Originally Posted By: andrewg
I am a strong Second Amendment proponent. I think it critically important that it not be infringed and in most instances...probably all...I am a strict constitutionalist as well. I am also very wary anytime political ideology is so extremely set in our minds, that even a mention of a variance or common sense approach...is met with the slippery slope scenario.
All the above being said is a preface to my thought that perhaps, if it's possible to exclude this being a left or right political argument, there exists a way of discussing how it may be possible (without the infringement coming into play) to exclude the mentally ill from purchasing firearms? Can it be done without prejudice or bias? Should we not even consider it a worthy endeavor to attempt to come to some widespread, agreeable process that protects constitutional rights as well as the safety of our citizens when it comes to firearm purchases? Right now, we all know a total wackjob...completely psychotic individual...that up to this time has no criminal record, can buy a handgun legally. He/she can do this with complete intent on murdering others. Is this just part of the deal of having 2nd Amendment rights? Maybe it is. Those of us that are pro-gun rights should just accept that we are not intelligent or unbiased enough (on either side) to be able to come to some sort of solution?
I don't have any answers. I'm not blind though. I know many folks in my life that should never own a gun...but do. It is a right. I suppose in a fairy tail nation, we could all magically know who is mentally unfit and dangerous. Too bad politics and ideology....plus a dose of how the framers were above making misjudgments....seems to rule this issue. I would like to think that we are smart enough and fair enough these days to come to a solution.
The true problem is that government is too incompetent to manage anything, especially without prejudice. And that's not a statement about race, religion, or anything. It's just that government wants to handle things based on classification, and refuses to admit that such a system just about never works.
At the end of the day, there's no way to keep guns away from the mentally ill.
This is exacerbated by the fact that government refuses to call the worst of the mentally ill (sociopaths) for what they are, because of fears over jury sympathy or whatever.
Result is, sociopaths, usually being extraordinarily functional and intelligent people, continue to remain undetected until the feces hits the fan.
But government never passes up the opportunity to close the barn doors after all the horses have run out, so the stupidity continues.
We can learn a lot from the lottery system with regards to tragic events. Given the amount of people out there, even the most improbable scenarios are guaranteed to eventually play out, and there is simply no way government will ever be able to make sure that in every instance where something could potentially rear its ugly head that maximum scrutiny, procedure, and enforcement will be there.
It's like someone brought up in this thread earlier. Mass murderers are generally opportunistic. Very few literally just drop what they are doing in the middle of a perfectly normal day and begin beating everyone with their fists, or draw a weapon they always just happen to carry every moment of their life.
There is one element behind most mass murder, even by the genuine loonies: Planning.
Now if you have this one or a couple of sick sons of bees out there planning, waiting, biding their time for the right moment to strike, what are the chances of stopping them at the right moment?
If we really managed to report and contain everyone who was pretty screwed up and weird, how long would it be before a good fraction of the population was on this blacklist? Would anyone even take it seriously once we all knew someone on it, and 99.9999% of them never came to perform any violent misdeeds?
The issues behind mass murder are far greater than access to firearms.
Mass murder is a result of serious sociological issues, to where mass murder is put onto a pedestal by the media and the mass murderers themselves become infamous celebrities. It's a result of the simple fact that mass murder can change a nation, and the world. The worst examples of mass murder featured murderers who knew this, and performed their acts for this exact reason.
Nothing is ever going to change this. Mass murderers will follow an archetype. For the Boston bombers, their archetype was Al Qaeda, who prefers bombs. For the Virginia Tech killer and the Sandy Hook killer, it was the Columbine Massacre. For Terry McVeigh, it was our own military. For Richard Ramirez, his influence was rape and mutilation in the Vietnam War, so he preferred a knife and genitalia as weapons. Banning knives and genitalia wasn't going to change what happened.
There have always been and always will be a new influence for mass murder, whether there's guns out there or not.
With regards to the Israeli military, or any other suicide issues I'll simply say that if you have a human being who wants to point a firearm at themselves and pull the trigger, there is definitely a problem, but it sure as heck ain't firearms.
If they are really comfortable with having a bunch of soldiers who can't be trusted to hold onto a firearm for 48 hours, they're completely stupid, and might want to consider eating a gun themselves. That's a major security issue, considering that the whole purpose of sending soldiers home with their weapons is so they can be ready to mobilize at a moment's notice. Instead, they have a situation to where if Hezbollah invades on a weekend, they have a disarmed soldier crying himself to sleep. Good going Israel. You figured it all out.
