Slateman Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 What exactly do they check for mental health? There's no way it can be that in depth. Actually, they can. Post VT shooting, requirements were made within the state for reporting certain mental health behaviors or issues. It was in a host of reforms that came in 2008. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 (edited) That was a little disconcerting. I don't know anyone who does the checks, but a guess: Maybe if you check the box you're flagged and they don't even bother looking into your background. Once you submit an application without the box checked, then they look into your background. Just a guess? One time I accidentally checked that I was in the country illegally on my license renewal at the DMV and they didn't give a **** and issued me a license no questions asked. I went to vote in the next election and was denied because of it (this is how I found out I checked the box... strangely enough VA DMV could not produce ONE piece of paperwork that proved this... the whole thing was shady). So I wouldn't be surprised either way. Yes, that's right, Virgina will issue you a drivers license even if you check that you're here illegally. So, who the hell knows. When you start getting involved in processes like that, especially when the government is involved, you cannot rule out any level of absurdity or incompetence. Edited October 8, 2015 by tshile Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 Yes, that's right, Virgina will issue you a drivers license even if you check that you're here illegally. As I understand it, many states will. The reason for that is that states have had a problem with a rash of illegals driving around the state with no license, and no insurance. (I recall once hearing the claim that, if you have an accident in California, the odds are 50% that it's an uninsured illegal.) The theory is that they'd supposedly prefer for the illegals to have licenses, and ID, and hopefully insurance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 I don't know anyone who does the checks, but a guess: Maybe if you check the box you're flagged and they don't even bother looking into your background. Once you submit an application without the box checked, then they look into your background. Just a guess? One time I accidentally checked that I was in the country illegally on my license renewal at the DMV and they didn't give a **** and issued me a license no questions asked. I went to vote in the next election and was denied because of it (this is how I found out I checked the box... strangely enough VA DMV could not produce ONE piece of paperwork that proved this... the whole thing was shady). So I wouldn't be surprised either way. Yes, that's right, Virgina will issue you a drivers license even if you check that you're here illegally. So, who the hell knows. When you start getting involved in processes like that, especially when the government is involved, you cannot rule out any level of absurdity or incompetence. You certainly could be right. Like I said, anecdotal so it can be taken with a grain of salt. I just found it odd that they were seemingly so lax about it when it could have been a very shady situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 "Moderate" is having any background check involved. "Easy" is the Texas way, giving each newborn baby a CCL and firearm at birth. NRA supplied definitions here. False Florida is listed as easy and has a background check. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 False Florida is listed as easy and has a background check. Background checks on newborns are fairly useless. The NRA knows that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 Don't you liberals understand? The very nature of doing a study is biased. That's why the only people who are allowed to do studies, are lobbying groups from our side of the issue. something preventing studies being done?......I guess some people just want the govt to fund them(obviously not very many though) Pony up some money Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 Background checks on newborns are fairly useless. The NRA knows that. WTF are you talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 (edited) something preventing studies being done?......I guess some people just want the govt to fund them(obviously not very many though) Pony up some money There is something, the CDC ban. The government should fund them, because they both A) have the most resources and B ) have the easiest access to the most complete data. Everyone else doing studies is getting data 2nd hand from the government, and is more resource limited, which means more margin for error/fewer factors examined. That and the whole fact that it's a public health issue, and the government is supposed to investigate those things. I would gladly donate to a crowdfunded study on root causes of gun violence if one popped up and it checked out as legit. Alas, I'm sure there'd be some statistical hiccup somewhere (that could be fixed with more studies) that would make you call the study invalid (while simultaneously saying we don't need more studies). Edited October 8, 2015 by DogofWar1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 WTF are you talking about? If you didn't realize that was a joke... I can't help you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 If you didn't realize that was a joke... I can't help you. Bad etiquette on your part. You forgot the smiley. I'm still curious how they are deciding if it's easy, moderate, etc. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 There is something, the CDC ban. The government should fund them, the govt does fund gun studies, nor is the CDC banned from doing so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 (edited) Arming teachers Edited October 8, 2015 by Corcaigh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcl05 Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 Reminds me of the (in)famous "reality has a liberal bias" talking points... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 (edited) something preventing studies being done?......I guess some people just want the govt to fund them(obviously not very many though) Pony up some money Perfect. All studies on the safety of guns should be funded by groups that favor gun control, rather than by the government (which we ask to study all sorts of health and safety issues because they are, you know, the government and all....) That way when the results of the studies are in, they can be automatically dismissed as biased and will have no value in the national debate. Brilliant strategy! Do you work for the NRA? Because they could use a guy like you. Edited October 8, 2015 by Predicto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 the reality round here certainly does Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 the govt does fund gun studies, nor is the CDC banned from doing so. The CDC isn't "banned" the same way parents say "oh sure, go to that party and stay out past curfew." Then they stay out and get grounded for a month. Are you pretending that if the CDC went and shoved $10M into doing root cause gun violence research, that the GOP wouldn't immediately slash their funding? Because we all know they would. They've threatened as much. CDC funding of gun research studies has fallen 96% since the '96 ban. I suppose we can pretend that 4% of the funding is "funding," except you, I, and everyone knows it's woefully inadequate and insufficient to do the kind of studies needed to get a complete understanding of the issue. http://abcnews.go.com/Health/cdc-ban-gun-research-caused-lasting-damage/story?id=18909347 The CDC conducted gun violence research in the 1980s and 1990s, but it abruptly ended in 1996 when the National Rifle Association lobbied Congress to cut the CDC's budget the exact amount it had allocated to gun violence research. "It's worth pointing out that the language never specifically forbade the CDC from conducting the research," Wintemute said. The 1997 appropriations bill stated, "None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control." Congress also threatened more funding cuts if the gun research continued. "The message was really clear," Wintemute said. In 2003, the 1997 bill language was updated to include the words "in whole or in part," which expanded the ban. Then, in 2012, the appropriations bill expanded the restriction to all Health and Human Services agencies And with regard to all the "studies" you say are still being done. Wintemute said even though existing gun data included many conditions that haven't changed, opponents can easily disregard it as being old and therefore irrelevant. He added that repeating this research requires real time research, which will take years to conduct and require a labor force that no longer exists. As a result of researchers leaving his field and students steering clear of it because of funding concerns, Wintemute said the labor force available to dive back into gun violence research is virtually nonexistent. He estimated that only 12 or 15 people in the whole country are still researching gun violence because only a handful of nonprofits are willing to fund it. "I don't think there's anyone at the CDC who has done significant work in this area in a decade," he said. David Hemenway, a professor at the Harvard School of Public Health who specializes in injury research, said he cannot "in good conscience" tell his students to pursue careers in gun violence research. "Don't write your dissertation about guns because it's not going to get any money," said Hemenway, who is considered one of the top gun violence researchers in the country. "All this knowledge is not going to be worth it to them, which is sad." Wintemute said it's become a tough field to enter because researchers worry about death threats, adding that he himself was threatened by gun manufacturer Bruce Jennings, who founded B.L. Jennings Firearms and Bryco Arms in California. It has since gone bankrupt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 Wintemute is obviously pro gun control so his "opinions" are useless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 Gotta admit, the NRA really has covered all their bases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCSaints_fan Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 I don't think we can tackle this issue politcally at the moment. I think we need some good artists (books, films) to tackle this topic to change peoples opinions. Sort of like what happened with the civil rights movment and the LGBT movement Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenaa Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 "Moderate" is having any background check involved. "Easy" is the Texas way, giving each newborn baby a CCL and firearm at birth. NRA supplied definitions here. In Texas it's a half day class that includes teaching on the law surrounding concealed carry, and when it is and isn't appropriate to use force, and a proficiency/safety test on a range. You have to submit to finger printing for the background check. It's a very reasonable approach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 Okay that made me laugh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 Half day class!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bacon Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 Another day, another school shooting: http://abcnews.go.com/US/deadly-shooting-reported-northern-arizona-universitys-flagstaff-campus/story?id=34363113 A deadly shooting occurred on Northern Arizona University’s Flagstaff campus early this morning, and the suspected shooter is in custody, according to a university spokesperson. One person died and three others were wounded in the shooting, the spokesperson said. It's unclear what sparked the shooting, which took place near Mountain View Hall, a dormitory that houses most of the campus' students involved in Greek organizations. Residents in Mountain View Hall were asked to stay indoors, according to an emergency alert sent by the university. More than 20,000 students are enrolled at the Flagstaff campus. Meanwhile, U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., released the following statement this morning: “My thoughts and prayers are with families of the person who was killed and the three others who were wounded in the horrific shooting on the campus of Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff early this morning. I appreciate the efforts of all state and local law enforcement officials, first-responders and school administrators, and continue to pray for the recovery of the injured, as well as all those in the NAU community who have been impacted by this terrible tragedy.” Why even start separate threads for these anymore? We're averaging a school shooting every 6 days and that figure was almost exactly right in this case. 8 days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Excuses Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 Stuff happens Signed, Everyone with a gun fetish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts