Knee jerk reactions. Murder is illegal but people still go out and kill. There is no need for more laws. I will play pretend with Deval, no more gun show sales, 1 transaction per month. "Bill Citizen" bought a rifle at the "Gun Store" in Waltham, then he sold it to his neighbor "Average Joe" legally and they completed the proper forms. That night "Average Joe's" house was robbed and they took his gun safe, the robber we will call "Billy Bad Guy" opened the safe and used the rifle in a violent crime. What did the new laws stop? New laws are ineffective, they just make life more difficult for law abiding citizens.

Enforce the current law which states a mandatory 1 year jail sentence for illegal possession of a firearms.

Agree with Frosty
Bill O'Reilly made a great suggestion last night on his show: make any gun crime a federal crime, with a 10 year minimum sentence. Better yet...In Florida they have a terrific law that says: have a gun in your possession during a crime, minimum 10 years. You pull it out during a crime? Minimum 20 years, you USE the gun during a crime?, life imprisonment. You want to protect our citizens and decrease gun use? Pass THAT law in this country. Gun restrictions don't work, but tough gun crime sentencing DOES.
The problem is, the left is four square against getter tougher on criminals, because they feel it isn't the criminals fault for committing crime, it's their parents fault, or it's "societys fault" but never the actual criminal's fault.

TOTALLY 100% agree!

Help for children, I'm for, sticter gun laws, I'm for, there are those who do not uphold gun laws in full. More money for The Massachusetts Department of Mental Health,CAREFUL.... They have got lots of money. How many know what "munchausen"is? Not sure look it up in your dictionary or a Physians Desk Referrence. Mental heath has got Millions of dollars on 1 person they should never have got. But not treated disorders needed to be treated!.

There are over 20,300 gun laws on the books today nationwide and still there are crimes being commited with firearms. Laws that infringe upon law-abiding people do not prevent robberies, rape, murder, etc. Criminals do not obey most laws, including firearms laws. If our legistature/governor would stop paying such high salaries to bureaucrats and spend it on police and mental health issues, we would all be better off.

MA already has the most draconian gun laws in the U.S., which by the way are repugnant to our own State Constitution, not to mention the U.S. Constitution. The current MA laws endanger responsible gun owners to legal threats where there is no victim. Notice the new proposal has lots of fees incorporated into it. No mention of any proofs that children will be safer by anyone proposing the rules. By the way do you want your Doctor asking you if you have guns? And your children...does Daddy has any guns in the house, and do guns make you afraid little Suzy (no correct answer here is there)? Do Mommy and Daddy ever get into arguments? Etc.etc. In other words, this is tragedy waiting to happen when Doctors be come deputies. Criminals are not going to magically start complying with any gun laws, no matter how draconian they may be. Just ask the people in the gun free zone of Chicago. Over 500 gun murders last year alone.

First, I never implied that ALL law-abiding, licensed gun owners are responsible people and never make errors. I do believe, however, that ALL criminals that use firearms should be jailed--not the same thing.

And second, yes, I am familiar with Munchausen & Munchhausen by Proxy. Again, I am not commenting on that specific problem. I refer to the money being spent in other areas that do not aid the ill and helpless regardless of what they are suffering from these days. Perhaps I should have said "real" mental illness and additional health problems.

Reading your posts makes my head hurt. My grammar is far from perfect, but I can't grasp your point.

M.C.Stringfellow,
Go back to school? I was an A- college student. I know my name, I have 1 name, there is no posting under 2 names. I know who & what I was responding to. Skipped grammar. Incorrect. I was an A+ in English. Medical help, what are you insinuating is wrong? I know what I medically have wrong with self. I'm not a doctor. God's servants sould do thier job! When not & they cash thier check they should turn the bill over & read what it says! It's who I serve & who gave me the brain for insight & wisdonm I have.

Let's move away from Dawns grammar, and back onto topic. I think that including a mental health feature in the pursuit of reducing crazies getting guns is a viable and reasonable approach. However, in our flight to do something quickly, we have a tendency to pass laws that make us feel good, rather than be effective. There is a civil rights issue that needs to be addressed when passing laws that involve locking up or restricting rights of mentally ill people. The ACLU was behind the push to open up the lock up wards back in the 80's under Reagan. That was a mistake. Lets not make more mistakes. We need time to study this matter and consult with mental health experts on the best approach for an effective set of laws. We aren't doing that. We are rushing feel good laws into effect without taking care of big picture, longer term issues. But yes, Deval is correct in wanting to include mental health issues in the discussion. It is essential that we do.

Frosty
Agree with that, without a doubt. A useful definition of a criminal is "a person who does not OBEY rules" ...and a mentally ill person is someone who simply doesn't UNDERSTAND rules. So will someone tell me how more RULES will stop criminals or mentally ill people from getting guns? It will simply stop the sane, law abiding citizen from getting guns...the ONLY people who ought to be allowed to own them!!

Alright. It's early morning, I'm responding to what I read. "move away" steal guns? Rules.... You are posting to a woman who has memorized the Bible & composed the 313 th Commandment?
Our Country's Law (Constitution) is evrything that has "Proceeded out the mouth of God" The Lord, You know the God that gave you birth.
When you post "crazy" specify what mental illness you are referring to.If you post to I about it remember, I'm an A- College student in Psychology, & Observing & Recording Behavior & society.
Alot of murders have not by the mentally ill, thinking was too clear. Like Sandy Hook. The guy destoyed his hard drive so the best could'nt access it. Premeditated & clear thinking. First killed his mom. Had gone straight through the Commandments. 1-4 Have to do with honoring God, 5th Mother & Father, The 1 with a promise, the 6th Thou shalt not kill. Would anyony like to jump to the 9th & bear false witness?
Have youselves a Good morning!

Dawn, dear, your posts don't make any sense. Your grammar, your syntax, your logic, all are jumbled and dont lead any where. Please, don't embarrass yourself any further.
Stop posting.

I know who I am, what I have earned. My conerns are the posts that are ignorant filled. I will NOT stop posting!!!! I am an upstanding citizen of the U.S.A. I will do as I please.
Get on with your lives & stop being so negative.

Dawn, I'm not trying to be mean, nor am I trying to suppress your right to your opinions or your right to voice them, nor am I being negative. I am just concerned that you don't know how you are coming across. That's all. I am certain that you are an "upstanding citizen of the USA". I apologize if I seemed negative. It's just that...your posts are...irrational. If you have indeed been awarded high college honors, is it possible that you have had a stroke and not know it?
Please, be my guest, continue to post. I was just concerned that you don't realize how your posts sound, that's all. I apologize. Say whatever is on your mind. There is room for everybody here.

Why is this entire line of posting about some woman's incoherent ramblings? This is supposed to be a thread about Gov. Patrick's gun policies and regulation of mental health care.

Dawn, I apologize also if I offended you. I also am concerned about how you come across to others. You have the right to post your opinions. I never meant to insinuate that you were mentally ill.

I am a low-income person and have Medicare and Medicaid and more than one psychiatric "label," that is, I receive disability payments due to a psychiatric condition. I also hold a master's degree, but that's neither here nor there. I fired my private-practice therapist in March '12 because I felt that she was abusive and had serious boundary problems, and began my long, long search for a new one. It took until September 20 (!) for me to finally cycle onto the top of a waiting list. Three sessions with the new one and I decided to can her, but I was on the top of another waiting list. Finally, mid-November, I found a therapist I could work with. So I went from March to November with pretty much no mental health services. The DMH does nothing, these workers are lazy and don't show up most of the time. They seem to have no knowledge and lack proper training. The DMH people fall through when you need them most. This is something that our governor should do something about. Also, the human rights laws that protect mental patients are paper laws only and are there to keep us happy and shut us up. They do not really protect us from mental health abuse (such as getting beat up, injured, raped, treated with severe disrespect, or otherwise harmed in a hospital or institutional setting). I have been personally fighting against stigma and prejudice and battling for the rights of people with mental illnesses and eating disorders...if you want to know more please contact me.

"Patrick's bill would enhance background checks by requiring courts to transmit all relevant mental health records to the state's criminal justice information system, which would result in this information being included in a national registry that all states access before issuing gun licenses."

In theory I understand & agree with background checks. However, I have a problem where private health info, local PD. State Police, courts & the Feds merge. I disagree 100% with a doctor asking me, during a routine office visit, about guns I may own. Who knows what the doctor's personal opinion is of gun ownership; I suspect many oppose it, thus causing bias. That fact could cloud what a doctor writes down & ultimately reports to the government. (I also disagree with using doctors as "agents" of the Govt to snoop.) On the other hand, I doubt local/state/Fed law enforcement have the necessary training/education to make "decisions" about mental health issues & issuance of gun permits; law enforcement isn't in the diagnosis business. I don't want to wind up on a Natl list, not knowing what's there, who has access & where info came from.

Is Patrick ready to revise MA gun laws? MA is a "may issue" state, not a "shall issue" state. This policy creates a wide variety of hoops to jump through depending on which town you live in to get a license. The entire state should have consistent rules, not a bunch of little fifedoms. And licenses should be issued for lifetime.

Patrick and Obama are going to do nothing about guns but huff and puff,why? Because the largest gun manufacturers are right here in good old Massachusetts and Connecticut. Smith and Wesson, Sturm Ruger, Savage Arms and Colt Industries have been employing thousands of people here for many years.

Phil, I'm not sure I agree with your line of reasoning, and God forgive me... I agree with Cavaretta. Obama doesn't give a fig about which state Colt or Smith & Wesson are in. He has a national agenda, and the gun manufacturers represent a zero threat to that agenda. Witness what he did to Boeing in South Carolina, and that was a state he electorally CARED about. You might be right about Patrick being cautious about these companies being in Massachusetts, but he is on his way out of Massachusetts politics. He is not facing another state wide election here. So he is now looking more toward his legacy, and what better legacy is there for a lefty than to be known as the guy who crippled the weapons industry? That is a feather in their caps in their world. To heck with the jobs they wipe out. People who make their living making killing machines "deserve" to be unemployed, right? It's for the children!

why, exactly would anyone need to buy more than one gun a month in the first place/

A rifle for deer, a shotgun for birds and a pistol for people. Kinda like a golfer needs different clubs, gunsels need different guns to kill different size things. How about a 40mm mike mike for all those vermin and maggots?

More than half that number is suicide.

Steven you should always cite your source, good job of copying and pasting two paragraphs. Live your life by statistics, enjoy it. Haha.

Steve Cavaretta
I apologize for not knowing that you are gay. I don't intend to insult anyone of the gay persuasion, not that there is anything wrong with that. I retract my "bite me" comment, and fully commit to respecting your homosexual life style choices.

Despite my conservative inclinations, I am very pro gay in terms of life style, and rights. I agree, homosexuality is NOT a choice as some people contend, but it is being born that way, just like being born black or with blue eyes. Didn't know you were of that persuasion Stevie-Boy, so my comment was meant as a phrase indicating that "you should go jump off a cliff", rather than a request for sexual services. So I DO retract that comment as it was taken by you as a sexual favor rather than a declarative command.

Cavaretta
So, Steve, I apparently misspelled a word, so that TOTALLY invalidates the point, huh? Actually, this factoid was broadcast on the History Channel. I am going to presume, since these facts are a matter of history and not an opinion that I just ginned up, the folks at the History Channel have their facts straight. They have a number of PhD's of history on their research staff, and since these historical murderers are a matter of known...HISTORY, I am going to say that your weak attempt at poo-pooing the facts due to a spelling error, is laughable. And as far as me "attempting to indict" these monsters, I find your lack of historical knowledge jaw droppingly ignorant. They have already been indicted. By many authorities higher than just my opinion.
What, are you saying that Hitlers actions are mere speculation? That the 20 million Soviets that were murdered or allowed to starve by Stalin is simply conjecture? All guilt to be swept away and evil to be forgotten, the lessons of tyranny dismissed because Mike misspelled a name? Are you flippin serious?
Can you spell M-O-R-O-N?
I find that bloggers who can't come up with an intelligent response on a logical or philosophical basis, usually look for grammatical or spelling errors within a post to try to concoct SOME kind of response, since their cupboard is empty otherwise.
Try to answer the philosophical point I was making if you can...the MILLIONS of victims due to their innate inability to defend themselves.

Is it legal to buy a gun at a gun show in MA without a background check now?
(Is it legal to buy a gun in MA without an LTC or similar? Can you get one of those without a background check?)

Gun shows are just shows, getting like minded people together, like a swap meet. Dealers attend as well as private citizens. ALL dealers who have a dealers license (issued by state authority) MUST adhere to guidelines established by that authority, which includes applicable waiting periods, and back ground checks. There IS no "gunshow" loop hole. If you buy a gun from a private citizen at the gun show, just like if you were to buy one on Craig's list or at a garage sale or an ad in the local paper, or from your grandma, such transactions have never required a back ground check. So, all the laws that state requires of dealers and private citizens are followed. No one is trying a "work around" or to be cute with gun laws at gun shows. The "loop hole" is a myth.
So if I wanted to sell you my gun, we'd make that transaction, and no background check would be required. Personally, I think that is something that ought to change, and Obama is suggesting we do that. So I agree with that particular improvement.

Still not able to mount any refutation to my question, eh Stevie boy? Still looking for grammatical errors to cover your lack of critical thinking? Instead of answering the question I've posed twice to you, you engage in a "Where's Waldo" search for errors such as spelling and grammatical flaws, frantically busy covering your empty brain pan with posturing, bluster and snark. Why don't you muster up all the intelligence you told your mother you have, get off the basement couch, turn off "Glee", and answer the question I've posed to you? Add some value would you? A conversation is an exchange of ideas, not a competition as to who is the spelling bee champ of 1998.

Nailed it.

@ dan

Assuming your question is rhetorical, IMO, the salient correlation I note is yet another example of an organization/interest group (although more to the left than right) thwarting a law from being passed which could have prevented the tragedy.

Given the contention of; 'We don't need any more laws' aimed at gun control, I'd say the ACLU nixing a law which could have prevented the tragedy is just another example of 'if we did', maybe this tragedy could have been prevented.

In response to: "Why did the ACLU stop the law that would have allowed the mother to put her son in a locked up hospital? Shhe Tried and was stopped and She probably had the guns locked up; however, after killing her, then, he found access to the gun."

If the intent of a background check is to prevent guns from falling into the hands of people we agree shouldn't have them AND if 40% of gun sold in this country don't require background checks - how can anyone say that there are no loopholes?

Jerry Reilly using yor 40% of gun sold, most are from father ginving a gun to a son, daughter or other relative or friend.

One of the problems I see is the issue of registration of weapons. It would seem reasonable to require gun owners to register thir weapons. But it also seems reasonable to require voters to show some form of ID when voting. But the left paints a slippery slope argument and states that such a requirement could or would lead to voter suppression tactics. There is a profound amount of distrust behind anti fraud steps that could be taken.
Similarly, registration of weapons is accompanied by a large amount of distrust as well. Once guns are registered, weapons round ups would be a whole lot easier by any tyrannical impulse that might emanate from a party in power inclined to "nanny state" it's citizens. This current administration comes to mind.
Do you folks see what is happening here? What the left fears about voting rights is ignored in gun rights. They are not equal in their views. Nor do they even pretend to.
Their intent is to make gun owners anathema in the public square (which they control) just as smokers were. But those who want real voters voting in our elections are portrayed as racist vote suppresors. Soon, gun rights advocates will be painted as similar backward tobacco chewing racists. (the racial arguments always come out when arguing with a liberal)

JB
There are many pragmatic reasons for BOTH the ID for voters as well as gun registration. Your note that they check off your name and address when you vote means nothing if they don't connect your face to that address. Drivers licenses do that just fine. Your list of pragmatic reasons for gun registration is also valid. But what I DON'T understand is why one side thinks one of those requirements are valid but not the other. If you are for requiring gun owners to register, why are you AGAINST requiring the same for who decides who runs this country? Presidents with war powers are FAR more dangerous than law abiding citizens that own guns.

Perhaps I am confusing you with the word "registration". Let me put it in simpler terms: gun registration...good. Voter ID....bad. Does that pretty much sum up your views? My view: what's good for goose is good for the gander. You want to tout the benefits of gun registration? Well then you need to understand that identifying those who vote and those who own guns ought to be on a reasonably sane citizens list of things to do. I don't see any difference in logic.

JB
See? RIght there. Selective reasoning. You see citizens having the right to vote, and anything...ANYTHING that might that right microscopically more rigorous (I mean, c'mon, how hard is it to show an ID or your gas bill to someone?). But somehow, in listing rights of citizens, the right guaranteed by an actual amendment to keep and bear arms...why, that didn't make your list of imperatives. You emphasize one right, but dismiss off handedly one of equal value. Why? Because YOU don't like guns. So protecting that right just doesn't really get your attention, does it? My point, sir, is that logic dictates that we should all care about all of our rights, whether it's the right to have an abortion, the right to organize a labor union, the right to bear arms, the right to limit voting to just citizens of this country. ALL OF THEM are important. Once you lose your right for anything, you never get it back. Ever. When you start reserving your ire for rights that only you care for, then asking others to help your cause is futile, since you didnt help them when theirs were threatened. It sort of makes you and others equally selective about protecting rights, hypocrites. I think rights that i like are important, but yours? ...naw.

The use of emotion in left wing politics is being ramped up. Note the appeals Obama is making when touring the country trying to scare the heck out of citizens with stories of furloughing cops and meat inspectors and air traffic controllers. When reducing budgets, each department will choose where the cuts will occur. They will choose the most painful to try to tar republicans with an idea that was Obamas and Jack Lew's.
Pure emotionalism, and a really BAD way to lead the country.

@ Nashoba
The use of the term "I feel" is interchangeable with saying "in my opinion". Also, the use of the term "I feel" is more common for females to use when expressing opinions. Opinions and differing ones are at the core of arguments in favor or against something and come into play during debates. Not to mention the opening phrase of the author of the article was: "What do you THINK about the govs..proposal?" For all intents and purposes, the use of term; "I feel" is interchangeable with term; "in my opinion".

@ David Chesler:

Well we could differ on what the spirit is. But maybe we could agree that some of the gun use that has come under fire (no pun intended) is outside of the spirit.

Regarding "99.5% of guns NOT being misused", this percentile, as stated, tells us nothing about the total number of guns out there being used as intended or misused. For example, lets say we have 1000 objects which could be 'used as intended' or 'misused'. If 500 of those objects are used as intended and 500 are misused, one could make the statement; '100% of the objects "not misused" are therefore used as intended. Well, ya, one could say that about the 50% of objects not being misused (100% of the 50% of all objects 'not being misused' are not being misused.) One needs to relate back percentages to the TOTAL number of objects where 'X' of them are used as intended by 'Y' of them are misused.

@ Mike Hullinger

Well, you make a compelling argument here which admittedly I'm at a loss to counter based on your presentation.

I admit that I'm thinking in terms of 'how to deal with all these gun mishaps' as is the present admin in response to them and also that attempts to 'deal' with the gun problem are outside of what you are putting forth here.

@ Mike Hullinger

Yes and the discussion here is what one thinks of the new gun control proposals.
One could also ask if they undermine the 2nd amendment and if so do the proposals in light of the present gun problem 'justify' that. (I think I saw some link to a survey on here that asked the question in that way.)

In response to: "JB The issue of "gun mishaps" and how to deal with the problem...."

A comment has been removed from this thread for violating our Terms of Use.