Reply from Congressman Tim Murphy R-18th Dist.

[jacksnack]

[snip]

As Chairman of Oversight and Investigations on the Energy and Commerce Committee, I am leading a meaningful examination of mental health treatment, research, and programs within the federal government. New restrictions on our constitutionally-protected right to own firearms will not address the underlying issue in tragedies like the one at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown. Untreated mental illness is the root catalyst in these cases, which is why it is the main policy area I am focusing my work on. If Congress only examines putting further restrictions on the weapon used to commit these crimes, we will have done nothing to prevent the next one from occurring.

[snip]

{emphasis mine}

[Qtrborecrazy]

Common thread is they're all liberals.

[jacksnack]

Common thread is they're all liberals.

????????????????

[spacemanvic]

????????????????

The current string of mass shooters have all been leftists, progressives, socialists, liberals and affiliates of the OWS crowd. Pretty interesting how the MSM has been hiding/not reporting that fact.

[Qtrborecrazy]

The current string of mass shooters have all been leftists, progressives, socialists, liberals and affiliates of the OWS crowd. Pretty interesting how the MSM has been hiding/not reporting that fact.

Thank you sir.

[BadAtScreennames]

The current string of mass shooters have all been leftists, progressives, socialists, liberals and affiliates of the OWS crowd. Pretty interesting how the MSM has been hiding/not reporting that fact.

Except, that's not true. Political affiliation is a red herring.

The only common thread is that they have—obviously—been crazy. And often suffering from mental illnesses that no background check law, existing or proposed, would have spotted.

People are making a lot of assumptions about what mental health providers can do in regard to preventing violence, and I suspect many of those assumptions have little basis in reality.

[dosequis]

Except, that's not true. Political affiliation is a red herring.

The only common thread is that they have—obviously—been crazy. And often suffering from mental illnesses that no background check law, existing or proposed, would have spotted.

People are making a lot of assumptions about what mental health providers can do in regard to preventing violence, and I suspect many of those assumptions have little basis in reality.

That's where I see the danger of expecting these elected experts to craft any law that will actually prevent the next tragedy. To me, the worst likely result of some new "feel-good law" is that you'll have some type of on the spot "sanity test" before you can purchase any firearm. Score outside the "norm" - and you get put into a delay, denied, or worse yet, blacklisted for life.

But don't worry, your rights won't be infringed. Just the crazy people's rights. Any sane person will pass the test, right?

Who decides the test? Gun control advocates. Who decides what is potentially crazy? Gun control advocates. Who decides what is normal? Gun control advocates.

Just my take on a likely outcome. Possible? Yeah. Likely? maybe. Does that mean I'm crazy 'cause I'm paranoid?

[BadAtScreennames]

That's where I see the danger of expecting these elected experts to craft any law that will actually prevent the next tragedy. To me, the worst likely result of some new "feel-good law" is that you'll have some type of on the spot "sanity test" before you can purchase any firearm. Score outside the "norm" - and you get put into a delay, denied, or worse yet, blacklisted for life.

But don't worry, your rights won't be infringed. Just the crazy people's rights. Any sane person will pass the test, right?

Who decides the test? Gun control advocates. Who decides what is potentially crazy? Gun control advocates. Who decides what is normal? Gun control advocates.

Just my take on a likely outcome. Possible? Yeah. Likely? maybe. Does that mean I'm crazy 'cause I'm paranoid?

Here's a dry-but-interesting blog on the potential limitations of mental health as a cure for gun violence: http://www.rand.org/blog/2013/01/can...un-crimes.html

"Compounding the challenge is the dramatic gulf between what people imagine mental health professionals can do to prevent gun violence and what the current science will support. As a field, we are not able to identify individuals who are likely to use guns against others on the basis of their mental health, nor do we have any evidence-based treatments to reduce the likelihood of violence."

[Qtrborecrazy]

Except, that's not true. Political affiliation is a red herring.

The only common thread is that they have—obviously—been crazy. And often suffering from mental illnesses that no background check law, existing or proposed, would have spotted.People are making a lot of assumptions about what mental health providers can do in regard to preventing violence, and I suspect many of those assumptions have little basis in reality.

Thats just it, you show me a sane liberal.