There might be an answer for this situation, but this proposed bill isn't it.
If an individual goes crazy just before commiting a crime, what good was the database anyways? If he is commited to a mental institution, he shouldn't be getting out until he is stable in the brain housing group - again, what good is the database if the guy is under custody?
Theres no need for a database compiling reasons why one should not purchase a firearm, a simple check for arrest warrants is enoughf and costs less.
voted no. diagnosing someone "mentally ill" has too many shades of gray and would get out of control at some point when more and more restrictions get applied by a select few who judged them. ...as well as harder and harder to track.
Still pretty close on the votes. So...assuming an acceptable definition of "mentally ill" could not be found, should that variable be completely removed from the current screening process altogether?
I voted NO. Absolutely not. Just another way to introduce a *new great plan* that will be turned into another, more radical plan later on to the Governments advantage. On top of that the ELECTED judges (As in a previous post) would be just that, judges- not Doctors. Even further, mental illness is a subjective matter. Its a very bad idea. No way.. NO FREAKING WAY.
Another thing to keep in mind is that a person suffering like Cao did does not think he/she is crazy. What is "normal" to them is how they think. They have no reference point to compare normal to abnormal because what they think and feels is all they know. It is normal to them... and as far as they are concerned WE are all the crazy ones because we seem to not know that. They think we should be thinking like them!
What is normal and what is abnormal is all subjective depending on where you are standing.
The situation becomes so complicated that, just like insurance, this checking will be reduced to a list of codes. If your situation is branded with one of the codes on the list you lose your gun rights.
Know anyone who's had to fight insurance because of the wrong code being used by someone at the hospital?
Absolutely not, period. It would be abused :nono:
Our biggest problem in violent crime is repeat offenders, people who should still be in jail. Let's concentrate on that problem first.
Whenever I hear the term "federal data base" I get the Big Brother willies. I have absolutely no confidence in any type of federal program to keep me safer. And I don't need some faceless federal bureaucrat deciding who needs to be watched or removed "for our own good".
They're trying to convince us they can stop lightning from striking again. They can't. Maybe they can stop one incident from happening down the line but, as far as I'm concerned, I've about run out of patience with this incremental "it's for the children" erosion of our liberties.
I also feel that the potential for abuse of such a database is huge, and privacy concerns are very real. The existence of this type of far-reaching database might also discourage some individuals from seeking treatment. While I wish there were a magic bullet to eliminate threats, I'm not altogether comfortable with this option.
well, lets look at it this way. if everyone was sane and well balanced, would we need to carry in the first place? it's human nature for one to live with piece of mind and to do what it takes to assure that. throwing another maze in the works is just that. a labyrinth of unmanageable s*&t to only make things worse. it is pretty close in the poll, but i only see the "no" votes posting the comments. i'd like to see the other side of these opinions. i mean this with no hostility intended, just curiosity and want to learn why. ...hey, that's why i came here in the first place.