I learn a great deal from these conversations and a lot of times, find both sides can make rational arguments. I've been swayed a few times when getting involved in these topics as well, and that's a good thing - there's some very intelligent people on here with differing opinions that make logical points. So hats off to you guys for keeping a lot of it mature.
While I've gone back and forth on gun ownership, I'll allow myself to get a bit personal in here since it does relate to the Florida shooting. I went through a whole lot of shit personally last year, and it lead to be ending up in a mental institution for a time over the summer. Largely it was focused on depression, and a form of PTSD - while I'm not in the military, just being traumatized by an event in my life I couldn't move on from and I felt I was shutting down completely. I'm doing a lot better now I think, since obviously I'm ok with opening up about it with friends and even chat about it on here, but we all have our downfalls and I get into them a few times. The thought has crossed my mind of owning a gun before, and I'm thankful I never went and bought one as I think the only thing that'd occur would ultimately be me seeing it as an easy, painless way out. So I'm glad I never acted on impulse to get one, and have convinced myself never to do so.
The reason I bring that up is apparently, the shooter also spent time in a mental institution, and was expelled from school for behavioral problems. And I know the FBI failed at taking action when they were tipped, but why wasn't his expulsion or evidence of him going to a mental institution taken into account when buying an AR15? That is completely reckless on our part as a country I feel. Personally, with my own charted depression, I would hope I would be denied a gun if I ever tried buying one legally - as that would certainly deter me from ever trying to buy one again. But I suspect I wouldn't have any trouble either.
Wow.. this is a hell of a post man. Thanks for writing this.
I just don't see why a mental evaluation when purchasing a firearm is too much to ask. Just a background check that would red flag certain things, especially the ones involved with this shooter, and have them denied buying a gun. Why is that so irrational? I know it won't stop every shooting in this country, far from it. But if doing so would have simply saved these 17 kids lives, isn't that enough?
Let me give you some of the reasons that Second Amendment advocates would put forward (including myself in the past):
The reason is that mental evaluations are subjective determinations made by psychiatrists or psychologists who may or may not be able to fully determine a person's ability to make rational decisions or may be biased based on their own personal or cultural views on gun ownership. A psychiatrist might think someone is overcompensating, or overly fearful, and acting irrationally if they desperately want to own a gun for safety -- however, that person has every legal right to own a firearm, regardless of how the psychiatrist might feel about it.
Moreover, you could apply this rule to anything, including freedom of speech, the forming of political parties, etc. Should the mental health professionals be the gatekeepers of exercising one's Constitutional rights? What happens if and when they determine conservativism or any other political ideology is outmoded and/or dangerous?
What if, for example, someone has a fear of Black people; and they are admittedly racist. Should they be denied their right to own a firearm? They're obviously irrational, and acting on that irrational fear would prompt many to question the legitimacy of their intent to own a weapon.
Simply put, the medical professional has no legal authority, Constitutional or otherwise, to act as a gatekeeper to firearm ownership. This would give undue authority and power to groups like the APA to determine who was of the right state of mind to carry a gun; and that could set a dangerous precedent.
Instead, people's medical records might be part of an FBI database, such that, if they did something to put them on a watchlist, then and only then, should there be any evaluation of their right to own a firearm - and they should be afforded due process under the law, as it is their right to own a gun, and the government would be acting in a way to impugn or deny that right as a means of de facto gun restriction.
...
Now, do I still agree with all of this?
Yes, actually, most of it. I don't think you can legally impose a mental health or psychological evaluation on gun ownership so long as the Second Amendment exists. If you did away with the Second Amendment, then I guess I don't know.. I'm still not really there yet on this issue. Still debating it in my head.
