NRA and GOP have convinced me..the issue in not guns its mental illness, psych drugs and guns

investigating how many video games the purchaser has played, if they come from a "broken" home, if the parents are emotionally absent, and if they were mocked and derided by their peers in school--anyone who has been given a wedgie or "pants'd" will be denied a permit. Last picked for dodgeball? No gun for YOU!


for the irony impaired.

but the humor?

I see a concerted effort forming to play a "divide and conquer" disruption game, using Sandy Hook/Child Safety, gun control/NRA types, and mental illness as the competing interests.

It's like the right wing game that Rush Limbaugh drags out periodically, where he tries to divide the liberal, pro-choice/pro-equality community by postulating that one day, "they" will come up with a test for a gay gene, and all those "liberal women" will run to get abortions to get rid of their gay fetuses (never mind that logic would suggest that rightwing bigots would be more likely to overcome their professed distaste for termination were that the case...). Anyway, I digress--if I see much more of this kind of shit here, though, I will start to discern a pattern.

but I'm laughing because I'm not trying to screen everyone in the US, just the gun seeking part of the US...and create a database of the gun seekers. Maybe agreeing with the right wing on this will actually move us forward

Look askance at white males first--they're the problem, if we're going to play a "statistics" game.

Bottom line--we need gun control, and we're going to get it. Anyone who believes they "need" a machine gun to shoot a deer probably would do well to get some psychiatric assistance along with target shooting lessons so that they don't miss the side of a barn when they aim at it.

so I don't think its a statistical game...
its pretty much the way the world runs
and its far better than random beliefs.

The John Muhamad's and Seung-Hui Cho's are a rarity in the shoot-em-up business.

I've stayed out of the gun debates on DU for the most part, and while I support a comprehensive regulation of fire arms, comments like yours just make me wince, because it makes people who want to regulate guns look nearly as irrational as people who want to hoard them.

there are lots of reasons for owning guns....

Meth use can lead to paranoia.

and after the results are back in 10 days or so, including checking for legal prescriptions in case the individual is not truthful. You can come back and get your guns/ammo.

and conveniently if you screen the buyers for guns and ammo for mental illness and drug use...you hit the trifecta in terms of targetting.
Gun buyers who aren't using drugs and do not have mental illness can still have their guns and ammo.

and shoots up a McDonalds? How will we apply the slippery slope then? What will be the new standard after that?

nt

You know the perfect type to sell a firearm to at Wal-Mart! What happens then? What is the standard moved to?

depending on what the information supports.
But if the first baby steps eliminate 20% of the deaths, why is that not a good thing?

I mean it is a horrible idea, but since we are playing 'what ifs'. How do we really know who the person is about to purchase a lethal weapon at the Outdoor Store? Can we really ever?

but we can identify a group of individuals at high risk....and thats at least a start.

AFTER you buy the guns? Just to make sure you don't try to come "clean" for a test, or something?

I mean, Lance Armstrong, blah, blah, blah.

LOVE THIS - who knew the GOP and NRA could have such great ideas?

the monthly screening will be a bit problematic.
Perhaps all new ammo should have a really short expiration date, you'd have to change the chemical compounds in order to shorten the half-life of effectiveness. but its fun to think about