Politics Gun violence in CT

Health insurance wont minimize straw purchasing as a result of loopholes in background checks.

Nor will it limit the "protect the public" wannabees, the George Zimmerman types, who had no training to be walking around armed and dangerous.

 

People are talking about mental health loquitor. Maybe you haven't been listening. But how long do reckon it will take the US to repair the state of it's mental health system. 10 years? 20? 50? - repair it to the point where the mentally ill can be effectively identified and either treated or hospitalized?

What are we supposed to do in the interim? It isn't as if the mentally ill are going to cease being able to obtain their firearms legally or take advantage of firearms available in their home - firearms owned by "responsible gun owners. Guns available to criminals and gang members are either obtained originally from responsible gun owners or obtained via straw purchases from gun shops, gun dealers or gun shows.

Licensing of all firearms and ammunition is the first step towards getting a handle on what is going on behind the scenes. It will not effect the truly responsible gun owner but it might have an impact on those who are careless or cavalier about their responsibility, once they come to realize that they could be held liable for their carelessness.

If the requirement to license a firearm is a restriction, perhaps you can explain to me what's being restricted.
Will it restrict the licensed gun owner from hunting, target shooting or protecting his home? No.
Will it restrict the licensed gun owner from selling it to someone who shouldn't have it? Yes.

I don't see anything odd about it but I do find the opposition to such a common sense measure, distinctly bizarre.

 

The Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 was a step in the right direction.

But leaves lots of folks uncovered....those uninsured and those with per-existing conditions (insurers can and did classify most of those with psychiatric issues as having per-existing conditions).

The Affordable Care Act addresses both of those problems, requiring mental health equity in coverage in all plans (not just large employer plans) and prohibits exclusions based on per-existing conditions.

It also mandates better mental health coverage under Medicaid, but many states (mostly Red states) are not likely to expand their Medicaid coverage to comply (relying on the the part of the Supreme Court decision that limited the federal government from imposing more standards).

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/10/health/policy/health-care-law-offers-wider-benefits-for-treating-mental-illness.html

 

There are still huge holes that need filling.

Let's take a case study (based on someone I knew, though I'll write it in the present tense because if could be any one of many similar stories).

X suffers from an underlying mental health issue and has done for a long time. There is some depression in there along with a personality disorder but he has managed to remain functional, and the problem has remained un-diagnosed. He self-medicates, abusing alcohol and prescription medicines and, whenever he hits a challenge in his life, he starts to binge.

He loses his job because he becomes unreliable and is off work too much. However, he gets unemployment via his employer's insurance. This invalidates any Medicaid coverage because he gets just over the income limit to qualify.

He spends most of his money on drink and abuses Ambien and other drugs. His physical and mental health suffers and he goes downhill fast, developing heart and lung problems. His legs blow up and he is admitted into hospital on numerous occasions for a variety of issues - blood clots on his lungs, etc. The hospital bills are mounting. He drinks more. He becomes more depressed and talks of suicide.

He can't afford to maintain his prescriptions.

He goes to ER in a highly volatile state and is held for a couple of days because he is threatening to kill himself. He is then discharged because there is nowhere for him to go. This becomes a pattern and he becomes a regular at the hospital, arriving in ER on a more and more frequent basis. He is admitted to a facility to dry him out and he stays there for a week. This is all that is available, even though he needs longer term care.

Eventually, his health deteriorates to such an extent that he is able to get disability. His disability payments disqualify him from Medicaid (WTF!) and he still cannot get help. He still cannot afford to maintain his prescriptions.

No suitable mental health care is available throughout his decline.

This is an individual story but isn't atypical of people who really need the help of mental health professionals. The steps taken by the Affordable Care Act (and others) are good, but are insufficient. Many people who really need help will still be unable to get it.

 

I agree there are still signficant shortcomings in the health care system.

And I dont know how to address the two greatest impediments to improving access to mental health -- the stigma associated with it in terms of the reluctance to self-commit to treatment and the HIPAA health privacy rights that restrict the ability of health care or social service professionals from forcing treatment.

In any case, it is still only one leg of the stool to address gun violence.

 

Absolutely! On all counts.

I believe in the importance of health privacy rights and on having protections in place so that people aren't taken out of the population on grounds of mental illness inappropriately. However, when anyone poses a danger to themselves or others, there has to be a workable way of taking them into care. It's a tricky area.

Access to care is, as you say, only one leg. Looking at some of the gun regulations in the USA, it seems to me that some States have tighter regulations than others. It should be possible to get a common set of regulations across the USA (yeah, I know .. hugely difficult to achieve, but shouldn't be!) and then actually enforce them. Some basics around registration, transfer of ownership, storage/security and training shouldn't be impossible to achieve and would do little to hinder responsible owners, while providing reason to hinder access by the irresponsible . I think a revisit of issues around who may not own a gun would also be helpful (for example, those found guilty of violent misdemeanors or DUI/DWI or drug-related crimes - maybe even some juvenile crimes) and removing loopholes that enable anyone to acquire a gun legally without a background check.

So ... guns, mental health - what else? I would say that poverty and inequality, but that is a much larger challenge and political hurdle.

 

I would characterize the third leg as socioeconomic beyond poverty and income inequality -- early education, job training, community development, and even external exposure to violence (tv/movies/video games).

Most of these have a price tag in terms of public policy and we're back to the fact that many (most) of those policymakers who oppose more gun control also oppose investments in these socioeconomic programs.

 

Piers Morgan on his interview with conspiracy nut Alex Jones:

His White House petition to deport Morgan has over 100,000 supporter.

Freedom of express, especially by fererners like Morgan, does not apply in the right wing world Jones and his followers call the real America.

 

I'm still getting caught up on this thread but I wanted to jump in and address your statement - I apologize if someone already did.

But yes, the 'assault weapons' that are being mentioned are rifles as per the FBI definition you posted. The targeted rifles all fire a single round every time the trigger is pulled. To fire a second round requires a second pull of the trigger. A weapon that fires multiple rounds with one pull of the trigger is classified as a machine gun - those are regulated as strictly as military-grade explosives and cost more than most Italian super cars.

 

You're right about the definition.

But the proposals for banning semi-automatic weapons have also been misrepresented. They are limited to those over 22 caliber with detachable clips.

You havent seen me support that ban.

I do support a ban on high capacity clips or magazines with the exception perhaps in gun ranges where one could purchase and use on site.

But I would settle for closing the loophole that allows illegal purchasing and fixing the NICS background check system.
--- merged: Jan 9, 2013 5:38 AM ---
And for newly elected Tea Party Senator Ted Cruz from Texas to call these proposals unconstitutional is hard core ideology or ignorance.

 

I didn't accuse you of supporting that ban. But just to make it clear to the non 'gun savvy' TFPers: banning semi-automatic firearms that are over .22 caliber effectively bans the vast majority of semi-automatic firearms. As in 99% of the various makes and models of semi-automatic firearms in production.

I won't go over the difference between a clip and a magazine because that's been beaten to death. But if you're going to advocate banning something, it would help your cause to know what it is you want to ban.

Why do you support a ban on high-capacity magazines? What do you think/hope it will accomplish? How many rounds should a magazine be able to hold? How did you arrive at that number?

 

The former “assault weapon” ban included a few specific semi-automatic firearm models by name (AR-15, AK-47 etc ) and other firearms with a minimum of two or more enhanced or military type features

I assume you know what those features are (folding stock, detachable magazine, a semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm, etc).

Does having two or more of those features apply to 99% of all semi-automatic firearms? If so, folks survived w/o them from 1994 through 2004 with no evidence of increased risk to their public safety.

The one proposal I have seen (Feinstein's) would reduce having two enhanced or military type features to only one.....which would still be easy for manufacturers or owners to modify.

For the purposes of legislation, there is no need for distinction between clip and magazine or if you prefer "large capacity ammunition feeding device" -- a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than X rounds of ammunition.

The one proposal I have seen sets the limit at 10 rounds.

The shooter in Newtown had a 30 round magazine. All the kids were shot multiple times, some as many as 11 times.

The shooter in Aurora had a 100 round drum.

Why does anyone need a 30+ round clip for home protection or sporting?

Several other thoughts:

The Gun Control Act of 1968 requires federal firearms licensees to report multiple sales of handguns to the same purchaser if they occur at the same time or within five business days of each other.

ATF extended it by rule in 2011 in border states to some semi-automatic weapons to help track and prevent straw purchasing.

Why should the same requirement not apply nationwide to all firearms?

Correct me if I am wrong, but when you buy a firearm on the Internet, the sale is transferred through a licensed dealer?

At the very least, why not the same requirement for ammunition?
--- merged: Jan 9, 2013 at 7:57 AM ---
But lets be realistic. No legislation banning any firearms or any amount of ammunition will pass through the Republican House. Neither will registration of all firearm owners.

Compromise is my goal even if the result is only marginally better than the present.

* close the loophole that allows as much as 40% of firearms to be purchased w/o background check (i.e. require universal background check) and fix the NICS.
* treat ammunition like firearms for internet sales and treat all firearms like handguns for reporting multiple sales

Are these not reasonable?

 

the asssault weapon ban was terrible. adding features like a scope, forgrip, heatshroud, and pistol grip just makes them look more indimidating. also the so called 'assault weapon's' are only involed in a small percentage of the crime. most of the crime is done with standard handguns and limiting the capacity of magazines would have little effect on deterring crime.

 

The impact of the assault weapons ban or the impact of limiting magazine capacity is debatable and certainly not as clear cut as you suggest.

But it is not worth further debate given that there is no likelihood of passage.

So which of the other proposals that I have suggested are unreasonable? Certainly, none are unconstitutional.

I would add one more -- minimum training standards for all state CCW permits.

 

What is the point of training for ccw? The ccw crowd isn't committing the crimes except in a few cases which the media goes crazy about.

 

Tell that to the parents of kids shot by untrained civilians.
--- merged: Jan 9, 2013 at 10:07 AM ---
Training and testing for driving a car is more comprehensive in most states than for carrying a concealed weapon.

It is a public safety issue. I honestly dont understand why anyone would oppose it.

 

Oh ok. I'm sure training would fux the problem just like out lawing guns would fix gun crime.