Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Shootist Jeff

The real roadblock to stopping gun violence? The NRA or Jocal?

Recommended Posts

What other words don't mean today what they meant in 1787?

 

 

First, let's see if you can tell what they meant back then.

 

"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.

 

 

Are the bolded words talking about people or guns?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which bothers you more, that I'm right or that I won't accept your lame attempts to prove I'm wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That question is as inoperative on its face as is the assumption that some of the most wise minds in over two centuries meant to say stuff with intentions only as you would someday interpret them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That question is as inoperative on its face as is the assumption that some of the most wise minds in over two centuries meant to say stuff with intentions only as you would someday interpret them.

I interpret them as they were written. You wish to engage in some Jedi mind game to interpret what they thought when they wrote those words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's impossible to interpret the works as written without interpreting what they thought when they wrote it. Nicely done!

 

Previously quoted excerpts from the Federalist Papers easily dispel some mythical application of a modernized context where "regulated" equates to things heavily restricted, controlled by the state.. Find some FP reference that backs up the modernized interpretation, and I'll consider that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, as in, the authors had no wish for the government to control arms in the hands of peaceable citizens. Yes, "regulated" in your modern sense (i.e. limited by the whim of the state) is one of the things the founders sought to prevent. There are those who wish to further control, limit, and restrict - some quite heavily - based on that term "regulated". Really.

 

I found this writing by one of them there liberal ACLU-types quite interesting, where the use of the original language is concerned:

 

http://www.constitution.org/mil/embar2nd.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regulated is regulated. What part of regulated do you think they didn't mean?

 

What did you think they regulated?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys DO realize specious ed is simply trolling and running you in circles, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, though it gives one something to think about whilst dropping the kids off at the pool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading through the posts here and the other gun threads I think I have a possible solution to the problems being discussed. In psychology, there is a therapeutic model that involves something called a "paradoxical intervention". In layman's terms this is something like telling children to put beans in their ears because telling them no invariably causes them to do it reverse psychology as it were. The musical The Fantasticks was basically an exploration oft his premise. I propose that since gun fanciers have decided that no one will ever infringe, obstruct, regulate, control or otherwise interfere with their constitutionally enshrined right to bear arms that we allow unlimited access to any and all weapons. There should be no age restriction, background checks, limits or any means of prohibiting anyone from owning any weapon they desire. The ensuing free for all in which I envision people strapping on multiple weapons in preparation for a trip to the shopping mall and locking and cocking the twin 50 cal machine guns on their urban assault vehicle, lest any idiot with mere 7.62s installed on their little Mazda try to steal their parking space, will be quite entertaining. Imagine little Johnny whipping out a Glock to blow away the interloper that is demanding his lunch money. How satisfying it will be to lean out the attic window with your LAW and incinerate that asshole driving 60 mph through your quiet neighborhood in violation of the speed limit.

 

The Constitution says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed and so be it. Let us all embrace the NRA stance that more weapons are better to prevent violence. Lets all gun up and let no person be unarmed. Let those socialist Europeans sneer at our gun obsession, all those Frenchmen with nothing but a baguette to protect themselves with, the Italians fling ravioli at intruders. Let the rule of might makes right and mightier makes righter prevail because you never know when those black helicopters might appear to infringe on your other rights. Yes, I believe that is the solution to the problem. Arm everybody! When the carnage is over, the dust has settled, the blood has congealed in the gutters, then let the survivors rebuild a new society and indeed, perhaps a more sane one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading through the posts here and the other gun threads I think I have a possible solution to the problems being discussed. In psychology, there is a therapeutic model that involves something called a "paradoxical intervention". In layman's terms this is something like telling children to put beans in their ears because telling them no invariably causes them to do it reverse psychology as it were. The musical The Fantasticks was basically an exploration oft his premise. I propose that since gun fanciers have decided that no one will ever infringe, obstruct, regulate, control or otherwise interfere with their constitutionally enshrined right to bear arms that we allow unlimited access to any and all weapons. There should be no age restriction, background checks, limits or any means of prohibiting anyone from owning any weapon they desire. The ensuing free for all in which I envision people strapping on multiple weapons in preparation for a trip to the shopping mall and locking and cocking the twin 50 cal machine guns on their urban assault vehicle, lest any idiot with mere 7.62s installed on their little Mazda try to steal their parking space, will be quite entertaining. Imagine little Johnny whipping out a Glock to blow away the interloper that is demanding his lunch money. How satisfying it will be to lean out the attic window with your LAW and incinerate that asshole driving 60 mph through your quiet neighborhood in violation of the speed limit.

 

The Constitution says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed and so be it. Let us all embrace the NRA stance that more weapons are better to prevent violence. Lets all gun up and let no person be unarmed. Let those socialist Europeans sneer at our gun obsession, all those Frenchmen with nothing but a baguette to protect themselves with, the Italians fling ravioli at intruders. Let the rule of might makes right and mightier makes righter prevail because you never know when those black helicopters might appear to infringe on your other rights. Yes, I believe that is the solution to the problem. Arm everybody! When the carnage is over, the dust has settled, the blood has congealed in the gutters, then let the survivors rebuild a new society and indeed, perhaps a more sane one.

 

PA is just about there with no restrictions. Want a .50 cal? No problem. Want a suppressor? No problem. Want to hunt with a suppressor? No problem. Want an SBR? no problem. Want a full auto? No problem. Want to carry your gun into a state park and hunt there? No problem. Want to target shoot in your back yard? Outside of a few cities and counties, that is no problem either. When I got my LTCF, it took me longer to find a parking spot than to get the LTCF, literally. People open carry here all the time, it is not a big deal. There is no carnage here, no blood in the streets. We have our problem areas, just like any state, but the idea that fewer restrictions will result in some kind of complete meltdown of civilization is simply wrong. We still have the PICS checks, and you still need to take 5 minutes to have the check run to get your LTCF, but doing away with that would not fill our streets with blood, as the people who are criminals don't bother with going through PICS anyway, and anyone else can already get an LTCF and as many guns of any type as they want. So doing away with PICS would likely have almost no effect at all on crime one way or another. Guns do not possess any magical power which causes their owners to become more violent or lose self control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading through the posts here and the other gun threads I think I have a possible solution to the problems being discussed. In psychology, there is a therapeutic model that involves something called a "paradoxical intervention". In layman's terms this is something like telling children to put beans in their ears because telling them no invariably causes them to do it reverse psychology as it were. The musical The Fantasticks was basically an exploration oft his premise. I propose that since gun fanciers have decided that no one will ever infringe, obstruct, regulate, control or otherwise interfere with their constitutionally enshrined right to bear arms that we allow unlimited access to any and all weapons. There should be no age restriction, background checks, limits or any means of prohibiting anyone from owning any weapon they desire. The ensuing free for all in which I envision people strapping on multiple weapons in preparation for a trip to the shopping mall and locking and cocking the twin 50 cal machine guns on their urban assault vehicle, lest any idiot with mere 7.62s installed on their little Mazda try to steal their parking space, will be quite entertaining. Imagine little Johnny whipping out a Glock to blow away the interloper that is demanding his lunch money. How satisfying it will be to lean out the attic window with your LAW and incinerate that asshole driving 60 mph through your quiet neighborhood in violation of the speed limit.

 

The Constitution says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed and so be it. Let us all embrace the NRA stance that more weapons are better to prevent violence. Lets all gun up and let no person be unarmed. Let those socialist Europeans sneer at our gun obsession, all those Frenchmen with nothing but a baguette to protect themselves with, the Italians fling ravioli at intruders. Let the rule of might makes right and mightier makes righter prevail because you never know when those black helicopters might appear to infringe on your other rights. Yes, I believe that is the solution to the problem. Arm everybody! When the carnage is over, the dust has settled, the blood has congealed in the gutters, then let the survivors rebuild a new society and indeed, perhaps a more sane one.

This author ^^ seems to be addressing a desire nobody is promoting. Reducto ad absurdium at its finest.

 

Yawn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading through the posts here and the other gun threads I think I have a possible solution to the problems being discussed. In psychology, there is a therapeutic model that involves something called a "paradoxical intervention". In layman's terms this is something like telling children to put beans in their ears because telling them no invariably causes them to do it reverse psychology as it were. The musical The Fantasticks was basically an exploration oft his premise. I propose that since gun fanciers have decided that no one will ever infringe, obstruct, regulate, control or otherwise interfere with their constitutionally enshrined right to bear arms that we allow unlimited access to any and all weapons. There should be no age restriction, background checks, limits or any means of prohibiting anyone from owning any weapon they desire. The ensuing free for all in which I envision people strapping on multiple weapons in preparation for a trip to the shopping mall and locking and cocking the twin 50 cal machine guns on their urban assault vehicle, lest any idiot with mere 7.62s installed on their little Mazda try to steal their parking space, will be quite entertaining. Imagine little Johnny whipping out a Glock to blow away the interloper that is demanding his lunch money. How satisfying it will be to lean out the attic window with your LAW and incinerate that asshole driving 60 mph through your quiet neighborhood in violation of the speed limit.

 

The Constitution says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed and so be it. Let us all embrace the NRA stance that more weapons are better to prevent violence. Lets all gun up and let no person be unarmed. Let those socialist Europeans sneer at our gun obsession, all those Frenchmen with nothing but a baguette to protect themselves with, the Italians fling ravioli at intruders. Let the rule of might makes right and mightier makes righter prevail because you never know when those black helicopters might appear to infringe on your other rights. Yes, I believe that is the solution to the problem. Arm everybody! When the carnage is over, the dust has settled, the blood has congealed in the gutters, then let the survivors rebuild a new society and indeed, perhaps a more sane one.

 

I seem to remember that there was going to be blood running in the streets when states like FL went to "shall issue" concealed carry. Yet gun murders have been on a sharp decline for a decade.

 

You're not giving Poles a good name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... I propose that since gun fanciers have decided that no one will ever infringe, obstruct, regulate, control or otherwise interfere with their constitutionally enshrined right to bear arms that we allow unlimited access to any and all weapons....

 

 

Are you talking to or about anyone here? If so, provide quotes. If not, take it to wherever people are making that argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

... I propose that since gun fanciers have decided that no one will ever infringe, obstruct, regulate, control or otherwise interfere with their constitutionally enshrined right to bear arms that we allow unlimited access to any and all weapons....

 

 

Are you talking to or about anyone here? If so, provide quotes. If not, take it to wherever people are making that argument.

Sure, no problem, I'll just go to hyperbole anarchy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Owning Guns Doesn't Preserve Freedom

Studies show there is very little correlation between heavily armed citizens and the presence of democracy in countries around the world.

CASEY MICHEL

APR 25 2013, 9:00 AM ET

2

inShare

More

After League City, Texas, became the first city in the state to pass a resolution effectively nullifying federal gun regulations in February, Councilwoman Heidi Thiess, who speared the motion, shared a quote. "Gen. Isoroku Yamamoto, who was the commander of Japan's WWII Combined Fleet, was asked why he never bothered to invade the U.S. after Pearl Harbor," she remarked. "And you know what he said? 'You can't invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.'"

It didn't matter that the quote is almost certainly false. The sentiment remains: The tether between that right to bear arms and the safety of liberal democracy is as real post-Newtown as it was following Pearl Harbor. And now that a handful of cities and counties across Texas have passed similar measures barring local officials from enforcing federal legislation, the link between your Glock and your unbridled freedoms becomes inseparable. "The Second Amendment was never meant for hunting, although that's what's been said over generations," Thiess continued. "It was a means of defense. Yes, self-defense, but also defense against our own government."

RELATED STORY

Great Gun Gobbledygook: The Paradox of Second Amendment Hardliners

Of course, it's difficult to imagine that a government as notably militarized as our own would be cowed by the rifle and .45 gathering dust in the closet. (Likewise, it's tough to posit the 110,000 Asian-Americans forced into internment camps during WWII -- "concentration camps," as President Roosevelt termed them -- felt their liberties were buttressed by their ability to own a sawed-off shotgun.) But regardless, that's where the argument stands. That's the rhetoric to which 65 percent of Americans ascribe .

"That's what separates this country," noted Brian Mobley, a concealed handgun trainer in League City, which also boasts the highest number of concealed-gun licenses in Texas. "We're the most heavily armed country in the world, but we're also the freest country in the world."

Fortunately, we can assess such an argument not through historic hagiography and patriotic revision, but through the facts at hand. If such a right correlates so directly with democratic freedoms within America, such realities should exist elsewhere, correct?

Not exactly. Compiling data from the most recent Small Arms Survey (SAS), the most wide-ranging international survey of civilian gun ownership, and theFreedom House Index, which tabulates both political rights and civil liberties, it's apparent that the correlation between democratic structures and a well-armed citizenry is, at best, slight. Here's the Freedom House index, in red (a higher ranking means less freedom), compared with the number of guns, in blue:

According to Dr. Justin Silver, a statistical researcher at Rice University, the Spearman correlation between the two tallies is only -0.33. (Such correlation is negative because Freedom House, via a one-through-seven scale, tacks a lower score to nations with greater freedoms.) The relationship is observable, but minor.

"I don't see any trend," said Arch Puddington, vice president of research at Freedom House. "Press freedom, the freedom of expression, is a pretty good indicator of the direction a country is going in -- if leadership is circumscribing the freedom of expression, the likelihood is that they're doing other unworthy things as well." But a link between an armed citizenry and democratic realities? "That's baloney."

Unsurprisingly, those who stake such a relationship often limit the nations they cite. The gun-toting United States (88.8 civilian guns per 100 residents, according to SAS) and Switzerland (45.7) are typically juxtaposed with the relatively gun-free China (4.9) and Cuba (4.8) as sufficient proof that a populace needs to amass arms in order to keep one's government at bay.

But regardless of how often the maxim is repeated, such cherry-picking obfuscates the reality that the U.S., Switzerland, China, and Cuba are but a handful of the 175 nations for which we have comprehensive data. Just because these four countries fit within a pro-weaponized argument does not lend it legitimacy. After all, Ghana (0.4) and Indonesia (0.5), both within the bottom 10 of the world's gun-owners, were each tabbed as "Free" by Freedom House, while the heavily-armed Yemen (54.8) and Saudi Arabia (35.0) remain among the most repressive countries in the world.

A quick scan through the list continues the point. Chile (10.7) comes in with the same arms rate as Venezuela, but the nations present starkly divergent civil freedoms. Russia (8.9) is slightly more armed than Ireland (8.6). The Netherlands (3.9) is on par, as far as weapons go, with oppressive Turkmenistan (3.8). Israel and Georgia see the same arms rate as Iran and Belarus and yet exist on opposite ends of Freedom House's rank.

Some are developed democracies. Some are theocratic or secular autocracies. The number of Bushmasters and Berettas per populace plays a negligible role.

"This relationship between gun rates and [democracy] isn't based upon social science - it's based upon philosophy," said Aaron Karp, a political science professor at Old Dominion University and one of the Small Arms Survey's senior consultants. "Part of the reason why people who are advocates of individual gun rights tend to be opposed to social science is that they're not comfortable with it."

Still, there are those such as Thiess and Mobley who cite America's revolutionary roots as reason enough to warrant our weaponry. The colonies' muskets and blunderbusses were the only things that tossed King George's yoke. If a widely armed populace isn't necessarily required to maintain democracy, then at least it's a requisite for revoluion.

The data deflates that argument, too, though. As it is, ten nations among the survey's bottom 26 gun owners -- from Niger and Togo to Fiji and the Central African Republic -- have undergone anti-autocracy movements and governmental shifts within the past decade. But only seven nations within the survey's top eighty most-armed nations, including Iraq, have experienced similar movements since 2003. As for the nation with the lowest civilian arms rate in the world? That honor belongs to Tunisia, which sparked the greatest set of pro-democracy revolutions this century.

One nation which helps highlight this continued disconnect is Kyrgyzstan, which the survey pegs at 0.9 arms per 100 civilians, or 153rd on the list. The mountainous Central Asian enclave has experienced a pair of democratic revolutions over the past eight years, with 2005's Tulip Revolution overturning longtime president Askar Akayev and installing Kurmanbek Bakiyev, whose corrupt apparatus was later forced out in 2010.

A year after Bakiyev's ouster, Kyrgyzstan hosted the first Central Asian election in which the winner was not predetermined. Moreover, the nation currently maintains the best Central Asian rank within Freedom House's tabulations -- all while seeing one of the lowest rates of armed citizenry in the world.

"I never linked personal firearm ownership rates and political change in Kyrgyzstan," said Erica Marat, a Central Asian researcher at Johns Hopkins University. "I doubt personal firearm ownership plays any role in the democratization process. This is clearly a purely American line of thought."

As it is, the perceived link between the right to arms and democratic freedoms remains strong -- hence, Manchin-Toomey's recent defeat. "The Second Amendment is liberty's teeth," Thiess says. "The First Amendment has no teeth unless we have ability to fight back against repression. And the only way to prevent repression sometimes means taking up arms."

In Texan towns and counties now forcing officials to ignore federal statutes, the reality hangs that the only thing keeping Japanese carriers and American Predators from turning their sights toward our mainland are those few clauses still contained within the Second Amendment - data and social science be damned.

Pasted from <http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/04/owning-guns-doesnt-preserve-freedom/275287/>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanx for posting that, Jocal, very informative and insightful. So much so that I just went to Gunbroker and found a near new Ruger SR1911 that I'm bidding on. And also a bitchen olde school Marlin 30-30 carbine. She's fuking sweet!

 

So thanks again for providing me some incentive on this quiet Sunday. Please keep up the good work....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well said Joe. I got yer back bro. Never mind Boothie, we know that guns are nothing but a substitute phallus anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Honey, but I was born with two dicks. The last f'ng thing in the world that I need is a third ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Honey, but I was born with two dicks. The last f'ng thing in the world that I need is a third ...

Except you needed one you could find without a magnifying glass and with a loooooonnnngg rifle you don't need the tweezers anymore either. Bang, bang, bang!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just noticed your stage name. And I see you you mispelled head....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just noticed your stage name. And I see you you mispelled head....

Shootin' blanks as usual. Yawn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Owning Guns Doesn't Preserve Freedom

Studies show there is very little correlation between heavily armed citizens and the presence of democracy in countries around the world.

CASEY MICHEL

APR 25 2013, 9:00 AM ET

2

inShare

More

After League City, Texas, became the first city in the state to pass a resolution effectively nullifying federal gun regulations in February, Councilwoman Heidi Thiess, who speared the motion, shared a quote. "Gen. Isoroku Yamamoto, who was the commander of Japan's WWII Combined Fleet, was asked why he never bothered to invade the U.S. after Pearl Harbor," she remarked. "And you know what he said? 'You can't invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.'"

It didn't matter that the quote is almost certainly false. The sentiment remains: The tether between that right to bear arms and the safety of liberal democracy is as real post-Newtown as it was following Pearl Harbor. And now that a handful of cities and counties across Texas have passed similar measures barring local officials from enforcing federal legislation, the link between your Glock and your unbridled freedoms becomes inseparable. "The Second Amendment was never meant for hunting, although that's what's been said over generations," Thiess continued. "It was a means of defense. Yes, self-defense, but also defense against our own government."

RELATED STORY

Great Gun Gobbledygook: The Paradox of Second Amendment Hardliners

Of course, it's difficult to imagine that a government as notably militarized as our own would be cowed by the rifle and .45 gathering dust in the closet. (Likewise, it's tough to posit the 110,000 Asian-Americans forced into internment camps during WWII -- "concentration camps," as President Roosevelt termed them -- felt their liberties were buttressed by their ability to own a sawed-off shotgun.) But regardless, that's where the argument stands. That's the rhetoric to which 65 percent of Americans ascribe .

"That's what separates this country," noted Brian Mobley, a concealed handgun trainer in League City, which also boasts the highest number of concealed-gun licenses in Texas. "We're the most heavily armed country in the world, but we're also the freest country in the world."

Fortunately, we can assess such an argument not through historic hagiography and patriotic revision, but through the facts at hand. If such a right correlates so directly with democratic freedoms within America, such realities should exist elsewhere, correct?

Not exactly. Compiling data from the most recent Small Arms Survey (SAS), the most wide-ranging international survey of civilian gun ownership, and theFreedom House Index, which tabulates both political rights and civil liberties, it's apparent that the correlation between democratic structures and a well-armed citizenry is, at best, slight. Here's the Freedom House index, in red (a higher ranking means less freedom), compared with the number of guns, in blue:

According to Dr. Justin Silver, a statistical researcher at Rice University, the Spearman correlation between the two tallies is only -0.33. (Such correlation is negative because Freedom House, via a one-through-seven scale, tacks a lower score to nations with greater freedoms.) The relationship is observable, but minor.

"I don't see any trend," said Arch Puddington, vice president of research at Freedom House. "Press freedom, the freedom of expression, is a pretty good indicator of the direction a country is going in -- if leadership is circumscribing the freedom of expression, the likelihood is that they're doing other unworthy things as well." But a link between an armed citizenry and democratic realities? "That's baloney."

Unsurprisingly, those who stake such a relationship often limit the nations they cite. The gun-toting United States (88.8 civilian guns per 100 residents, according to SAS) and Switzerland (45.7) are typically juxtaposed with the relatively gun-free China (4.9) and Cuba (4.8) as sufficient proof that a populace needs to amass arms in order to keep one's government at bay.

But regardless of how often the maxim is repeated, such cherry-picking obfuscates the reality that the U.S., Switzerland, China, and Cuba are but a handful of the 175 nations for which we have comprehensive data. Just because these four countries fit within a pro-weaponized argument does not lend it legitimacy. After all, Ghana (0.4) and Indonesia (0.5), both within the bottom 10 of the world's gun-owners, were each tabbed as "Free" by Freedom House, while the heavily-armed Yemen (54.8) and Saudi Arabia (35.0) remain among the most repressive countries in the world.

A quick scan through the list continues the point. Chile (10.7) comes in with the same arms rate as Venezuela, but the nations present starkly divergent civil freedoms. Russia (8.9) is slightly more armed than Ireland (8.6). The Netherlands (3.9) is on par, as far as weapons go, with oppressive Turkmenistan (3.8). Israel and Georgia see the same arms rate as Iran and Belarus and yet exist on opposite ends of Freedom House's rank.

Some are developed democracies. Some are theocratic or secular autocracies. The number of Bushmasters and Berettas per populace plays a negligible role.

"This relationship between gun rates and [democracy] isn't based upon social science - it's based upon philosophy," said Aaron Karp, a political science professor at Old Dominion University and one of the Small Arms Survey's senior consultants. "Part of the reason why people who are advocates of individual gun rights tend to be opposed to social science is that they're not comfortable with it."

Still, there are those such as Thiess and Mobley who cite America's revolutionary roots as reason enough to warrant our weaponry. The colonies' muskets and blunderbusses were the only things that tossed King George's yoke. If a widely armed populace isn't necessarily required to maintain democracy, then at least it's a requisite for revoluion.

The data deflates that argument, too, though. As it is, ten nations among the survey's bottom 26 gun owners -- from Niger and Togo to Fiji and the Central African Republic -- have undergone anti-autocracy movements and governmental shifts within the past decade. But only seven nations within the survey's top eighty most-armed nations, including Iraq, have experienced similar movements since 2003. As for the nation with the lowest civilian arms rate in the world? That honor belongs to Tunisia, which sparked the greatest set of pro-democracy revolutions this century.

One nation which helps highlight this continued disconnect is Kyrgyzstan, which the survey pegs at 0.9 arms per 100 civilians, or 153rd on the list. The mountainous Central Asian enclave has experienced a pair of democratic revolutions over the past eight years, with 2005's Tulip Revolution overturning longtime president Askar Akayev and installing Kurmanbek Bakiyev, whose corrupt apparatus was later forced out in 2010.

A year after Bakiyev's ouster, Kyrgyzstan hosted the first Central Asian election in which the winner was not predetermined. Moreover, the nation currently maintains the best Central Asian rank within Freedom House's tabulations -- all while seeing one of the lowest rates of armed citizenry in the world.

"I never linked personal firearm ownership rates and political change in Kyrgyzstan," said Erica Marat, a Central Asian researcher at Johns Hopkins University. "I doubt personal firearm ownership plays any role in the democratization process. This is clearly a purely American line of thought."

As it is, the perceived link between the right to arms and democratic freedoms remains strong -- hence, Manchin-Toomey's recent defeat. "The Second Amendment is liberty's teeth," Thiess says. "The First Amendment has no teeth unless we have ability to fight back against repression. And the only way to prevent repression sometimes means taking up arms."

In Texan towns and counties now forcing officials to ignore federal statutes, the reality hangs that the only thing keeping Japanese carriers and American Predators from turning their sights toward our mainland are those few clauses still contained within the Second Amendment - data and social science be damned.

Pasted from <http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/04/owning-guns-doesnt-preserve-freedom/275287/>

 

hey jocal, what's YOUR opinion on that article? Got anything to add, or is it just a mindless cnp?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 1st major flaw in your article is that the assumption is that the countries that are currently democratic and peaceful with a benign gov't relationship to the people will forever remain so. I would count the US as one of those. The US, the netherlands, ghana, Chilie, Indo, Ireland, etc are all now currently "free" and will likely remain so for the foreseable future. But I wouldn't bet on that always being the case.

 

Conversely, of those heavily armed countries that are not currently free - talk about false equivilence BS! Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Russia, and turkmenistan have no real taste for democratic processes or freedoms. Different cultures, different values, different levels of tolerance to oppression. If you've never really known true freedom and liberty like we enjoy in the US, how would you really know what you were missing?

 

One of the only reason the people aren't rising up against the house of Saud is because they are heavily bribed by the gov't to stay quiet. Its amazing the amount of freedom you'll do without when you're driving around in a Mercedes AMG and living in a 3 story villa provided or heavily subsizdized by the gov't. Plus, I don't think the Saudis probably tolerate the shia and other minorities having weapons. If they do, they are likely very illegal and kept hidden.

 

the 2nd major flaw in the article is the assumption that just because there were some peaceful revolutions without the need for guns that ALL revolutions and transitions to democracy will be successful without the use of force. Tell that to the Syrians right now. Tell that to the Libyans. Had neither of those populations been armed, there would never have been a revolution in the 1st place. Had the Syrian people not had access to some arms to fight back against the regime after they were gunned down while protesting peacefully - their revolution would never have lasted beyond the 1st week or two.

 

So good on Ukraine, Tunisia and Egypt for having relatively peaceful transitions of power. But they are the exceptions that do not prove the rule. History has been unkind to peaceful revolutions.

 

The final major flaw in the article is the assumption that the 2nd Am is ONLY about being a bulwark against an internally oppressive gov't. It most certainly IS that. But having citizens armed also was about rising up in the common defense of the country, state, or community. As Tom and I have correctly pointed out - there have been times in even our own recent history where armed citizens were the only authority present and the only thing between anarchy and maintaining a civilized society. Those Korean shopkeepers in LA where probably glad they had guns since there was NO gov't there to help them. I'm sure the residents in flooded neighborhoods in New Orleans and Homestead and other places who banded together to protect their neighborhoods probably were also glad for their guns when there was no gov't around for several days. And I'm sure all those people in Tom's "gun nutter shoots robber, rapist, home invader, etc" were ALL very happy to have a gun to protect their family since there was no gov't nearby to protect them.

 

The short answer as to why there is a 2nd Amendment:

 

D. All of the above

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bump. Jocal, put your coloring books down...... you got some "splainin' to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The activities, behavior, and results among these 175 countries is certainly a mixed bag. Do I see a pattern where guns = "freedom"? Nope.

 

Jeff, where is your layout of your differences with the NRA? I have every right to ask, having been excoriated by yourself for not being able to differentiate you from that pathetic organization. And secondly, because you put my name on a thread next to their pathetic name. Weigh in, Bud.

 

Since you use their vocabulary on cue, present their current talking points, and try to sell their bottom line on the current benefit of AW's in our society, it contributes to the confusion.

 

Are you afraid of the consequences received days ago by the Guns & Ammo editor? Just remember how the First Amendment protects you from the brainwash of the gun lobby, and the total lockstep of its followers. Then march away.

 

 

 

Dick MetcalF, on his recent demise @ guns & AMMO:

"How do I feel about that? Disappointed. If a respected editor can be forced to resign and a controversial writer’s voice be shut down by a one-sided social-media and internet outcry, virtually overnight, simply because they dared to open a discussion or ask questions about a politically sensitive issue . . . then I fear for the future of our industry, and for our Cause.

 

Do not 2nd Amendment adherents also believe in Freedom of Speech? Do Americans now fear open and honest discussion of different opinions about important Constitutional issues? Do voices from cyberspace now control how and why business decisions are made?"

Pasted from <http://hotair.com/archives/2013/11/09/guns-ammo-fires-dick-metcalf-resigns-after-anti-gun-rights-column/>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you agree with Dick Metcalf that there should be no ban on semi auto rifles, that concealed carry should be available to everyone in all states and cities with a bit of training, or are you just taking one sound bite of one thing he said and using it to push your agenda. No need to answer, from your writing I know you disagree with him on everything except his not being happy about being fired. That makes you no different than the extremists on the pro gun side that got him fired. You are an extremist, and worse yet a hypocritical and ignorant one. You own guns while labeling every other gun owner as a dangerous person. You stubbornly refuse to listen to anyone or reading anything that is contrary to your existing beliefs, which means that this is not a dialogue you are engaging in, it is masturbation. It is not Jeff, or Tom, or me that is the problem with working towards a some types of reforms in our gun laws, it is you and people like you on both sides of the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you agree with Dick Metcalf that there should be no ban on semi auto rifles, that concealed carry should be available to everyone in all states and cities with a bit of training, or are you just taking one sound bite of one thing he said and using it to push your agenda. No need to answer, from your writing I know you disagree with him on everything except his not being happy about being fired. That makes you no different than the extremists on the pro gun side that got him fired. You are an extremist, and worse yet a hypocritical and ignorant one. You own guns while labeling every other gun owner as a dangerous person. You stubbornly refuse to listen to anyone or reading anything that is contrary to your existing beliefs, which means that this is not a dialogue you are engaging in, it is masturbation. It is not Jeff, or Tom, or me that is the problem with working towards a some types of reforms in our gun laws, it is you and people like you on both sides of the issue.

 

I agree with Metcalf that this topic needs open discussion, starting from square one.

That there is no format presently on the pro-gun side for such open discussion.

And that a childish platform unworthy of Mickey Mouse is what the gun lobby stands on.

 

You guys are surfing a wave, fine, but a long surf ride lasts what, about forty seconds?

 

LenP, I have put a lot of energy and time into studying both sides of this. One side is largely deficient of content. The conclusions of the learned men of the other side have been presented on our forums, in full text, by myself.

 

 

 

Here's what happened when four moms met to discuss the gun problem in Texas yesterday.

Local dumbasses showed up, many with their assault weapons. It's how you guys roll.

 

GunbulliesmeetMomsDemandAction_zps006b12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Do you agree with Dick Metcalf that there should be no ban on semi auto rifles, that concealed carry should be available to everyone in all states and cities with a bit of training, or are you just taking one sound bite of one thing he said and using it to push your agenda. No need to answer, from your writing I know you disagree with him on everything except his not being happy about being fired. That makes you no different than the extremists on the pro gun side that got him fired. You are an extremist, and worse yet a hypocritical and ignorant one. You own guns while labeling every other gun owner as a dangerous person. You stubbornly refuse to listen to anyone or reading anything that is contrary to your existing beliefs, which means that this is not a dialogue you are engaging in, it is masturbation. It is not Jeff, or Tom, or me that is the problem with working towards a some types of reforms in our gun laws, it is you and people like you on both sides of the issue.

 

I agree with Metcalf that this topic needs open discussion, starting from square one.

That there is no format presently on the pro-gun side for such open discussion.

And that a childish platform unworthy of Mickey Mouse is what the gun lobby stands on.

 

You guys are surfing a wave, fine, but a long surf ride lasts what, about forty seconds?

 

LenP, I have put a lot of energy and time into studying both sides of this. One side is largely deficient of content. The conclusions of the learned men of the other side have been presented on our forums, in full text, by myself.

 

 

 

Here's what happened when four moms met to discuss the gun problem in Texas yesterday.

Local dumbasses showed up, many with their assault weapons. It's how you guys roll.

 

GunbulliesmeetMomsDemandAction_zps006b12

 

You just can't help yourself, can you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeff, where is your layout of your differences with the NRA? I have every right to ask, having been excoriated by yourself for not being able to differentiate you from that pathetic organization. And secondly, because you put my name on a thread next to their pathetic name. Weigh in, Bud.

 

I provided you links to my differences with the NRA. Go read those. I'm not going to continue holding your hand on this.

 

Are you afraid of the consequences received days ago by the Guns & Ammo editor? Just remember how the First Amendment protects you from the brainwash of the gun lobby, and the total lockstep of its followers. Then march away.

 

Ummm, for the last time - the guy getting fired has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment. If you don't understand the Constitution any better than this, then all the rest of your "understanding" is completely suspect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not Jeff, or Tom, or me that is the problem with working towards a some types of reforms in our gun laws, it is you and people like you on both sides of the issue.

 

As I said, it is jocal and his elk that are the real problem here. The dead's blood is on his hands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Asking for reform is the problem.

Why? You can't find the phone numbers of the CEO's of the big drug companies, EA or your local mental health facilities?......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

 

 

Do you agree with Dick Metcalf that there should be no ban on semi auto rifles, that concealed carry should be available to everyone in all states and cities with a bit of training, or are you just taking one sound bite of one thing he said and using it to push your agenda. No need to answer, from your writing I know you disagree with him on everything except his not being happy about being fired. That makes you no different than the extremists on the pro gun side that got him fired. You are an extremist, and worse yet a hypocritical and ignorant one. You own guns while labeling every other gun owner as a dangerous person. You stubbornly refuse to listen to anyone or reading anything that is contrary to your existing beliefs, which means that this is not a dialogue you are engaging in, it is masturbation. It is not Jeff, or Tom, or me that is the problem with working towards a some types of reforms in our gun laws, it is you and people like you on both sides of the issue.

 

I agree with Metcalf that this topic needs open discussion, starting from square one.

That there is no format presently on the pro-gun side for such open discussion.

And that a childish platform unworthy of Mickey Mouse is what the gun lobby stands on.

 

You guys are surfing a wave, fine, but a long surf ride lasts what, about forty seconds?

 

LenP, I have put a lot of energy and time into studying both sides of this. One side is largely deficient of content. The conclusions of the learned men of the other side have been presented on our forums, in full text, by myself.

 

 

 

Here's what happened when four moms met to discuss the gun problem in Texas yesterday.

Local dumbasses showed up, many with their assault weapons. It's how you guys roll.

 

GunbulliesmeetMomsDemandAction_zps006b12

 

You just can't help yourself, can you?

 

That's pretty obvious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Asking for reform is the problem.

Why? You can't find the phone numbers of the CEO's of the big drug companies, EA or your local mental health facilities?......

I have asked repeatedly for more clarification on the mental health issue. How to decide exactly which mental disorders would call for disqualification for gun ownership, because if the answer is any, there won't be many legal gun owners anymore. All I have heard so far is crickets. Anyone willing to help here? What is the criteria, hospitalization, medication, psychosis????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Asking for reform is the problem.

Why? You can't find the phone numbers of the CEO's of the big drug companies, EA or your local mental health facilities?......

I have asked repeatedly for more clarification on the mental health issue. How to decide exactly which mental disorders would call for disqualification for gun ownership, because if the answer is any, there won't be many legal gun owners anymore. All I have heard so far is crickets. Anyone willing to help here? What is the criteria, hospitalization, medication, psychosis????

My three legged stool of effective gun control is registration, background checks and identification of mentally unstable people. They rely on each other and take one away and the stool falls over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Asking for reform is the problem.

Why? You can't find the phone numbers of the CEO's of the big drug companies, EA or your local mental health facilities?......

I have asked repeatedly for more clarification on the mental health issue. How to decide exactly which mental disorders would call for disqualification for gun ownership, because if the answer is any, there won't be many legal gun owners anymore. All I have heard so far is crickets. Anyone willing to help here? What is the criteria, hospitalization, medication, psychosis????

My three legged stool of effective gun control is registration, background checks and identification of mentally unstable people. They rely on each other and take one away and the stool falls over.

 

Then you should be the very first to answer soak-ed's question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Asking for reform is the problem.

Why? You can't find the phone numbers of the CEO's of the big drug companies, EA or your local mental health facilities?......

I have asked repeatedly for more clarification on the mental health issue. How to decide exactly which mental disorders would call for disqualification for gun ownership, because if the answer is any, there won't be many legal gun owners anymore. All I have heard so far is crickets. Anyone willing to help here? What is the criteria, hospitalization, medication, psychosis????

My three legged stool of effective gun control is registration, background checks and identification of mentally unstable people. They rely on each other and take one away and the stool falls over.

 

Then you should be the very first to answer soak-ed's question.

 

Well-played. But I'm not holding my breath that Trolly McTrollston will actually answer the question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have asked repeatedly for more clarification on the mental health issue. How to decide exactly which mental disorders would call for disqualification for gun ownership, because if the answer is any, there won't be many legal gun owners anymore. All I have heard so far is crickets. Anyone willing to help here? What is the criteria, hospitalization, medication, psychosis????

 

The answer to that question will likely need to come from mental health professionals rather than from the lay public or from politicians.

 

The problem is you are asking for specific criteria - yet we as a society haven't even made a commitment to even explore that avenue as a possible fix to solving the violence issue we have. I think the mental health details will be tough to hammer out, but that discussion cannot even happen until we stop putting all our focus on an inanimate object that has no capability to cause harm without the person weilding it and instead commit to focusing on the human behavior itself. We are not even close to being there yet. Which is why I adamantly maintain that the real roadblock is people like jocal and specious ed and diane fienstein and andy cuomo is that the usual knee jerk response to gun violence is to blame the tool and not the person using it.

 

Until we can at least agree in principle that the focus should be on human behavior and the underlying factors (mental illness, poverty, drugs, lack of parenting, lack education, lack of opportunity, hopelessness, social isolation, etc) that influence those behaviors - then we will continue tilting at windmills by seeing the guns as the problem and not the person holding it.

 

But to answer your question about what mental disorders ought to be disqualifiers....... I think that begins with a thorough study of violence, including gun violence, with the goal of finding the common threads of causal factors - like Rx drugs, diagnoses, treatment, confinement, etc and how they relate to the violence issue. But in general, I would say that any serious mental disorder like schizoprhenia, severe clinical depression, severe PTSD, psychosis, drug and alcohol addict, etc just to name a few MIGHT be disqualifiers. But again, I would not abrogate my 2A rights very easily without both a mental health professional diagnosis and a court judge determination before those rights could be taken away. And they should be just as easily reveresed if the mental health issue is treated or goes away.

 

The bottom line is I do not want the cops to be able to show up at my door and take my guns simply based on a tip by a neighbor or relative. However, a tip to the authorities by a friend or relative that someone is potentially dangerous is absolutely critical to this process. But that should start a chain of evaluation, starting with LE at the scene and then escalating if necessary up through medical professionals and then finally a court determination. Once a legal determination is made, then background check databases should be updated to prevent that person from being able to acquire a weapon easily. But all of this should only be done if there is clear evidence of that person being a threat. Just acting "weird" is not enough. It should be a high bar and will certainly not prevent ALL instance of violence. But I think its a step in the right direction.

 

That answer your Q?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I am tired of hearing about keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. Mentally ill is a broad term and it makes a good sound bite to lay the problem on the doorstep of mental illness but as you have shown in your response, it is a very complicated situation. I believe research will show that very few truly crazy people have committed acts of gun violence. I am talking about people with severe schizophrenia, bipolar people with evidence of psychosis, etc. What is referred to in clinical terms as "fucking nuts". These people are fairly easy to spot and many of them are institutionalized or on medication and being monitored. They are also not the problem. The problem is the people with personality disorders, people with major psychiatric diagnoses that are still able to recognize right from wrong and live in the real world and people that are just pissed off at the world but not crazy. It is easy to say that anybody that would go to an elementary school or crowded theater and start randomly shooting must be crazy. We don't want to accept that a "normal" person could commit such a heinous act. But it happens and the majority of the mass shooters would not be considered under the law as being incompetent enough to be locked up.

 

You talk about LE intervention, mental health examinations court involvement. These things although cumbersome and time consuming will work if the person is exhibiting signs of instability and the intervention takes place in time. In the recent airport shooting the family called the police but they arrived too late to intervene. That leaves the process of screening gun owners for mental instability. I don't think anybody wishing to purchase a firearm would be willing to undergo a mental status exam as a precondition to buying a firearm, not to mention the time, expense and shortage of personnel to conduct such screenings. These kind of screenings would only weed out the obviously mentally incompetent anyway, not the normal malcontent that is only one triggering episode away from committing mass mayhem. Another possibility is screening medical records. Again this process is time consuming and there are confidentiality laws severely limiting access to medical records and particularly records pertaining to mental health treatment. What about the millions of firearms already out there? Should every weapon owner be required to undergo a mandatory mental health evaluation to ensure they can keep their weapons? I don't think that is going to work. What if you are feeling blue,anxious or otherwise upset, you go to the doctor and get a prescription for Effexor or Xanax or some other psychotropic medication. Does that automatically trigger a process where you need to report to someone because you own a rifle? There are millions and millions of people in America on these medications and many of them own weapons. There would be long lines at mental health clinics everywhere full of people waiting to be screened.

 

In my opinion the problem is not that severely mentally ill people are out there gunning down innocents, most gun crimes are perpetrated by people that are as sane as anyone else in the US. In the cases of the mass shootings, most of these people would not be legally considered crazy enough to be involuntarily locked up as much as we would like to believe otherwise. Gun crimes are committed by people that occasionally may have some kind of minor to moderate mental disorder but are no more unstable than the majority of the people in the US. I believe it is disingenuous to claim that better mental health/screening and care will keep the guns out of the hands of the "crazies" and the problem will get better.

 

While I agree that a gun is an inanimate object and requires human intervention to become deadly, I believer the amount of guns in the US contributes directly to the problem. Why pick up a hammer or a shovel to attack someone when it is almost as easy to get a handgun? We use the tools at hand and when people get angry at something in America, unfortunately guns are a handy tool. If the individual doesn't already own one, well mom,dad, a neighbor or the local Wal Mart can certainly fulfill their need. It may sound simplistic but if it were more difficult for somebody to get their hands on a gun it would be more difficult for them to use it to kill somebody.

 

The violence problem in America is a result of cultural factors, economic factors, easy gun access and societal problems and there is no easy answer to any of it. As long as there are more firearms in America than there are people, as long as there is the 2nd amendment, as long as there is the pervasive idea that Americans are entitled to have as many guns as they want, there will be problems. The mental health issue is probably one of the smallest parts of the problem. At this point, Americans have made the decision that they want guns and lots of them and until there is a huge cultural shift in the thinking on this subject (which isn't likely at this point) there will be a problem. Americans want guns and will just have to accept the consequences of liberal* gun control policies.

 

 

*Don't get excited, I am using liberal in the small "l" meaning and not in the political meaning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why isn't this the end of the gun control debate, period? My guess is because the debate is about emotions not facts.

 

Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy [Vol. 30

 

CONCLUSION
This Article has reviewed a significant amount of evidence from a wide variety of international sources. Each individual portion of evidence is subject to cavil—at the very least the general objection that the persuasiveness of social scientific evidence cannot remotely approach the persuasiveness of conclusions in the physical sciences. Nevertheless, the burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially since they argue public policy ought to be based on that mantra.149 To bear that burden would at the very least require showing that a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that have imposed stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared across the world.
Those who propose to change the status quo bear the burden of proving that change is a good idea; (2) those who propose a new policy bear the burden of proving that the policy is a good idea; and (3) in a free society those who propose to abolish a personal liberty passionately valued by millions bear the burden of proving that abolishment is a good idea.
Over a decade ago, Professor Brandon Centerwall of the University of Washington undertook an extensive, statistically sophisticated study comparing areas in the United States and Canada to determine whether Canada’s more restrictive policies had better contained criminal violence. When he published his results it was with the admonition:
"If you are surprised by [our] finding, so [are we]. [We] did
not begin this research with any intent to “exonerate” hand‐
guns, but there it is—a negative finding, to be sure, but a nega‐
tive finding is nevertheless a positive contribution. It directs us
where not to aim public health resources."

 

 

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I am tired of hearing about keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. Mentally ill is a broad term and it makes a good sound bite to lay the problem on the doorstep of mental illness but as you have shown in your response, it is a very complicated situation. I believe research will show that very few truly crazy people have committed acts of gun violence. I am talking about people with severe schizophrenia, bipolar people with evidence of psychosis, etc. What is referred to in clinical terms as "fucking nuts". These people are fairly easy to spot and many of them are institutionalized or on medication and being monitored. They are also not the problem. The problem is the people with personality disorders, people with major psychiatric diagnoses that are still able to recognize right from wrong and live in the real world and people that are just pissed off at the world but not crazy. It is easy to say that anybody that would go to an elementary school or crowded theater and start randomly shooting must be crazy. We don't want to accept that a "normal" person could commit such a heinous act. But it happens and the majority of the mass shooters would not be considered under the law as being incompetent enough to be locked up.

 

You talk about LE intervention, mental health examinations court involvement. These things although cumbersome and time consuming will work if the person is exhibiting signs of instability and the intervention takes place in time. In the recent airport shooting the family called the police but they arrived too late to intervene. That leaves the process of screening gun owners for mental instability. I don't think anybody wishing to purchase a firearm would be willing to undergo a mental status exam as a precondition to buying a firearm, not to mention the time, expense and shortage of personnel to conduct such screenings. These kind of screenings would only weed out the obviously mentally incompetent anyway, not the normal malcontent that is only one triggering episode away from committing mass mayhem. Another possibility is screening medical records. Again this process is time consuming and there are confidentiality laws severely limiting access to medical records and particularly records pertaining to mental health treatment. What about the millions of firearms already out there? Should every weapon owner be required to undergo a mandatory mental health evaluation to ensure they can keep their weapons? I don't think that is going to work. What if you are feeling blue,anxious or otherwise upset, you go to the doctor and get a prescription for Effexor or Xanax or some other psychotropic medication. Does that automatically trigger a process where you need to report to someone because you own a rifle? There are millions and millions of people in America on these medications and many of them own weapons. There would be long lines at mental health clinics everywhere full of people waiting to be screened.

 

In my opinion the problem is not that severely mentally ill people are out there gunning down innocents, most gun crimes are perpetrated by people that are as sane as anyone else in the US. In the cases of the mass shootings, most of these people would not be legally considered crazy enough to be involuntarily locked up as much as we would like to believe otherwise. Gun crimes are committed by people that occasionally may have some kind of minor to moderate mental disorder but are no more unstable than the majority of the people in the US. I believe it is disingenuous to claim that better mental health/screening and care will keep the guns out of the hands of the "crazies" and the problem will get better.

 

First of all, I never said that mental illness was the biggest problem out there with gun violence. I don't think any of the pro-2A folks here have said that either. The VAST majority of the gun murders out there are committed by run of the mill criminals and gangbangers, most likely as a directly result of the drug trade. If we ended the "war on drugs" - I'm betting the violent crime rate would plummet overnight.

 

However, I think in the mass shootings category - which btw is a tiny fraction of the overall murder rate - mental health DOES play a much larger role in most of those crimes. Whether those perps rise to the level of certifiably insane..... I cannot answer that until I stay at a Holiday Inn. But I think mental instability of some sort, beyond the average, played a role in almost all of the recent ones that come to mind:

 

Gabby giffords shooter

Newtown/Sandy Hook

TSA/LAX suicide boi

Aurora CO movie shooter

Wash DC Navy Yard

 

All were fucking looney tunes. Now whether those extremely few cases warrant making 100 million gun owners go through mental health screenings to posses a gun? No, of course not. I don't think anyone is advocating scrubbing all records or makign everyone go through a mental health screeing test. But it would be like a criminal background check - the absence of info is approval. If you don't have any serious mental health problems where a professional and a judge has rendered you dangerous to others - then you can have a gun. It won't be 100% effective. But that's the price you pay to live in a free society. And its a price I'm willing to accept.

 

As long as you don't go into the ghettos to buy drugs or you cook meth in your house, the chances of getting gunned down by a psychotic shooter are probably less than getting hit by an asteroid. And I don't see anyone losing sleep over that. Its a totally irrational fear - yet its one that 90% of the anti-gun efforts (Assault weapons ban, hi cap mags, etc) are focused on when those events account for < 2% of the gun crime.

 

While I agree that a gun is an inanimate object and requires human intervention to become deadly, I believer the amount of guns in the US contributes directly to the problem. Why pick up a hammer or a shovel to attack someone when it is almost as easy to get a handgun? We use the tools at hand and when people get angry at something in America, unfortunately guns are a handy tool. If the individual doesn't already own one, well mom,dad, a neighbor or the local Wal Mart can certainly fulfill their need. It may sound simplistic but if it were more difficult for somebody to get their hands on a gun it would be more difficult for them to use it to kill somebody.

 

The violence problem in America is a result of cultural factors, economic factors, easy gun access and societal problems and there is no easy answer to any of it. As long as there are more firearms in America than there are people, as long as there is the 2nd amendment, as long as there is the pervasive idea that Americans are entitled to have as many guns as they want, there will be problems. The mental health issue is probably one of the smallest parts of the problem. At this point, Americans have made the decision that they want guns and lots of them and until there is a huge cultural shift in the thinking on this subject (which isn't likely at this point) there will be a problem. Americans want guns and will just have to accept the consequences of liberal* gun control policies.

 

 

*Don't get excited, I am using liberal in the small "l" meaning and not in the political meaning.

 

BS! Legally getting a gun is NOT that easy. And the highest crime areas in the country have THE strictest gun laws on the books. I don't know when the last time you bought a gun was, but it isn't easy. Stop reading Feinstein's talking points - because she's dead wrong. And there are already laws against straw purchasing for those that are prohibited from buying one. If you're talking about getting a gun easily ILLEGALLY - what laws would stop someone from commiting a crime who is already commiting a crime by obtaining the gun illegally in the 1st place.

 

You asked about specifics on mental health steps. So I'll ask you in return for specifics on how you would limit the gun supply and how that would make a difference. Keeping in mind that there are likely already laws on the books that prohibit what you're probably going to propose. But I would like to hear it from you anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I am tired of hearing about keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. Mentally ill is a broad term and it makes a good sound bite to lay the problem on the doorstep of mental illness but as you have shown in your response, it is a very complicated situation. I believe research will show that very few truly crazy people have committed acts of gun violence. I am talking about people with severe schizophrenia, bipolar people with evidence of psychosis, etc. What is referred to in clinical terms as "fucking nuts". These people are fairly easy to spot and many of them are institutionalized or on medication and being monitored. They are also not the problem. The problem is the people with personality disorders, people with major psychiatric diagnoses that are still able to recognize right from wrong and live in the real world and people that are just pissed off at the world but not crazy. It is easy to say that anybody that would go to an elementary school or crowded theater and start randomly shooting must be crazy. We don't want to accept that a "normal" person could commit such a heinous act. But it happens and the majority of the mass shooters would not be considered under the law as being incompetent enough to be locked up.

 

You talk about LE intervention, mental health examinations court involvement. These things although cumbersome and time consuming will work if the person is exhibiting signs of instability and the intervention takes place in time. In the recent airport shooting the family called the police but they arrived too late to intervene. That leaves the process of screening gun owners for mental instability. I don't think anybody wishing to purchase a firearm would be willing to undergo a mental status exam as a precondition to buying a firearm, not to mention the time, expense and shortage of personnel to conduct such screenings. These kind of screenings would only weed out the obviously mentally incompetent anyway, not the normal malcontent that is only one triggering episode away from committing mass mayhem. Another possibility is screening medical records. Again this process is time consuming and there are confidentiality laws severely limiting access to medical records and particularly records pertaining to mental health treatment. What about the millions of firearms already out there? Should every weapon owner be required to undergo a mandatory mental health evaluation to ensure they can keep their weapons? I don't think that is going to work. What if you are feeling blue,anxious or otherwise upset, you go to the doctor and get a prescription for Effexor or Xanax or some other psychotropic medication. Does that automatically trigger a process where you need to report to someone because you own a rifle? There are millions and millions of people in America on these medications and many of them own weapons. There would be long lines at mental health clinics everywhere full of people waiting to be screened.

 

In my opinion the problem is not that severely mentally ill people are out there gunning down innocents, most gun crimes are perpetrated by people that are as sane as anyone else in the US. In the cases of the mass shootings, most of these people would not be legally considered crazy enough to be involuntarily locked up as much as we would like to believe otherwise. Gun crimes are committed by people that occasionally may have some kind of minor to moderate mental disorder but are no more unstable than the majority of the people in the US. I believe it is disingenuous to claim that better mental health/screening and care will keep the guns out of the hands of the "crazies" and the problem will get better.

 

First of all, I never said that mental illness was the biggest problem out there with gun violence. I don't think any of the pro-2A folks here have said that either. The VAST majority of the gun murders out there are committed by run of the mill criminals and gangbangers, most likely as a directly result of the drug trade. If we ended the "war on drugs" - I'm betting the violent crime rate would plummet overnight.

 

However, I think in the mass shootings category - which btw is a tiny fraction of the overall murder rate - mental health DOES play a much larger role in most of those crimes. Whether those perps rise to the level of certifiably insane..... I cannot answer that until I stay at a Holiday Inn. But I think mental instability of some sort, beyond the average, played a role in almost all of the recent ones that come to mind:

 

Gabby giffords shooter

Newtown/Sandy Hook

TSA/LAX suicide boi

Aurora CO movie shooter

Wash DC Navy Yard

 

All were fucking looney tunes. Now whether those extremely few cases warrant making 100 million gun owners go through mental health screenings to posses a gun? No, of course not. I don't think anyone is advocating scrubbing all records or makign everyone go through a mental health screeing test. But it would be like a criminal background check - the absence of info is approval. If you don't have any serious mental health problems where a professional and a judge has rendered you dangerous to others - then you can have a gun. It won't be 100% effective. But that's the price you pay to live in a free society. And its a price I'm willing to accept.

 

As long as you don't go into the ghettos to buy drugs or you cook meth in your house, the chances of getting gunned down by a psychotic shooter are probably less than getting hit by an asteroid. And I don't see anyone losing sleep over that. Its a totally irrational fear - yet its one that 90% of the anti-gun efforts (Assault weapons ban, hi cap mags, etc) are focused on when those events account for < 2% of the gun crime.

 

>While I agree that a gun is an inanimate object and requires human intervention to become deadly, I believer the amount of guns in the US contributes directly to the problem. Why pick up a hammer or a shovel to attack someone when it is almost as easy to get a handgun? We use the tools at hand and when people get angry at something in America, unfortunately guns are a handy tool. If the individual doesn't already own one, well mom,dad, a neighbor or the local Wal Mart can certainly fulfill their need. It may sound simplistic but if it were more difficult for somebody to get their hands on a gun it would be more difficult for them to use it to kill somebody.

 

The violence problem in America is a result of cultural factors, economic factors, easy gun access and societal problems and there is no easy answer to any of it. As long as there are more firearms in America than there are people, as long as there is the 2nd amendment, as long as there is the pervasive idea that Americans are entitled to have as many guns as they want, there will be problems. The mental health issue is probably one of the smallest parts of the problem. At this point, Americans have made the decision that they want guns and lots of them and until there is a huge cultural shift in the thinking on this subject (which isn't likely at this point) there will be a problem. Americans want guns and will just have to accept the consequences of liberal* gun control policies.

 

 

*Don't get excited, I am using liberal in the small "l" meaning and not in the political meaning.

 

BS! Legally getting a gun is NOT that easy. And the highest crime areas in the country have THE strictest gun laws on the books. I don't know when the last time you bought a gun was, but it isn't easy. Stop reading Feinstein's talking points - because she's dead wrong. And there are already laws against straw purchasing for those that are prohibited from buying one. If you're talking about getting a gun easily ILLEGALLY - what laws would stop someone from commiting a crime who is already commiting a crime by obtaining the gun illegally in the 1st place.

 

You asked about specifics on mental health steps. So I'll ask you in return for specifics on how you would limit the gun supply and how that would make a difference. Keeping in mind that there are likely already laws on the books that prohibit what you're probably going to propose. But I would like to hear it from you anyway.

 

Thank you again for the calm, raational response.

 

I agree with what you say about the majority of gun violence and the largely ineffectual "war on drugs" which probably contributes more to the violence rate than it curtails drug use.

 

I haven't stayed in a Holiday Inn in years however I have received extensive training in mental health. I will repeat again, that though we perceive people capable of extreme violence such as occurred in Newtown, Aurora, Washington DC etc as "Looney Tunes" that doesn't mean they met the legal/clinical definition of insanity. In some of the cases the shooters are dead and we can only speculate as to their mental status at the time but they weren't crazy enough to be locked up prior to their death. In the case where the shooter is alive and pending trial, only the shooter in the Aurora case has made a plea of insanity and the outcome is still undetermined. The standard for locking somebody up in mental hospital against their will is a difficult one to meet and it should be. Americans are a freedom loving people and the decision to essentially incarcerate somebody against their will that hasn't committed a crime is a serious one. As a result, only individuals that have been determined to be an imminent danger to themselves or others as determined by a qualified mental health professional and affirmed by a judge may be locked up. Notice the words imminent danger. I don't think we want the thought police to claim that somebody might be a danger at some point in the undefinable and therefore need to be hauled off to the hospital. The other problem as I have stated earlier is to what degree will a mental health screening be conducted and what level of mental instability would disqualify that person from obtaining a gun. I think the reality of the American system regarding confidentiality and personal freedom would dictate that the same standard be applied and only people judged to be insane by the above mentioned standard would be prohibited form getting guns, in effect a very, very small number.

 

As far as guns not being easy to get, I beg to differ. In some states you can obtain a gun at a gun show quite quickly and easily. In many states, all you need to do is wait a few days for a cursory criminal background check and then go get your gun. Hardly difficult in my opinion unless you consider a few day delay a huge hardship. Regarding people easily obtaining guns illegally, I would suggest that is a problem due to the sheer volume of guns available in the US.

 

I have an answer to the gun supply problem but as you have already said it is an impossible one to accept. As it currently stands the US Constitution obviously allows gun ownership with few restrictions. My main point is that the gun violence problem will not go away in America because of many complex and often interrelated issues. That being the case, the American people should just get used to the fact that people will continue to be killed by guns and it probably won't change anytime soon. I really don't think that a large amount of gun homicides are criminal against criminal, a violent death is a violent death and claiming that somehow those deaths are less tragic than others is a rather poor rationalization. America is addicted to its gun culture and Americans just need to accept the consequences of that addiction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As far as guns not being easy to get, I beg to differ. In some states you can obtain a gun at a gun show quite quickly and easily. In many states, all you need to do is wait a few days for a cursory criminal background check and then go get your gun. Hardly difficult in my opinion unless you consider a few day delay a huge hardship.

..

 

 

It's a hardship, which makes it an infringement, which means it needs justification.

 

The justification seems thin in light of the facts.

 

crime-gun-sources.gif

 

Years ago, I bought a gun at a show in Tampa. By the time I could receive it, I was back home. I could afford another four hours on the road and arrange the time to do it, so I did. Not everyone has the same flexibility in their schedule or budget. Pretty regressive and troubling if you ask me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you again for the calm, raational response.

 

 

I agree with what you say about the majority of gun violence and the largely ineffectual "war on drugs" which probably contributes more to the violence rate than it curtails drug use.

 

I haven't stayed in a Holiday Inn in years however I have received extensive training in mental health. I will repeat again, that though we perceive people capable of extreme violence such as occurred in Newtown, Aurora, Washington DC etc as "Looney Tunes" that doesn't mean they met the legal/clinical definition of insanity. In some of the cases the shooters are dead and we can only speculate as to their mental status at the time but they weren't crazy enough to be locked up prior to their death. In the case where the shooter is alive and pending trial, only the shooter in the Aurora case has made a plea of insanity and the outcome is still undetermined. The standard for locking somebody up in mental hospital against their will is a difficult one to meet and it should be. Americans are a freedom loving people and the decision to essentially incarcerate somebody against their will that hasn't committed a crime is a serious one. As a result, only individuals that have been determined to be an imminent danger to themselves or others as determined by a qualified mental health professional and affirmed by a judge may be locked up. Notice the words imminent danger. I don't think we want the thought police to claim that somebody might be a danger at some point in the undefinable and therefore need to be hauled off to the hospital. The other problem as I have stated earlier is to what degree will a mental health screening be conducted and what level of mental instability would disqualify that person from obtaining a gun. I think the reality of the American system regarding confidentiality and personal freedom would dictate that the same standard be applied and only people judged to be insane by the above mentioned standard would be prohibited form getting guns, in effect a very, very small number.

 

As far as guns not being easy to get, I beg to differ. In some states you can obtain a gun at a gun show quite quickly and easily. In many states, all you need to do is wait a few days for a cursory criminal background check and then go get your gun. Hardly difficult in my opinion unless you consider a few day delay a huge hardship. Regarding people easily obtaining guns illegally, I would suggest that is a problem due to the sheer volume of guns available in the US.

 

I have an answer to the gun supply problem but as you have already said it is an impossible one to accept. As it currently stands the US Constitution obviously allows gun ownership with few restrictions. My main point is that the gun violence problem will not go away in America because of many complex and often interrelated issues. That being the case, the American people should just get used to the fact that people will continue to be killed by guns and it probably won't change anytime soon. I really don't think that a large amount of gun homicides are criminal against criminal, a violent death is a violent death and claiming that somehow those deaths are less tragic than others is a rather poor rationalization. America is addicted to its gun culture and Americans just need to accept the consequences of that addiction.

 

I think I pretty clearly agreed with you that the level for judging someone insane and DSQ'd from owning guns should be (and is) very high. However, I think what you are completely missing in the whole mental health discussion - and what I and others have suggested here is not so much the last ditch effort to prevent someone who has snapped from getting a gun and shooting up a mall. What I've been saying is that we need to invest in better mental health care so it NEVER REACHES THAT POINT. If people can get into the mental health system early on, get treatment, get counseling, etc. - I'm betting that many of our mass shooters never reach that point. But the problem is our mental health system, like much of our regular HC system, is broken - but even more so. Most insurance has little coverage for mental health issues and people who might seek help are often stigmatized and therefore avoid it until they snap. I think the high suicide rate in this country is indicative of that. We are a stressed out society. Many people react negatively to that stress. Some drink. Some put a gun in their mouth. Some others kill kids in an elementary school. But the fact remains that avenues for treatment and help for those people who aren't dealing well are very limited. And overall, society doesn't encourage people to seek help, to tell others to get help or to report people who are acting dangerous. Its getting better, but very slowly.

 

I've been saying that we need a MADD style approach to violence, including gun violence. MADD didn't stigmatize the booze or go after the booze. They went after the behavior. They stigmatized the people who drove drunk. They stigmatized the people who enabled them to drive drunk. They pushed for harsher penalties and stronger enforcement of existing laws. Their entering argument was not that people are driving drunk and killing others because of the easy availability of booze, but because of behavior that was socially unacceptable. They set out to change behavior, not to ban or heavily restrict booze. And it worked because they knew prohibition would not. People who are pushing for heavy regulation and/or prohibition on guns are not getting this. MADD got it and it worked.

 

What you're missing in the "its too easy to get guns" argument is that the people who pass background checks are clear whether they get it in an hour, in a day or a week. Very very few murders are a result of someone walking into a gun store and then going straight home to kill their wife or husband. And your specious argument about gun shows indicates you don't know how it works. 90% of gun show sales go through background checks. Have you been to a gun show lately? There are very very few private sellers. What you speak of is a "private sale loophole" not a gun show loophole. I'll let you slide on that because you're relatively new. But in most states I can meet anyone in a walmart parking lot and buy a private gun from someone. I would personally be ok with discussing requiring private sales to go through a bcg as well. But 1) I don't think that would satisfy the gun-grabbers such as yourself and 2) its still doesn't deter a determined criminal from getting a gun.

 

I still would like your specific answer to the "gun problem" whether you think I would like it or not. But while you formulate your answer - remember that any "solution" needs to meet the test of how does it impact my liberties compared to how effective it would be. If you can't answer that, or the answer is it severely impacts my liberty for a miniscule to unmeasurable reduction in violence and crime - then its not worth it. And please remember to frame your answer in the context of the fact that the genie is already out of the bottle. There are too many guns out there in private hands (most legal, many are not) and they are not going to be magically sucked up by jocal's magical magnet one day.

 

Finally, yes that pesky 2A thing keeps getting in the way. And yes, I understand that murders will continue to happen and its a price I'm willing to accept for the freedom to enjoy ALL of my rights. But I still maintain its not the guns fault or the availability of guns or the ease of getting a gun. Society has changed and become more violent and less caring about their fellow man. Guns were WAY easy to get in the 40s, 50s and 60s. And even 70s and early 80s. I could walk into the Ace Hardware store on main street or the Sears and Roebuck down at the mall and buy a gun on the spot. No background check, no waiting, no paperwork of any kind. And the lethality of guns hasn't changed one bit. I had an AR-15 back in the early 80s that is identical to the ones I have today. BUt people weren't gunning other people down in the streets back then, yet they still had easy access to guns. Why the difference? Serious question, soaked

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Thank you again for the calm, raational response.

 

 

I agree with what you say about the majority of gun violence and the largely ineffectual "war on drugs" which probably contributes more to the violence rate than it curtails drug use.

 

I haven't stayed in a Holiday Inn in years however I have received extensive training in mental health. I will repeat again, that though we perceive people capable of extreme violence such as occurred in Newtown, Aurora, Washington DC etc as "Looney Tunes" that doesn't mean they met the legal/clinical definition of insanity. In some of the cases the shooters are dead and we can only speculate as to their mental status at the time but they weren't crazy enough to be locked up prior to their death. In the case where the shooter is alive and pending trial, only the shooter in the Aurora case has made a plea of insanity and the outcome is still undetermined. The standard for locking somebody up in mental hospital against their will is a difficult one to meet and it should be. Americans are a freedom loving people and the decision to essentially incarcerate somebody against their will that hasn't committed a crime is a serious one. As a result, only individuals that have been determined to be an imminent danger to themselves or others as determined by a qualified mental health professional and affirmed by a judge may be locked up. Notice the words imminent danger. I don't think we want the thought police to claim that somebody might be a danger at some point in the undefinable and therefore need to be hauled off to the hospital. The other problem as I have stated earlier is to what degree will a mental health screening be conducted and what level of mental instability would disqualify that person from obtaining a gun. I think the reality of the American system regarding confidentiality and personal freedom would dictate that the same standard be applied and only people judged to be insane by the above mentioned standard would be prohibited form getting guns, in effect a very, very small number.

 

As far as guns not being easy to get, I beg to differ. In some states you can obtain a gun at a gun show quite quickly and easily. In many states, all you need to do is wait a few days for a cursory criminal background check and then go get your gun. Hardly difficult in my opinion unless you consider a few day delay a huge hardship. Regarding people easily obtaining guns illegally, I would suggest that is a problem due to the sheer volume of guns available in the US.

 

I have an answer to the gun supply problem but as you have already said it is an impossible one to accept. As it currently stands the US Constitution obviously allows gun ownership with few restrictions. My main point is that the gun violence problem will not go away in America because of many complex and often interrelated issues. That being the case, the American people should just get used to the fact that people will continue to be killed by guns and it probably won't change anytime soon. I really don't think that a large amount of gun homicides are criminal against criminal, a violent death is a violent death and claiming that somehow those deaths are less tragic than others is a rather poor rationalization. America is addicted to its gun culture and Americans just need to accept the consequences of that addiction.

 

I think I pretty clearly agreed with you that the level for judging someone insane and DSQ'd from owning guns should be (and is) very high. However, I think what you are completely missing in the whole mental health discussion - and what I and others have suggested here is not so much the last ditch effort to prevent someone who has snapped from getting a gun and shooting up a mall. What I've been saying is that we need to invest in better mental health care so it NEVER REACHES THAT POINT. If people can get into the mental health system early on, get treatment, get counseling, etc. - I'm betting that many of our mass shooters never reach that point. But the problem is our mental health system, like much of our regular HC system, is broken - but even more so. Most insurance has little coverage for mental health issues and people who might seek help are often stigmatized and therefore avoid it until they snap. I think the high suicide rate in this country is indicative of that. We are a stressed out society. Many people react negatively to that stress. Some drink. Some put a gun in their mouth. Some others kill kids in an elementary school. But the fact remains that avenues for treatment and help for those people who aren't dealing well are very limited. And overall, society doesn't encourage people to seek help, to tell others to get help or to report people who are acting dangerous. Its getting better, but very slowly.

 

I've been saying that we need a MADD style approach to violence, including gun violence. MADD didn't stigmatize the booze or go after the booze. They went after the behavior. They stigmatized the people who drove drunk. They stigmatized the people who enabled them to drive drunk. They pushed for harsher penalties and stronger enforcement of existing laws. Their entering argument was not that people are driving drunk and killing others because of the easy availability of booze, but because of behavior that was socially unacceptable. They set out to change behavior, not to ban or heavily restrict booze. And it worked because they knew prohibition would not. People who are pushing for heavy regulation and/or prohibition on guns are not getting this. MADD got it and it worked.

 

What you're missing in the "its too easy to get guns" argument is that the people who pass background checks are clear whether they get it in an hour, in a day or a week. Very very few murders are a result of someone walking into a gun store and then going straight home to kill their wife or husband. And your specious argument about gun shows indicates you don't know how it works. 90% of gun show sales go through background checks. Have you been to a gun show lately? There are very very few private sellers. What you speak of is a "private sale loophole" not a gun show loophole. I'll let you slide on that because you're relatively new. But in most states I can meet anyone in a walmart parking lot and buy a private gun from someone. I would personally be ok with discussing requiring private sales to go through a bcg as well. But 1) I don't think that would satisfy the gun-grabbers such as yourself and 2) its still doesn't deter a determined criminal from getting a gun.

 

I still would like your specific answer to the "gun problem" whether you think I would like it or not. But while you formulate your answer - remember that any "solution" needs to meet the test of how does it impact my liberties compared to how effective it would be. If you can't answer that, or the answer is it severely impacts my liberty for a miniscule to unmeasurable reduction in violence and crime - then its not worth it. And please remember to frame your answer in the context of the fact that the genie is already out of the bottle. There are too many guns out there in private hands (most legal, many are not) and they are not going to be magically sucked up by jocal's magical magnet one day.

 

Finally, yes that pesky 2A thing keeps getting in the way. And yes, I understand that murders will continue to happen and its a price I'm willing to accept for the freedom to enjoy ALL of my rights. But I still maintain its not the guns fault or the availability of guns or the ease of getting a gun. Society has changed and become more violent and less caring about their fellow man. Guns were WAY easy to get in the 40s, 50s and 60s. And even 70s and early 80s. I could walk into the Ace Hardware store on main street or the Sears and Roebuck down at the mall and buy a gun on the spot. No background check, no waiting, no paperwork of any kind. And the lethality of guns hasn't changed one bit. I had an AR-15 back in the early 80s that is identical to the ones I have today. BUt people weren't gunning other people down in the streets back then, yet they still had easy access to guns. Why the difference? Serious question, soaked

In brief. I have no answer to the gun problem, there are too many variables and the situation is too complex. We certainly aren't going to fix society overnight. I agree that the mental health care in the US is more reactionary than proactive and focused more on drug therapy than talk therapy which has a definite legitimate place in MH care. The question as to why people are gunning down other people in the streets today is because of a fundamental breakdown in society. I think though it is a combination of the shift in societal norms coupled with the availability of guns that makes it a big problem. Nut cases aren't the problem, it is people who seem to accept settling a problem with a gun is normal behavior. We certainly need to focus on that problem but I don't see any solutions on the horizon. Income disparity, political polarization and unemployment are just a few of the reasons, I think. Maybe your MADD type idea is a start but short of turning all the guns into Hondas and Toyotas, which obviously won't happen, I am at a loss for the answer. Your turn, blast away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Thank you again for the calm, raational response.

 

 

I agree with what you say about the majority of gun violence and the largely ineffectual "war on drugs" which probably contributes more to the violence rate than it curtails drug use.

 

I haven't stayed in a Holiday Inn in years however I have received extensive training in mental health. I will repeat again, that though we perceive people capable of extreme violence such as occurred in Newtown, Aurora, Washington DC etc as "Looney Tunes" that doesn't mean they met the legal/clinical definition of insanity. In some of the cases the shooters are dead and we can only speculate as to their mental status at the time but they weren't crazy enough to be locked up prior to their death. In the case where the shooter is alive and pending trial, only the shooter in the Aurora case has made a plea of insanity and the outcome is still undetermined. The standard for locking somebody up in mental hospital against their will is a difficult one to meet and it should be. Americans are a freedom loving people and the decision to essentially incarcerate somebody against their will that hasn't committed a crime is a serious one. As a result, only individuals that have been determined to be an imminent danger to themselves or others as determined by a qualified mental health professional and affirmed by a judge may be locked up. Notice the words imminent danger. I don't think we want the thought police to claim that somebody might be a danger at some point in the undefinable and therefore need to be hauled off to the hospital. The other problem as I have stated earlier is to what degree will a mental health screening be conducted and what level of mental instability would disqualify that person from obtaining a gun. I think the reality of the American system regarding confidentiality and personal freedom would dictate that the same standard be applied and only people judged to be insane by the above mentioned standard would be prohibited form getting guns, in effect a very, very small number.

 

As far as guns not being easy to get, I beg to differ. In some states you can obtain a gun at a gun show quite quickly and easily. In many states, all you need to do is wait a few days for a cursory criminal background check and then go get your gun. Hardly difficult in my opinion unless you consider a few day delay a huge hardship. Regarding people easily obtaining guns illegally, I would suggest that is a problem due to the sheer volume of guns available in the US.

 

I have an answer to the gun supply problem but as you have already said it is an impossible one to accept. As it currently stands the US Constitution obviously allows gun ownership with few restrictions. My main point is that the gun violence problem will not go away in America because of many complex and often interrelated issues. That being the case, the American people should just get used to the fact that people will continue to be killed by guns and it probably won't change anytime soon. I really don't think that a large amount of gun homicides are criminal against criminal, a violent death is a violent death and claiming that somehow those deaths are less tragic than others is a rather poor rationalization. America is addicted to its gun culture and Americans just need to accept the consequences of that addiction.

 

I think I pretty clearly agreed with you that the level for judging someone insane and DSQ'd from owning guns should be (and is) very high. However, I think what you are completely missing in the whole mental health discussion - and what I and others have suggested here is not so much the last ditch effort to prevent someone who has snapped from getting a gun and shooting up a mall. What I've been saying is that we need to invest in better mental health care so it NEVER REACHES THAT POINT. If people can get into the mental health system early on, get treatment, get counseling, etc. - I'm betting that many of our mass shooters never reach that point. But the problem is our mental health system, like much of our regular HC system, is broken - but even more so. Most insurance has little coverage for mental health issues and people who might seek help are often stigmatized and therefore avoid it until they snap. I think the high suicide rate in this country is indicative of that. We are a stressed out society. Many people react negatively to that stress. Some drink. Some put a gun in their mouth. Some others kill kids in an elementary school. But the fact remains that avenues for treatment and help for those people who aren't dealing well are very limited. And overall, society doesn't encourage people to seek help, to tell others to get help or to report people who are acting dangerous. Its getting better, but very slowly.

 

I've been saying that we need a MADD style approach to violence, including gun violence. MADD didn't stigmatize the booze or go after the booze. They went after the behavior. They stigmatized the people who drove drunk. They stigmatized the people who enabled them to drive drunk. They pushed for harsher penalties and stronger enforcement of existing laws. Their entering argument was not that people are driving drunk and killing others because of the easy availability of booze, but because of behavior that was socially unacceptable. They set out to change behavior, not to ban or heavily restrict booze. And it worked because they knew prohibition would not. People who are pushing for heavy regulation and/or prohibition on guns are not getting this. MADD got it and it worked.

 

What you're missing in the "its too easy to get guns" argument is that the people who pass background checks are clear whether they get it in an hour, in a day or a week. Very very few murders are a result of someone walking into a gun store and then going straight home to kill their wife or husband. And your specious argument about gun shows indicates you don't know how it works. 90% of gun show sales go through background checks. Have you been to a gun show lately? There are very very few private sellers. What you speak of is a "private sale loophole" not a gun show loophole. I'll let you slide on that because you're relatively new. But in most states I can meet anyone in a walmart parking lot and buy a private gun from someone. I would personally be ok with discussing requiring private sales to go through a bcg as well. But 1) I don't think that would satisfy the gun-grabbers such as yourself and 2) its still doesn't deter a determined criminal from getting a gun.

 

I still would like your specific answer to the "gun problem" whether you think I would like it or not. But while you formulate your answer - remember that any "solution" needs to meet the test of how does it impact my liberties compared to how effective it would be. If you can't answer that, or the answer is it severely impacts my liberty for a miniscule to unmeasurable reduction in violence and crime - then its not worth it. And please remember to frame your answer in the context of the fact that the genie is already out of the bottle. There are too many guns out there in private hands (most legal, many are not) and they are not going to be magically sucked up by jocal's magical magnet one day.

 

Finally, yes that pesky 2A thing keeps getting in the way. And yes, I understand that murders will continue to happen and its a price I'm willing to accept for the freedom to enjoy ALL of my rights. But I still maintain its not the guns fault or the availability of guns or the ease of getting a gun. Society has changed and become more violent and less caring about their fellow man. Guns were WAY easy to get in the 40s, 50s and 60s. And even 70s and early 80s. I could walk into the Ace Hardware store on main street or the Sears and Roebuck down at the mall and buy a gun on the spot. No background check, no waiting, no paperwork of any kind. And the lethality of guns hasn't changed one bit. I had an AR-15 back in the early 80s that is identical to the ones I have today. BUt people weren't gunning other people down in the streets back then, yet they still had easy access to guns. Why the difference? Serious question, soaked

In brief. I have no answer to the gun problem, there are too many variables and the situation is too complex. We certainly aren't going to fix society overnight. I agree that the mental health care in the US is more reactionary than proactive and focused more on drug therapy than talk therapy which has a definite legitimate place in MH care. The question as to why people are gunning down other people in the streets today is because of a fundamental breakdown in society. I think though it is a combination of the shift in societal norms coupled with the availability of guns that makes it a big problem. Nut cases aren't the problem, it is people who seem to accept settling a problem with a gun is normal behavior. We certainly need to focus on that problem but I don't see any solutions on the horizon. Income disparity, political polarization and unemployment are just a few of the reasons, I think. Maybe your MADD type idea is a start but short of turning all the guns into Hondas and Toyotas, which obviously won't happen, I am at a loss for the answer. Your turn, blast away.

 

Answered yourself there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In brief. I have no answer to the gun problem, there are too many variables and the situation is too complex. We certainly aren't going to fix society overnight. I agree that the mental health care in the US is more reactionary than proactive and focused more on drug therapy than talk therapy which has a definite legitimate place in MH care. The question as to why people are gunning down other people in the streets today is because of a fundamental breakdown in society. I think though it is a combination of the shift in societal norms coupled with the availability of guns that makes it a big problem. Nut cases aren't the problem, it is people who seem to accept settling a problem with a gun is normal behavior. We certainly need to focus on that problem but I don't see any solutions on the horizon. Income disparity, political polarization and unemployment are just a few of the reasons, I think. Maybe your MADD type idea is a start but short of turning all the guns into Hondas and Toyotas, which obviously won't happen, I am at a loss for the answer. Your turn, blast away.

 

I thought you said you had an answer but I wouldn't like it?

 

And no blasting. Its refreshing to see someone admit its a complex problem that won't be solved if only we could think of the children and make one more law. Just making one more law isn't the answer. Its a complex, difficult and long term (likely decades) fix.

 

But I go back to the thread title..... the more people like jocal focus on the tool and blame responsible gun owners like me, LenP, Tom, etc as the root of the problem - the longer he will delay any real solution. Because the 2A isn't going away and we are not going to give up our rights so easily just so the knee-jerkers can feel better about themselves that they did something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Then you should be the very first to answer soak-ed's question.

 

Well-played. But I'm not holding my breath that Trolly McTrollston will actually answer the question.

I've answered before, but I can again if you would like.

 

The third leg of the stool is identification of the mentally unstable. This means casting out a net with the appropriate filters to "catch" our prey. But first we need to identify the characteristics of those we wish to catch. In the most cases, its been young adult males. The problem seems to transcend race and economic status. All suspects have previously displayed anti-social behavior and most have had incidents with family or law enforcement. None required incarceration or commitment to mental health facilities.

So the quandary, how do you define the filter to allow the stable to pass, but catch the prey? Some might say its impossible and not even try. Others might say grab everyone and toss back into the pool those who don't fit the criteria. I think in a free society, the later is unacceptable.

 

So here's my solution. Establish a no-buy list. Every transaction is banged up against the list. All persons adjudicated with anti-social/irresponsible behavior are added to the list. Get a restraining order, you are added to the list. DUI, you are on the list. Then have another path for being added; anyone can recommend you be added to the list. This is the scary man down the street feature. Of course it isn't automatic and will require investigation and review, probably by a judge.

Lastly, anyone on the list can petition to be removed from it. A careful review by a panel of experts can agree you should or shouldn't remain on the list.

 

You can call me a troll or cunt now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

Then you should be the very first to answer soak-ed's question.

 

Well-played. But I'm not holding my breath that Trolly McTrollston will actually answer the question.

I've answered before, but I can again if you would like.

 

The third leg of the stool is identification of the mentally unstable. This means casting out a net with the appropriate filters to "catch" our prey. But first we need to identify the characteristics of those we wish to catch. In the most cases, its been young adult males. The problem seems to transcend race and economic status. All suspects have previously displayed anti-social behavior and most have had incidents with family or law enforcement. None required incarceration or commitment to mental health facilities.

So the quandary, how do you define the filter to allow the stable to pass, but catch the prey? Some might say its impossible and not even try. Others might say grab everyone and toss back into the pool those who don't fit the criteria. I think in a free society, the later is unacceptable.

 

So here's my solution. Establish a no-buy list. Every transaction is banged up against the list. All persons adjudicated with anti-social/irresponsible behavior are added to the list. Get a restraining order, you are added to the list. DUI, you are on the list. Then have another path for being added; anyone can recommend you be added to the list. This is the scary man down the street feature. Of course it isn't automatic and will require investigation and review, probably by a judge.

Lastly, anyone on the list can petition to be removed from it. A careful review by a panel of experts can agree you should or shouldn't remain on the list.

 

You can call me a troll or cunt now.

You do realize antisocial behavior is practically the definition of a teenager. How long is the statute of limitations on this behavior? Does adultery make the list? White collar crime? Witchcraft? Smoking pot but not inhaling? Could be an awful long list and with the scary guy feature it looks like we are going to need a lot more judges. What if people that have engaged in antisocial behavior already own guns? Do they get a free ride or will this be retroactive?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In brief. I have no answer to the gun problem, there are too many variables and the situation is too complex. We certainly aren't going to fix society overnight. I agree that the mental health care in the US is more reactionary than proactive and focused more on drug therapy than talk therapy which has a definite legitimate place in MH care. The question as to why people are gunning down other people in the streets today is because of a fundamental breakdown in society. I think though it is a combination of the shift in societal norms coupled with the availability of guns that makes it a big problem. Nut cases aren't the problem, it is people who seem to accept settling a problem with a gun is normal behavior. We certainly need to focus on that problem but I don't see any solutions on the horizon. Income disparity, political polarization and unemployment are just a few of the reasons, I think. Maybe your MADD type idea is a start but short of turning all the guns into Hondas and Toyotas, which obviously won't happen, I am at a loss for the answer. Your turn, blast away.

 

I thought you said you had an answer but I wouldn't like it?

 

And no blasting. Its refreshing to see someone admit its a complex problem that won't be solved if only we could think of the children and make one more law. Just making one more law isn't the answer. Its a complex, difficult and long term (likely decades) fix.

 

But I go back to the thread title..... the more people like jocal focus on the tool and blame responsible gun owners like me, LenP, Tom, etc as the root of the problem - the longer he will delay any real solution. Because the 2A isn't going away and we are not going to give up our rights so easily just so the knee-jerkers can feel better about themselves that they did something.

The trouble with the NRA is extremism never helps an issue. The NRA should really tone down their rhetoric and definitely get rid of LaPierre and maybe they would get a little more respect. The other problem is the gun fight has become another liberal vs conservative issue. The lack of civil political discourse is another one of the major problems in the country that is obscuring the issues and not helping to resolve anything. If people on both sides of the issues could sit down and have a civil discussion perhaps we could start to resolve some problems facing the US today. I don't see that happening anytime soon but there is always hope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stop the WoD, stop the WoT, replace Ocare with medicare for all, extend the school year by an additional 20 days, then wait. I don't think the answer to the "gun problem" involves guns at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I took the liberty of making one little correction for you and than I am in complete agreement that that would be a good start.

Stop the WoD, stop the WoT, replace Ocare with medicare for all, extend the school year by an additional 20 days, then wait. I don't think the answer to the "gun problem" involves guns at all entirely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You do realize antisocial behavior is practically the definition of a teenager. How long is the statute of limitations on this behavior? Does adultery make the list? White collar crime? Witchcraft? Smoking pot but not inhaling? Could be an awful long list and with the scary guy feature it looks like we are going to need a lot more judges. What if people that have engaged in antisocial behavior already own guns? Do they get a free ride or will this be retroactive?

I don't think teenagers should have guns, nor do I think they can already purchase firearms. So non-issue.

If you deviate from the social contract, you have demonstrated irresponsibility. The goal would be to keep the irresponsible from being able to have weapons until they prove themselves responsible again.

 

On those who already have weapons and find themselves on the list, that's where the registry comes in. We would confiscate those weapons for safe keeping for the duration of their time on the list or give them the opportunity to sell or dispose of them.

 

The scary guy feature will be the most difficult to manage but will probably bear the best fruit. Of all the recent shooters, had there been a scary guy list, I think most would have been on it. Proper review would be necessary to deter people from reporting those they just have disagreements with but encourage reporting of anti-social behavior that would warrant investigation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

In brief. I have no answer to the gun problem, there are too many variables and the situation is too complex. We certainly aren't going to fix society overnight. I agree that the mental health care in the US is more reactionary than proactive and focused more on drug therapy than talk therapy which has a definite legitimate place in MH care. The question as to why people are gunning down other people in the streets today is because of a fundamental breakdown in society. I think though it is a combination of the shift in societal norms coupled with the availability of guns that makes it a big problem. Nut cases aren't the problem, it is people who seem to accept settling a problem with a gun is normal behavior. We certainly need to focus on that problem but I don't see any solutions on the horizon. Income disparity, political polarization and unemployment are just a few of the reasons, I think. Maybe your MADD type idea is a start but short of turning all the guns into Hondas and Toyotas, which obviously won't happen, I am at a loss for the answer. Your turn, blast away.

 

I thought you said you had an answer but I wouldn't like it?

 

And no blasting. Its refreshing to see someone admit its a complex problem that won't be solved if only we could think of the children and make one more law. Just making one more law isn't the answer. Its a complex, difficult and long term (likely decades) fix.

 

But I go back to the thread title..... the more people like jocal focus on the tool and blame responsible gun owners like me, LenP, Tom, etc as the root of the problem - the longer he will delay any real solution. Because the 2A isn't going away and we are not going to give up our rights so easily just so the knee-jerkers can feel better about themselves that they did something.

The trouble with the NRA is extremism never helps an issue. The NRA should really tone down their rhetoric and definitely get rid of LaPierre and maybe they would get a little more respect. The other problem is the gun fight has become another liberal vs conservative issue. The lack of civil political discourse is another one of the major problems in the country that is obscuring the issues and not helping to resolve anything. If people on both sides of the issues could sit down and have a civil discussion perhaps we could start to resolve some problems facing the US today. I don't see that happening anytime soon but there is always hope.

we're doing that now......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

In brief. I have no answer to the gun problem, there are too many variables and the situation is too complex. We certainly aren't going to fix society overnight. I agree that the mental health care in the US is more reactionary than proactive and focused more on drug therapy than talk therapy which has a definite legitimate place in MH care. The question as to why people are gunning down other people in the streets today is because of a fundamental breakdown in society. I think though it is a combination of the shift in societal norms coupled with the availability of guns that makes it a big problem. Nut cases aren't the problem, it is people who seem to accept settling a problem with a gun is normal behavior. We certainly need to focus on that problem but I don't see any solutions on the horizon. Income disparity, political polarization and unemployment are just a few of the reasons, I think. Maybe your MADD type idea is a start but short of turning all the guns into Hondas and Toyotas, which obviously won't happen, I am at a loss for the answer. Your turn, blast away.

 

I thought you said you had an answer but I wouldn't like it?

 

And no blasting. Its refreshing to see someone admit its a complex problem that won't be solved if only we could think of the children and make one more law. Just making one more law isn't the answer. Its a complex, difficult and long term (likely decades) fix.

 

But I go back to the thread title..... the more people like jocal focus on the tool and blame responsible gun owners like me, LenP, Tom, etc as the root of the problem - the longer he will delay any real solution. Because the 2A isn't going away and we are not going to give up our rights so easily just so the knee-jerkers can feel better about themselves that they did something.

The trouble with the NRA is extremism never helps an issue. The NRA should really tone down their rhetoric and definitely get rid of LaPierre and maybe they would get a little more respect. The other problem is the gun fight has become another liberal vs conservative issue. The lack of civil political discourse is another one of the major problems in the country that is obscuring the issues and not helping to resolve anything. If people on both sides of the issues could sit down and have a civil discussion perhaps we could start to resolve some problems facing the US today. I don't see that happening anytime soon but there is always hope.

we're doing that now......

Yeah, I realized that and I am a little shocked but I figured I better practice what I preach!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You do realize antisocial behavior is practically the definition of a teenager. How long is the statute of limitations on this behavior? Does adultery make the list? White collar crime? Witchcraft? Smoking pot but not inhaling? Could be an awful long list and with the scary guy feature it looks like we are going to need a lot more judges. What if people that have engaged in antisocial behavior already own guns? Do they get a free ride or will this be retroactive?

I don't think teenagers should have guns, nor do I think they can already purchase firearms. So non-issue.

If you deviate from the social contract, you have demonstrated irresponsibility. The goal would be to keep the irresponsible from being able to have weapons until they prove themselves responsible again.

 

On those who already have weapons and find themselves on the list, that's where the registry comes in. We would confiscate those weapons for safe keeping for the duration of their time on the list or give them the opportunity to sell or dispose of them.

 

The scary guy feature will be the most difficult to manage but will probably bear the best fruit. Of all the recent shooters, had there been a scary guy list, I think most would have been on it. Proper review would be necessary to deter people from reporting those they just have disagreements with but encourage reporting of anti-social behavior that would warrant investigation.

I like the scary guy feature. I'm making my list and checking it twice. ^_^

 

I brought up teens wondering if past teenage antisocial behavior would be enough to disqualify them as adults.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

In brief. I have no answer to the gun problem, there are too many variables and the situation is too complex. We certainly aren't going to fix society overnight. I agree that the mental health care in the US is more reactionary than proactive and focused more on drug therapy than talk therapy which has a definite legitimate place in MH care. The question as to why people are gunning down other people in the streets today is because of a fundamental breakdown in society. I think though it is a combination of the shift in societal norms coupled with the availability of guns that makes it a big problem. Nut cases aren't the problem, it is people who seem to accept settling a problem with a gun is normal behavior. We certainly need to focus on that problem but I don't see any solutions on the horizon. Income disparity, political polarization and unemployment are just a few of the reasons, I think. Maybe your MADD type idea is a start but short of turning all the guns into Hondas and Toyotas, which obviously won't happen, I am at a loss for the answer. Your turn, blast away.

 

I thought you said you had an answer but I wouldn't like it?

 

And no blasting. Its refreshing to see someone admit its a complex problem that won't be solved if only we could think of the children and make one more law. Just making one more law isn't the answer. Its a complex, difficult and long term (likely decades) fix.

 

But I go back to the thread title..... the more people like jocal focus on the tool and blame responsible gun owners like me, LenP, Tom, etc as the root of the problem - the longer he will delay any real solution. Because the 2A isn't going away and we are not going to give up our rights so easily just so the knee-jerkers can feel better about themselves that they did something.

The trouble with the NRA is extremism never helps an issue. The NRA should really tone down their rhetoric and definitely get rid of LaPierre and maybe they would get a little more respect. The other problem is the gun fight has become another liberal vs conservative issue. The lack of civil political discourse is another one of the major problems in the country that is obscuring the issues and not helping to resolve anything. If people on both sides of the issues could sit down and have a civil discussion perhaps we could start to resolve some problems facing the US today. I don't see that happening anytime soon but there is always hope.

 

Yup - you're right - but, to counter your comment w/r/t NRA toning down their rhetoric is that the avowed anti 2A folks have established that their intent is confiscation and eradication, and they won't stop until they achieve that goal. Every increase in restrictions isn't seen as a "good job - that'll work" event, it's seen as a stepping stone to ever-increasing restrictions. I've said many times that I'll support anything that can be demonstrated as reasonably effective - the prohibitionist approach ignores the root causes that You & Jeff have articulated in previous posts, in favor of a prohibitive approach that has in several similar scenarios proven ineffective and even more vexing than the pre-prohibition state.

 

Phew - sorry so long winded - but, there's a reason that the NRA, and other pro-ALL rights groups and individuals fight any perceived restriction, and that reason is because the folks proffering that restriction have stated time and again that "this is just a stepping stone".

 

Coming back to your point - you're absolutely correct that we all need to at least come to an agreement of a common goal (like MADD), and then proffer, discuss, evaluate potential solutions to achieving that goal, and to finally work together in implementation of the solution that's the best fit given the constraints defining the problem.

 

BTW - as you offered an appreciation of Jeff's replies - please, permit me to offer the same to you. I don't want anyone to blindly agree with me, but, if there's a disagreement, articulating the basis for your thoughts as you've done goes a long way towards fostering a better understanding for the other's opinions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Teenagers should not have unsupervised access to weapons. I may be mistaken, but I don't think they can now, legally. We restrict their rights simply because they are teenagers and haven't demonstrated the maturity to responsibly have weapons. Only with proper training and supervision do we allow young soldiers access to weapons. Same should be true for civilian youth.

Acts of irresponsibility as a teenager should not automatically put you on the no-buy list. However, criminal history as a teenager should probably get you an automatic list entry as you become an adult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Teenagers should not have unsupervised access to weapons. I may be mistaken, but I don't think they can now, legally. We restrict their rights simply because they are teenagers and haven't demonstrated the maturity to responsibly have weapons. Only with proper training and supervision do we allow young soldiers access to weapons. Same should be true for civilian youth.

Acts of irresponsibility as a teenager should not automatically put you on the no-buy list. However, criminal history as a teenager should probably get you an automatic list entry as you become an adult.

 

You OK w/applying similar criterion/restrictions to other articulated rights, such as the right to vote? Protection of the 4th?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Teenagers should not have unsupervised access to weapons. I may be mistaken, but I don't think they can now, legally. We restrict their rights simply because they are teenagers and haven't demonstrated the maturity to responsibly have weapons. Only with proper training and supervision do we allow young soldiers access to weapons. Same should be true for civilian youth.

Acts of irresponsibility as a teenager should not automatically put you on the no-buy list. However, criminal history as a teenager should probably get you an automatic list entry as you become an adult.

 

You OK w/applying similar criterion/restrictions to other articulated rights, such as the right to vote? Protection of the 4th?

If you can show me the equivalency of allowing an irresponsible person casting a ballot to an irresponsible person shooting a weapon in a public place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

In brief. I have no answer to the gun problem, there are too many variables and the situation is too complex. We certainly aren't going to fix society overnight. I agree that the mental health care in the US is more reactionary than proactive and focused more on drug therapy than talk therapy which has a definite legitimate place in MH care. The question as to why people are gunning down other people in the streets today is because of a fundamental breakdown in society. I think though it is a combination of the shift in societal norms coupled with the availability of guns that makes it a big problem. Nut cases aren't the problem, it is people who seem to accept settling a problem with a gun is normal behavior. We certainly need to focus on that problem but I don't see any solutions on the horizon. Income disparity, political polarization and unemployment are just a few of the reasons, I think. Maybe your MADD type idea is a start but short of turning all the guns into Hondas and Toyotas, which obviously won't happen, I am at a loss for the answer. Your turn, blast away.

 

I thought you said you had an answer but I wouldn't like it?

 

And no blasting. Its refreshing to see someone admit its a complex problem that won't be solved if only we could think of the children and make one more law. Just making one more law isn't the answer. Its a complex, difficult and long term (likely decades) fix.

 

But I go back to the thread title..... the more people like jocal focus on the tool and blame responsible gun owners like me, LenP, Tom, etc as the root of the problem - the longer he will delay any real solution. Because the 2A isn't going away and we are not going to give up our rights so easily just so the knee-jerkers can feel better about themselves that they did something.

The trouble with the NRA is extremism never helps an issue. The NRA should really tone down their rhetoric and definitely get rid of LaPierre and maybe they would get a little more respect. The other problem is the gun fight has become another liberal vs conservative issue. The lack of civil political discourse is another one of the major problems in the country that is obscuring the issues and not helping to resolve anything. If people on both sides of the issues could sit down and have a civil discussion perhaps we could start to resolve some problems facing the US today. I don't see that happening anytime soon but there is always hope.

 

Yup - you're right - but, to counter your comment w/r/t NRA toning down their rhetoric is that the avowed anti 2A folks have established that their intent is confiscation and eradication, and they won't stop until they achieve that goal. Every increase in restrictions isn't seen as a "good job - that'll work" event, it's seen as a stepping stone to ever-increasing restrictions. I've said many times that I'll support anything that can be demonstrated as reasonably effective - the prohibitionist approach ignores the root causes that You & Jeff have articulated in previous posts, in favor of a prohibitive approach that has in several similar scenarios proven ineffective and even more vexing than the pre-prohibition state.

 

Phew - sorry so long winded - but, there's a reason that the NRA, and other pro-ALL rights groups and individuals fight any perceived restriction, and that reason is because the folks proffering that restriction have stated time and again that "this is just a stepping stone".

 

Coming back to your point - you're absolutely correct that we all need to at least come to an agreement of a common goal (like MADD), and then proffer, discuss, evaluate potential solutions to achieving that goal, and to finally work together in implementation of the solution that's the best fit given the constraints defining the problem.

 

BTW - as you offered an appreciation of Jeff's replies - please, permit me to offer the same to you. I don't want anyone to blindly agree with me, but, if there's a disagreement, articulating the basis for your thoughts as you've done goes a long way towards fostering a better understanding for the other's opinions.

Perhaps we can start a civility movement right here on PA. Wouldn't that be nice, we can all sit down and sing Kumbayah together. I used to think that most people prefer the middle to the extremes, maybe today the extremes are just louder. As a life long Democrat, I would consider voting for Christie in '16 depending on who the Dems put up. All I know is something has to change or our once proud country will go down the tubes. I know every generation says that but hell, I was around in the '60s and all that shit and I think it is much worse today. The one good thing I learned from the '60s was "Don't eat the brown acid".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps we can start a civility movement right here on PA. Wouldn't that be nice, we can all sit down and sing Kumbayah together. I used to think that most people prefer the middle to the extremes, maybe today the extremes are just louder. As a life long Democrat, I would consider voting for Christie in '16 depending on who the Dems put up. All I know is something has to change or our once proud country will go down the tubes. I know every generation says that but hell, I was around in the '60s and all that shit and I think it is much worse today. The one good thing I learned from the '60s was "Don't eat the brown acid".

I have attempted that with them, but if you even mention something they don't agree with, they call you offensive sexual names. Just look at every gun thread. Some are worse than others, but there is a common theme with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Teenagers should not have unsupervised access to weapons. I may be mistaken, but I don't think they can now, legally. We restrict their rights simply because they are teenagers and haven't demonstrated the maturity to responsibly have weapons. Only with proper training and supervision do we allow young soldiers access to weapons. Same should be true for civilian youth.

Acts of irresponsibility as a teenager should not automatically put you on the no-buy list. However, criminal history as a teenager should probably get you an automatic list entry as you become an adult.

 

You OK w/applying similar criterion/restrictions to other articulated rights, such as the right to vote? Protection of the 4th?

If you can show me the equivalency of allowing an irresponsible person casting a ballot to an irresponsible person shooting a weapon in a public place.

 

Are you REALLY asking that?

 

 

Perhaps we can start a civility movement right here on PA. Wouldn't that be nice, we can all sit down and sing Kumbayah together. I used to think that most people prefer the middle to the extremes, maybe today the extremes are just louder. As a life long Democrat, I would consider voting for Christie in '16 depending on who the Dems put up. All I know is something has to change or our once proud country will go down the tubes. I know every generation says that but hell, I was around in the '60s and all that shit and I think it is much worse today. The one good thing I learned from the '60s was "Don't eat the brown acid".

I have attempted that with them, but if you even mention something they don't agree with, they call you offensive sexual names. Just look at every gun thread. Some are worse than others, but there is a common theme with them.

 

Yup - Right = wrong w/you, Ed. For you to even imply that you've attempted civility is completely disingenuous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

 

The scary guy feature will be the most difficult to manage but will probably bear the best fruit. Of all the recent shooters, had there been a scary guy list, I think most would have been on it. Proper review would be necessary to deter people from reporting those they just have disagreements with but encourage reporting of anti-social behavior that would warrant investigation.

 

 

Quit being a cunt or I'm telling BJ! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup - Right = wrong w/you, Ed. For you to even imply that you've attempted civility is completely disingenuous.

Show me where I resort to calling anyone sexually derogative names I disagree with. I can list thousands of examples of them resorting to school yard bully techniques.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yup - Right = wrong w/you, Ed. For you to even imply that you've attempted civility is completely disingenuous.

Show me where I resort to calling anyone sexually derogative names I disagree with. I can list thousands of examples of them resorting to school yard bully techniques.

 

Not directly calling someone a cunt (even if they ARE) isn't the same thing as behaving w/civility. Do you *really* think anyone needs to go on a post-hunt to find previous examples of your pedantic and specious conduct? Hey - if you want to turn a corner - I'll walk out into the intersection and stop traffic for ya. I enjoy your contributions much more when they actually contain thoughts and not just slung BS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites