Texas among leaders in filing gun reports (Mental Health Reports)

[RamboLiberal]

Two years after Texas passed a law to comply with a new federal mandate, the Lone Star State is among those leading the nation in the number of mental health reports submitted to an FBI database that clears individuals to buy firearms.

Texas' cooperation contrasts with 25 states and the District of Columbia that have filed fewer than 100 mental health records, according to FBI statistics obtained and released by Mayors Against Illegal Guns. Thirteen of those states have filed fewer than 10 reports and six states have not filed any reports, its data indicates.

"Texans understand that background checks are not gun control," said Mark Glaze, director of the organization that represents chief executives from more than 600 cities. "Background checks are a common sense, crime-fighting measure that keeps guns away from the most dangerous people in our society while doing nothing to stop the rest of us from exercising our rights."

During the eight-month period that ended April 30, Texas provided 68,769 mental health reports to the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Washington state submitted the second-highest total number of reports during that same period, with 42,556.



Read more: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7622662.html#ixzz1Q8teZS4T

[petronius]

1. Good for Texas - it's ridiculous how many states have dragged their feet on this

If MAIG can light a fire under some of those dilettantes, it'll have done one useful thing, at least...

[Hoyt]

2. With all those states not reporting -- should suspend gun sales until system catches up.

[spin]

3. Are you suggesting that all gun sales stop because some states are behind?

What a neat way for those who oppose firearms to get a ban on sales.

What a neat way for Democrats to lose both houses of Congress and the Presidency in the next election.

Why not limit federal aid to the states until they catch up on getting the records into the system. Or better yet, provide funds to those states to enable them to input the data.

[Hoyt]

5. Are you suggesting we should let those with mental illness buy guns to keep your pipeline open?

Actually, I don't think there are that many Dems who would vote with right wing gunners. I know you want folks to believe that, but might actually attract some votes from people who realize more guns are not good for out country in the long run.

[spin]

6. You are a dreamer ...

that much I will give you.

If more guns is such a bad idea please explain why the sale 0f 110,000,000 firearms between November 1998 and December 2009 hasn't caused a rise in the violent crime rate? No matter how you try to dance around the figures, 110 million is a hell of a lot of firearms.





You apparently are serious about stopping the sale of all firearms until the states catch up on inputting names to the NICS background check system. You even go so far as to believe that most Democrats would support your idea which ignores that fact that many Democrats own firearms.

Perhaps you can explain why this poll doesn't indicate strong support for more gun control - let alone stopping the sales of all firearms as you suggest.

Gallup Review: Public Opinion Context of Tucson Shootings
Less support for gun control in recent years, evidence of increased polarization
January 10, 2011

PRINCETON, NJ -- The deadly shootings in Tucson, Ariz., on Saturday, resulting in the deaths of six and the wounding of 14 others, including U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, have raised a number of questions about the context and environment in which these events took place. As the nation waits for more facts to become known about the accused's background and motives, discussion about the case in the media and online has focused largely on Arizona's gun control laws, reports that the accused shooter was a drug user, and the broader divisive political climate in the country. This article reviews public opinion on several aspects of these matters.

***snip***

Gallup trends on gun control show that Americans have grown less supportive of strengthening gun laws in the United States over the last two decades, notwithstanding a number of tragic gun attacks during that period.

The percentage in favor of making the laws governing the sale of firearms "more strict" fell from 78% in 1990 to 62% in 1995, and 51% in 2007. In the most recent reading, Gallup in 2010 found 44% in favor of stricter laws. In fact, in 2009 and again last year, the slight majority said gun laws should either remain the same or be made less strict.




http://www.gallup.com/poll/145526/gallup-review-public-opinion-context-tucson-shootings.aspx#1

edited to add violent crime data

[Hoyt]

7. For all you know, crime rate would be half what it is if all those guns had not been made & bought.

[TheWraith]

8. That's incredibly weak even for you. nt

[Hoyt]

9. Prove it wrong. You guys keep "implying" more guns led to decreased crime. But it didn't.

Yea, I know you guys are careful not to say it direct having been called on it by many here -- but you keep posting the same BS as if a gun in every waistband is responsible for decreased crime rates. More likely reasons: aging population, longer sentences, better law enforcement, better survelliance (including cameras everywhere), better economy until recently, etc.

[gejohnston]

10. no one is implying any such thing. Simply putting up a chart to be taken at face value, but

it does show that more guns increase crime is a canard. By the way, you can't prove a negative.

[TheWraith]

13. Apparently you don't know how science works.

You have to present proof of your claim. You don't get to throw out random unsubstantiated bull and then demand that somebody prove you wrong--particularly when that claim is based on your own personal belief system. You're playing out the role of the creationist demanding that evolutionists scientifically prove that there is no God.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TheWraith]

20. Problem for you is, "Guns are bad, mmmkay?" is your personal belief, not backed up by science.

There is no credible evidence that more guns equal more crime. And as posted upthread, there is very clear evidence to show that there is NOT a correlation between the number of guns, which have doubled in the last decade, and crime, which has continued to go down.

Your continued assertion that "Guns are bad, no evidence needed" is as contrary to all apparent evidence as the people who keep insisting that marijuana is a "gateway drug" and highly addictive.

[Hoyt]

22. Like I said, other factors are at work. If we didn't have so many of things, crime might be less.

Hard for you to accept because you can't see yourself without a few of your favorite objects.

[spin]

15. I asked you why 110,000,000 firearms sold from 1998 to 2009 didn't cause more crime ...

I never implied that they decreased crime.

[Hoyt]

19. Dang close. I'm simply saying the crime rate might be less if those guns hadn't been made/bought.

If you really believe what you posted, then why even show the stats.

Crime rate didn't go up. OK. But, crime rate might be EVEN less if you guys weren't out there demanding more guns, "sexier/deadlier" design, fighting anything that threatens the pipeline, etc.

[gejohnston]

21. Might, but a true liberal would ask "is there proof of compelling state interest"

and you admitted there is none.

[spin]

24. And the crime rate MIGHT have been much higher if those guns had not been made ...

but a better case could be made that the proliferation of firearms in honest civilian hands has been a prime factor in the decease in crime.

Another factor might be the passage of laws which have enabled honest people to better defend themselves with their firearms. Such laws include "shall issue" concealed carry, castle doctrine and "stand your ground.".

Some people have turned their dislike of firearms into a religion. They absolutely believe the guns exert an evil influence on our society and base their beliefs on what they perceive as commonsense. To many it is only logical that if civilian firearm ownership was illegal, we would live in a more peaceful society.

Unfortunately religion is often based on myths. Those who follow the anti-firearm faith often believe falsehoods such as allowing licensed citizens to carry concealed weapons will lead to a return to the wild west. When their core beliefs are proven false, they still continue to worship at the alter of the Brady Campaign church. Facts and statistics often are ignored by such people.

The assault weapons ban which was loved by those who dislike firearms led to many of the changes in firearm design that you gripe about. Before the ban, the semi-auto rifles that looked like the fully automatic assault rifles used by the military were frowned upon by most gun owners who were very happy with their traditional firearms with wooden stocks. The "black rifles" were smeared at as looking like Mattel Shootin Shell toys.

The assault weapons ban backfired when shooters who were curious about all the commotion bought theses weapons and discovered just how accurate and versatile they were. The ban also limited the capacity of new magazines and the gun manufacturers finally decided to pay attention to the growing segment of shooters who had concealed weapons permits and were looking for lighter and more compact firearms to carry. Now we have many small but powerful handguns which are easy to conceal and carry comfortably all day.

You asked:

"If you really believe what you posted, then why even show the stats."

That statement shows the difference between you and me. You believe and have faith in your views therefore what you believe in must be true. It's your religion.

I look at the data and form conclusions based on statistics and facts - not on emotion.

You see no reason to post facts or statistics to support your faith. I have faith in facts and statistics therefore I post them.

[gejohnston]

4. wait a minute

We are talking about people who have been ruled severely ill or incompetent by a judge right? Not people who might have have minor depression right? There are fewer mental hospitals than schools. If Texas is 100 percent compliant, we are talking 68,769 out of 24 million. Washington has 6.5 million. Fewer than 100 would be statistically correct with places like DC, Wyoming, Vermont, Guam, Montana, Alaska etc.

That being the case, MAIG is blowing smoke up everyone's asses.

[Katya Mullethov]

12. How many of the MAIGs are prohibited persons ?

Or more easily put . How many AREN'T ?

[gejohnston]

14. Eleven that I know of

http://www.stopillegalmayors.com/

[Katya Mullethov]

16. Maybe they're just jealous .

Being second class citizens and all.

[ileus]

11. Texas doing the most to preserve our rights.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

17. re: Texas doing the most to preserve our rights.

Now that's a government that I can feel good about supporting.

[Glassunion]

23. If only our state would do the same.

PA is great on entering these folks on the state level and a PICS check will look for this. However, we need to share the info and get it into NICS. Quite lack luster IMHO.