SENATE BILL: Firearms and Mental Health Act of 2013 (Law'd)

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Passed.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Are there any more amendments here? This is pretty big Fing deal don't you know!

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I'm not sure if anyone else wanted to include ammunition under the tax... I have no strong feelings either way, so I'm not going to jump up and down to push the amendment through. But I'll certainly consider it. Or we could bring that type of amendment to a vote.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I propose the following amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I declare it friendly for the sake of expediency, but if any of my brethren would like to object, go on ahead. I could very well vote with you.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Origination
Status: Senators have 24 hours to object to the above amendment.

[Franzl]

Good amendment.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The amendment has passed. Anything else here?

[Napoleon]

I'll just lay my thoughts out on this bill.

- I'm in support of mental health assistance programs and giving them proper funding.

- Is there even a connection between poor "mental health" and violent crime? I'm not so sure. The World Health Organization defines mental health as "a state of well-being in which the individual realizes his or her own abilities, can cope with the normal stresses of life, can work productively and fruitfully, and is able to make a contribution to his or her community". Violent people will do violent things regardless of their mental health state. I am in no way willing to stigmatize people struggling with mental, psychological, or emotional problems as unstable and violent.

- Why is this responsibility left to gun owners? It's not their fault that mentally unhealthy people exist and the guns didn't cause anyone to lose their sanity. It's one thing to deal with guns directly but to try and skirt the issue with a targeted tax, to me, is shameful. You all know I've never favored these so-called "sin taxes" but at least a cigarette tax to pay for healthcare or a gas tax to build roads/clean up the air makes sense. This essentially makes it difficult for lower income Atlasians to acquire a firearm "just 'cause".

- Will this be enough money to make a difference? Can current programs be expanded or better funded, instead of adding new layers of bureaucracy?

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Most findings have been pretty inconclusive when it comes to directly linking mental health with violent crime. But if there's an opportunity to prevent any crime, it's worth taking action. This bill isn't about isolating people with mental health as some sort of guilty party. It's about giving people the help they need. Do you think current services are sufficient?

There is a link, however, between suicides and mental health. And when we see these mass shootings/suicides adorning our TVs every few months, I think it's fair to say that a more "grandiose" suicide option is being promoted to people in challenging states of mental health who may be thinking about taking their own lives. We don't want them to use this option, and, unfortunately, this option involves guns. So let's link the tax to guns. I don't think it's outrageous, and I don't think it would stigmatize people with these issues. The money would also go towards an outreach program.

It may not be the fault of gun owners that mentally unhealthy people exist, but that's just a terrible argument. It's not the fault of childless couples that children exist, but they still pay into education. What's your thought on Canadian health care? It's not the fault of healthy Canadians that cancer exists, but they still pay towards treatment for cancer patients. Look, I'm not into looking after everyone's needs from cradle to grave, but I do believe the state can play a role in helping vulnerable people. There's nothing shameful about supporting the constitutional right to bear arms while still trying to help people who need help. Inaction would be shameful.

To say we're making it more difficult for the poor to obtain weapons "just 'cause" is absolutely insulting. People with mental health issues do not comprise a group of "just 'cause."

And, to address your last point, we are talking about a substantial amount of money. Time estimates that annual gun and ammo revenues in the States Atlasia total $6 billion. That'd be $1.5 billion dollars in tax money.

[Napoleon]

It may not be the fault of gun owners that mentally unhealthy people exist, but that's just a terrible argument. It's not the fault of childless couples that children exist, but they still pay into education. What's your thought on Canadian health care? It's not the fault of healthy Canadians that cancer exists, but they still pay towards treatment for cancer patients. Look, I'm not into looking after everyone's needs from cradle to grave, but I do believe the state can play a role in helping vulnerable people. There's nothing shameful about supporting the constitutional right to bear arms while still trying to help people who need help. Inaction would be shameful.

You're calling my argument terrible? Did you read yours? Everyone pays for education. Everyone pays for healthcare. Everyone should pay for mental health treatment.

"Inaction would be shameful" doesn't mean "any action is acceptable".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

LOL. Are you deliberately trolling on your own bill? There's no reason to tax firearms only. Mental health problems have nothing to do with guns.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You lose a substantial amount when people can no longer afford their $2000 firearms.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

It may not be the fault of gun owners that mentally unhealthy people exist, but that's just a terrible argument. It's not the fault of childless couples that children exist, but they still pay into education. What's your thought on Canadian health care? It's not the fault of healthy Canadians that cancer exists, but they still pay towards treatment for cancer patients. Look, I'm not into looking after everyone's needs from cradle to grave, but I do believe the state can play a role in helping vulnerable people. There's nothing shameful about supporting the constitutional right to bear arms while still trying to help people who need help. Inaction would be shameful.

You're calling my argument terrible? Did you read yours? Everyone pays for education. Everyone pays for healthcare. Everyone should pay for mental health treatment.

Yes, I did read my argument, but I appreciate your obviously very legitmate concern. In your initial comment, you said, quote, "It's not their fault that mentally unhealthy people exist." That was your argument, so that's what I was responding to. I've already discussed why I believe mental health and firearms should be linked in this legislation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You lose a substantial amount when people can no longer afford their $2000 firearms.
[/quote]

If someone can afford to spend $1600 on a gun, I'm inclined to believe that they could also afford to spend $2000. If the $400 deters someone from buying a gun... well, it deters someone from buying a gun. Advocates for gun control shouldn't find that too unpalatable. We'll still be getting significant enough revenues to institute some of the changes that almost everyone in this senate wants to see.

[Napoleon]

It may not be the fault of gun owners that mentally unhealthy people exist, but that's just a terrible argument. It's not the fault of childless couples that children exist, but they still pay into education. What's your thought on Canadian health care? It's not the fault of healthy Canadians that cancer exists, but they still pay towards treatment for cancer patients. Look, I'm not into looking after everyone's needs from cradle to grave, but I do believe the state can play a role in helping vulnerable people. There's nothing shameful about supporting the constitutional right to bear arms while still trying to help people who need help. Inaction would be shameful.

You're calling my argument terrible? Did you read yours? Everyone pays for education. Everyone pays for healthcare. Everyone should pay for mental health treatment.

I've already discussed why I believe mental health and firearms should be linked in this legislation.

That's what I'm trying to understand. Can you clarify that?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You lose a substantial amount when people can no longer afford their $2000 firearms.
[/quote]

If someone can afford to spend $1600 on a gun, I'm inclined to believe that they could also afford to spend $2000. If the $400 deters someone from buying a gun... well, it deters someone from buying a gun. Advocates for gun control shouldn't find that too unpalatable. We'll still be getting significant enough revenues to institute some of the changes that almost everyone in this senate wants to see.
[/quote]

I can understand wanting to put restrictions on firearms that would prevent more tragedies like the recent ones. If we're going to hold guns accountable for these shootings, we need to address the problem directly. A tax doesn't solve anything related to the violence and preventing future tragedies. I'm not thrilled about further restricting access to firearms for poorer Atlasians, who tend to live in less safe neighborhoods and would be most in need of a gun for self-defense. Pricing the poor out of gun ownership doesn't solve our problem; I think even Snowstalker agrees with me on that.

I would prefer a universal tax and more funding for these mental health services than the bill currently provides. We have an opportunity to actually change the way our nation deals with people who need help. We should not let them continue to slip through the cracks.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Guns kill, and I think we need to stop pretending in this country that that’s always a good thing. Guns can be used to take innocent lives. While there’s no clear linkage between official psychological conditions and gun violence, there is a linkage between suicide rates and mental health. Unfortunately, I think the copycat phenomenon comes into play here—people with mental disorders  who would have otherwise killed themselves quietly in their basements now see that they can get much more attention by going into a public place, massacring innocent people, and then taking their own lives once finished. All it takes is one event, and if we can prevent that one event (in which the firearm plays no small part), I think it’s worthwhile to channel money towards mental health initiatives.

That said, I’m of the opinion that anyone who is willing to commit a murder has something working a little off-kilter upstairs. It may not qualify as a mental disorder, but it would still fall into the realm of mental health. Maybe it’s temporary stress from work or tensions within family. Maybe someone gets angry too easily. Maybe someone’s life is falling apart and they just need support. These occurrences aren’t going to be covered by a statistics about mental disorders, but maintaining good mental health could make all the difference. If someone has access to a gun, they can use it to kill someone. And all it takes is a bad day. But maybe—just maybe—with the right help, that bad day can be turned around before someone gets hurt.

I doubt the connection is good enough for you, but it is for me. I’m not proposing this for political expedience—I know people in my own party can’t be too impressed with this bill. I’m proposing it because I believe it’s something that could improve life for people in this country. I don’t believe in taking away the right to bear arms, so, unfortunately, I won’t be willing to take this bill further. Still, I think it’s awfully stubborn to pretend that guns aren’t even an issue. I’m willing to take a small step in what I hope is the right direction. I suppose my colleagues could overrule me and take this bill wherever they want, but it seems to me like this may be a rare opportunity to get a conservative on board with taking action. I hope my colleagues will stick on board as well.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Guns kill, and I think we need to stop pretending in this country that that’s always a good thing. Guns can be used to take innocent lives. While there’s no clear linkage between official psychological conditions and gun violence, there is a linkage between suicide rates and mental health. Unfortunately, I think the copycat phenomenon comes into play here—people with mental disorders  who would have otherwise killed themselves quietly in their basements now see that they can get much more attention by going into a public place, massacring innocent people, and then taking their own lives once finished. All it takes is one event, and if we can prevent that one event (in which the firearm plays no small part), I think it’s worthwhile to channel money towards mental health initiatives.

That said, I’m of the opinion that anyone who is willing to commit a murder has something working a little off-kilter upstairs. It may not qualify as a mental disorder, but it would still fall into the realm of mental health. Maybe it’s temporary stress from work or tensions within family. Maybe someone gets angry too easily. Maybe someone’s life is falling apart and they just need support. These occurrences aren’t going to be covered by a statistics about mental disorders, but maintaining good mental health could make all the difference. If someone has access to a gun, they can use it to kill someone. And all it takes is a bad day. But maybe—just maybe—with the right help, that bad day can be turned around before someone gets hurt.

I doubt the connection is good enough for you, but it is for me. I’m not proposing this for political expedience—I know people in my own party can’t be too impressed with this bill. I’m proposing it because I believe it’s something that could improve life for people in this country. I don’t believe in taking away the right to bear arms, so, unfortunately, I won’t be willing to take this bill further. Still, I think it’s awfully stubborn to pretend that guns aren’t even an issue. I’m willing to take a small step in what I hope is the right direction. I suppose my colleagues could overrule me and take this bill wherever they want, but it seems to me like this may be a rare opportunity to get a conservative on board with taking action. I hope my colleagues will stick on board as well.

I would just like to echo Senator HagridOfTheDeep's sentiments.

[Napoleon]

Why would you echo that sentiment? If the guns are such a problem, we need to actually do something about it. A tax isn't going to keep guns out of the wrong hands. I haven't said that guns are or are not the issue. I have left it up to this Senate to decide whether the issue is guns, mental health, or both. But this embarrassing attempt at pretending to deal with both without really doing anything about either should have you guys hanging your heads in shame, not circle jerking.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Why would you echo that sentiment? If the guns are such a problem, we need to actually do something about it. A tax isn't going to keep guns out of the wrong hands.

I think a tax would be beneficial.  I also don't think this bill is the whole solution.  However, it will help and thus I'll support it.  I'd also support other measures, but I'm not going to vote against a good bill just because it doesn't include everything I'd like it to.  This is, in my view, a step in the right direction; it's not a solution by itself.

[Napoleon]

Why would you echo that sentiment? If the guns are such a problem, we need to actually do something about it. A tax isn't going to keep guns out of the wrong hands.

I think a tax would be beneficial.  I also don't think this bill is the whole solution.  However, it will help and thus I'll support it.  I'd also support other measures, but I'm not going to vote against a good bill just because it doesn't include everything I'd like it to.  This is, in my view, a step in the right direction; it's not a solution by itself.

Previous Senates kicked the can down the road.

We had Columbine. We had Lockheed Martin. We had the Amish School. We had Virginia Tech. We had Northern Illinois. We had Fort Hood. We had Gabby Giffords (or did we? ). We had Aurora. We had the Sikh Temple. We had Sandy Hook. We had countless others.

I'm so glad that we're going to tax guns and spend $1 billion and solve this problem so that no more lives are lost. The Senate gets a gold star. (YAY!)


And the next time we endure one of these massacres, we can raise the tax a little higher, spend a few million more, and be proud that we accomplished something. This Senate might be comfortable having a debate fiddle-faddling with tax rates and what not but I believe the Atlasian people deserve a real solution. Identify the f--king problem and address it. No bullsh**t about it.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Why would you echo that sentiment? If the guns are such a problem, we need to actually do something about it. A tax isn't going to keep guns out of the wrong hands.

I think a tax would be beneficial.  I also don't think this bill is the whole solution.  However, it will help and thus I'll support it.  I'd also support other measures, but I'm not going to vote against a good bill just because it doesn't include everything I'd like it to.  This is, in my view, a step in the right direction; it's not a solution by itself.

[Napoleon]

Why would you echo that sentiment? If the guns are such a problem, we need to actually do something about it. A tax isn't going to keep guns out of the wrong hands.

I think a tax would be beneficial.  I also don't think this bill is the whole solution.  However, it will help and thus I'll support it.  I'd also support other measures, but I'm not going to vote against a good bill just because it doesn't include everything I'd like it to.  This is, in my view, a step in the right direction; it's not a solution by itself.

You're only one Senator, Mr. X. Everyone needs to be willing to do something, and do something now. There's no reason to wait for more brutality before we act. Yesterday was the time. Hagrid seems unwilling to act, is everyone else going to join and stand by idly?

[HagridOfTheDeep]

We already passed a comprehensive ban on many firearms a few months ago. If other people want to take a similar approach, they are more than welcome to do so, since my shameful bill has obviously been presented in bad taste and with mischevious intentions. Even though my base of support is up in arms.

[Napoleon]

since my shameful bill has obviously been presented in bad taste and with mischevious intentions.

Never said that.

Even though my base of support is up in arms.

Why's that? Do they not want to treat the mentally ill?

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I never said that. Perhaps "up in arms" was too strong of a phrase... but taking any action that would raise taxes is never embraced. Especially if it could even be construed as restricting firearms.

[Napoleon]

I never said that. Perhaps "up in arms" was too strong of a phrase... but taking any action that would raise taxes is never embraced. Especially if it could even be construed as restricting firearms.

What I'm proposing could potentially help you with that problem. Look, gun control isn't one of the issues I really have a solid position on. What I don't like is targeting one group and holding them responsible by taxing them. I don't think the problem with getting mentally ill Atlasians the help they need is to be resolved solely on the backs of gun owners. I think if we have a problem with firearms then a tax will not solve it. I hope what I'm saying is clear. I don't think I'm being difficult in wanting to address the same problem with a slightly different angle.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I don't think you're being as difficult as you sometimes have been. I just disagree with you. Treating mental health issues is a fine end on its own, but I believe it's especially important that we address mental health  to make sure we don't have people using guns to take lives (whether in acts of murder or self-harm). The way I see it, the gun is a big player in this equation. Moreover, a universal tax would have adverse effects on the economy.