Summations Only

Yes, I was right, using the tragedy for the gun control cause isn't an offense, just using it to defend the gun rights cause is the offense. You're SO right. It's ALL in how you say something, isn't it? That calculated spin of negativity you put on it. That's the genius of propaganda campaigns. And people never wake up to them until it's too late. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No need to rely on Ammoland. This site is more neutral. I think it's probably bthe same list of people but I haven't compared it. Citizens Commission on Human Rights

If we are to predict who will kill and keep guns out of their hands, there are far better predictors than psychiatric meds. Those include male gender, poverty, alcohol abuse, past violent victimization of the shooter, a history of misdemeanor assaults, domestic abuse, etc.The shooter was also apparently a white supremacist. I'd imagine that is a pretty fair predictor of violent loner rage.As to picking out Christian victims for special treatment, that much seems clear, though not the precise reason. He was solitary and angry; perhaps he felt Christians had failed him somehow.Start the kind of database you describe, and folks will stop seeking care. The result would be more violence, not less.

Faith sugggests: In fact, even better, would be to put the NRA in charge of this database. We can give them armbands while they add to the database.Once we saddle them with that job, they won't be able to be so obnoxious. See the movie "Cold Turkey" starring Dick Van Dyke.

Your armband suggestion went right over my head. Please explain?

You could be right, too bad.Is there a way to make the database even more secure perhaps? How about something like this: Even the authorized people can't access the database unless they have, say, the driver's license number of a person wanting to buy a gun, and then they can only access that one person's record? Is that possible?You think that many people would not want to be denied possession of a gun? Despite the big numbers of guns in America I know a lot more people who don't have them than people who do. I suppose some keep it secret of course, but even then...Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Citizens Commission on Human Rights? Really? That is your reputable source?
You do know what Scientology is don't you? I would think a good Christian like you would run far away from anything Scientology related. I wouldn't trust them without any references.Citizens Commission on Human Rights - Wikipedia

The rub is that the pro-gun side would never allow anything that would allow for screening. All that is need is a background check and a form asking if you are on any drugs or under psychiatric care. Works in Canada.
Just a moment...

In order for this to work, the government has to collect everyone's medical information just in case they might want to buy a gun. Is this really a good idea or even a reasonable idea? Absent the 2nd amendment concerns, would it not be more fair if only the people who actually wanted a gun were required to provide access to their medical history?

At present, not even felony background checks at all gun sales can be accomplished due to political opposition.I don't think Americans of either political camp will accept a database of folks seeking mental health care in anyone's hands, and if one existed, fewer people will seek care--not so much for the guns as for the stigma and fear. The government can't keep its own secrets; what government database has never been abused?So we can't summon the political will to screen for known violent felons at all gun sales, in part due to distrust of the government, and tracking the mentally ill will remain unacceptable to most, and wouldn't help much anyway. Even the seriously mentally ill as a group are only very slightly more prone to violence than the general population, a difference not predictive at the individual level.The will of the pro-gun camp is for zero government regulation: unregistered sales and universal open carry. The ineffective background checks we have now were hard won, and it's difficult to see any way through the current impasse.Eventually the tide of blood may wash that paralysis away. Ironically, I can envision the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms being lost not to liberal machinations but to a near-universal disgust at its abuse.

You now want us to accept an argument based on evidence you once posted but can't find, even though the argument was thought absurd at the time?Would this list of drugs include paxil or trazodone or zoloft or zyprexa or gabapentin?Actually, if the gun lobby would accept your proposal, maybe this would be a great thing, eliminating guns from 90% of households.Will people on these psychotropic drugs still be able to buy whatever they want at gun shows?--Percy

Of course I didn't notice it was Scientology, but even Scientology should be less objectionable than Ammoland. And I'm not into ad hominems. Even if I don't agree with the philosophy of a source I don't have any reason to think their information is untrustworthy without further evidence.So there's the list, from both sources, plus warning labels about their potentially violent effects. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You're probably right about the database; so much for that idea.True, no reason yet for his anger at Christians.

I did specify keeping the government out of it, authorizing only gun sellers and the police to use the information. However, I'm convinced it won't work. Your idea may be better though it probably won't work either.

The idea has been pretty thoroughly debunked already, but if you want to see the list of drugs and the warning labels on some of them, I covered that in Message 4213, and gave another source in Message 4217.