General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPew Reseach poll finds people favor more control on mentally ill over high capacity magazines
Link: http://www.people-press.org/2013/01/14/in-gun-control-debate-several-options-draw-majority-support/
Of course they don't actually say what more control means. But, it shows the gun-lobby is succeeding at driving down the urgency to ban assault weapons and high capacity magazines.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)Kidding aside, though, the way the question is phrased, who would say no?
There is no method specified. No definition of mental illness.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)while they themselves if they are an adult and have been adjucated mentally ill, what about MINORS? They would pass a background check simply because of their age, but does that stop them from getting guns from family members, i.e., stealing them from legal adult owners?
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)what the control is being promoted.
I think EVERYONE wants guns out of the hands of persons adjudicated to be prohibited from gun ownership for reasons of mental illness.
Leaving the additional control mechanisms unsaid is a devil's playground for people wanting to misuse the poll result.
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)d_r
(6,907 posts)The majority of people favor everything except teachers with guns, I imagine they won't say anything.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)The quick check data gap on the mentally ill is 2 million, the data gap on felons is 23 million
Yesterday , the Salt Lake Tribe, quoted DC sources (aka lobbiest) as saying 2 million people are missing in the quick check
and ignored other more serious holes in the combined databases used in the quick check system
The conspicuous other missing records are for:
23 million persons who are felons...felons make up 58% of gun purchase 987K denials from Nov 99 thru 31 Dec 2012.
14 million persons with records of use/addiction of unlawful substances...they make up nearly 9% of gun purchase of aforesaid denials.
The mentally ill make up 1.03% of the aforesaid denials
That looks pretty blatantly selective to me.
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)OneTenthofOnePercent
(6,268 posts)actually refer to in the real world and what effect they can have on crime?
How many people being polled about supporting Assault Weapons Bans even understand that the rifle used in the Sandy Hook shootings was NOT an assault weapon and that an AWB would not have restricted it's possession at all. How many of those same people understand that an overwhelming majority of mass shootings in the past 25 years are NOT committed with an assault-style rifle? How many of those same people are aware that 97%+ of all gun homicides are NOT committed with assault-style rifles? Hell, congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy (an author of previous passed AWB legislation) couldn't even correctly answer some questions about HER OWN LEGISLATION.
So while your point is entirely valid; persons being polled are not informed as to what they are actually responding to... do you think that polls of the general population revolving around new AWB legislation are any more meaningful than this poll. I think this is nothing more than one of those 'pot-meet-kettle' scenarios.
d_r
(6,907 posts)OneTenthofOnePercent
(6,268 posts)The point of my reply is to agree with your response - people cannot legitimately respond to this poll without further understanding of what the responses actually imply. I'm also simply stating that the same public ignorance also renders the AWB support-polls moot as well.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Where is that indicated by the data?
SayWut
(153 posts)Banning a particular class of firearms is ineffective as long as the wrong people still have other options available to them (ie. handguns, shotguns, bolt action rifles).
Enhanced and improved background checks that include mental health records, would reduce firearms fatalities far more than singling out a category of firearms that is amongst the least used in crimes.
The problem lies in what mental health disabilities would serve as a "disqualifier", whom would make that determination and if there is any avenue for relief once that person is deemed fit.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)Currently, prohibitions for mental health reasons follow from case by case decisions which can result from various things such as an involuntary commitment, or a court accepting a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity.
What gets proposed on the street and in chat rooms isn't due process.
A diagnosis by a licensed therapist social worker is a process. That doesn't make it due process. A computer search through medical or insurance records is a process. That doesn't make it due process.
17,000 Americans commit suicide by gun each year. 90% have on investigation some association with mental illness either a diagnosis or 'signs' that never were diagnosed. Most often that symptom is depression. 30 million Americans are estimated to have symptoms of depression every year.
Efforts to capture data for such a category (most of whom currently do not seek treatment) for entry into NICS would require Orwellian-like tactics. The danger of 'overly-broad' definitions is fairly large, and is likely to threaten equal protection.
Surprisingly arguments about due process and equal protection are used by the NRA to defend the rights of gun-owners.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Under the plan, if a mental health professional believes someone--gun owner or not--poses a threat, they will be able to report that to their county mental health office, which would then convey the warning to law enforcement.
The information would then be included in a database that is used for background checks for gun purchasers. Should that person already be found to have a licensed weapon, police could suspend or revoke the license and confiscate the firearm.
http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2013/01/gun-control-deal-close-could-come-as-soon-as-today-source
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)Piles of data, like piles of money, attract people with an interest.
The data base will be huge for a state with a population like New York. About 1 in 4 persons have a mental illness during their life. Between 1/4 and 1/3 seek treatment. Imagine all those diagnositic records accumulating over 70 years. Maintenance on the data...keeping it up to date (most mental illnesses DO resolve, medication types do vary over time), and keeping the security on private information is going to cost big bucks...or it won't be kept up to date or secure.
Expect things to go wrong.