260,000 Veterans Have Lost Their Gun Rights Since December

[ogibillm]

So now we have another scandal where the VA is screwing over the veterans they are supposed to be representing.

260,000 Veterans Have Lost Their Gun Rights Since December

The Second Amendment has been under attack for some time now in the united States, and there has been a relentless assault by the Obama administration at attacking the rights of the people to keep and bear arms. At the forefront of that attack has been America’s veterans, andaccording to a report, at least 260,000 veteranshad their gun rights revoked by the Department of Veteran’s Affairs since December 2015.

Guns in the News reports:

Last December the VA started reporting thousands of veterans to the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check system, which is responsible for determining whether or not a potential gun buyer is legally allowed to own a firearm.

Specifically, they’ve been reporting veterans who have a fiduciary trustee to act on their behalf for legal or financial matters. All veterans with this arrangement are beingautomatically declared “mentally defective” according to Guns.com, and are having their second amendmentrights revoked. Over the past 4 months alone the VA has reported over 260,000 veterans to the NICS, which now accounts for 99% of all “mentally defective” claims to the database.

Of course, not all veterans with a fiduciary trustee are a danger to themselves or others, and unfortunately the VA hasn’t bothered to investigate any of these individuals to see if they should be reported. Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa has been questioning the VA on this matter, and hopes to put a stop to it. “The very agency created to serve them (veterans) is jeopardizing their Second Amendment rights through an erroneous reading of gun regulations. The VA’s careless approach to our veterans’ constitutional rights is disgraceful.”

This is not new and doesn’t seem to be going away. In February, the National RifleAssociation was attempting to discover which veterans this was happening to across the country.

Once again, Guns in the News reported:

As we have reported several times in the past (including here and here), the Veterans Administration (VA) has been reporting to the National InstantCriminal Background Check System (NICS) the identities of its beneficiaries who have been assigned a “fiduciary” to manage their benefits. The VA claims that such determinations constitute an “adjudication of mental defectiveness” under federal law, thereby prohibiting the beneficiary (presumptively for life) from acquiring or possessingfirearms.

Funny how the right are so willing to take things away from Muslims.

"Of course, not all veterans with a fiduciary trustee are a danger to themselves or others, "

Of course, not all Muslims (in fact most Muslims) are not a danger to themselves or others......

You see how contradictory this is?

Why would a Veteran elect to forego his/her rights to control his own legal and financial matters? It sounds to me that there is a mental problem. Is it part of a disability settlement? We need a lot more information before we go half cocked about allegations of abuses of the 2nd Amendment. While I respect the sacrifice of fellow Veterans I don't want them buying guns if they have mental issues.

I see your point but you can still say the same about ghetto dwellers who have spent their entire lives under stress and go undiagnosed.
So what do you think about dragging every ghetto dweller in for a physc evaluation?

The "ghetto dwellers" in question most likely are illegally possessing weapons anyway and probably 99% could not pass a background check. The point is that we can't let crazy people purchase weapons regardless of their previous service. If a person admits in an official document that they are so mentally impaired because of their service that they should be awarded a pension and that they are unable to function in society to the point where they can't manage their finances then we would be crazy if we allowed them to purchase firearms.

The only problem with your theory is a lot of vets feel strongly about their second amendment rights and would avoid getting help for fear of losing those rights.
I know if I was crazy I wouldnt seek help for that very reason.

who says you aren't?

you do make a good point. the reporting could act as a disincentive for those needing help.

of course the alternative is to allow mentally incompetent people to continue to purchase and own firearms.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

Jumping off the Golden Gate bridge or a local parking garage is damn near one hundred percent effective.

yep, but either required going to the destination, not getting caught and stopped, and then jumping.

getting drunk by yourself and pulling the trigger can be done in quiet isolation in your own home.

but again, this isn't my argument, it's a fact. gun availability means a higher rate of suicide.

So why did you leave the garage method out of your post?

because it's irrelevant and doesn't change the statistics. people with guns available to them commit suicide at a higher rate than the rest of the population. you can imagine any scenario you want, doesn't change that fact.

also you can change your mind once you've started the process with the car in the garage. not so much with a gunshot.

Not if you're passed out.

again, fucking super. so you time your passing out to right after when you start the vehicle and then hope that nobody comes and finds you before it kills you.

i'm happy that you think you've found a way to commit suicide that's as effective as using a gun, but the fact remains

PEOPLE WITH ACCESS TO GUNS KILL THEMSELVES MORE OFTEN THAN PEOPLE WITHOUT

That doesn't mean they wouldn't kill themselves by another means, if they didn't have access to a fire arm.

You still haven't supported your argument.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Thats a bullshit stat.
Take away guns and those same people would off themselves without a gun.

if what you're saying is true the suicide rate for those with guns would be the same as those without.

that is not the case.

PEOPLE WITH ACCESS TO GUNS KILL THEMSELVES AT A GREATER RATE THAN THOSE WITHOUT

Again,it's a bullshit stat.
If someone decides to off themselves they go buy a gun because it's the easiest way to accomplish what they want to do.
If that option wasnt available they'd just use a different method.

now at least you're raising an interesting argument.

but suicide has been shown to be an impulsive decision. going out to buy a gun isn't impulsive. also, since those people would already be included in the areas where guns are easily accessed they would not skew the results.

The problem with your theory goes back to the waiting period to buy a handgun to supposedly give someone time to think about their actions...yet gun killings still continue to happen.
Pre meditated suicide isnt that uncommon.

 

[frigidweirdo]

So now we have another scandal where the VA is screwing over the veterans they are supposed to be representing.

260,000 Veterans Have Lost Their Gun Rights Since December

The Second Amendment has been under attack for some time now in the united States, and there has been a relentless assault by the Obama administration at attacking the rights of the people to keep and bear arms. At the forefront of that attack has been America’s veterans, andaccording to a report, at least 260,000 veteranshad their gun rights revoked by the Department of Veteran’s Affairs since December 2015.

Guns in the News reports:

Last December the VA started reporting thousands of veterans to the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check system, which is responsible for determining whether or not a potential gun buyer is legally allowed to own a firearm.

Specifically, they’ve been reporting veterans who have a fiduciary trustee to act on their behalf for legal or financial matters. All veterans with this arrangement are beingautomatically declared “mentally defective” according to Guns.com, and are having their second amendmentrights revoked. Over the past 4 months alone the VA has reported over 260,000 veterans to the NICS, which now accounts for 99% of all “mentally defective” claims to the database.

Of course, not all veterans with a fiduciary trustee are a danger to themselves or others, and unfortunately the VA hasn’t bothered to investigate any of these individuals to see if they should be reported. Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa has been questioning the VA on this matter, and hopes to put a stop to it. “The very agency created to serve them (veterans) is jeopardizing their Second Amendment rights through an erroneous reading of gun regulations. The VA’s careless approach to our veterans’ constitutional rights is disgraceful.”

This is not new and doesn’t seem to be going away. In February, the National RifleAssociation was attempting to discover which veterans this was happening to across the country.

Once again, Guns in the News reported:

As we have reported several times in the past (including here and here), the Veterans Administration (VA) has been reporting to the National InstantCriminal Background Check System (NICS) the identities of its beneficiaries who have been assigned a “fiduciary” to manage their benefits. The VA claims that such determinations constitute an “adjudication of mental defectiveness” under federal law, thereby prohibiting the beneficiary (presumptively for life) from acquiring or possessingfirearms.

Funny how the right are so willing to take things away from Muslims.

"Of course, not all veterans with a fiduciary trustee are a danger to themselves or others, "

Of course, not all Muslims (in fact most Muslims) are not a danger to themselves or others......

You see how contradictory this is?

Why would a Veteran elect to forego his/her rights to control his own legal and financial matters? It sounds to me that there is a mental problem. Is it part of a disability settlement? We need a lot more information before we go half cocked about allegations of abuses of the 2nd Amendment. While I respect the sacrifice of fellow Veterans I don't want them buying guns if they have mental issues.

I see your point but you can still say the same about ghetto dwellers who have spent their entire lives under stress and go undiagnosed.
So what do you think about dragging every ghetto dweller in for a physc evaluation?

The "ghetto dwellers" in question most likely are illegally possessing weapons anyway and probably 99% could not pass a background check. The point is that we can't let crazy people purchase weapons regardless of their previous service. If a person admits in an official document that they are so mentally impaired because of their service that they should be awarded a pension and that they are unable to function in society to the point where they can't manage their finances then we would be crazy if we allowed them to purchase firearms.

Yes, i agree.

People will pick and choose when they want people to have their rights infringed upon.

Criminals? Yes. Crazy people? Yes.

But then they find people who they have decided should be able to ignore the laws that stop the previous two, and they don't see the contradiction.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

So now we have another scandal where the VA is screwing over the veterans they are supposed to be representing.

260,000 Veterans Have Lost Their Gun Rights Since December

The Second Amendment has been under attack for some time now in the united States, and there has been a relentless assault by the Obama administration at attacking the rights of the people to keep and bear arms. At the forefront of that attack has been America’s veterans, andaccording to a report, at least 260,000 veteranshad their gun rights revoked by the Department of Veteran’s Affairs since December 2015.

Guns in the News reports:

Last December the VA started reporting thousands of veterans to the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check system, which is responsible for determining whether or not a potential gun buyer is legally allowed to own a firearm.

Specifically, they’ve been reporting veterans who have a fiduciary trustee to act on their behalf for legal or financial matters. All veterans with this arrangement are beingautomatically declared “mentally defective” according to Guns.com, and are having their second amendmentrights revoked. Over the past 4 months alone the VA has reported over 260,000 veterans to the NICS, which now accounts for 99% of all “mentally defective” claims to the database.

Of course, not all veterans with a fiduciary trustee are a danger to themselves or others, and unfortunately the VA hasn’t bothered to investigate any of these individuals to see if they should be reported. Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa has been questioning the VA on this matter, and hopes to put a stop to it. “The very agency created to serve them (veterans) is jeopardizing their Second Amendment rights through an erroneous reading of gun regulations. The VA’s careless approach to our veterans’ constitutional rights is disgraceful.”

This is not new and doesn’t seem to be going away. In February, the National RifleAssociation was attempting to discover which veterans this was happening to across the country.

Once again, Guns in the News reported:

As we have reported several times in the past (including here and here), the Veterans Administration (VA) has been reporting to the National InstantCriminal Background Check System (NICS) the identities of its beneficiaries who have been assigned a “fiduciary” to manage their benefits. The VA claims that such determinations constitute an “adjudication of mental defectiveness” under federal law, thereby prohibiting the beneficiary (presumptively for life) from acquiring or possessingfirearms.

Funny how the right are so willing to take things away from Muslims.

"Of course, not all veterans with a fiduciary trustee are a danger to themselves or others, "

Of course, not all Muslims (in fact most Muslims) are not a danger to themselves or others......

You see how contradictory this is?

Why would a Veteran elect to forego his/her rights to control his own legal and financial matters? It sounds to me that there is a mental problem. Is it part of a disability settlement? We need a lot more information before we go half cocked about allegations of abuses of the 2nd Amendment. While I respect the sacrifice of fellow Veterans I don't want them buying guns if they have mental issues.

I see your point but you can still say the same about ghetto dwellers who have spent their entire lives under stress and go undiagnosed.
So what do you think about dragging every ghetto dweller in for a physc evaluation?

The "ghetto dwellers" in question most likely are illegally possessing weapons anyway and probably 99% could not pass a background check. The point is that we can't let crazy people purchase weapons regardless of their previous service. If a person admits in an official document that they are so mentally impaired because of their service that they should be awarded a pension and that they are unable to function in society to the point where they can't manage their finances then we would be crazy if we allowed them to purchase firearms.

The only problem with your theory is a lot of vets feel strongly about their second amendment rights and would avoid getting help for fear of losing those rights.
I know if I was crazy I wouldnt seek help for that very reason.

who says you aren't?

you do make a good point. the reporting could act as a disincentive for those needing help.

of course the alternative is to allow mentally incompetent people to continue to purchase and own firearms.

So how do you find out they're incompetent to own a firearm if they wont seek help for fear of losing their second amendment rights?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

So now we have another scandal where the VA is screwing over the veterans they are supposed to be representing.

260,000 Veterans Have Lost Their Gun Rights Since December

The Second Amendment has been under attack for some time now in the united States, and there has been a relentless assault by the Obama administration at attacking the rights of the people to keep and bear arms. At the forefront of that attack has been America’s veterans, andaccording to a report, at least 260,000 veteranshad their gun rights revoked by the Department of Veteran’s Affairs since December 2015.

Guns in the News reports:

Last December the VA started reporting thousands of veterans to the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check system, which is responsible for determining whether or not a potential gun buyer is legally allowed to own a firearm.

Specifically, they’ve been reporting veterans who have a fiduciary trustee to act on their behalf for legal or financial matters. All veterans with this arrangement are beingautomatically declared “mentally defective” according to Guns.com, and are having their second amendmentrights revoked. Over the past 4 months alone the VA has reported over 260,000 veterans to the NICS, which now accounts for 99% of all “mentally defective” claims to the database.

Of course, not all veterans with a fiduciary trustee are a danger to themselves or others, and unfortunately the VA hasn’t bothered to investigate any of these individuals to see if they should be reported. Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa has been questioning the VA on this matter, and hopes to put a stop to it. “The very agency created to serve them (veterans) is jeopardizing their Second Amendment rights through an erroneous reading of gun regulations. The VA’s careless approach to our veterans’ constitutional rights is disgraceful.”

This is not new and doesn’t seem to be going away. In February, the National RifleAssociation was attempting to discover which veterans this was happening to across the country.

Once again, Guns in the News reported:

As we have reported several times in the past (including here and here), the Veterans Administration (VA) has been reporting to the National InstantCriminal Background Check System (NICS) the identities of its beneficiaries who have been assigned a “fiduciary” to manage their benefits. The VA claims that such determinations constitute an “adjudication of mental defectiveness” under federal law, thereby prohibiting the beneficiary (presumptively for life) from acquiring or possessingfirearms.

Funny how the right are so willing to take things away from Muslims.

"Of course, not all veterans with a fiduciary trustee are a danger to themselves or others, "

Of course, not all Muslims (in fact most Muslims) are not a danger to themselves or others......

You see how contradictory this is?

Why would a Veteran elect to forego his/her rights to control his own legal and financial matters? It sounds to me that there is a mental problem. Is it part of a disability settlement? We need a lot more information before we go half cocked about allegations of abuses of the 2nd Amendment. While I respect the sacrifice of fellow Veterans I don't want them buying guns if they have mental issues.

I see your point but you can still say the same about ghetto dwellers who have spent their entire lives under stress and go undiagnosed.
So what do you think about dragging every ghetto dweller in for a physc evaluation?

The "ghetto dwellers" in question most likely are illegally possessing weapons anyway and probably 99% could not pass a background check. The point is that we can't let crazy people purchase weapons regardless of their previous service. If a person admits in an official document that they are so mentally impaired because of their service that they should be awarded a pension and that they are unable to function in society to the point where they can't manage their finances then we would be crazy if we allowed them to purchase firearms.

The only problem with your theory is a lot of vets feel strongly about their second amendment rights and would avoid getting help for fear of losing those rights.
I know if I was crazy I wouldnt seek help for that very reason.

who says you aren't?

you do make a good point. the reporting could act as a disincentive for those needing help.

of course the alternative is to allow mentally incompetent people to continue to purchase and own firearms.

Who says I'm not? Exactly...

 

[ogibillm]

Thats a bullshit stat.
Take away guns and those same people would off themselves without a gun.

if what you're saying is true the suicide rate for those with guns would be the same as those without.

that is not the case.

PEOPLE WITH ACCESS TO GUNS KILL THEMSELVES AT A GREATER RATE THAN THOSE WITHOUT

Again,it's a bullshit stat.
If someone decides to off themselves they go buy a gun because it's the easiest way to accomplish what they want to do.
If that option wasnt available they'd just use a different method.

now at least you're raising an interesting argument.

but suicide has been shown to be an impulsive decision. going out to buy a gun isn't impulsive. also, since those people would already be included in the areas where guns are easily accessed they would not skew the results.

The problem with your theory goes back to the waiting period to buy a handgun to supposedly give someone time to think about their actions...yet gun killings still continue to happen.
Pre meditated suicide isnt that uncommon.

Research shows gun permit laws appear to impact suicide rates

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Thats a bullshit stat.
Take away guns and those same people would off themselves without a gun.

if what you're saying is true the suicide rate for those with guns would be the same as those without.

that is not the case.

PEOPLE WITH ACCESS TO GUNS KILL THEMSELVES AT A GREATER RATE THAN THOSE WITHOUT

Again,it's a bullshit stat.
If someone decides to off themselves they go buy a gun because it's the easiest way to accomplish what they want to do.
If that option wasnt available they'd just use a different method.

now at least you're raising an interesting argument.

but suicide has been shown to be an impulsive decision. going out to buy a gun isn't impulsive. also, since those people would already be included in the areas where guns are easily accessed they would not skew the results.

The problem with your theory goes back to the waiting period to buy a handgun to supposedly give someone time to think about their actions...yet gun killings still continue to happen.
Pre meditated suicide isnt that uncommon.

Research shows gun permit laws appear to impact suicide rates

"may impact" Doesnt sound conclusive.

 

[frigidweirdo]

So now we have another scandal where the VA is screwing over the veterans they are supposed to be representing.

260,000 Veterans Have Lost Their Gun Rights Since December

The Second Amendment has been under attack for some time now in the united States, and there has been a relentless assault by the Obama administration at attacking the rights of the people to keep and bear arms. At the forefront of that attack has been America’s veterans, andaccording to a report, at least 260,000 veteranshad their gun rights revoked by the Department of Veteran’s Affairs since December 2015.

Guns in the News reports:

Last December the VA started reporting thousands of veterans to the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check system, which is responsible for determining whether or not a potential gun buyer is legally allowed to own a firearm.

Specifically, they’ve been reporting veterans who have a fiduciary trustee to act on their behalf for legal or financial matters. All veterans with this arrangement are beingautomatically declared “mentally defective” according to Guns.com, and are having their second amendmentrights revoked. Over the past 4 months alone the VA has reported over 260,000 veterans to the NICS, which now accounts for 99% of all “mentally defective” claims to the database.

Of course, not all veterans with a fiduciary trustee are a danger to themselves or others, and unfortunately the VA hasn’t bothered to investigate any of these individuals to see if they should be reported. Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa has been questioning the VA on this matter, and hopes to put a stop to it. “The very agency created to serve them (veterans) is jeopardizing their Second Amendment rights through an erroneous reading of gun regulations. The VA’s careless approach to our veterans’ constitutional rights is disgraceful.”

This is not new and doesn’t seem to be going away. In February, the National RifleAssociation was attempting to discover which veterans this was happening to across the country.

Once again, Guns in the News reported:

As we have reported several times in the past (including here and here), the Veterans Administration (VA) has been reporting to the National InstantCriminal Background Check System (NICS) the identities of its beneficiaries who have been assigned a “fiduciary” to manage their benefits. The VA claims that such determinations constitute an “adjudication of mental defectiveness” under federal law, thereby prohibiting the beneficiary (presumptively for life) from acquiring or possessingfirearms.

Funny how the right are so willing to take things away from Muslims.

"Of course, not all veterans with a fiduciary trustee are a danger to themselves or others, "

Of course, not all Muslims (in fact most Muslims) are not a danger to themselves or others......

You see how contradictory this is?

Why would a Veteran elect to forego his/her rights to control his own legal and financial matters? It sounds to me that there is a mental problem. Is it part of a disability settlement? We need a lot more information before we go half cocked about allegations of abuses of the 2nd Amendment. While I respect the sacrifice of fellow Veterans I don't want them buying guns if they have mental issues.

I see your point but you can still say the same about ghetto dwellers who have spent their entire lives under stress and go undiagnosed.
So what do you think about dragging every ghetto dweller in for a physc evaluation?

The "ghetto dwellers" in question most likely are illegally possessing weapons anyway and probably 99% could not pass a background check. The point is that we can't let crazy people purchase weapons regardless of their previous service. If a person admits in an official document that they are so mentally impaired because of their service that they should be awarded a pension and that they are unable to function in society to the point where they can't manage their finances then we would be crazy if we allowed them to purchase firearms.

The only problem with your theory is a lot of vets feel strongly about their second amendment rights and would avoid getting help for fear of losing those rights.
I know if I was crazy I wouldnt seek help for that very reason.

who says you aren't?

you do make a good point. the reporting could act as a disincentive for those needing help.

of course the alternative is to allow mentally incompetent people to continue to purchase and own firearms.

So how do you find out they're incompetent to own a firearm if they wont seek help for fear of losing their second amendment rights?

SO, you're saying you shouldn't infringe on their right to own weapons if they go seeking help for mental illness and are then found to be a danger with a gun?

Hmmm.....

So, if a criminal gives themselves up, we shouldn't infringe on their right and they should be allowed to have guns whilst in prison?

 

[ogibillm]

if what you're saying is true the suicide rate for those with guns would be the same as those without.

that is not the case.

PEOPLE WITH ACCESS TO GUNS KILL THEMSELVES AT A GREATER RATE THAN THOSE WITHOUT

Again,it's a bullshit stat.
If someone decides to off themselves they go buy a gun because it's the easiest way to accomplish what they want to do.
If that option wasnt available they'd just use a different method.

now at least you're raising an interesting argument.

but suicide has been shown to be an impulsive decision. going out to buy a gun isn't impulsive. also, since those people would already be included in the areas where guns are easily accessed they would not skew the results.

The problem with your theory goes back to the waiting period to buy a handgun to supposedly give someone time to think about their actions...yet gun killings still continue to happen.
Pre meditated suicide isnt that uncommon.

Research shows gun permit laws appear to impact suicide rates

"may impact" Doesnt sound conclusive.

no, it doesn't.

but when missouri lifted the license requirement gun suicides went up, when connecticut introduced the permitting requirement gun suicide went down.

they say there isn't a clear causal relationship, but since suicides by other means didn't change i'd say it's pretty convincing.

 

[frigidweirdo]

if what you're saying is true the suicide rate for those with guns would be the same as those without.

that is not the case.

PEOPLE WITH ACCESS TO GUNS KILL THEMSELVES AT A GREATER RATE THAN THOSE WITHOUT

Again,it's a bullshit stat.
If someone decides to off themselves they go buy a gun because it's the easiest way to accomplish what they want to do.
If that option wasnt available they'd just use a different method.

now at least you're raising an interesting argument.

but suicide has been shown to be an impulsive decision. going out to buy a gun isn't impulsive. also, since those people would already be included in the areas where guns are easily accessed they would not skew the results.

The problem with your theory goes back to the waiting period to buy a handgun to supposedly give someone time to think about their actions...yet gun killings still continue to happen.
Pre meditated suicide isnt that uncommon.

Research shows gun permit laws appear to impact suicide rates

"may impact" Doesnt sound conclusive.

Nor does "Muslims might kill someone"....

 

[ogibillm]

kind of bringing things back to the op - this isn't a new thing. the mental incompetence rule has been in place since 1968. the va is recognized, legally, as being able to make that determination.

why would anyone want the mentally incompetent to have greater access to guns?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Funny how the right are so willing to take things away from Muslims.

"Of course, not all veterans with a fiduciary trustee are a danger to themselves or others, "

Of course, not all Muslims (in fact most Muslims) are not a danger to themselves or others......

You see how contradictory this is?

I see your point but you can still say the same about ghetto dwellers who have spent their entire lives under stress and go undiagnosed.
So what do you think about dragging every ghetto dweller in for a physc evaluation?

The "ghetto dwellers" in question most likely are illegally possessing weapons anyway and probably 99% could not pass a background check. The point is that we can't let crazy people purchase weapons regardless of their previous service. If a person admits in an official document that they are so mentally impaired because of their service that they should be awarded a pension and that they are unable to function in society to the point where they can't manage their finances then we would be crazy if we allowed them to purchase firearms.

The only problem with your theory is a lot of vets feel strongly about their second amendment rights and would avoid getting help for fear of losing those rights.
I know if I was crazy I wouldnt seek help for that very reason.

who says you aren't?

you do make a good point. the reporting could act as a disincentive for those needing help.

of course the alternative is to allow mentally incompetent people to continue to purchase and own firearms.

So how do you find out they're incompetent to own a firearm if they wont seek help for fear of losing their second amendment rights?

SO, you're saying you shouldn't infringe on their right to own weapons if they go seeking help for mental illness and are then found to be a danger with a gun?

Hmmm.....

So, if a criminal gives themselves up, we shouldn't infringe on their right and they should be allowed to have guns whilst in prison?

Last time I checked being stressed is not against the law.
And the fact the government is requesting doctors ask if they're patients own firearms pretty much tells you the intent.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Again,it's a bullshit stat.
If someone decides to off themselves they go buy a gun because it's the easiest way to accomplish what they want to do.
If that option wasnt available they'd just use a different method.

now at least you're raising an interesting argument.

but suicide has been shown to be an impulsive decision. going out to buy a gun isn't impulsive. also, since those people would already be included in the areas where guns are easily accessed they would not skew the results.

The problem with your theory goes back to the waiting period to buy a handgun to supposedly give someone time to think about their actions...yet gun killings still continue to happen.
Pre meditated suicide isnt that uncommon.

Research shows gun permit laws appear to impact suicide rates

"may impact" Doesnt sound conclusive.

no, it doesn't.

but when missouri lifted the license requirement gun suicides went up, when connecticut introduced the permitting requirement gun suicide went down.

they say there isn't a clear causal relationship, but since suicides by other means didn't change i'd say it's pretty convincing.

"Gun suicide went down" What about suicide in general?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Again,it's a bullshit stat.
If someone decides to off themselves they go buy a gun because it's the easiest way to accomplish what they want to do.
If that option wasnt available they'd just use a different method.

now at least you're raising an interesting argument.

but suicide has been shown to be an impulsive decision. going out to buy a gun isn't impulsive. also, since those people would already be included in the areas where guns are easily accessed they would not skew the results.

The problem with your theory goes back to the waiting period to buy a handgun to supposedly give someone time to think about their actions...yet gun killings still continue to happen.
Pre meditated suicide isnt that uncommon.

Research shows gun permit laws appear to impact suicide rates

"may impact" Doesnt sound conclusive.

Nor does "Muslims might kill someone"....

Terrorism isnt a right.

 

[frigidweirdo]

now at least you're raising an interesting argument.

but suicide has been shown to be an impulsive decision. going out to buy a gun isn't impulsive. also, since those people would already be included in the areas where guns are easily accessed they would not skew the results.

The problem with your theory goes back to the waiting period to buy a handgun to supposedly give someone time to think about their actions...yet gun killings still continue to happen.
Pre meditated suicide isnt that uncommon.

Research shows gun permit laws appear to impact suicide rates

"may impact" Doesnt sound conclusive.

Nor does "Muslims might kill someone"....

Terrorism isnt a right.

Terrorism isn't right. But then most Muslims aren't terrorists.

So don't try pulling that crap out of the bag on me.

Some Christians are terrorists. Does that mean ALL are?

 

[whitehall]

We owe Veterans a lot but if they sign a document that they are so mentally impaired that they should be awarded a pension and that they are unable to function in society to the point that they can't even handle a checkbook then the protection of society trumps their right to purchase a firearm. It's that freaking simple. The worst school shooting in American history happened a few years ago in Va. Tech Blacksburg because liberals thought that the privacy of crazy people was more important than the protection of society. Court ordered psychiatric treatment didn't show up in the instant name check and the maniac was able to purchase firearms. What should we do, make an exception for crazy Veterans who may or may not have ever seen combat and might have had mental disorders before they entered the Service? If a guy wants to play crazy for $100 per month tough shit. He is officially and legally crazy and he cannot pass the instant name check.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

The problem with your theory goes back to the waiting period to buy a handgun to supposedly give someone time to think about their actions...yet gun killings still continue to happen.
Pre meditated suicide isnt that uncommon.

Research shows gun permit laws appear to impact suicide rates

"may impact" Doesnt sound conclusive.

Nor does "Muslims might kill someone"....

Terrorism isnt a right.

Terrorism isn't right. But then most Muslims aren't terrorists.

So don't try pulling that crap out of the bag on me.

Some Christians are terrorists. Does that mean ALL are?

Thats weak....

 

[bodecea]

Good for the VA

With the number of PTSD suicides, the last thing these guys need is a handy firearm

You will boo me for this but I think PTSD is a coward's disease.

I believe it is real but overused as an excuse. Constant stress takes it's toll on you, even in business I've felt the effects. They used to call it shell shocked. But having some quack decide whether you can have a gun is wrong UNLESS you have made threatening comments. And I don't think I'd trust a shrink with a gun.

When I was a third owner of a little over a million dollar gross per year business decades ago, I fired the man who hired me at a special board meeting. That bothered me a little bit but he threatened to kick my ass and I kicked his ass kicked to the curb with no parachute. "Strike When The Iron Is Hot" was our company motto.

Cool story, bro.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Research shows gun permit laws appear to impact suicide rates

"may impact" Doesnt sound conclusive.

Nor does "Muslims might kill someone"....

Terrorism isnt a right.

Terrorism isn't right. But then most Muslims aren't terrorists.

So don't try pulling that crap out of the bag on me.

Some Christians are terrorists. Does that mean ALL are?

Thats weak....

Do you want to discuss this, or are you just going to pull all the tricks in the book to avoid talking about the topic?