Here and There ... and Back Again
Brand Selvia

Back to school/reacting to Dayton and El Paso

Posted Wednesday, August 7, 2019, at 2:25 PM
View 2 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • *

    Instead of simply parroting talking points and trying to take cheap shots at President Trump, how about you do some actual research? Maybe broaden your views a bit?

    First off, the bill referenced that was signed by President Trump would've made a large number of otherwise eligible gun purchasers ineligible simply b/c they had a representative payee for their Social Security benefits. And it would have done very little (if anything) to stop almost any of these shootings. So what is your acceptable limit of lost freedom for no benefit?

    Prior to 1968 you could purchase a firearm without the 4473 form. Prior to 1998 you could purchase a firearm without going through a NICS check. In fact, at one time it was possible for KIDS (gasp!) to purchase firearms (usually long rifles) at hardware stores and through mail order catalogues.

    And yet mass shootings were rare. So more, bigger background checks are not the solution.

    Most of the historically recent mass shooters have purchased their firearms legally, with a background check. I believe most would've been legally purchased even with your bigger & better background checks.

    In your proposed bigger-deeper-better idea of background checks, exactly what else are you going to check?

    Medical records? Aside from obvious privacy concerns, there is the matter of the cost, the implementation, and the cross-use of some Rx drugs that would muddy any such check. Drugs like bupropion hydrochloride are used as an anti-depressant (Welbutrin) but also used as a smoking cessation drug (Zyban). And should someone who wants/needs an antidepressant, but is otherwise a stable person, be denied protection for themselves and their loved ones?

    Part of the problem also lies in bad reporting - the necessary information not being given to the NICS database. A church shooting in Texas was carried out by a guy who would've been a prohibited purchaser had the US Navy done its duty and provided the appropriate information as it was legally required to do. People can/do fail. Sometimes that causes systems to fail.

    Another part of the problem also lies in the aforementioned medical privacy issues and the closing of psychiatric hospitals. It used to be that we locked up crazy people for the safety of the community. Then government (mostly democrats) told us we can't confine them, but we must give them Rx drugs and let them loose. Oh yeah, we can't force them to take their medicine either.

    Your call for government to ensure that "those definitively regarded as dangerous cannot possess a firearm" is a hollow cry for the government to do something. What more could they do? There are already systems in place. If you are adjudicated mentally defective you cannot purchase or possess a firearm. And they have already started infringing on the rights of citizens with their so-called "red flag laws" that deny Constitutionally protected rights. Do you want less freedoms still?

    The bottom line is: some of these mass shooters are crazy and some of them are just evil.

    One thing I have learned in all my years is that you cannot account for crazy or evil. It doesn't work. All you can do is prepare yourself for the possibility that you may have to deal with it b/c its out there.

    I choose to prepare by carrying a firearm. B/c most often the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

    -- Posted by dreadpirateroberts on Thu, Aug 8, 2019, at 10:22 AM
    Response by Brand Selvia, Reporter, Greencastle Banner Graphic:
    Are you done wigging yourself out overcomplicating the issue, as well as making base assumptions about how the government is "gonna take your guns?" You're parroting the very paranoia right here I referenced to at the end.

    A lack of critical thinking is also apparent in you professing that just because you say that mass shootings were perhaps "rare" at one time, there shouldn't be an effort to maintain or, God forbid, try to fortify background checks, red flag laws and the NICS. Paranoid, unnecessarily anti-government personalities like yourself who think that any restriction on gun purchases or handling is an infringement on Second Amendment rights are the major roadblocks which need dismantled.

    Yes, people can, and do, fail. Thank you for stating the obvious. It doesn't mean that we stop trying to look at causations and how government entities can better report these incidences. Doesn't it at all strike you as problematic that, as you say, recent shootings were done with individuals who could easily pass a background check and with few questions asked?

    Hence, this is why red flag laws and mental health are receiving needed attention now after Dayton and El Paso. They are trying to get us to be proactive, something you obviously see as a threat to your own rights, despite you, perhaps, actually being a responsible gun owner with nothing to hide.

    Can you prove that psychiatric hospitals are/were being closed left and right, as you imply? Without evidence, trying to pin these ills on Democrats shows what little depth you have on the issue of who's "responsible." That paragraph is just you spitting up conspiracy theories and making unrefined conjectures.

    And how was my referencing the restrictions the president lifted in 2017 simply taking a "cheap shot?" That infers blindly supporting him, as you really don't address or support why it was at all necessary to the point at hand. Did you even care to read the link, or just hated it because it was from NBC?

    Just for a different perspective, I worked in the firearms section of the Indiana State Police before coming to the paper. I was charged with reviewing handgun applications and seeing they were eligible. Almost all of them were in the clear, but here is the rub: under the Second Chance Law, any misdemeanor that has been expunged by a court cannot be used a cause for denial.

    It was not all that uncommon for me to approve someone who had a consistent criminal past in the NICS (it didn't matter if some charges were light or more serious like battery), because they would all be expunged, and the patterns you could see couldn't be suspect. It also only took a simple note from a doctor saying that an applicant with a history of mental health issues was okay to carry a handgun. No explanations and no in-depth reasoning as to the risks he/she could pose.

    You see these as necessary to prevent government "infringing" on gun rights; I see these instances as flaw points to, at the very least, be considered and improved upon in the future. That is part of a fundamental difference between you and I. I'll still call you out as a "conservative voice of reason" with little critical thinking and an abundance of unhealthy skepticism, and you can simply label me a "lefty" who wants to take away your freedoms.

  • *

    Brand, I don’t think “dreadpirateroberts” was over-complicating a single thing nor making baseless assumptions. In my opinion, your response to his comment came across a little petty and defensive, so if anyone is "wigging out," it’s you.

    And deny it all you want but you DID try to take a cheap shot at Trump by insinuating that he hasn’t, isn’t, and won’t be taking the entire gun violence situation seriously. To assume that is laughable at best, idiotic at worst.

    -- Posted by DouglasQuaid on Tue, Aug 13, 2019, at 1:59 PM
Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration: