House Rolls Back Rule on Gun Restrictions for Severely Mentally Ill

originally posted by: Slanter
"The rule, when implemented, would affect about 75,000 recipients of disability insurance and supplemental insurance income who require a representative to manage their benefits because of a disabling mental disorder, ranging from anxiety to schizophrenia. It applies to those between age 18 and full retirement age."

So it's saying that people that can't even manage their social security benefits on their own shouldn't have access to a deadly weapon.

“These are not just people having a bad day,” said Rep. Mike Thompson, D-Calif. “These are not people simply suffering from depression or anxiety. These are people with a severe mental illness who can’t hold any kind of job or make any decisions about their affairs. So the law says very clearly they shouldn’t have a firearm.”

You are quoting without a link. Though, the 'can't manage their own benefits' should be enough.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: reldra

The severely mentally ill have committed mass shooting crimes, over and over in the last few years.

Most of those were never known mental cases.

They slipped through undetected.

No. They were medicated. Some heavily and received/stole firearms from family members.

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: reldra

Gun free zones are disappearing. Some should always be gun free. Like BARS. Schools can have an armed officer.

Tell that to my friend Eddy that was murdered at Pulse on June 12th 2016.

The gay clubs I used to work at in Tampa always had armed security personnel on site.

In some southern states, they have passed open carry or CC in bars. Giving a whole bunch of people the ability to carry a firearm in dark or dim conditions with strobe lights would not have helped Eddy, I'm sorry.

I am not against licensed security persnonel carrying a weapon.

a reply to: stosh64

I can get my AR platform out of impound now

LOL So you are "severely mentally ill"? Maybe we need a new sub forum for you sufferer's - we can pop in our heads fro mtime to time to get clarity?

originally posted by: stosh64
a reply to: reldra

House Rolls Back Rule on Gun Restrictions for Severely Mentally Ill

Christmas all over again

I can get my AR platform out of impound now

Thanks Trump!!!

Funny, Stosh.

a reply to: WeRpeons

He can't keep a job and has never been mentally evaluated because he refuses to be tested. He's physically attacked his siblings and parents several times in the past

Then he is a criminal not mentally ill. In what capacity are you able to legally define him as "mentally ill"

originally posted by: butcherguy
I am patiently waiting for the passage of the Hearing Protection Act.
Then I don't have to wreck my hearing and bother the neighbors when I shoot.

That would be the pending "Affordable Hearing and Protection Act".

originally posted by: WeRpeons
a reply to: reldra

I have a relative who is mentally ill and he has 3 college degrees! Get this, one of his degrees is in psychology! Go figure. He can't keep a job and has never been mentally evaluated because he refuses to be tested. He's physically attacked his siblings and parents several times in the past. If you met this guy, you would think he was very smart and a pretty nice guy.

The problem with some mentally ill people is they hide it very well. According to his siblings, the term "you don't know someone until you've lived with them, fits this guy to the tee." All it takes is for someone to press the right buttons and all common sense goes down the drain. I surely wouldn't trust this relative with a gun. Allowing mentally ill people to purchase a gun is as insane as allowing a violent criminal to obtain a gun.

absolutely. The law won't help with him unless he is evaluated, but will with others who have been. Removing the law is NRA insanity.

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
I can buy a gun now?

Doesn't interest me. I'm supposed to register my hands, but I don't want to lose those.

Yes, we all know you are a lethal weapon just being yourself.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: reldra

The severely mentally ill have committed mass shooting crimes, over and over in the last few years.

Most of those were never known mental cases.

They slipped through undetected.

No. They were medicated. Some heavily and received/stole firearms from family members.

Lots of good the existing laws did at the time eh.

And actually you might study one of the other Resolutions passed today. You could make better arguments with that one.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: reldra

The severely mentally ill have committed mass shooting crimes, over and over in the last few years.

Most of those were never known mental cases.

They slipped through undetected.

No. They were medicated. Some heavily and received/stole firearms from family members.

Lots of good the existing laws did at the time eh.

And actually you might study one of the other Resolutions passed today. You could make better arguments with that one.

Xuen, I am probably like 2 days behind. Between rollbacks and a president who will sign more executive orders in one month, with tiny magic hands, than any President over 4 years, gotta gimme a minute.

a reply to: reldra

I agree for the most part.

Where I disagree is with the "who knows how many more crimes" and the "everyone packing isn't a real world solution" arguments.

To my knowledge, there isn't substantial evidence backing either of those assumptions. Please let me know of you have some data on either, I'd be happy to read it. Otherwise, I agree that it may seem like common sense, but that can be faulty and it hasn't seemed to be working very well (or maybe this is just the best we can do?).

originally posted by: swedy13
a reply to: reldra

I agree for the most part.

Where I disagree is with the "who knows how many more crimes" and the "everyone packing isn't a real world solution" arguments.

To my knowledge, there isn't substantial evidence backing either of those assumptions. Please let me know of you have some data on either, I'd be happy to read it. Otherwise, I agree that it may seem like common sense, but that can be faulty and it hasn't seemed to be working very well (or maybe this is just the best we can do?).

Some crimes were avoided because those who tried to register and failed were turned down in many cases.

As for guns in bars, loud, dark night clubs, cramped places where the legal gun holders are mainly amateurs....that is obvious.

originally posted by: swedy13
a reply to: reldra

I agree for the most part.

Where I disagree is with the "who knows how many more crimes" and the "everyone packing isn't a real world solution" arguments.

To my knowledge, there isn't substantial evidence backing either of those assumptions. Please let me know of you have some data on either, I'd be happy to read it. Otherwise, I agree that it may seem like common sense, but that can be faulty and it hasn't seemed to be working very well (or maybe this is just the best we can do?).

You seem open minded enough for a conversation?

Let me throw this at you. Looking at our political climate in its current state, Progressives versus everyone else who doesn't agree with them, I want to tell you something I brought up to a psychologist that I occasionally talk too during times my friends just won't do.

The question was this, "With how divided our nation is at the moment due to a corrupt political system that has been in place for years, is it wrong for me to ask a doctor their political beliefs?". That question was based upon my fear of my political beliefs being different than the doctor!

Let me tell you, she was floored! But yea, and people wonder why so many VETS would rather commit suicide versus seeking help!

This environment was created by those wanting to destroy this countries sovereignty and this is where we are!

a reply to: reldra

That's fair and I think I agree with both of those statements.

As a counterpoint, how many deaths were prevented because a citizen was armed and dealt with an attacker?

I think it's 100% proven that screening works. I just don't know how well it works in comparison to armed citizens. That's a data point that doesn't seem to have been explored very well, at least to my knowledge.

a reply to: reldra

PS - Also, I should mention that I'm a wimp and don't have a carry permit (or own guns). I'm only looking at this from an informational perspective, because God knows I'd be among the dead if I were in a situation like what were talking about. No moral high ground here, just curiosity and a bit of devils advocacy

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

We'll according to his siblings, he talks to himself when he's alone. His attacks on his siblings, haven't been to the point where they had to call the police. They were either hit, scratched, slapped, stuff like that. They love their brother, so they don't want to see him arrested for domestic abuse. He's living on his own now and is under daily care, so his siblings no longer have much contact.

The problem is, there are many people who are mentally ill that have not been evaluated. These are the people who can be seen as mentally fit to own a gun without having any documents that can raise a red flag when they're registering to buy a gun.

Doctor's can evaluate and prevent the elderly from driving when they reach an age when they can no longer think clearly or may have poor motor skills. They lose their license to drive. The same kind of evaluation should be applied to people when they want to purchase a gun. This is a very small price to pay if it's going to save lives!

My wife's cousin in Canada ended up getting dementia and became physically violent. He punched his own daughter in the face and they had to put him in a nursing home because they literally became afraid of him. Can you imagine if someone like him owned a gun?

a reply to: seeker1963

I don't think I have enough information to provide good conversation on that point. What I do know is that almost all the guys I know on the military are very happy with the current state of affairs.

I'll provide a personal example.

I follow Trump on Facebook, seems like a great way to get news. A couple weeks ago that account posted something to the effect of "I love you." That shocked me. I've been so used to being a bad guy that hearing the president (our his account) actually saying they love me was incredibly heart warming.

I feel like a lot of people don't feel loved right now, and I'm sorry about that. Nevertheless, I'm very happy to hear a president('s account) say that.

originally posted by: swedy13
a reply to: seeker1963

I don't think I have enough information to provide good conversation on that point. What I do know is that almost all the guys I know on the military are very happy with the current state of affairs.

I'll provide a personal example.

I follow Trump on Facebook, seems like a great way to get news. A couple weeks ago that account posted something to the effect of "I love you." That shocked me. I've been so used to being a bad guy that hearing the president (our his account) actually saying they love me was incredibly heart warming.

I feel like a lot of people don't feel loved right now, and I'm sorry about that. Nevertheless, I'm very happy to hear a president('s account) say that.

I appreciate the response!

I was speaking to you from experience from dealing with the mental health system, and I guess I left out how my question in the previous post could have a doctor deem you mentally unfit to own a weapon because you were not in his political church?

I think you will understand it now?