of all handguns and semi-auto long guns. Get caught without a registered gun and go to jail.

We have a serious problem in our country caused by domestic terrorists, not Muslims, not brown or black people, white Christian Right wingers.

IIRC, Obama made Sebelius go out and apologize for it ever being undertaken. Can't ne upsetting the piggies now, can we?

Nothing will change. NOTHING.

Submission of mental health records to the background check system.

Severe penalties for straw purchases and firearms trafficking.

Severe penalties for felons in possession of firearms.

In the US only about 20% of people with mental disorders seek professional help.

BTW, review of 10 years of NICS effectiveness show that of all the categories in NICS, persons prohibited from purchasing for reasons of mental health had one of the lowest rates of being caught attempting banned purchases.

but the horses mouth says otherwise...

I didn't comment on the -number- of names entered into NICS for mental health reasons.

I commented on the number of purchases prevented by NICS, iow, the number of persons prohibited from purchases that were detected by NICS and blocked from purchases.

That study showed persons with criminal histories and fugitives had the highest rate of detection of making prohibited purchases.


But, back to my question, what mental health records do you want reported? Only those already required or something else?

On Edit: it was a ten year follow up to this study

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/98-99-operations-report/ops_report_98_99.pdf

If you look at the figure on documents page 12 (pdf page 18 of 34) you can see the pattern I'm talking about. The same basic pattern was found in the ten year follow up, but I can't find the link to that. I had posted it after the Sandy Hook shooting. Can't find that link.

Not including those records at all?

If The NIC's system (as flawed as it is), prevented 10-100-1,000 disqualified people from obtaining firearms,
then at least it's good for something.

Last edited Thu Dec 3, 2015, 09:51 AM - Edit history (1)

you want. Do you want fuller reporting of what is already required federally, or do you want to make the federal reporting include more categories if illness so that conditions leading to prohibition of purchase look more like Texas law, or do you hope that something truly ambiguous like the requirements of NY's SAFE Act for clinicians to report persons they as clinicians (and not serving as specially assigned officers of the court in an adjudication) consider potentially dangerous?

I do see problems with thinking mental health records reporting will solving mass shootings or greatly changing suicide rates.

But the conversation about that turns on clinical/technical issues and demographic/incidence data, that's not really possible to get into relative to your proposed action without knowing what mental health records you are are inferring.

You should too. I was told that most of the eligible voting membership for their leadership doesn't actually vote...so I'm recruiting gun-control supporters to recruit more gun-control supporters to recruit more gun-control supporters to spike their eligible-voter pool in order to vote Wayne LaPierre out of office and replace the hardliners who oppose any gun-control on the board of directors.

Basically, a hostile takeover to rob the gun-nut lobby of its strongest voice and largest war-chest.

I'd rather just vote against them

I view it as giving them a loan to myself that they're not going to like the terms of. They get the money now but what it'll cost them when I find a few thousand likeminded people is going to make them wail and they'll wish they never took the money.

- suicides (about 2/3 of the deaths)
- accidents (a few hundred each year)
- criminal use (about 1/3 of the deaths)

Each of the three causes requires a different solution from the other two.
Most of the solutions will not solve deaths from multiple categories.

Pick your cause; propose a solution; explain the side effects of the solution.

Suicide: Personally, I wouldn't, because I have access to easier ways to off myself, and it's messy, but I think that if you want to kill yourself you will, although the presence of a gun might tempt the more impulsive. I confess to being fuzzy on this issue. Lot's of dimensions to it.

Accidents: Probably entirely preventable, and I suspect it's more than "a few hundred each year" although you didn't quote a source and I'm tired. But if no gun, no accident. People dying from being stabbed by a pencil is less than those from gunshots. Minimize the environment and you minimize the opportunity for problems. I think if you take guns out of the equation, the number of accidental deaths reduces dramatically (read any articles on Death by Scimitar recently? Neither have I).

Criminal use: Yep, and you won't fix this, except for making it more of a pain in the ass to get your fingers on something. And that's not trivial. Whether it's the gun, or probably more specifically the ammo, the harder it is to be damaging the harder it is to get the weaponry. Being able to get your hands on a bazooka you can do all sorts of damage. Automatic weapon, maybe less so. Single shot firearm, less so. Knife - less so. Fists? That's all you got unless you pick up a rock. Restricting guns won't make bad situations go away, but it'll at least not make them such easy pickin's.

I suspect there are other categories as well, but if you remember (age-dependent) West Side Story, bringing knives to gunfights, etc.

What, I ask would be the harm in these?

- Have to secure a license to own a firearm (not to be denied except under certain circumstances, however, could be revoked in case of felony or whatever).

- Register the firearm much as you register your vehicle. Nothing limits you in how many you own.

Even just that, for goodness sake. But, horrors - forbid the suggestion.

they are roughly 10% of the homicides by guns about ~1100 per year.

That's several times more significant than accidents.