NRA and the Like, Get Out Your Checkbooks

Anyone who would not seek treatment to avoid gun ownership restrictions is likely planning to kill regardless so there is...I would think anyone seeking help has no intention of killing anyone at that time....mental health restrictions help there is no downside...

 

The humiliation of having your guns taken away would discourage people from seeking psychiatric help.

 

You're making **** up...in this last instance if the parents knew jr was buying guns there would be fewer people dead...

 

If the police had done their job, they would have found his intent to commit murder. That is a crime in this country.

 

Yep, that sounds like the loony left. (Calf Statesman)- "6 people were gunned down by a mental crackpot with guns".

But, ... ... ... OOPS, 3 of the 6 were killed with knives!!! (Calf statesman) ""We had better enact stronger KNIFE control laws hadn't well""!!!

Hey, while he was about it he tried to kill several people by hitting them with his BMW. (Calf Statesman)- ""And we need to take a HARD look at what BMW's we issue licenses too".

Yep, the LOONY left on the march!!!

 

police and medical community, canada has lots of gun owners despite potenial mental health restrictions...

 

And you think the Constitution of this nation should NOT be followed??? You think that the rule of law is outmoded??

 

Hey, Snak, rave on. But to answer your silly comment, "Not in my life time".

 

The laws are such that UNTIL they commit a crime they can NOT be touched!!!

 

who decides if your qual7fied to drive a car? The state...and if you're medically unfit to drive you can be disqualified from driving...why should gun ownership be any different....

 

And the ACLU will take that the State to court and have these laws thrown out because they violate the sick persons Constitutional Rights. Wait and see if they don't.

 

A lot of people don't appreciate how rare mass shooters are. California could easily go several years without another incident comparable to this happening, yet these people want to invest judges with an injunction to take away people's guns. I'm not making anything up, this would be abused far more regularly than it would help and it might never help.

 

Interesting. And just how do they know who all the mentally ill are?? A little thing called Doctor, client privilege. Plus, if they buy a weapon from a person rather than a store, oops, how are you going to know??

 

shootings aren't rare, there are plenty of mentally ill people who may only kill one other person....a multiple killing only highlights the danger...

 

And then you would have people avoiding treatment that need it for that reason alone.

 

Hey, Wyl, how many of the shooters have obtained their weapons legally??? The shooters at Columbine and Sandy Hook didn't. So tell me, how would this really help anything??? I believe your the one without the facts and know little to nothing of what your talking about.

 

And with the laws the way they are today, EXACTLY how would you go about doing that "job"???

 

Back ground checks, checking up on healthy people does not stop them from buying guns, if you're not mentally ill you have nothing to fear....and mental health concerns would be those that have a tendency to violence, not claustrophobia or arachnophobia...

 

Say WHAT??? The last time I went in to get my drivers license all I had to do was pass a written test, a driving test, and the license was issued. There was NEVER a mental test given. How about yourself, did they give you a mental test??? If so, how did you score???

 

And the term, "Doctor client privilege", never occurred to you, right???? Boy, do you ever want to get your pants sued off if you ever did what your implying. Just so you you will forget about arguing the point;

Physician–patient privilege is a legal concept, related to medical confidentiality, that protects communications between a patient and his or her doctor from being used against the patient in court. It is a part of the rules of evidence in many common law jurisdictions. Almost every jurisdiction that recognizes physician-patient privilege not to testify in court, either by statute or though case law, limits the privilege to knowledge acquired during the course of providing medical services. In some jurisdictions, conversations between a patient and physician may be privileged in both criminal and civil courts.

The privilege may cover the situation where a patient confesses to a psychiatrist that he or she committed a particular crime. It may also cover normal inquiries regarding matters such as injuries that may result in civil action. For example, any defendant that the patient may be suing at the time cannot ask the doctor if the patient ever expressed the belief that his or her condition had improved. However, the rule generally does not apply to confidences shared with physicians when they are not serving in the role of medical providers.

The rationale behind the rule is that a level of trust must exist between a physician and the patient so that the physician can properly treat the patient. If the patient were fearful of telling the truth to the physician because he or she believed the physician would report such behavior to the authorities, the treatment process could be rendered far more difficult, or the physician could make an incorrect diagnosis.

For example, a below–age of consent patient came to a doctor with a sexually transmitted disease. The doctor is usually required to obtain a list of the patient's sexual contacts to inform them that they need treatment. This is an important health concern. However, the patient may be reluctant to divulge the names of his/her older sexual partners, for fear that they will be charged with statutory rape. In some jurisdictions, the doctor cannot be forced to reveal the information revealed by his patient to anyone except to particular organizations, as specified by law, and they too are required to keep that information confidential. If, in the case, the police become aware of such information, they are not allowed to use it in court as proof of the sexual conduct, except as provided by express intent of the Legislative Body and formalized into law;


Now, go ahead, let's see where you take it from here.

 

I disagree I own firearms have no desire to kill anybody. Would not kill anyone unless to protect my family or other innocents. I would not seek treatment if I believed my family heirlooms would be confiscated. I am likely not the best example since I have a low opinion of most conventional medicine(with the exception of emergency surgery or related care) my opinion of the mental health field is extremely low. The Medication they give is a part of the problem IMO. Almost every mass killer seems to have had been on them.

I believe you will find more opponents from places besides the NRA. The only major law passed on the federal level recently was supported by the NRA.(after virginia tech) I am not a member of the NRA but they have yet to even mention the California law from what I seen. Likely because they always remain quite after a shooting because those seeking controls are usually their best salesmen. They just sit back and watch the money come in.

The California law is their choice but I doubt it passes there. It will not go farther than that if it does not in a election year. More firearm owners turn out than those opposed to it, the vast majority of voters it is not a
main issue. When talking mental health the ACLU will likely lead the opposition IMO.

 

lax laws, so you're the one who doesn't know what they're talking about...do you live an a mental void? Does every solution need to be spoon fed to you? ...my bro-in-law is the only person in his family licensed to carry a gun, he's passed all back ground checks...his teenaged son has no access to the weapons, kept in a locked room in a locked steel gun cabinet bolted to the floor, even a criminal would need considerable time to access them...thats how we limit unauthorized use of weapons...

 

For (*)(*)(*)(*)s sake. He was reported by his doctor and mother. They came to the home and failed to investigate fully. His manifesto and weapons were in his room.

 

Once more, you will NOT find most mentally disturbed people with background checks because of Physician–patient privilege.

 

If you are going to quote Wiki.......read the next line

In the US federal and common law, doctor patient privilege is not recognized.