Idea regarding "Gun-Control".

Sam1911 said:

That may be so, but the only conclusion one can draw here seems to be that ALL of the progress to be made has to come in the mental health realm -- no?

Click to expand...

I don't think so, no. I think progress can be made in research and training.

Sam1911 said:

So what kind of proposal are you suggesting? How do we demand ... well, how do we demand WHAT? If the medical science doesn't exist to identify these extreme anomalies, what are we asking for?

Obviously, we aren't circling back to ... "well we can't really fix this, so let's throw them a bone (like "Assault Weapons") and hope they go away." So what ARE we proposing?

Click to expand...

http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=8573719&postcount=125

I'd like to see even the most basic of training in types of threat escalation and methods of de-escalation offered as a component of CCW, Firearms dealer, and even hunter safety training. Not just because of tragedies like Newtown, but because of the process of escalation inherent in suicides in the home, domestic violence, etc.. I would even concede that this training could be mandated by law without being a violation of the 2A. (Even militias required training)

But more importantly, this training would benefit all of us from a tactical perspective and from the perspective of protecting our communities.

It's also a fact that there are certain traits among the mentally that manifest prior to these incidents and we give the family of the mentally ill very little resources to respond to those traits. We leave families like these twisting in the wind, hoping a day like Friday never comes. One of the few resources we have is involve law enforcement, turn these people into a criminal problem, and then turn our LE community into psychiatrists and our prisons into defacto mental health facilities. While this isn't under the purview of RKBA, we can lobby the NRA to help address the mental health issues that often bring our guns into the public eye as the villain. I'd propose that the NRA make great contributions to mental health research, counseling, and management in all 50 states. The NRA could commission an unbiased study of the overlap of mental illness and firearms designed to help and inform law enforcement, NRA members, government agencies tasked with addressing mental health and society at large.

Click to expand...

That sounds reasonable. I'm not sure how hunter safety or CCW training (many states do not, and should not, require CCW "training") will incorporate this -- or what we'd be telling average Joe hunter or CCW-er to DO if he meets someone he suspects is dangerously unstable, but it isn't an onerous suggestion on its face.

Is this sort of a "see something --- say something" plan? Encouraging people to alert authorities and so forth?

Sam1911 said:

That sounds reasonable. I'm not sure how hunter safety or CCW training (many states do not, and should not, require CCW "training") will incorporate this -- or what we'd be telling average Joe hunter or CCW-er to DO if he meets someone he suspects is dangerously unstable, but it isn't an onerous suggestion on its face.

Is this sort of a "see something --- say something" plan? Encouraging people to alert authorities and so forth?

Click to expand...

To a degree. For me it's also about responding directly when you or someone you know is involved in a situation that is escalating. When a neighbor friend or family member conveys stories or worries about their situation we can recognize if this could be going down a bad path and recommend tactical steps to reduce the likelihood of guns being involved. That may be recommend or helping them securing or removing guns from the home, involving le, or other steps or do nothing. I guess the point is I do not know.

My state requires training for both ccw and obtaining a hunting license. I considered both training programs helpful. However neither talked about tactical escalation (street encounter) nor did they talk about the more long term progression of escalation that can lead to domestic violence or mass shooting. I've been lucky that my uncle is involved in corporate and institutional security and works with retired security experts so he's given me some basics about the continuum of escalation.

But I'm still underprepared to recognize a threat or reasonably help someone who may need it.

gossamer said:

I do not think we can say with any degree of certainty that they have "absolutely nothing to do with guns."

Click to expand...

I have to disagree. The gun is only the tool that they use, if they could not use a gun they would simply use another tool. Maybe a far worse one.

These situations do in fact occur when the mentally ill and guns mix.

Click to expand...

This is about a person, regardless if they were mentally ill or perhaps just violent, or evil using a tool to carry out their work. You could replace "guns" in that sentence with a lot of other "tools" and the outcome would have been the same or perhaps even worse.

What if he would have poisoned the towns water supply? Maybe he would have taken some gasoline and set an entire block on fire during the middle of the night? Made some bombs? Etc.

The real danger is the people, not the tool.


Now there are things we can do to lessen these happenings, but I don't believe it has anything to do with guns.

ATBackPackin said:

I have to disagree. The gun is only the tool that they use, if they could not use a gun they would simply use another tool. Maybe a far worse one.

Click to expand...

But they didn't, they used guns. Therefore, it absolutely has something to do with guns.

ATBackPackin said:

This is about a person, regardless if they were mentally ill or perhaps just violent, or evil using a tool to carry out their work. You could replace "guns" in that sentence with a lot of other "tools" and the outcome would have been the same or perhaps even worse.

Click to expand...

This isn't a game of rhetoric where one can replace one word with another and pretend the event didn't occur the way it did. The perpetrator didn't employ rhetoric, he didn't employ a poison, he didn't employ a tire iron. He employed guns. As a community dedicated to securing our 2A rights in total, we have an obligation to the Second Amendment to be honest about what happened and not engage in rhetorical manipulation to deflect from the truth.

ATBackPackin said:

What if he would have poisoned the towns water supply?

Click to expand...

He didn't, he used guns.

ATBackPackin said:

Maybe he would have taken some gasoline and set an entire block on fire during the middle of the night?

Click to expand...

He didn't, he used guns.

ATBackPackin said:

Made some bombs? Etc.

Click to expand...

He didn't he used guns.

Maybe I would have written "Hey Jude" since it's an easy song to play and sing and I have the tools, but I didn't, Lennon and McCartney did. Saying "I could have just as easily . . . " isn't putting those royalty checks in my bank account. I believe my dad used to say "hypothesize in one hand and crap in the other and see which one fills up first."

ATBackPackin said:

The real danger is the people, not the tool.

Now there are things we can do to lessen these happenings, but I don't believe it has anything to do with guns.

Click to expand...

No. There is no one singular danger here. There are millions of people in this country who are mentally ill or violent or evil or all of the above who do not go and shoot two dozen innocent women and children. It is a multi-faceted problem with many many inputs that leads to very VERY rare violent outcomes.

In the cases where these violent outcomes employ the tool I am dedicated to upholding the right to use, I refuse to accept that I cannot help mitigate or reduce the impact in my community.

There is no legislation about to come before our government seeking to limit people's rights to be mentally deranged. There IS legislation seeking to restrict the rights that this group is dedicated to upholding.

We have the option of being just like the antis, of saying "but it could have been any tool" and leaving it at that. Pretending this one thing will change the very multi-faceted reality that these tragedies are about huge equation with many variables.

We have an obligation to admit that history proves that one of those variables is, in fact, guns.

We also have the alternate option of recognizing that the source of our interest has been employed in horrendous ways. We can admit that reality and offer our expertise, experience, thoughtfulness and caring to develop methods of helping our communities to prevent or mitigate the effects of these disasters while securing our interests in total.

He used guns for one and only one reason, he had access to them. Are you suggesting that if he did not have access to them that nobody would have been harmed?

People killed long before guns were even a dream. Of course the problem is multifaceted, but if there was not a single gun on the entire planet people would still kill people. Like an experiment, if you take guns out of the equation and things do not change then the gun is not the factor.

Originally posted by gossamer

In the cases where these violent outcomes employ the tool I am dedicated to upholding the right to use, I refuse to accept that I cannot help mitigate or reduce the impact in my community.

Click to expand...

This the flawed logic in your hypothesis. There is no need for any of us to even consider making "reasonable" changes. Let me make this point as clear as I can. There is no action required on your part.

An argument could be made that the media coverage of these type of events causes more people to copycat and do the same thing. Maybe we should just make some reasonable restrictions on the media so they won't cover it that way. What's that you say? Doesn't the first amendment cover that. Well, yes it does. Just the same as the second amendment covers the right to bear arms.

If you live in a free society, then you have to give up certain government protections. I'm perfectly willing to protect myself. How about you?

Rocketmedic said:

Americans have proven that we, as a people, suck at responsibility.

Click to expand...

As an American, you are free to ****. You are not free to trample others rights.

In terms of firearms rights, hundreds of millions of Americans do it right every day, but the handful of Americans that do not responsibly use their firearms ruin them for everyone.

Click to expand...

BULL CRAP, all of our founding fathers are rolling in their graves and all rational people are rolling their eyes at you.

This is graphically demonstrated by the school shooting. At what point does self-defense counter the increased ease of murder firearms provide?

Click to expand...

At what point does transportation counter the tens of thousands of people killed in car accidents every year? Your reasoning is about as ridiculous as that.

The Second Amendment is not about hunting, or self defense. It is about protecting our freedom from tyrants and "do gooders" like yourself.

3. Ammunition sales will be taxed at a further 2% of cost. This will fund mental-health treatment.

Click to expand...

Let's increase taxes on churches and people speaking their mind as well.

I am a supporter of the right to bear arms.

Click to expand...

Obviously you are not at all....

Many of the right-wing advocates point to the atrocity in China where a knife-wielding man slashed 22 children. The difference is that those kids lived.

Click to expand...

Yet just a couple of years ago another knife wielding man in China KILLED 8 children.

It's time to realize that the Second Amendment is interpretable

Click to expand...

Yeah, and quite frankly, you and most of the antis haven't done any research on the thoughts of those who wrote the amendment, and you are interpreting it incorrectly.

You all, also seem to be content that we will never need our firearms to "secure a free state", and content that the National Guard and our standing military are our Militias (here is a hint you are DEAD WRONG)

Call it naivite, or call it ignorance. It doesn't matter, it is still WRONG

and that we have to do something as a nation to stop these senseless mass killings.

Click to expand...

And they LAZY, INCOMPETENT and INEFFECTIVE response is gun control......

Hammerhead6814 said:

You'd rather children die than compromise.

Click to expand...

One of the most ignorant and hateful strawman statements made by the antis in the past few days.

Back to the basics :

I own a AR-15 rifle in semi-automatic with magazines that hold up to 30 rounds.

1.) I am NOT the probem
2.) My 30 round magazines are NOT the problem
3.) My Rifle is Not the problem

I own these items for sporting reasons as well as for self protection. They are objects, and only function as I command them to do. I am NOT alone, there are millions of us who own these objects and behave in a respectable, responsible, and safe manner.

I am NOT responsible for the insane and their mis-use of objects. I see no reason to restrict millions of responsible people because of the act of a few insane persons. I am willing to , and presently do, reasonable things to keep the insane from obtaining these objects, and mis-using them.

I am just as appauled at the acts of those few insane people, as those who do not like to, or believe in, owning firearms. If you believe you are on the moral high road because you do not own such a rifle, you are wrong.

ATBackPackin said:

He used guns for one and only one reason, he had access to them. Are you suggesting that if he did not have access to them that nobody would have been harmed?

Click to expand...

I'm not presuming to have the slightest clue as to what would have happened had any of these circumstances changed.

ATBackPackin said:

People killed long before guns were even a dream. Of course the problem is multifaceted, but if there was not a single gun on the entire planet people would still kill people.

Click to expand...

Have I stated otherwise? Read post 125, and post 151 and 153.

ATBackPackin said:

Like an experiment, if you take guns out of the equation and things do not change then the gun is not the factor.

Click to expand...

You cannot test that experiment. The shooter is dead. The victims are, tragically, dead. The events are over.

CZguy said:

Originally posted by gossamer

This the flawed logic in your hypothesis. There is no need for any of us to even consider making "reasonable" changes. Let me make this point as clear as I can. There is no action required on your part.

Click to expand...

Part of my right to keep and bear firearms is that you do not get to make those ^^ decisions for me. I decide where there is a need for me to consider making reasonable changes. I decide whether there is action required on my part.

In response to the OPs question, I am here spelling out what I feel is reasonable action on my part while "protecting my RKBA rights in total. See post #125

gossamer wrote:
How many of us, through our CCW classes/training, received any kind of instruction about escalation and de-escalation as it relates to the home and the mentally ill? How many of you who are firearms dealers received any training with regard to the mentally ill and the process of escalation? Wouldn't most of us appreciate learning about this, if not to help prevent one of these tragedies than at least for our own personal edification?

I would.

I'd like to see even the most basic of training in types of threat escalation and methods of de-escalation offered as a component of CCW, Firearms dealer, and even hunter safety training. Not just because of tragedies like Newtown, but because of the process of escalation inherent in suicides in the home, domestic violence, etc.. I would even concede that this training could be mandated by law without being a violation of the 2A. (Even militias required training)

I'd propose that the NRA make great contributions to mental health research, counseling, and management in all 50 states. The NRA could commission an unbiased study of the overlap of mental illness and firearms designed to help and inform law enforcement, NRA members, government agencies tasked with addressing mental health and society at large.

Click to expand...

CZguy said:

An argument could be made that the media coverage of these type of events causes more people to copycat and do the same thing. Maybe we should just make some reasonable restrictions on the media so they won't cover it that way. What's that you say? Doesn't the first amendment cover that. Well, yes it does. Just the same as the second amendment covers the right to bear arms.

Click to expand...

I also addressed this issue in post 125.

Finding the balance -- within the context of covering a tragedy like this -- between giving the public at large information about what the criminal did and not giving him/her notoriety is something the media has simply not found. I sincerely hope they do not have many more opportunities to try and find it. There is evidence in the psy-forensic research to indicate that the diseased mind sees coverage of other acts of violence and responds to that. So the media coverage feeds into that. How to inform the public without giving the perpetrator notoriety is a balancing point I have no idea how to find either.

Click to expand...

My personal opinion is that if the media cannot find the balancing point in their field of expertise, then they have no business telling us where our balancing point should be. I will engage with my community and government in the process of deciding if that balancing point needs to move at all, and if so, to where.

CZguy said:

If you live in a free society, then you have to give up certain government protections. I'm perfectly willing to protect myself. How about you?

Click to expand...

I would never presume to doubt or question whether you are willing to protect yourself and apologize if I ever even implied such a thing. My willingness to protect does not begin and end with myself or my family. It extends to a willingness to protect my community. If a greater understanding of the continuum of escalation that leads to instances of gun violence can help me better protect not only myself, my family, but my community then I am willing to do it. I would personally support legislation in my state or county that stipulates the training we are already required to undertake include a component about various forms of threat escalation and assessment.