Well, Obama just laid it out

I hope you're all lighting up the phone lines talking to your state rep's and congress critters.

quote : "WE didn't cause this debacle, and we don't need to pay for it."

Kind of like if someone where to say " well it isn't my family who got murdered on 9/11 so it ain't got nothing to do with me"

I see it is a us against them mentality from some responses, but the them is only being considered as the hardcore anti gun people. You are not giving much thought to the average American who generally supports gun ownership but isn't entrenched on one side or the other particularly.

I thought safe use of firearms was every bodies concern if not ours even more so. Every time some lunatic does this murder spree it makes us look bad and perception does matter.

What caused this debacle to happen more and more? I don't know. It could be a combination of things I don't know there are no easy answers to explaining it or fixing it.

Personally I am not just concerned with getting past the threat of antigun legislation I'd like to actually have something done to stop these lunatics from doing mass shooting sprees again as much as possible. Unfortunately I get the feeling that for some if we defeat pending legislation coming they'll just get back to being complacent until the next shooting happens and then freak out again with "oh gawd their coming after my AR again".

I know some are going to say the solution is "arm the teachers" and while that may in part be a solution as long as it is voluntary, although many teachers are never going accept that so offering other possible solutions on top of that would be helpful.

You know as well as I do that decades ago guns were just as deadly and just as available but these incidences would be considered science fiction back then. Something has changed, and we need to be part of the solution.

Frankly even as a gunowner I don't accept that we must accept this is now the common place thing that happens in America wondering if today is the day it happens again maybe this time to someone I know personally.

I heard a guy sum it up pretty well on the radio a few days ago. He was talking about the media, mental health, poor security, and access to guns all being contributing factors to the shooting. His answer to the problem was that the easiest thing to do was to just ban assault weapons because you have to do SOMETHING and all the others are too tough to handle. The fact banning assault weapons didn't preclude a shooter from using a different weapon, or a bomb, or fire didn't seem to deter him at all. The fact is people feel powerless and want to do SOMETHING. Too bad they are all focusing on doing the wrong thing.

Personally I am not just concerned with getting past the threat of antigun legislation I'd like to actually have something done to stop these lunatics from doing mass shooting sprees again as much as possible.

Click to expand...

The very real problem with this is that there is very little if anything that we possibly could do to prevent this sort of thing. The warning signs and/or combinations of factors that make the one-in-100-million guy do this appear to be either vastly common, or so incredibly specific and subtle that we'll never be able to discern them. Or, even more properly, will send up so many 100s of 1000s of false positives that any real hits will be hopelessly buried. Remember, we're talking about absurdly rare occurrences. High profile, but very, very rare. As hso pointed out:

While each mass shooting this year and in recent years is tragic and catastrophic to the victims, their families and friends and their communities we can't loose sight of the fact that in a nation of three hundred million plus the criminally insane young men who have carried out each of these heinous crimes constitute a group that is infinitesimally small in this country. Even if we took all of these murders the group is smaller than the statistical fluctuation in determining the 311,000,000 population of the U.S. The 5 of them this year constitute less than
1.6e-6 % of the population. Or 0.00000016%.

Click to expand...

...So we're going to a lot of expense and effort (and intrusion, screening, medical system issues, etc.) to find a tiny handful of fish in the ocean, and trying to screen them by picking up on a subtle combination of many factors which they probably share with MILLIONS of other folks who's flood of false-positives will screen them very effectively. And you can't even argue with the numbers, the orders of magnitude are so very great that even if we're off by 100x, the picture doesn't change.

So in a real sense, we KNOW that throwing money (or whatever) at mental health is -- while maybe a fine idea -- a total placebo when it comes to screening or predicting this kind of thing. We should be careful as hitching our star to that wagon too tightly or we'll end up like the anti-gunners clinging to magazine limits and AWBs ... "Oh...so that didn't work, now what? Better keep beating that drum 'cause otherwise we'll have to admit failure."

You know as well as I do that decades ago guns were just as deadly and just as available but these incidences would be considered science fiction back then. Something has changed, and we need to be part of the solution.

Click to expand...

Fortunately ... well that's probably not the right word, but ... this just ISN'T true at all. This latest guy isn't even the most deadly. The worst such event at a school was all the way back in the idyllic and God-fearing 1920s! (1927, actually.)

I don't think the 1:100 million number is good or fair.

The statistic that needs to be examined isn't how many mentally ill people shoot up two dozen first graders all over headline news. Its how many mentally ill people commit violent acts with guns that can be prevented.

I can personally point to two suicides that had a chance - but clearly no guarantee - of detection. One used a shotgun. So that's one which may have gone into our prevention pool statistics.

I suspect the number of violent gun incidents is more like 1:10K rather than 1:100 million.

But from the medical community's perspective instead of identifying one in ten thousand gun offenders with 9,999 false positives what you've really done is positively identified 10K at risk patients.

That's why you put the effort in the mental healthcare delivery system, not the gun retail system. The mental health community is just as happy that the patient is diverted from raping a cousin or diverted from simply wasting away in a slum house as they are if the patient is diverted from shooting up a school.

Right now the media needs the medical community to legitimize demonizing us as the aberrent ones. If the medical community begins to see us as a source of funding they'll lynch the media for demonizing us

MB

I suspect the number of violent gun incidents is more like 1:10K rather than 1:100 million.

Click to expand...

Well, hold on...now you're mixing up the numbers. There's no possible way 1 in 10,000 gun owners does something violent with guns -- those numbers just don't add up based on what we know about violent crime and gun ownership rates. So really you're talking about 1 in 10,000 of those who would send up some red flag for mental trouble. Still a microscopic number out of the total population of gun owners -- who would STILL have to all be screened through. About like digging the grand canyon with a teaspoon.

But from the medical community's perspective instead of identifying one in ten thousand gun offenders with 9,999 false positives what you've really done is positively identified 10K at risk patients.

That's why you put the effort in the mental healthcare delivery system, not the gun retail system. The mental health community is just as happy that the patient is diverted from raping a cousin or diverted from simply wasting away in a slum house as they are if the patient is diverted from shooting up a school.

Click to expand...

Well, now we see that it really ISN'T about preventing "gun violence" at all, but rather it is good because it will help fund treatment for all of the rest of society's ills.

And that's both unfair -- guns have nothing to do with either of your examples, so you're diverting, i.e.: stealing, money from one task to apply to other tasks at a rate of 10,000:1, by your own admission -- and again LINKING guns and mental illness.

There's a principle in contract law that says if you pay for something you are making a firm agreement that you SHOULD BE paying for it because you have a responsibility for, or to, it. Making a $1,000 rifle cost $1,100 (or what? $2,000? Or even $1,001...just a dollar will do it) so we can fund mental health issues is just like a state taxing liquor to pay for drunk driving enforcement, or taxing cigarettes to pay for health care. You're admitting these things are linked and that these people who want to do these things are responsible -- as a group -- for some of society's ills. I don't like making that link between guns and mental illness -- at all!

Making weapons and ammo more expensive isn't about stopping crime its about reducing the number of firearms available to the unwashed masses, especially minorities, who are not to be trusted with firearms. Only the wealthy, privileged, and police should have firearms. Politicians see that group as the modern day Samurai what will defend the poor from their ivory palaces because they are too ignorant and dangerous to defend themselves. If you spent your life surrounded by guards and people telling you how smart you are, making decisions for the public, while watching crime and chaos on the news, why would you believe otherwise? The handgun is like the sword. It is the tool of the Samurai and can only be used by a trained professional. The masses are only dangerous to themselves and others with them.

No, one in 10k mental patients does something.

And it is just an educated guess. But prisons are full of mentally ill people.

But the accusation that I have no data is correct. And I didn't say I did.

But prisons are full of mentally ill people.

Click to expand...

Who would, therefore, not be those under screening as potential gun buyers anyway.

Sam1911 said:

...Making a $1,000 rifle cost $1,100 (or what? $2,000? Or even $1,001...just a dollar will do it) so we can fund mental health issues is just like a state taxing liquor to pay for drunk driving enforcement, or taxing cigarettes to pay for health care. You're admitting these things are linked and that these people who want to do these things are responsible -- as a group -- for some of society's ills. I don't like making that link between guns and mental illness -- at all!

Click to expand...

Don't think I haven't worried about this exact linkage myself. One of my posts in another thread throws out the challenge to find another funding mechanism to avoid this.

And your logic is irrefutable. So I wont even try. Nor will I say I even disagree.

But to be actively engaged the effort has to get funded. I'm not married to "my" proposal. I'm hell bent to get something not stupid out there. Our heads in the sand is stupid. And thinking the problem will magically get fixed is head in the sand thinking.

So the causal link is.

A) This is a mental healthcare problem.

B) The gun owners of America need the healthcare system to work properly because we depend on it as part of our safety net. WE CARE A LOT ABOUT THIS FAILURE.

C) Here is how we're actively engaged to fix this broken system that affects us. 1,2,3,4,5

Yes, I'm playing the victim card. We, the responsible gun owners of America are the victims of the inadequate mental healthcare delivery just as much as the dead children.


But some strategy to fund fixing the system beyond praying for pixie dust has to show up. Tax milk? Tax the rich? What?

And here is text I received related to the petition. The assumption being that the petition was about restricting guns no doubt.

Pardon the horrid formatting. I'm copying and pasting from a cell phone. But note the crafty rhetorical skill to link weapons of war to reasonable gun ownership. The objective is a ban.

Can't tell from my cell if I screwed up the post.

A Message from President Obama about Your Petition on Reducing Gun Violence " By Bruce Reed, Chief of Staff to Vice President Biden"

In the days since the tragedy in Newtown, Americans from all over the country have called for action to deter mass shootings and reduce gun violence. Hundreds of thousands of you have signed petitions on We the People [ https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/re...ur-petition-reducing-gun-violence?utm_source= wethepeople&utm_medium= response&utm_campaign=safety ].

I'm writing you today to thank you for speaking up, to update you on an important development, and to encourage you to continue engaging with the White House on this critical issue.

First, you should know that President Obama is paying close to attention to the public response to this tragedy. In fact, he sat down to record a message specifically for those of you who have joined the conversation using We the People. Watch it now:

A Message from President Obama about Your Petition on Reducing Gun Violence [ http://www.whitehouse.gov/share-your-thoughts-reducing-gun-violence?utm_source= wethepeople&utm_medium= response&utm_campaign=safety ]

On Wednesday [ http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012...rds-need-lead-action-gun-violence?utm_source= wethepeople&utm_medium= response&utm_campaign=safety ], the President outlined a series of first steps we can take to begin the work of ending this cycle of violence. This is what he said: ""We know this is a complex issue that stirs deeply held passions and political divides. And as I said on Sunday night, there's no law or set of laws that can prevent every senseless act of violence in our society. We're going to need to work on making access to mental health care at least as easy as access to a gun. We're going to need to look more closely at a culture that all too often glorifies guns and violence. And any actions we must take must begin inside the home and inside our hearts."

"But the fact that this problem is complex can no longer be an excuse for doing nothing. The fact that we can't prevent every act of violence doesn't mean we can't steadily reduce the violence, and prevent the very worst violence."" Vice President Biden has been asked to work with members of the Administration, Congress, and the general public to come up with a set of concrete policy proposals by next month -- proposals the President intends to push swiftly. The President asked the Vice President to lead this effort in part because he wrote and passed the 1994 Crime Bill that helped law enforcement bring down the rate of violent crime in America. That bill included the assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004.

As the Vice President's Chief of Staff, I'm going to do everything I can to ensure we run a process that includes perspectives from all sides of the issue, which is why I wanted to respond to your petition myself. Two decades ago, as domestic policy adviser in the Clinton White House, I first worked with Joe Biden as he fought to enact the Crime Bill, the assault weapons ban, and the Brady Bill. I will never forget what a key role the voices of concerned citizens like you played in that vital process.

The President called on Congress to pass important legislation "banning the sale of military-style assault weapons," "banning the sale of high-capacity ammunition clips," and "requiring background checks before all gun purchases, so that criminals can

Sam1911 said:

Who would, therefore, not be those under screening as potential gun buyers anyway.

Click to expand...

No, but effective mental healthcare delivery in the general population. can reduce the number of future incarcerations for gun crimes. Remember that most gun crime is stuff like 7/11 robbery with a handgun, but the administration's big prize target is AWB.

Who the devil holds up a 7/11 with an AKM?

1st law change after Sandy Hook tragedy
HARTFORD, Conn. (WTNH) -- The first change in state law in direct response to Sandy Hook occurred during Wednesday night's special session.

And Thursday lawmakers announced a roster of eight proposed changes in the state's gun laws...

The proposal would immediately expand the definition of Assault Weapon under current state law to apply to firearms which show one particular physical trait, as opposed to two, like the presence of a pistol grip beneath the action of the weapon.

...this proposal would prohibit the sale and possession of any magazine with a capacity of over 10.

The proposal would also call for a 50 percent sales tax on all ammunition, permits would be required to purchase ammunition, and the online purchase of ammunition would be prohibited.

Bubbles said:

The proposal would immediately expand the definition of Assault Weapon under current state law to apply to firearms which show one particular physical trait, as opposed to two, like the presence of a pistol grip beneath the action of the weapon.

...this proposal would prohibit the sale and possession of any magazine with a capacity of over 10.

Click to expand...

Hmm... If the Connecticut AWB is similar to the one in NY, a detachable magazine is one of the features. By that definition, you can say goodbye to virtually every semi-auto rifle. Magazine capacity limits then become a moot point, don't they? Except for handguns, I guess.

toivo said:

Hmm... If the Connecticut AWB is similar to the one in NY, a detachable magazine is one of the features. By that definition, you can say goodbye to virtually every semi-auto rifle. Magazine capacity limits then become a moot point, don't they? Except for handguns, I guess.

Click to expand...

Guess the prices on SKS will go up. Good thing you can't import any more.

i don't believe a tax on guns creates a "link between guns and mental illness". i think it is the cost of keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. 1% should do it.

i don't believe a tax on guns creates a "link between guns and mental illness".

Click to expand...

You may not believe that it does, but that really doesn't change the perception of the matter, based on both human nature and the nature of fiscal dealings.

It is incredibly hard (and many will say specious) to say, "We gun owners agree that every time we buy a gun or ammo we should be paying for mental health care," without acknolwleging a tangible link between the two.

Bubbles:

The proposal would also call for a 50 percent sales tax on all ammunition, permits would be required to purchase ammunition, and the online purchase of ammunition would be prohibited.

Click to expand...

No impact on someone that would commit mass murder and does not need to repay any debt or credit they used to buy it.
Major impact on those trying to legally use thier firearms and have to pay more to go to the range.
Obviously just meant to hurt gun owners.



Bubbles:

expand the definition of Assault Weapon under current state law to apply to firearms which show one particular physical trait, as opposed to two

Click to expand...

A feature is detachable magazines. That means many semi autos.
Hunter's Browning BAR, mini-14s, M1A etc
All the typical firearms not covered previously.

Lets get some images off the net of the BAR because it looks so traditional:


Banned



Banned


Banned



Banned


Banned

I don't believe the tax should pay for mental health care but rather a system used by gun dealers to better keep guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable.

That system would have to be refined by law enforcement and medical professionals.

And the feds just raided the store where the shooter's mom bought the guns...

Connecticut Shop Where Nancy Lanza Bought 1 Of Her Guns Raided By Feds

Click to expand...

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/12/20/connecticut-shop-where-nancy-lanza-bought-1-of-her-guns-raided-by-feds/

They raided it yesterday. The news "stated" it was a coincidence that it was the same place she bought her rifle. All of the FFLs around here were looked into right after the murders to see if she or her son bought any ammo there or used the range for practice or bought anything else. Maybe they saw some sloppy bookkeeping?

Riverview had atrocious inventory control. Many guns just randomly disappeared. Its been a problem since 2007.

All I can say is that if the government is going to try and control our gun ownership, that hopefully they can control it a little better than they did with operation "Fast and Furious".