House OKs Bill Allowing 'Mentally Incapacitated' Veterans to Buy Guns
npr.org
npr.org
People who don't like guns want to prevent people from owning them. Those people usually go for the low hanging fruit that appeals to most people like preventing the mentally ill to buy firearms. However it is important to note some unpleasant facts like the fact that 11% of Americans are on some antidepressant and probably many more were on some anti depression medication in the past [0]. Preventing access to those seemed mentally unfit (by some standards) would prevent a significant portion of the us population from owning a firearm. Whether that's right or wrong, I can't say.
http://www.medicaldaily.com/antidepressants-arent-taken-depr...
I'm not a doctor, but I doubt that, say, "mild depression" or "previous history of depression" is enough to be considered mentally incapacitated. Is every person on anti-depressants mentally incapacitated?
The article highlights suicide rates.
> In 2014, Veterans accounted for 18% of all deaths from suicide among U.S. adults, while Veterans constituted 8.5% of the US population. In 2010, Veterans accounted for 22% of all deaths from suicide and 9.7% of the population.
> Approximately 66% of all Veteran deaths from suicide were the result of firearm injuries.
https://www.va.gov/opa/publications/factsheets/Suicide_Preve...
Its almost as if over prescribing medication to an entire country has negative outcomes.
Let me help you here, letting people owning a gun is 100 % wrong.
100 % of studies prove it.
The second Amendment is prehistoric thing kept around only to make gun producers in business.
So now a magistrate must make determination of "mental defective[ness] from the facts at hand before records can be updated to say the person is not competent enough to safely own a firearm. Objectively this sounds like adding due process where there was none before.
That's a little different from the headline of the article which suggests that mentally unstable veterans previously unable to buy guns can now nip on down to the nearest firearms dealer and buy their weapon of choice.
The headline also suggests (to me) a context of "now they can go shoot everyone up!" But the actual concern is around suicide.
The article does cover this (sort-of objectively [1]), but I'm surprised and offput by such clickbait headlines from NPR.
[1] In that sort-of objective way that doesn't involve directly criticizing, yet still comes across as subtly opinionated based on the ordering of content and quotes.
Seems to be their MO of late.
The US Constitution explicitly recognizes the right of individuals to possess weapons for self-defense. Yes, there is a proper process of disarming the "mentally incapacitated" which terminates that right thru adjudication.
The problem with the headline is the wanton failure to note that designating many veterans (and others) as "mentally incapacitated" is usually done as a bureaucratic step, checking off the appropriate box on a form - with absolutely no requirement to justify the designation, much less prove it to a judge for that particular individual affected. Many are simply marked as "mentally incapacitated", and thus deprived of their right & tools for self-defense, simply because of age, vague circumstance, irrelevant history, or other weak reasons (if any reason at all).
The bill restores the standard of having to actually demonstrate, in court, that this person, for these reasons, really does pose a threat to self or others if continuing to exercise his own right to own tools for self-defense.
TL;DR - the term "mentally incapacitated" in the headline is in scare-quotes for a reason: a great many so designated aren't; it should take more than a box on a form checked by a random bureaucrat to end one's enumerated right to self-defense.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
People keep forgetting the well regulated militia part of the amendment, and what that phrase ought permit the state for the maintenance of state security.
Admittedly, the US Supreme Court has interpreted the amendment as rooted in English Law's self-defense right. But the amendment itself makes no mention of it, rather leading the personal right with the state need for security. This ties into the other state needs (national defense, anti-insurrection, self-defense, etc.) at the time of drafting.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United...
That about sums it up in my view. Gun ownership is a serious responsibility and if the mental health challenges of an individual prevent them from being able to make their own legal decisions, it seems reasonable to limit their access to deadly weapons.
The ACLU core argument: All individuals have the right to be judged on the basis of their individual capabilities, not the characteristics and capabilities that are sometimes attributed (often mistakenly) to any group or class to which they belong. A disability should not constitute grounds for the automatic per se denial of any right or privilege, including gun ownership
That being said I've never been to the USA in my life so I won't pretend I understand the culture over there.
BUT...
The issue at hand isn't overthrowing the government, it's denying the weak their tools for defending themselves from violent assault. We have due process for doing so; the bill being disparaged in the lead article ensures doing so is in fact via due process, and not simply a faceless bureaucrat checking off a box on a form for some trivial reason (which is a serious problem).
US hunters constitute a population armed with rifles, not a military.
In the US it is a civil right guaranteed in the Constitution, too. This makes limiting that right a serious step and, in this case, it’s the reasonable-ness of the rule that’s in question.
>Backers of the bill, such as Rep. Phil Roe, R-Tenn., the chair of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, say it would help veterans avoid being caught up in a bureaucracy that can make it tough to remove a negative label.
If this is the problem, then maybe they should be addressing the system which apparently is trapping otherwise competent veterans in a bureaucratic maze.
A car is much more dangerous than a gun and I doubt you'd suggest that the "slightest hint of incapacitation" should be enough for someone to be denied a driver's license.
Did it really not occur to you while writing that comment that that analogy is not applicable here because a car is incommensurately more useful than a gun?
Also, yes, I would, don't drive if you're even slightly incapacitated. It's super dangerous.
Respectfully, that's an opinion.
Is that an indictment against cars? The whole of your life depends upon the good will of others.
The baseline is that, as the Constitution enumerates, armament of self for defense of self, family, and state is a natural right. The well-established & well-understood caveat is that any right may be curtailed for a particular individual IF adjudicated, in court, for good and established specific cause.
The problem being addressed by the law in question is that veterans are being denied that right by faceless bureaucrats routinely checking "mentally incapacitated" checkbox for decades-old never-recurring cases of mild depression or other irrelevant trivialities. If you're going to deny someone the right of self-defense, at least do it in court with articulable & relevant cause.
It may seem a subtle difference, but it's important. Another way I've heard this said: "My pistol serves not to impose my will upon others through force but to ensure that others may not do so unopposed."
Edit to clarify: ...without also requiring eye correction. Of course you can wear glasses to drive, but it becomes mandatory, and without that eye correction you cannot get a license.
You'll learn quickly that cognitive dissonance is a real thing.
[0] https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/?1dmy&urile=wcm:path:/dmv_...
Try and suggest that ownership and operation of a vehicle is a Constitutional right and see how far you get with that.
Want to change the Bill of Rights and get rid of the Second Amendment? There's an app for that.
Good job with the slur there.
> We wouldn't be hearing ableist arguments if the topic were anything other than guns
I hold the same opinion on bombs and other things too, if it makes any difference.
Yes - legally, and for much of the country, culturally.
The right to bear arms is on par with the freedom of speech or religion. In short, if the justification would be insufficient to warrant ordering them to cease political speech or preventing them from worshipping as they choose, then it's insufficient for denying them the right to arms.
> I would think that even the slightest hint of incapacitation should be enough for someone to be denied a gun.
It's just the opposite here; stripping someone of their right to possess firearms is an extreme measure.
If we can settle that we can have a better guide when trying to draw these lines in the sand.
I know this sounds silly at first, but it's not if you are the one involved: the right to be armed allows you to protect 1/300,000,000th of the USA - you. That's pretty serious if you're being attacked and in fear of your life.
About 15 years ago, the US government started showing signs of wanting to ratchet up violent assault against dissidents of a certain stripe, executing SWAT/commando-type raids against citizens for paperwork violations (failure to document & pay a $200 tax). In two high-profile instances of such raids, the citizens fought back; many died, but the government agents suffered such losses that in the decades since, such "Gestapo tactics" have not been used. As such, armed citizens took a meaningful stand against the government, teaching it to use its police powers tactfully & sparingly,
What you, and many like you, fail to discern is the difference between armed law-abiding citizens vs armed criminals. The former aren't a problem, proven by the fact they have >200,000,000 firearms + trillions of bullets yet aren't a problem above statistical noise. The latter ARE a well-documented problem, and are by-definition quick to violate ANY law to obtain & retain the ability to kill as they see fit. The "line in the sand" is between those two groups; disarming the former only enables the latter by presenting no resistance.
Now it's hard to have a fact-based debate about guns considering the polarized discourse. I ask three things.
1) Consider that just maybe, access to a device which allows you to kill quickly, cleanly and with lessened emotional involvement (versus say a knife) leads to more people murdering.
2) Consider that people are not cleanly seperated into law-abiders and criminals, people move back and forth all the time and there are various degrees of law-breaking and criminality. When you turn people who commit gun crimes into an other, it's a lot easier to seperate yourself from their actions. I would also say that saying that criminals are all these extreme monsters who will violate ANY law to be able to kill however they want is just a complete mischaracterization.
3) Consider that I support the bill this thread is about and reread my initial comment.
- police cannot ever lose, especially not in the US
- there is no organized resistance that decides when to resist, and what to (potentially) die for
- the current system is entrenched and standing on an enormous foundation, politics, economic interest, institutions, the media etc. will not easily yield
TODO:
- reorganize military and law enforcement, introduce the concept of "citizen in uniform", focus on deescalation etc; the military would have to be on the side of a hypothetical revolution for it to work, obviously?
- develop an actual alternative political concept and start from the ground up: Instead of trying to run for president or deface websites, try running for mayor or do some honest journalism
- don't hold on to your guns for hope - you could gradually lose ground without ever getting to that confrontation (which you'd surely lose anyway). Instead address injustice immediately, be prepared to take tiny steps.
This will easily form if government begins doing too much that people disagree with.
>- police cannot ever lose, especially not in the US
Police will lose if people did organize a resistance movement.
>- the current system is entrenched and standing on an enormous foundation, politics, economic interest, institutions, the media etc. will not easily yield
Of course, that is the point of violent overthrow.
I feel like the point has been missed. Organized people with guns stood up to the US government in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. I would say that those were "meaningful stands" (in terms of effectiveness, I don't condone those beliefs). The first amendment is there to prevent tyrannical government, and the second is there to address that issue if the first fails.
EDIT: Furthermore, I would say, is your opposition really due to effectiveness? Let's say hypothetically we live in a world where guns do allow you to match the combat ability of government. Do you support it then? It seems to me that when I make this argument I run into people saying, "but you can't win anyway" when what really bothers them is some deeper political belief. What is that? What bothers you about the way I've framed the debate?
At the same time western countries are still democratic enough so that things can be changed.
>It seems to me that when I make this argument I run into people saying, "but you can't win anyway" when what really bothers them is some deeper political belief. What is that? What bothers you about the way I've framed the debate?
The year is 2011, the Arab Spring is starting up and by some weird quirk of history or legal loophole, the Syrians will be having a referendum on gun control. They are debating about whether they should have gun control. One side says they need guns in order to oppose their tyrannical government, the other that they need to ban guns so as to prevent violence from spreading through city streets. You are called in as an advisor, what do you say?
* Non-violent resistance (cripple the economy).
* Appeal to dissident factions in the army and have them do the fighting, after all the US army is pretty closely connected to the populace, and if you can't get them on your side you've already lost.
* Have a sufficiently pluralistic system in the first place so that concentration of power to an extent that extreme becomes impossible.
There just seems to be such a mismatch between goals and means when it comes to small arms and prevention of tyranny.
Would you suggest that this is a good thing to have happened to Syria?
It does not, regardless of headline phrasing & implication, deliberately allow crazy people to get guns.
Politician B: "You're a genius!"
ETA: Yesterday, http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/16/europe/france-high-school-shoo...