Support NeoGAF

[Schnozberry]

It doesn't matter in my cases due to state laws, but having seen some of the worst of what can happen to people mentally speaking, I have no tolerance. Guns are extremely dangerous things that should be respected. Unlike Republicans, I don't bother with some delusion that the Constitution is some infallible thing to (selectively) revere. While I don't believe guns should be banned, I don't believe they're something that people should have the right to. It should be a privilege, and one that's extremely easy to lose.

If you can't manage your finances, for instance, you shouldn't have a gun. You might not be violent because of that, but you're obviously cognitively lacking. Guns don't require an inherently violent individual to be dangerous. They just require somebody to make a mistake in a judgement call - a mistake that can easily end up fatal.

Make no mistake, the law wasn't perfect. The Republicans aren't going to fix the problems though. To them, fixed is no regulation.

Yes, but this list that would strip people's rights is generated by the Social Security Administration, and not evaluated through any due process of law. If you care about due process, or understand the kinds of human error that happens with Government lists, then you should be concerned about regulation like this. People can have someone else manage their finances and not be deemed dangerous or violent, and this kind of regulation sets a precedent that people can be discriminated against based on stereotypes of mental illness. What if they wanted to take away someone's right to vote because they are undergoing treatment for severe depression? What if they wanted to strip someone of their parental rights?

 

[MetroidPrimeRib]

Hasn't "mental health" been the entire scapegoat for Republican gun lovers after every school shooting?

Yeah but as usual it's just a scapegoat. They do less then nothing to solve any of the problems they scapegoat and in most cases actively try and make it worse.

 

[rokkerkory]

I feel safer already

 

[Ithil]

They know this is a shitfest too, going by how they tried to hide this signing and get it through without anyone noticing.

 

[onadesertedisland]

Yes, but this list that would strip people's rights is generated by the Social Security Administration, and not evaluated through any due process of law. If you care about due process, or understand the kinds of human error that happens with Government lists, then you should be concerned about regulation like this. People can have someone else manage their finances and not be deemed dangerous or violent, and this kind of regulation sets a precedent that people can be discriminated against based on stereotypes of mental illness. What if they wanted to take away someone's right to vote because they are undergoing treatment for severe depression? What if they wanted to strip someone of their parental rights?

Gun rights and parental rights? And if someone ended up on the list erroneously, they would just not be able to buy a gun?

 

[MUnited83]

Explain to me what these two things have to do with each other.

Should we ban them from driving a car too?

What the fuck is this dumb post?

Nobody was banning anything holy fucking shit, just made it so you would have to go through checks and all that to get it. Shit, that should be fucking standard for everyone to being with tbh.

Also, mentally ill people are already "banned" from driving if they are found to have a illness that affects their ability to drive.

People saying there shouldn't be any checks on motherfucking killing machines designed with the whole purpose to kill and nothing else, while using vehicles for the purpose of transportation has better and more strict checks and limitations... Jesus fucking christ

 

[StarVigil]

Crime is "higher than ever before", so we want to make sure that everyone can buy guns.
HMMMMMMMMMMMMM.

 

[Zalusithix]

Yes, but this list that would strip people's rights is generated by the Social Security Administration, and not evaluated through any due process of law. If you care about due process, or understand the kinds of human error that happens with Government lists, then you should be concerned about regulation like this. People can have someone else manage their finances and not be deemed dangerous or violent, and this kind of regulation sets a precedent that people can be discriminated against based on stereotypes of mental illness. What if they wanted to take away someone's right to vote because they are undergoing treatment for severe depression? What if they wanted to strip someone of their parental rights?

Once again, you don't need to be violent to be dangerous with a gun. Negligence can kill with guns. Bad decisions can kill with guns. Anything other than hyper vigilance can result in deaths when guns are involved. These are things people with all their mental facilities can have problems with. Every reduction in such capabilities is a bad thing.

As for the slippery slope argument, voting certainly can't kill somebody (at least not directly). Same thing for parenting short of child abuse. Guns have two purposes. Killing things and hitting inanimate targets. The first directly kills, and the second has a very real chance of killing on every trigger pull, and even when not pulling the trigger. (Hence the whole never walking in front of loaded guns, etc.) Beyond that voting is essential for a functioning democracy. Parenting is essential for the continued existence of mankind. Guns are, at most, something a farmer or hunter would need. They're a special case, and should be treated as such.

 

[Daingurse]

Explain to me what these two things have to do with each other.

Should we ban them from driving a car too?

If you can't even manage your own benefits, then you have no business owning a weapon. As someone who is considered SMI myself, this is an issue very close to me. The last thing these folks need is access to a gun.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

If you can't even manage your own benefits, then you have no business owning a weapon. As someone who is considered SMI myself, this is an issue very close to me. The last thing these folks need is access to a gun.

Yet there are disabled folks and their advocate groups that vehemently disagree with you.

 

[plagiarize]

What the fuck is this dumb post?

Nobody was banning anything holy fucking shit, just made it so you would have to go through checks and all that to get it. Shit, that should be fucking standard for everyone to being with tbh.

Also, mentally ill people are already "banned" from driving if they are found to have a illness that affects their ability to drive.

People saying there shouldn't be any checks on motherfucking killing machines designed with the whole purpose to kill and nothing else, while using vehicles for the purpose of transportation has better and more strict checks and limitations... Jesus fucking christ

It's a response taken out of context.

I am 100% pro expanding gun control. I'm just not okay with setting a precedent to take rights away from disabled people, or to single out specific groups and make it harder for them to get guns, without any scientific or evidence based reasoning behind it.

As I've said, imagine say a bill to make it harder for immigrants to get guns than for your average American to get guns.

Would that be fine?

I am not arguing for no checks, I'm taking the same stance as the ACLU and disabled advocacy groups on this one.

I want expanded background checks for everyone. Not just for one group because of 'common sense' arguments.

 

[Daingurse]

Yet there are disabled folks and their advocate groups that vehemently disagree with you.

It ain't in my best interest to own a gun. Why? So I can shoot myself in the head? I'm not going to agree with these groups on this. People receiving SMI benefits having access to guns is absurd.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

This is fair. The position had problems because the definition of mental illness is nebulous and encompasses a range of conditions, most of which are not homicidal. They need figure something out better than regulations that catch too many people in the nets, less half of our PTSD afflicted, retired soldiers now be told that they can't own a gun as private citizens. Example, but makes the point.

Really, I'm not sure we have the financial resources or the number of healthcare professionals and will to come up with some sort of meaningful testing standard, conduct said tests on millions of gun owners, collect guns and allow for retesting in the future after some sort of therapeutic sessions such that they can be given a passing grade. Who pays for the tests? Who conducts them? Who pays for the therapy for millions of People? Time is money and the bill would be nuts.

 

[Azuran]

”The gun laws have nothing to do with this. This isn't guns. This is about, really, mental illness."

"Trump takes on the tough questions"

 

[Violater]

What are the chances of the SAFE act being repealed in NY?

 

[pixelation]

Yo... as everyday passes it's getting less and less alluring to visit the US... hot dang i wonder what's next...

 

[EBreda]

Republicans love guns.

For many gun collecting is thier number one lobby.

FTFY.

 

[Host Samurai]

This probably has to do with filling private prisons. It all makes sense.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

What are the chances of the SAFE act being repealed in NY?

In NYC? 0.0%. The rest of NY? I can only pray, lol.

 

[CadetMahoney]

Republicans don't like the same game being played on them that they play on women.

Forced ultrasounds, waiting periods, counseling etc. because it's not an "undue burden" since the 1992 ruling, Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

They probably think it will result in the same strategy of underhandedness that they do. Making everyone take mental health tests or something etc. They only like "undue burden" for select things.

 

[Mooreberg]

You have to go through lessons and a test to prove you can drive safely before being legally allowed to drive. Not really a good comparison.

Not sure how it works elsewhere, but I grew up in blue state MA and lessons are only required if you want a DL prior to age 18. I took lessons because I wanted to get a permit at age 16 (can drive with an 18+ year old license holder in the passenger seat) and get my license at sixteen and a half. I almost never did the actual driving hours because my high school was so bad at coordinating it. My cousin just waited until he was 18, took the test (no classroom or driving hours) and passed it.

There are millions upon millions of people on the road every day who never took driver's education. People who grow tired of waiting for classroom or driving hours to be coordinated can end up just waiting until they are 18.

 

[Schnozberry]

Gun rights and parental rights? And if someone ended up on the list erroneously, they would just not be able to buy a gun?

Yes, currently, but it sets a legislative precedent that says we can revoke constitutional rights without due process.

 

[Schnozberry]

Once again, you don't need to be violent to be dangerous with a gun. Negligence can kill with guns. Bad decisions can kill with guns. Anything other than hyper vigilance can result in deaths when guns are involved. These are things people with all their mental facilities can have problems with. Every reduction in such capabilities is a bad thing.

As for the slippery slope argument, voting certainly can't kill somebody (at least not directly). Same thing for parenting short of child abuse. Guns have two purposes. Killing things and hitting inanimate targets. The first directly kills, and the second has a very real chance of killing on every trigger pull, and even when not pulling the trigger. (Hence the whole never walking in front of loaded guns, etc.) Beyond that voting is essential for a functioning democracy. Parenting is essential for the continued existence of mankind. Guns are, at most, something a farmer or hunter would need. They're a special case, and should be treated as such.

My point about parental rights or voting rights is tangential and probably not clear enough. What I meant to say is that it's dangerous to set a legislative precedent for the premise that a government collected list can be used to deprive people of constitutionally guaranteed rights without due process of law. There is already a process in which someone can be declared mentally defective and deprived of their right to purchase firearms, and this legislation was a dubious method of expanding that extra-judicially.

 

[Tye The Czar]

If we start seeing more mass shootings(especially school) involving people with mental illness, please remember to remind everyone of this.

 

[DrSlek]

Mental illness is a huge problem in this country and the only cure is a gun.

God Bless America.

Cryingeagle.jpg

Trepanation is the only definite cure for all of lifes woes. All Trump is doing is removing restrictions on purchasing advanced trepanation tools. Only good can come from this, believe me.

 

[appaws]

My point about parental rights or voting rights is tangential and probably not clear enough. What I meant to say is that it's dangerous to set a legislative precedent for the premise that a government collected list can be used to deprive people of constitutionally guaranteed rights without due process of law. There is already a process in which someone can be declared mentally defective and deprived of their right to purchase firearms, and this legislation was a dubious method of expanding that extra-judicially.

This post wins the thread.

 

[DangerMouse]

Continuing on our way to a trainwreck...

 

[Subpar Scrub]

My parents left a US airport 10 minutes before a gunman opened fire the last time they were in the US, and they're asking me if I want to go with them to LA near the end of the year.

I plan on going... but fucking hell, man. Just keep trying to make me cancel my flight, Republicans.