new gun law


PDA






beeb173
December 14, 2012, 03:31 PM
just looking for SOMETHING as 2A supporters we can do to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. what about a tax on guns/ammo specifically ear marked to do just that. i for one understand that along with the freedom i enjoy keeping my guns i also (along with the gun companies that profit from the sales) have a responsibility to keep them out of the hands of the mentally ill.

i don't know exactly how exactly that money would be spent. as with everything, the devil is in the details. possibly crosschecking prescription drugs used for depression etc with purchase permits.

i refuse to believe both sides of the isle can't come together to reduce these mass shootings perpetrated by people that neither side wants to be near a gun (or sharp scissors for that matter)

my prayers are with the families in connecticut.

If you enjoyed reading about "new gun law" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
BoilerUP
December 14, 2012, 03:32 PM
Nothing can stop someone with evil in their heart.

Nothing.

mljdeckard
December 14, 2012, 03:37 PM
No. You think anyone taking anti-anxiety or anti-depressants shouldn't be allowed to buy guns?

markdaniel
December 14, 2012, 03:37 PM
Why punish law abiding gun owners with a tax that will do nothing but give antis ammo. Guns and ammo do not cause crime.

bhesler
December 14, 2012, 03:37 PM
The one thing I can think of involves loosening the medical privacy laws in respect to mental health professionals in reporting those they believe are a threat to others. It still would not prevent someone from stealing a firearm or using other means.

RobsTV
December 14, 2012, 03:37 PM
We have one law and that was enough. The 2nd amendment. If places would stop fooling with it, and stop restricting it, then perhaps today's event at a gun safe zone never would have happened, or at least ended much sooner.

If all restrictions on guns were lifted, criminals and mental dangerous nut jobs would find much shorter lives in our society.

smalls
December 14, 2012, 03:43 PM
You can go ahead and give up your freedoms.

Please, leave mine alone.

beeb173
December 14, 2012, 03:43 PM
No. You think anyone taking anti-anxiety or anti-depressants shouldn't be allowed to buy guns?
probably not. although i'm open to hear the other side.

breakingcontact
December 14, 2012, 03:47 PM
These soft targets need to be hardened. Schools run relatively tight budgets. They need more legit security. I'm not just saying, school safety plans, but better security such as. Perimeter fences. Check/choke point in/out. (other exits that are alarmed in case people need to get out fast) Possibly, armed principals, selected staff members. (Lots and lots of training).

Same thing with malls, a place where 10,000 people gather, needs to be protected by armed guards/police.

This is a world view issue. The left believes people are good and can be allowed to act good if encouraged to do so. The right knows (not believes) that people aren't good and we need to prepare ourselves for battle.

I don't understand how we have an armed guards at banks, airports, government buildings, but we don't where we keep our most treasured asset, our children.

No new gun laws. But these gun free/safe zones need to change how they operate in the face of reality.

Prayers for all the innocents involved, feel sick over it.

silicosys4
December 14, 2012, 03:47 PM
These reactions by gun owners are precisely how we are going to lose our rights to keep and bear arms. "Not my problem, leave my guns alone" isn't going to cut it for much longer, I'm afraid. Unfortunately, that is leaving the door too wide open for Anti's, and its time for Pro2A people to start becoming more vocal about what we should do, instead of going after guns

Health care reform, anyone?
Maybe make it a lot easier and much less of a stigma for people who are mentally ill to seek treatment, maybe make it a little easier to afford, with the understanding that if you are considering shooting up a school, you probably aren't gainfully employed and can't afford meds...if you've even been able to afford going to the doctor to find out why you feel shooting up a school is an acceptable answer...
Speaking as someone with experience, people don't just snap out of reality one day and pick up a gun to kill kids. Mental illness is generally recognizable and treatable, before it degenerates into this kind of situation. The question is, do people want to admit to being mentally ill? Do they want to take their meds, that is...if they can afford to? (you are looking about well over $1000/month for most people in this situation)
Do we want to subsidize people who can't hold down a job because they are mentally ill, so they don't shoot up schools and then become a danger to us retaining our 2A rights? Would such a thing be "entitlement" or would it be proactively working to preserve our rights and our society?

Just a thought, trying to be more proactive than "not my problem, don't take my guns".

M-Cameron
December 14, 2012, 03:49 PM
just looking for SOMETHING as 2A supporters we can do to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. what about a tax on guns/ammo specifically ear marked to do just that. i for one understand that along with the freedom i enjoy keeping my guns i also (along with the gun companies that profit from the sales) have a responsibility to keep them out of the hands of the mentally ill.

so if a crazy person runs over people in an SUV, should we raise taxes on cars to keep them out of the hands of crazy people?

guns arent the issue, laws arent the issue, accessibility to dangerous things isnt the issue...the fact is, sane people dont go out and kill other people.....and a crazy person if determined is going to find a way to do it regardless of what the circumstances are.

we need to start treating mental illness like any other disease and encourage people to get treatment, and if they wont friends and family need to step in to encourage them to get help.

if you saw someone bleeding, wouldnt you encourage them to go to the hospital?.....so why not the same thing when someone is depressed?

very rarely do people with severe mental illness present with no symptoms...there is always going to be something to let you know that there isnt something quite right with that person. Columbine, aurora, Tuscon, Norway....ive never met those shooters, but i can guarantee they all showed obvious symptoms of mental illness and someone close to those shooters chose to ignore the symptoms.

people seem to think that if you see something strange, you should mind your own business and keep your mouth shut.........no, you should alert someone so that person can get the help they need and hopefully be prevented from hurting anyone.

targetshooter22
December 14, 2012, 03:50 PM
I think you are reacting to a tragedy without really thinking the issue through very thoroughly. Even the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill opposes such measures because they further stigmatize and demotivate people that need to seek help for easily treatable conditions. You also need to keep in mind that a lot of people briefly take these things to get through tough parts of life like the loss of loved ones, or a divorce. Does this mean that an adverse event in life should permanently bar someone from owning firearms? Does it mean the police should immediately seize their property as soon as they are diagnosed without due process? Furthermore think more about long term effects from laws - how could it be abused?

Maybe we would be better off trying to figure out why people attacking a group of people is the solution to their problem(s) instead of writing a law that makes us feel like we did something.

ZeSpectre
December 14, 2012, 03:51 PM
beeb173,
The problem (as always) with trying to regulate "equipment" is that there are always more tools out there. Ban one item and a truly deranged person will just switch to something else and you'd be appalled at how creative a psychotic can be if they feel justified in their actions.

The ONLY way we're going to get a handle on this is to figure out how to ID the nut-cases and other than some sort of embedded monitoring chip I really haven't been able to come up with a workable solution.

And so those of use capable of handling the concept hit this issue from the other direction, namely that we know the crazy folks are out there and it's REALLY tough to id and stop them ahead of time, so we're going to do everything we reasonably can to stack the odds in our favor in the event that our number comes up in the bad-luck lottery.

The truth is that none of the talk about the firearms is anything but a red-herring, a distraction away from the real point of this incident. The only point of significance is that a lunatic was not intercepted before he could commit murder and that lunatic control is the type of public-safety control we should be discussing in this country.

Allowing this to become yet another conversation about firearms, which doesn’t address the real issue, is just more insanity.

beeb173
December 14, 2012, 03:52 PM
These reactions by gun owners is precisely how we are going to lose our rights to keep and bear arms. "Not my problem, leave my guns alone" isn't going to cut it for much longer, I'm afraid. Unfortunately, that is leaving the door too wide open for Anti's, and its time for Pro2A people to start becoming more vocal about what we should do, instead of going after guns

Health care reform, anyone?
Maybe make it a lot easier and much less of a stigma for people who are mentally ill to seek treatment, maybe make it a little easier to afford, with the understanding that if you are considering shooting up a school, you probably aren't gainfully employed and can't afford meds...if you've even been able to afford going to the doctor to find out why you feel shooting up a school is an acceptable answer...

Just a thought, trying to be more proactive than "not my problem, don't take my guns".
while i agree that drawing a line in the sand is counter productive, i'd REALLY like to keep this a high road type discussion. if people believe nothing needs to change, that's their opinion and should be respected.

MachIVshooter
December 14, 2012, 03:56 PM
Originally Posted by mljdeckard
No. You think anyone taking anti-anxiety or anti-depressants shouldn't be allowed to buy guns?

probably not.

You clearly know nothing of physiological/psychiatric conditions and the related pharmaceutical treatments.

Your knee-jerk reaction to this tragedy and obvious lack of knowledge on the subject of mental health are two very good reasons you should refrain from posting further on the matter.

beeb173
December 14, 2012, 03:58 PM
You clearly know nothing of physiological/psychiatric conditions and the related pharmaceutical treatments.

Your knee-jerk reaction to this tragedy and obvious lack of knowledge on the subject of mental health are two very good reasons you should refrain from posting further on the matter.
thanks for editing my post to make me look bad. good job.

silicosys4
December 14, 2012, 04:00 PM
Beeb, that's as high road as it gets, a polite and thought out answer to counter opinions stated by other members, which I do not share....followed by my reasoning, and alternatives.

targetshooter22
December 14, 2012, 04:01 PM
I think there were a number of reasonably stated opinions. Nobody made any other person look bad.... But sometimes people don't state what they mean when they type. And I'll leave it (and my previous post) stand at that.

NavyLCDR
December 14, 2012, 04:01 PM
The one thing I can think of involves loosening the medical privacy laws in respect to mental health professionals in reporting those they believe are a threat to others. It still would not prevent someone from stealing a firearm or using other means.
So an anti-gun doctor or health group gets to decide which of his patients (IE: none) get to possess firearms and which don't? Really?!?

Maybe we, as a country, should concentrate on punishing criminal acts committed by criminals whether they are mentally ill or not, and keeping those criminals out of the general population, instead of causing more hurdles and issues for the law abiding citizens. Every law passed to provide the illusion of government protection only serves to make it harder for Joe Citizen to have the means available to defend himself from the criminal who isn't going to obey the new law passed, just like they haven't obeyed any of the previous laws.

TITAN308
December 14, 2012, 04:02 PM
Nothing can stop someone with evil in their heart.

Nothing.

I beg to differ.

"All that evil needs to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

mcdonl
December 14, 2012, 04:03 PM
Not the time. Mourn like everyone else and debate when cooler heads will prevail.

Skribs
December 14, 2012, 04:03 PM
I think we need to address the problem, but addressing the tool isn't the way to do it. I think there are three sides to the problem:

1) There is a growing epidemic in our country with people who are focused more on themselves than others around them, and who want instant gratification. This is fine for kids, but when you're an adult you need to look at the root of the problem instead of applying a bandaid. Gun control = bandaid. Solving social problems = cure.

2) Most violent offenders (granted, not mass shooters) are repeat offenders. So why are we putting people in jail for victimless crimes (which could be regulated and taxed; better for everyone involved) instead of putting more police effort and jail real-estate towards stopping violence?

3) Why is "misdemeanor" and "domestic violence" listed together on Form 4473? Is DV really a misdemeanor? And yet selling pot is a felony...

4) Leading back to #1 (although the point in #1 was more regards for how people don't have respect nowadays), people don't see firearms as much nowadays, unless it's in the news. That's why there's a bigger push for gun control.

splithoof
December 14, 2012, 04:05 PM
A tax? How about $1 for every cartridge purchased, and another $1 for every cartridge owned/possessed. The politicians will love you for that.
As sad is it is, the 2nd says nothing about ammunition.

jbrown50
December 14, 2012, 04:06 PM
We have one law and that was enough. The 2nd amendment. If places would stop fooling with it, and stop restricting it, then perhaps today's event at a gun safe zone never would have happened, or at least ended much sooner.

If all restrictions on guns were lifted, criminals and mental dangerous nut jobs would find much shorter lives in our society.
RobsTV said it best.

wtr100
December 14, 2012, 04:08 PM
just looking for something as 2a supporters we can do to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. What about a tax on guns/ammo specifically ear marked to do just that. I for one understand that along with the freedom i enjoy keeping my guns i also (along with the gun companies that profit from the sales) have a responsibility to keep them out of the hands of the mentally ill.

I don't know exactly how exactly that money would be spent. As with everything, the devil is in the details. Possibly crosschecking prescription drugs used for depression etc with purchase permits.

I refuse to believe both sides of the isle can't come together to reduce these mass shootings perpetrated by people that neither side wants to be near a gun (or sharp scissors for that matter)

my prayers are with the families in connecticut.
xxxxxxx

BoilerUP
December 14, 2012, 04:12 PM
I beg to differ.

"All that evil needs to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

Okay fair enough...let me put it another way.

No regulation, law or prohibition will stop somebody who is intent on murder and destruction.

razorback2003
December 14, 2012, 04:13 PM
How about this, if you have a license you can carry your gun in schools in every state. That way when people like this try to kill innocents, he is stopped quicker.

beeb173
December 14, 2012, 04:15 PM
How about this, if you have a license you can carry your gun in schools in every state. That way when people like this try to kill innocents, he is stopped quicker.
amen to that.

Trent
December 14, 2012, 04:16 PM
There's only ONE way to stop a shooting rampage prior to the time the perpetrator decides to stop it (either via surrender, escape, or suicide).

That one way is force.

silicosys4
December 14, 2012, 04:17 PM
There is such a disconnect from reality here. "if there were no restrictions on guns, the world would be awesome!" "all those crazies would be shot down, no more problems"
Yea right, until someone guns someone you love down because they "looked mentally ill at me".
This conversation is seriously starting to degenerate. We can definitely tell who has and hasn't had to deal with a loved one or good friend who's mentally ill, by the flavor of their posts.
WTR100...you seriously think its not a good thing for gunowners to try and find some way of ensuring that guns are not used by the mentally ill to commit crimes? You'd attach political stigmas to someone who would?
For shame on you. Get educated.

Trent, you are WRONG. PERIOD.
Treatment, my friend. You don't have to wait until the dude is on school grounds with an uzi. Why would you wait until someone is such a problem that you have to kill them, when getting the right meds into them at the right time would solve everything?

Its none of my business...Its none of my business...Its none of my business...Its none of my business...Its none of my business
OH MY GOD HE'S GOT A GUN.....

M-Cameron
December 14, 2012, 04:17 PM
never mind, misread

zeke707
December 14, 2012, 04:19 PM
It's a sad state of affairs. The country is full of people, judged mentally ill or not, that are a danger to society. It would appear "all" schools, hospitals, theaters and in fact any place where people gather need onsite armed security. This will now make the subject a primary focus of congress and the president. Expect some dramatic changes very soon? The political sway of organizations such as the NRA will diminish or at least will be the NRA will be pressured like never before.

Agsalaska
December 14, 2012, 04:20 PM
As a father of two youngsters, it is heartbreakingly sad. I am a grown man and had to shut the door to my office today when i saw the picture of the female cop leading those kids across the parking lot.

That being said, for whatever reason, man in general just doesn't hold life in high regard. And we never have. How many people are killed every year. War on Terror, 9/11, first Gulf War, Chechnya, Bosnia, Rwanda, South Ossetia, Israel v Muslims, Vietnam v China, Congo, Mexico, all off the top of my head, and all since we left Vietnam. Not to mention gangs killings and every other kind of murder. Hell most people on this board support the death penalty and can perfectly justify its use. As history of man has shown this is nothing new. These school-mall-movie theater shootings are a new reincarnation of our species' ability to devalue life. Do guns help them. Sure. Could they do it another way? Absolutely. If I snapped my finger tomorrow and every gun was gone would killings like this stop? Well, considering they happened in different ways just as often before the advent of guns, they would absolutely NOT stop. Its just who we are.

bhesler
December 14, 2012, 04:20 PM
So an anti-gun doctor or health group gets to decide which of his patients (IE: none) get to possess firearms and which don't? Really?!?

Maybe we, as a country, should concentrate on punishing criminal acts committed by criminals whether they are mentally ill or not, and keeping those criminals out of the general population, instead of causing more hurdles and issues for the law abiding citizens. Every law passed to provide the illusion of government protection only serves to make it harder for Joe Citizen to have the means available to defend himself from the criminal who isn't going to obey the new law passed, just like they haven't obeyed any of the previous laws.

Not at all. I believe 100% that rights should not be removed other than by a court's decision. As it is now, a doctor who believes that a patient is a threat to others can report them to police. With medical privacy laws as strict as they are now, doctors are reluctant to make the call.

In the Colorado theater shooting, it did get to that point, but campus police dropped the ball when he dropped out, thinking he is not their problem anymore. He became the public's problem in a big way.

I agree with the rest of what you wrote. One factor that I have read to correlate closely with our falling crime rate, and which could be argued as causal, is our incarceration rate, and possibly tough mandatory sentencing. Although I do believe we should reduce incarceration of drug users, and focus on long term incarceration of violent felons, and particularly recidivist violent felons.

Vern Humphrey
December 14, 2012, 04:20 PM
Quote:
Nothing can stop someone with evil in their heart.

Nothing.

I beg to differ.

"All that evil needs to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
Edmund Burke said that.

Uncle Herbivore said, "Just because we have a problem, that doesn't mean the first cockamamie idea that comes down the pike is the solution."

wtr100
December 14, 2012, 04:21 PM
--sillyness snipped--
WTR100...you seriously think its not a good thing for gunowners to try and find some way of ensuring that guns are not used by the mentally ill to commit crimes? You'd attach political stigmas to someone who would?
For shame on you. Get educated.

--snipped--

I can't see how it could be done w/o being dangerous to liberty

mljdeckard
December 14, 2012, 04:21 PM
Saying that ammunition isn't protected by The Constitution is just as reasonable as saying; "You have freedom of the press, but that doesn't mean we have to give you any paper." OF COURSE IT IS.

MachIVshooter
December 14, 2012, 04:21 PM
We have one law and that was enough. The 2nd amendment. If places would stop fooling with it, and stop restricting it, then perhaps today's event at a gun safe zone never would have happened, or at least ended much sooner.

If all restrictions on guns were lifted, criminals and mental dangerous nut jobs would find much shorter lives in our society.

RobsTV said it best.

Please. Thinking that more of an inanimate object will reduce violence is just as rediculous as thinking redcuing the number of said objects will recude violence.

Availability of firearms is neither the cause of nor the solution to violence

silicosys4
December 14, 2012, 04:27 PM
wtr100...that's why we have discussions about the topic, instead of labeling someone "barack" as soon as they bring it up, just because you don't see a way.

Al Thompson
December 14, 2012, 04:28 PM
Way too soon to start talking about the horrific events in Connecticut. This thread is drifting hard in that direction.

Closed.

If you enjoyed reading about "new gun law" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!