Let gun victims speak

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Perhaps they just need to add the question to the Federal form, "Do you hear voices coming from the walls?"

Have you ever purchased one?

Question 11.F on the 4473

Nope, that ain't it. Aaron Alexis would have answered that questions with NO and would have been truthful in doing so. So, even if your microwave or your walls talk to you, you are still eligible to legally purchase a firearm in the United States of America. What could possibly go wrong?

Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes a determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that you are a danger to yourself or to others or are incompetent to manage your own affairs) OR have you ever been committed to a mental institution? (See Instructions for Question 11.f.)

Instructions for Question 11.f.

EXCEPTION to 11. f. NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007

:

A person who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental

institution is not prohibited if: (1) the person was adjudicated or committed by a

department or agency of the Federal Government, such as the United States

Department of Veteran’s Affairs (“VA”) (as opposed to a State court, State board,

or other lawful State authority); and (2) either: (a) the person’s adjudication or

commitment for mental incompetency was set-aside or expunged by the

adjudicating/committing agency; (b) the person has been fully released or

discharged from all mandatory treatment, supervision, or monitoring by the

agency; or © the person was found by the agency to no longer suffer from the

mental health condition that served as the basis of the initial adjudication.

Persons who fit this exception should answer “no” to Item 11.f.

This exception does not apply to any person who was adjudicated to be not guilty by

reason of insanity, or based on lack of mental responsibility, or found incompe-

tent to stand trial, in any criminal case or under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

[Harsh_77 718]

...Right...

So maybe we should concoct fair laws that would have prevented the mentally disturbed man with a checkered past from getting a weapon. What we have is not enough.

Nancy Lanza was a prepper and bought an arsenal of guns and played with them with her mentally ill son. Maybe we should concoct laws that would require her to lock her guns up, or limit the amount of assault weapons she could own, for example.

What about the guy in Colorado in the movie theatre? He obtained his gun legally but he also ordered a bazillion bullets or something online. Maybe we could develop laws that would signal an alert message when someone does that, to get checked out. That person was also deranged and his therapist sent reports to authorities that were not acted on. Maybe we could streamline a system where reports like that are taken seriously.

I believe there is are answers to this problem that would allow hobbyists and hunters to own and use guns that would also help prevent mass shootings. If we save just one life with new legislation, then it is worth it.

Mental health issues need to be addressed as well, and we should be working toward a solution that is fair to patients and protects the rest of the population.

Why don't you want to help save a life?

Most pro gun folks have always supported the idea of mentally ill not being able to purchase one and there is a question about it on the background check form.

Unfortunately most dems including president focused their energy on banning the weapons based on how they look, limit the size of magazine and creating unnecessary hardship for the law abiding citizen.

It would be easier to maintain database of people with mental problem compared to maintaining a database of the gun owners.

There is no one wanting more people killed, pro gun folks were against the approach taken by the present admin.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Most pro gun folks have always supported the idea of mentally ill not being able to purchase one and there is a question about it on the background check form.

Problem solved, there's a question about it on the background check form.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Most pro gun folks have always supported the idea of mentally ill not being able to purchase one and there is a question about it on the background check form.

Nonsense. The question is specific to whether one has been adjudicated as mentally ill or involuntarily committed to a nuthouse. Besides, none of these federal forms matter as long as any loon can buy a firearm in a private transaction where none of these forms even come to bear. The gun aficionados have been fighting to keep that gun acquisition avenue wide open for all criminals and loons to use.

Problem solved, there's a question about it on the background check form.

And that's not even true. The question is very targeted towards a tiny minority of mentally incapacitated folk.

[Sousuke 1,214]

...Right...

So maybe we should concoct fair laws that would have prevented the mentally disturbed man with a checkered past from getting a weapon. What we have is not enough.

Nancy Lanza was a prepper and bought an arsenal of guns and played with them with her mentally ill son. Maybe we should concoct laws that would require her to lock her guns up, or limit the amount of assault weapons she could own, for example.

What about the guy in Colorado in the movie theatre? He obtained his gun legally but he also ordered a bazillion bullets or something online. Maybe we could develop laws that would signal an alert message when someone does that, to get checked out. That person was also deranged and his therapist sent reports to authorities that were not acted on. Maybe we could streamline a system where reports like that are taken seriously.

I believe there is are answers to this problem that would allow hobbyists and hunters to own and use guns that would also help prevent mass shootings. If we save just one life with new legislation, then it is worth it.

Mental health issues need to be addressed as well, and we should be working toward a solution that is fair to patients and protects the rest of the population.

Why don't you want to help save a life?

This post has a few red flags. Society does not operate by leglislating to save 1 life while curtailing the rights of an entire population.

Its easy for you to sit there and say "we'll let's limit the number of firearms or put up xyz restriction in the interest of saving a life" because it does not really effect you. But guess what? I can think of thousands of laws that can save a life. They would only be a mild inconvienance to you and others (I say). Yet I'm sure you and others would be up in arms over such laws because they would curtail what you can and cannot do.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

And that's not even true. The question is very targeted towards a tiny minority of mentally incapacitated folk.

I can't believe I've been given misleading information.

But guess what? I can think of thousands of laws that can save a life. They would only be a mild inconvienance to you and others (I say). Yet I'm sure you and others would be up in arms over such laws because they would curtail what you can and cannot do.

Now I'm curious. Let's hear 'em.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I can't believe I've been given misleading information.

Hard to believe, I understand.

[Harsh_77 718]

Nope, that ain't it. Aaron Alexis would have answered that questions with NO and would have been truthful in doing so. So, even if your microwave or your walls talk to you, you are still eligible to legally purchase a firearm in the United States of America. What could possibly go wrong?

Aaron Alexis had fallen thru cracks not once but multiple times.

On top of all these he was still approved for security clearance.

None of the background check recommended by anti gun folks would have prevented it.

Problem solved, there's a question about it on the background check form.

As per you introduce more laws and problem is sloved we have heard it plenty of times.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Aaron Alexis had fallen thru cracks not once but multiple times.

On top of all these he was still approved for security clearance.

None of the background check recommended by anti gun folks would have prevented it.

That was not what you claimed. You claimed that a prospective buyer has to disclose whether his walls are talking to him. That is just not true.

[Sousuke 1,214]

I can't believe I've been given misleading information.

Now I'm curious. Let's hear 'em.

Just a few for now ok?

1. Deaths and injuries occur alot at night. We could save lives by placing a curfew post 11pm. You would need a permit if you work nights etc. this law doesn't really affect me.

2. Food poisoning occurs from undercooked meat. Therefore to be safe all red meats must be medium or more. Burgers must be well done. Doesn't really affect me.

3. Drink driving is still a problem. Outfit all new cars with breathalyzers.

4. Distracted driving is a problem. Outlaw all interactive devices inside the cabin of a car.

5. Natural gas in the home is a hazard. New homes should not be built with gas lines.

[Harsh_77 718]

Nonsense. The question is specific to whether one has been adjudicated as mentally ill or involuntarily committed to a nuthouse. Besides, none of these federal forms matter as long as any loon can buy a firearm in a private transaction where none of these forms even come to bear. The gun aficionados have been fighting to keep that gun acquisition avenue wide open for all criminals and loons to use.

And that's not even true. The question is very targeted towards a tiny minority of mentally incapacitated folk.

There you go another dem... now worried about the tiny minority.

That tiny minority is the only one who goes on shooting rampage.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

There you go another dem... now worried about the tiny minority.

That tiny minority is the only one who goes on shooting rampage.

Are you playing dim or is this real?

[Harsh_77 718]

That was not what you claimed. You claimed that a prospective buyer has to disclose whether his walls are talking to him. That is just not true.

Navy was the one who did not wanted to declare this guy crazy, they were worried he would lose his clearance.

[Sousuke 1,214]

Ok one more. Injuries and deaths occur at petrol stations. Petrol stations must go back to full service with trained operators.

[Harsh_77 718]

Are you playing dim or is this real?

We know how bright u are don't worry.

we also know how many times you have opened your mouth on here and you have failed.