[ SECRET POST #2716 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2716 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 044 secrets from Secret Submission Post #388.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 - this is getting too obvious now, anon ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: School shooting tw

[(Anonymous)]

That's like 90 percent of what was talked bout after Sandy Hook and...look where it got us. No real changes and more school shootings.

Re: School shooting tw

[(Anonymous)]

California already has fairly strict gun laws (for the US) and still the shooter managed to obtain his weapons legally. The only thing more they could really do would be to say anyone with a history of seeing a psychologist or psychiatrist would be ineligible to own a gun. But with privacy laws and advocates for people who suffer mental illness this will be a hard sell. The shooter did nothing illegal (that he was caught for) to warrant denying him a gun. I don't think you'll get anywhere in the US trying to take all guns away which seems to be where people are going on this thread.

Re: School shooting tw

[(Anonymous)]

In Australia you have to state a genuine reason to want to buy a gun, and part of the background check is seeing whether you have been treated for some kind of mental issue or disorder in the last 12 months. Those are two measures that don't involve taking away people's guns that could have prevented the shooter from acquiring his weapons legally.

Re: School shooting tw

[(Anonymous)]

Oh my god. You've been all over these threads talking about Australia, but Australia is not the US. In the US, checks to "see if you've been treated for a mental illness or disorder" ARE NOT LEGAL. Doctors can't just hand that information out to any shopkeeper that says "Patient X would like to buy a gun..."

Re: School shooting tw

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, I have, so what? I feel passionately about this issue.

If you read the main thread upwards, you can see that the checks I'm referencing are actually declarations on an application for a gun license which are then covered by a police check, which apparently is fairly similar to what you declare on an application for a US gun license. Which, yeah, I probably should used a more accurate term for what I was talking about. I've tried to be accurate about the comparisons I've been drawing but I've probably made mistakes and I admit that.

But I think you and one of the anons I was talking to above (if you aren't the same anon) also got confused about what I was saying. I'm making the argument more restrictive gun control for everybody, which is a different kettle of fish than just more invasive background checks for the mentally ill.

No need to get irate though - I don't mind if you don't agree with me. Obama does, which is fine by me.

Re: School shooting tw

[(Anonymous)]

You are really, really missing the point here. As other anons have said, we have background checks that are almost exactly the same as the one you pasted. The only difference is that the police cannot obtain the information for item d in a background check because it is not legal for them to do so. In Australia, it sounds like they can get that information. Here you can't because we believe that privacy trumps everyone else's safety, it seems.

THAT is the problem here - our mental health and privacy laws are absolute balls on that front. Until we make it legal for the police to do a background check on whether you have been treated for a mental disorder or not, you could just lie about it and they would have no way of checking to be sure.

Re: School shooting tw

[diet_poison]

The only thing more they could really do would be to say anyone with a history of seeing a psychologist or psychiatrist would be ineligible to own a gun.

That would be such a terrible idea. :(

Re: School shooting tw

[(Anonymous)]

EXACTLY, THANK YOU. That's what I've been trying to say all night, and I wish I had just said it rather than being wordy and confusing trying to justify it.