The NRA has figured out what ...

And this is where the weasel words come to play - who decides?

The NEJM article meta has been quoting did not set out to prove that gun control was a good idea but it was the one the NRA reacted against - so IF this were not an effort to stifle research we should have seen a continuation of the research, for surely it cannot ALL have been about "gun control" but what we actually see is a complete dropping of nearly all research with just a few coming up with papers that the NRA has then done everything it could to discredit

But convincing people that the NRA has not suppressed research is going to be very difficult now because the Genie is out of the bottle and when one analyses the information on the web we have well, try it for yourself and see how many out there are saying that the NRA are the angels of America and just doing their job.........

 

.

No, not really, there are usually signs in hindsight but not more than can be seen in most anybody and in many cases there are no signs at all. Just as one frex with no research at all, what about the milkman who shot the Amish girls

And in any case, what should be done about it?, instantly institutionalise everyone who acts even a little funny

False dichotomy. You could make guns a little harder to get for everyone, and make really dangerous guns a lot harder to get for anyone. Meanwhile you could set up a sort of sliding scale where the more dangeous a gun is the more stringent the controls are concerning mental illness and simultaneously study the reasons why these kinds of things seem to be happening more.

That's probably correct but HOW? Especially when you want to hogtie the only logical method we have developed so far. Despite great advances in the last decades there simply ARE no somatic tests for most mental illnesses and every indication that most of them simply don't have any. Yes, they MIGHT someday be used for the wrong reasons and, god forbid, some completely innocent and harmless person might be temporarily denied the apparent wonder and ecstasy granted by the right to own a gun. That's much more important than denying thousands of old people and those who've moved frequently (like the poor often have to) the inconsequential right to cast their ballot in a crucial election by illegally "purging" the voting rolls.

And privacy concerns are handled every day. The idea is to CHECK mental health records that are already existing and then throw the check away if it reveals nothing untoward. I find it really strange that you're less concerned about who owns a lethal weapon than who drives a taxicab.

Again, a good idea, but HOW?

This seems a typical hard right "solution". Set up a straw man and attack the "liberal agenda" to "take all our guns" which nobody is really proposing and then censor the news so we won't even be allowed to know about the problem. Yay freedom

Perhaps you'll feel better when these kind of things are so commonplace the news doesn't even cover them anymore

 

A strawman?! lol its on the news 24/7 Are you telling me liberals wouldnt remove the 2nd amendment if they could without any repercussion? Secondly on the news today they are reporting a new liberal idea that if you purchase ammunition you need to be forced to take an "anger management class" so sure those of you on the left have no intentions to take away guns. LOL that would be laughable if it wasnt such a pathetic an utterly falsehood that anyone reading this including liberals knows to be true. Forget about guns you liberals even want to ban "headphones" lol you need a link or do you think that is false as well?
So how about if gun owners need to take anger management classes then we make democrats pass a math test before they can vote? Deal?

 

The judicial system. That's sorta' what it's there for....

 

If you acknowledge that I was correct, then why accuse me of hogtying the "only logical method"? I'm questioning an illogical method.

Right there are no empirical tests, making this about as scientific as astrology when it comes to making predictions.

They could be permanently denied their constitutionally protected right based on pseudoscience and opinion. Maybe you're okay with that, but I'm not.

Voting is largely symbolic anyway, but that is another issue. I never advocated purging the rolls, so that is a straw man. I disagree with both policies.

If you attached some sort of social stigma to mental health, reporting will drop drastically. Ask a mental health professional if you don't believe me; social stigma is probably the number one stumbling block in their profession.
Realistically all of the proposed gun control measures are a reactionary response to a few high profile shootings. The measure you are proposing would not have done anything to prevent the incidents it is a response to though. The Sandy Hook guy failed a background check and stole the guns. The Aurora guy was perfectly healthy on paper, and would have still been able to purchase weapons. Mental health checks would not have prevented these incidents, nor will it prevent future incidents. It is just one more layer of government intrusiveness that would create more problems than it solves.

 

Calling it a 'fact' doesn't make it so......got any proof?

 

The commies can try to brainwash the retarded. The commies should do what is required. Formally state that they intend to overthrow the USA and its constitution using academic statistics to support gun control. The commies will then be considered terrorists. Do you see the catch-22?

 

You assume, incorrectly, that all government funded studies are not tied some way to advocacy. There are a lot of ways to direct funding to get the outcome you wish.

 

I'm confused. Are you or are you not advocating the overthrow of the USA government through the abolition of the second amendment. Yes or no are the only acceptable answers. Any other word is "I am a pansy and I am trying to cause a scene.".

 

Prove it.

 

OK, good. So we are all in agreement that YOU need to deal with the second amendment and the NRA and that WE need to deal with the ridiculously high crime rates in black and hispanic communities? Can we stop diverting attention away from those areas with secondary arguments once and for all to try to focus on the problem?

 

Perhaps I'll agree with you. Show me the enforcement that you think to be unjust.

 

You were right about defunding....totally appropriate.

And saying the NRA 'defunded research' is stretching things...

 

Funny how you totally ignore the fact in most cases there is signs and/or they are on heavy doses of medications, have criminal back grounds, or obvious mental defects. If the elderly are medicated on certain drugs they have their drivers licenses suspended, because they are a threat to society. The same should be with anyone clearly showing signs of mental deficiencies/illnesses if they are not institutionalized, then the local law enforcement needs to be aware, and these people should not have access to weapons or be able to purchase weapons. and their identification cards should clearly show this as a condition of them being unsupervised 24/7.

 

Studies will never call for political action, the result of the desired study will be used for political action. You really are not that naive are you?