me.

You sound fat.

lennavan: Bravo Two: Personally, I choose to believe data compiled by law enforcement, rather than a medical magazine

That you think a medical magazine did the data compiling shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the process.

Bravo Two: Funny that the FBI data talking about gun crime in WADC doesn't match NEJM's.

You've got a citation for that, right?

Bravo Two: Take a look at Chicago. They have essentially the same kind of ban as WADC

No, they didn't.  The laws are completely different.  Again, you are demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation.  I started out thinking you had a very well thought out reasonable position.  The more you post, the clearer it becomes you're just basing your beliefs on what you totally imagine to be true.

Without spending a lot of time digging for it, the Wiki article seems to show, based on the FBI data it has, a higher incidence of gun violence in DC compared to the NEJM.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Washington,_D.C.

I'll accept that I'm wrong based on DC vs. Chicago's gun laws. My understanding was that Chicago's laws ban possession of handguns, shotguns, and rifles in city limits, but I haven't researched in depth, so if that's untrue, then I take it back and will readily agree that it was an incorrect statement.

Sometimes, the old ways are the best. >_>

Danger Avoid Death: lennavan: Again, you are demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation. I started out thinking you had a very well thought out reasonable position.

On Fark? You must be new. Or kidding.

Some of us here attempt to have reasonable discussions with intelligent, considered positions, regardless of the shiathole we must conduct them in.

Private_Citizen: More power, better range, better accuracy.

Which would be why the US Military uses M-4s (Select fire AR-15s) for the grunts and M24s (Mil Spec Remington 700s) for their snipers.

I can understand how the 700 may be more accurate than an AR-15 (especially if the 700 is specifically built for .223 Remington as the 5.56x45mm chambering of an AR-15 slightly reduces accuracy of .223 Remington ammunition), but why would it necessarily be more powerful?

Joe Blowme: lennavan: Bravo Two: Personally, I choose to believe data compiled by law enforcement, rather than a medical magazine

That you think a medical magazine did the data compiling shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the process.

Bravo Two: Funny that the FBI data talking about gun crime in WADC doesn't match NEJM's.

You've got a citation for that, right?

Bravo Two: Take a look at Chicago. They have essentially the same kind of ban as WADC

No, they didn't.  The laws are completely different.  Again, you are demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation.  I started out thinking you had a very well thought out reasonable position.  The more you post, the clearer it becomes you're just basing your beliefs on what you totally imagine to be true.

cut him some slack, this is FARK. BTW did you ever make it out of the Hawkeye state?

And I even actually stated that I agreed he was right and I was wrong on Chicago's laws. I had thought they were more close to WADC than they are.