School Shooting In Minnesota With A Twist
- Thread starter The Oracle
- Start date
in many cases - guess-timate. the series of school shootings committed by teens and minors were stolen of acquired illegaly.
Just so you know, you arent the first person to come up with this "brilliant" idea.
But there are reasons why it has never been implemented, and probably never will.
AI lists the main reasons: https://www.google.ca/search?as_q=w...&as_sitesearch=&as_occt=any&as_filetype=&tbs=
The US doesn't have a system to widely test potential gun owners for mental illness due to legal, constitutional, and practical concerns. Such a system would likely violate the Second Amendment, increase stigma against people with mental illness, and face challenges in defining "mental illness" for screening, as only a tiny fraction of mass shootings involve individuals with severe mental illness. Instead, current federal law only prohibits gun ownership for those who have been adjudicated as a mental defective or involuntarily committed to a mental institution.
Legal and Constitutional Barriers
- Second Amendment:
The US Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms, and mandatory mental health testing for all potential gun owners could be seen as infringing on this right.
- Prohibited Individuals:
Existing federal law, the Gun Control Act of 1968, prohibits firearm possession by individuals who have been involuntarily committed or adjudicated as a mental defective.
- Increased Stigma:
Mandatory mental health testing could stigmatize individuals with mental illness, potentially discouraging them from seeking necessary treatment. - Limited Scope:
The focus on mental illness in gun violence discourse has been called a "red herring," as the link between mental illness and gun violence is often exaggerated, especially when compared to other factors, and the vast majority of people with mental illness are not violent.
Practical Challenges
- Difficulty in Definition:
It is challenging to define which specific mental illnesses would warrant denial of a firearm, and there is concern that people with conditions like major depression or panic disorder could be placed on a watchlist.
- Data Limitations:
Thats true, but only for K-12 school shootings (kindergarten to grade 12)
Then time to add another regulation.
Require all guns and ammunition to be locked in a gun safe.
If it is found that the parent, or the guardian, either shared the lock code with the kid, or carelessly left the gun out and about, then they should be charged for negligence and culpability in the mass shooting.
Other mass shootings are committed by the owners usually.
Current federal and state laws already bar people with mental illnesses from owning weapons.
So there is no constitutional barrier to denying the mentally ill access to guns. There are specific definitions of mental illnesses and tests can identify and diagnose people effectively today. It is done all the time.
There are many reasons for which psych evals and fitness evals are done. These are not constitutional challenges.
However, if someone is unsatisfied with the psych eval, or think this is a constitutional issue, they are free to challenge it in court and the government can present its evidence.
Yes, legally acquired by the parent or guardian and stolen by the kid, agreed.
As I said before, most illegal guns are originally legally sourced.
Which is why the legal avenue needs to be heavily regulated.
Psych evaluations are not done in the US prior to purchasing a gun.
You have no idea what you're talking about
If the gun is stolen from a parent then its not legally acquired by the person doing the school shooting
Do they give guns out for free? No. People buy them.
If one can buy a gun, they can buy a gun safe.
At the time of the school shooting, yes.
But it is legally acquired which is why the parent has it in the first place.
So ensure the parent is fit to own guns.
Ensure there is a gun safe and require guns to be locked up.
It will automatically reduce instances of school shootings as it reduces access to guns to kids.
It will also reduce instances of other mass shootings by denying access to guns to those who are unfit.
Thanks for illustrating how little liberals actually care about public safety.
A few posts ago, you were screeching about how "expensive" it is for someone to get an ID to vote.
Let me guess, you're cool with free or tax payer subsidized needles and abortions too.
And I already told you why that's not going to happen: https://www.google.ca/search?as_q=w...&as_sitesearch=&as_occt=any&as_filetype=&tbs=
not legally acquired by the perp...let's keep it simple shall we? If the parent or guardian had no gun, the kid would've gotten it somewhere else if he's motivated to shoot.
Yes of course, according to you ALL situations are exactly the same and the exact same thing should be pursued for every single problem even if they are completely different and unrelated.Thanks for illustrating how little liberals actually care about public safety.
A few posts ago, you were screeching about how "expensive" it is for someone to get an ID to vote.
Let me guess, you're cool with free or tax payer subsidized needles and abortions too.
You have zero critical thinking.
If it is too expensive for someone to get gun safes, it is too expensive for them to buy guns.
And people with no money to even get IDs are not lining up to get guns anyway.
And as I pointed out there is already state and federal law that prevents the mentally ill from possessing weapons.
PS: AI can be used as a tool to help you locate and collate sources, but using AI's reasoning is a very poor argument.
And wherever they get it from, that person should have had it locked up in their gun safe.
If they didn't they should also be charged for negligence.
Whichever way you look at it, regulations would work to reduce access to guns, and consequently reduce crime.
