Should mentally disturbed people be able to buy guns?

Pray tell how does the NRA profit from the sale of firearms? Where is the financial connection that proves they receive anything for each firearm bought and sold?

I was answering this post you made.

The NRA also made $20.9 million — about 10 percent of its revenue — from selling advertising to industry companies marketing products in its many publications in 2010, according to the IRS Form 990.

Additionally, some companies donate portions of sales directly to the NRA. Crimson Trace, which makes laser sights, donates 10 percent of each sale to the NRA. Taurus buys an NRA membership for everyone who buys one of their guns. Sturm Rugar gives $1 to the NRA for each gun sold, which amounts to millions. The NRA's revenues are intrinsically linked to the success of the gun business.

The NRA Foundation also collects hundreds of thousands of dollars from the industry, which it then gives to local-level organizations for training and equipment purchases.

I can’t do anything to help you’re memory.

 

The issue is Due Process.

If the State does not believe that the mentally ill should own fire-arms, then the burden of proof rests with the State to demonstrate that the individual in question is incompetent.

Perhaps the best thing is licensing. To own a fire-arm, one should have to apply for a license first, which would screen out criminals and the mentally incompetent.

It still is a mental disorder. The fact that it isn't listed in DSM-IV doesn't alter reality.

How about issuing gun licenses?

 

Gun licenses make total sense

 

Then you selected the wrong post for the purpose of quoting and addressing.

Where does the other ninety percent of its revenue come from?

Which amounts to how much? How many millions of dollars does the NRA gain from the firearms industry in the form of donations? Percentages does not tell anything.

There are approximately four and one half million individuals who are members of the NRA. Annual yearly plans are forty dollars. Assuming all four and one half million individuals are operating on a year to year basis, that is one hundred and eighty million dollars generated annually, simply from membership fees.

Pray tell which local-level organizations? What training is being provided, and what equipment is being purchased?

From the sound of it, the NRA is contributing to programs that teach firearms safety, which we are told help reduce the likelihood of firearm-related accidents. It sounds as if you are arguing against programs that are intended to reduce accidents, simply because they are supported by the NRA.

Beyond that, a significant amount of funding is provided to police officers who are members of the NRA. http://law.nra.org/law-enforcement-benefits.aspx

Thirty five thousand dollars worth of insurance to the widow or survivor of a police officer who is killed in the line of duty, if they are an NRA member. College scholarships to their children. Liability insurance for certified instructors and retired police officers.

 

Start small with your theories.

Test human nature here. Give everyone the same weapon and see if they act rationally.

 

Police officers in the state of New York, tasked with issuing concealed carry permits to qualified individuals, were found to have been taking bribes from individuals with criminal convictions in exchange for falsifying the paperwork and issuing the license regardless. They were also denying applicants who could not demonstrate sufficient just cause to be allowed to legally carry a firearm in public, because their profession did not involve transporting significant amounts of money.

Ultimately the matter of issuing licenses does nothing more than create a false sense of security, which does not serve the public interest.

 

Which would ultimately prove nothing. Online behavior in an environment devoid of legal repercussions does not present an accurate picture of real life behavior where there are indeed legal repercussions. Simply because one present could shut down the entire forum by banning everyone, does not mean that someone who has access to a firearm will go on a murder spree simply because they can.

The violence policy center has been maintaining a list of what they classify as concealed carry killers; individuals who possess concealed carry permits, who have later gone on to commit murder. While the accuracy of their list is questionable at best, their presented numbers do not present a pressing problem. Broken down into basic statistics, it was determined that there are less than two murders perpetrated by concealed carry permit holders, for each state analyzed, for each year the data was collected.

http://concealedcarrykillers.org/

This is in a nation where millions of individuals are legally carrying a concealed firearm in public. Factually speaking there are simply no grounds for concern.

 

As someone who has been through some relatively minor mental health issues, this would make me hesitant to seek out help.

 

So you would be fine with someone clearly in the middle of a paranoid break buying an AK 47?? Really??

 

If you blindly trust human nature. Then give guns to "Mentally disturbed people"

 

That is your choice. By the way a doctor can take away your complete freedom currently

 

We can't even keep mentally disturbed people out of the White House.

 

The definition of what amounts to being mentally disturbed has been stretched in recent years, to the point it holds little meaning anymore. When the term mentally disturbed is used to describe individuals who support one political party affiliation over another, the term no longer holds relevance in any discussion.

 

Only to those who cannot correctly define the term.

Which is not an assault rifle.

Here you go:
http://www.ohioordnanceworks.com/rifles/semi-auto/oow-line/1918a3/1918a3-slr-walnut-stock

The AR15 is not select fire.

Incorrect. AR15 is a specific trademark held by Colt for a semi-automatic rifle.

And about a thousand other reasons.




Yes and mass quantities of people have been killed by other methods including bombs and poisons. Your point? Is it "ban all or ban none"?[/QUOTE]

 

That you can think of no other reason in no way means there is none.

Unsupportable nonsense.

 

I guess Democrats want guns too.

 

You make it sound like the 2nd was recently rediscovered. This is, of course, not true.

Out the other side of your mouth, you'll tell us how the 4th amendment applies to cell phones and the 1st amendment applies to cable news networks.

For every gun used to commit a murder yesterday, 16,000,000 were not.
I'm more than prepared to live with an issue when the rate of occurrence approaches statistical zero.

- - - Updated - - -

The fact you are forced to put up such a strawman only illustrates the weakness of your position, and how aware of it you are.