Sorry, it wasn't supposed to post twice
Key difference between ALLOWING a NICS check versus MANDATING one
- Thread starter abajaj11
- Start Date
Good question!
IMHO, very strict standards have to be set as to who is submitted to NICs. Very few mentally ill people are dangerously insane. Of course it "seems reasonable" that their information must be submitted to NICs. But I think it is more nuanced than that.
The problem is: there are no reliable predictors of dangerous behaviour...in other words hundreds of people with similar psychological indicators lead perfectly peaceful lives and then one person with those indicators goes nuts. we simply cannot predict violent or insane behaviour.
To predict who is going to misuse a gun without any prior criminal behaviour on their part is dangerous and not scientific at all. So the only people who should be in NICs are people with known and proven (convicted) behaviour...violent felons and such like. There are a very small percentage of people whose illnesses are dangerous to themselves or who have a very fragmented sense of reality....proven and established. IMHO such people are less than 1% of the mentally ill. these can be in the NICs database as well, even if they have no violent priors. But deciding who they are must be done very very carefully.
Just my 2 cents.
They don't. Your information is incorrect.
My understanding is that Oklahoma's handgun license meets all the requirements to act as a NICS check, except for one thing. 5 and 10 year licenses. If we had a 4 year renewal cycle, then licensees would qualify to bypass NICS checks for purchase of a firearm in Oklahoma.
Good question!
IMHO, very strict standards have to be set as to who is submitted to NICs. Very few mentally ill people are dangerously insane. Of course it "seems reasonable" that their information must be submitted to NICs. But I think it is more nuanced than that.
The problem is: there are no reliable predictors of dangerous behaviour...in other words hundreds of people with similar psychological indicators lead perfectly peaceful lives and then one person with those indicators goes nuts. we simply cannot predict violent or insane behaviour.
To predict who is going to misuse a gun without any prior criminal behaviour on their part is dangerous and not scientific at all. So the only people who should be in NICs are people with known and proven (convicted) behaviour...violent felons and such like. There are a very small percentage of people whose illnesses are dangerous to themselves or who have a very fragmented sense of reality....proven and established. IMHO such people are less than 1% of the mentally ill. these can be in the NICs database as well, even if they have no violent priors. But deciding who they are must be done very very carefully.
Just my 2 cents.
Thank you for sharing your opinion!
My personal opinion on all of the proposed legislation is that it will simply give people the perception they are somehow more safe. I don't for one minute think any of the proposed legislation would stop violent crimes. If I am a criminal, the law is irrelevant to my behavior or I wouldn't be a criminal.
With that being said, my wife works in the social services industry dealing with adults who are mentally ill and/or MR. Some of these 'clients' exhibit homicidal and suicidal tendencies that are well documented. They have to be redirected if they view a violent movie or video game. Currently, I am not sure whether these individuals are legally able to purchase a firearm. Considering they have documented issues with violence, they should probably not be allowed to purchase firearms.
In the other cases you alluded to, you're right. How do you predict human behavior? You can't. It becomes a very slippery slope on the criteria the would prohibit someone from purchasing a firearm.
If people were truly concerned with child safety, they might want to take a look at feeding them. Six million children die of hunger annually. Senseless. Where is the outrage and action to try and stop this? Then again wait a minute, the gun control issue is really not about safety or sanctity of life is it?
I agree with you overall.
I'm not a psychiatrist or a psychologist, but my guess would be that most people with fragmented realities would not be able to function very well on their own and would already be under some kind f care..or at the very least, be easily discernible as being unbalanced by anyone.
There are folks who appear normal but can be very violent. These usually have prior convictions. AKA they are violent felons already.
Again, it boils down to: we have no good predictors of violent behaviour, where there is low type 1 error (we don;t miss anyone who may be violent) and low type 2 error (we don't punish anyone who is peaceful and law abiding).
.
Similar threads
