Quantcast

Idea regarding "Gun-Control".

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Hammerhead6814, Dec 16, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Ignition Override

    Ignition Override Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2007
    Messages:
    6,166
    Location:
    The Mid-South.
    Gun ownership, and which types can be owned, is all about personal versus government Control.

    In CT, so-called "assault weapons" reportedly are already illegal.

    This "thread" topic should have been postponed by at least two weeks, allowing more time for rational thought, instead of appeasement by some members.
     
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2012
  2. mnrivrat

    mnrivrat Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    4,842
    Location:
    MN
    To be perfectly honest I don't think the problem is fixable in the mental heath field any more than it is fixable by more Gun control.

    It would be nice to think that we can develop a working profile of what happens in the humans mind to allow it to do such an evil act. It's hard for me to believe we have that ability .

    Perhaps part of the problem is the noteriety the shooters receive from such an act. If you want to put your name and mark on the world ,some have learned through the media ,this is the way to do so ? Perhaps another part is the desensitizing of acts of violence via video games ? I am not qualified to do anything but guess. but I have the feeling no-one else has the handle on the right switch either.

    Trying to understand insanity is at best a lesson in humility. We don't know everything there is to know. Trying to fix something like this with a shotgun approach is simply wrong. It doesn't work. To do something just for the sake of doing something does not work.
     
  3. Ignition Override

    Ignition Override Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2007
    Messages:
    6,166
    Location:
    The Mid-South.
    gbw: Good points about the likely 'targets'.

    A friend (who was on a military marksmanship team) stated that many years ago, proposed bills were locked away in Congressional file cabinets which contain long lists of guns they want to ban....and these also include many types of common Bolt-Action hunting rifles.
     
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2012
  4. VVelox

    VVelox Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2011
    Messages:
    323
    Location:
    Chicago
    I would of if it was not for the registration stuff where I live makes it annoying. Would of gotten a Mosin-Nagant to go with the lever action.

    You are also assuming every one goes to college and is massively in dept. I went the unix and networking route and came out ahead.

    Given this I have strong issues with your assumption that some one can't be young and purchase multiple firearms.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Instant_Criminal_Background_Check_System

    We already do when it comes to people who have been proven by the court system to be mentally defective.

    Now in regards to your use of mentally ill there, it is highly othering. Lots of mental problems do not make some one dangerous or prevent them from living a normal life. Restricting rights needs to be limited to those who are dangerous.

    If we begin restricting the rights of those who have mental issues with out good reason to do so what we will end up doing is stigmatizing mental illness more than we already do. This will encourage those who need help to not seek it.

    If you are trying to say you feel a lever action is safer in the hands of a mass shooter than say like a AR-15, I don't think you have really though out your argument. One in .44 Rem. Mag. and loaded with rounds on the heavier side is easily every bit as dangerous as a AR-15 in a crowded and confined space such as a movie theater.

    But that is beside the point as there is nothing that prevents a crazy nutter from going out and putting together some ANFO or the like.

    Where there is a will, there is a way.

    We don't have a problem with mass shootings here in the US. Despite what the media tells you these are very rare events.

    If you really want to do any thing, you will lobby your congress critter to fix the health care situation and by extension of that the mental health care situation here in the US.

    Beyond that there is zero that needs done.
     
  5. beatledog7

    beatledog7 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Messages:
    5,093
    Location:
    Tidewater
    So, we ban (or restrict access to) various types of guns and/or magazines and what happens next? All the bad actors march right up to the government turn-in stations and surrender all their banned stuff? Sure, I can see that happening.

    You can't eliminate anything by passing a law against it. If you could do that, wouldn't it be better to just pass a law against murder? Oh wait, we did that already. Works great, doesn't it?

    AIDS kills a lot of people worldwide, including in the US. Two major factors in its proliferation are using shared needles to inject illegal drugs and having unprotected sex. Illegal drugs are already illegal (like murder) so clearly the next thing to make illegal in the fight against AIDS would be unprotected sex. So, if it can be seen as rational to ban guns and thereby stop mass killings, why is it not also logical that banning (or restricting access to) unprotected sex would help stop AIDS?

    Clearly I'm not suggesting such a ludicrous idea as trying to ban unprotected sex; I'm simply using the ridiculous to analogize the ridiculous.
     
  6. GWARGHOUL

    GWARGHOUL Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2011
    Messages:
    719
    Location:
    Missouri
    Oh, ok.. I'm glad you know me so well. Well, I'm 26 or 27, and in school for the second time.. I guess I'm "building an arsenal"

    Its not a good idea to let unelected government bureaucrats have free access to determine who is "mentally unstable", and exactly what defines that. Especially since many of them seem to be psychotic authoritarians to begin with.

    Then there's the issue of common irrelevant mental illness. Or the fact that there is zero organic proof of any mental illness to begin with, and many conflicting schools of thought in psychology..

    You could be deemed unfit if you had a spouse die and took some anti-depressants, or had to check in after a mild nervous breakdown because you had no time to recover from such a loss, and had a mortgage and car payments and one job to now make the income of two with..

    etc etc...

    Very rocky subject.
     
  7. CZguy

    CZguy Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    3,977
    Location:
    Missouri
    Have you considered how many people could have been killed with just one gallon of gasoline? The issue isn't about guns, it's about evil.

    And frankly I don't want to give up my freedom so that the government can protect me from evil.

    I'll protect myself, thank you very much.

    One last thought........Isn't it amazing how hard it was for the founding fathers to win us freedom, and how costly in lives it's been to maintain. And then how easily some people will give it away.
     
  8. Iramo94

    Iramo94 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2011
    Messages:
    266
    Location:
    South Florida
    Wow, I would have to sell my car to afford the magazines that I already have.
    I'd like to put together a logical argument for why this is nonsense, but all I can think of reading this is the racism and class warfare that brought about NFA. Back in the '30s, two hundred dollars was "prohibitively expensive.". And look how much crime that piece of crap legislation stopped.

    On another note, reading these posts has pointed out something to me. The definition for mental illness is not what was originally intended with gun laws. I'm sure DSM5 will not have it, but I am hoping that more studies are done attempting to show ways of predicting what illnesses turn out to actually be dangerous for DSM6.

    My little sister is high functioning autistic (very similar to Asberger's), and she is just the nicest person.
    Now, she is in fact "mentally ill," but she is not dangerous. I doubt she has ever really had a violent thought. Mental illness does not necessarily mean danger to society.
     
  9. VVelox

    VVelox Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2011
    Messages:
    323
    Location:
    Chicago
    And this is why the courts must be involved instead of just flagging people that match a certain illness.
     
  10. Baron_Null

    Baron_Null Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2011
    Messages:
    210
    I am a lawful gun owner. I conform to all laws and regulations, both at the state and federal level, when it comes to my firearms. The only time a gun of mine would ever be used in an unlawful manner is if that gun is stolen from me. I own a shotgun, a bolt action, and a semi automatic rifle.

    I am also 18.

    The proposed laws sicken me, as I, and thousands of lawful gun owners like me, are being shoved under the proverbial bus, for no reason besides age.

    I have no idea who you think you are, but you have no right to judge me and what I do. I am going to college, but instead of spending my money on smartphones or video games I buy guns. Firearms, for me, are not just a hobby but a lifestyle. However, I have my guns so I can defend myself and my family, not because I lack a "rational (healthy) mind". I build up an "arsenal" for logical reasons, and because it's my pastime. Like I said before, who are you to say that because I'm not spending my money on clothing or electonics I have an unhealthy mind?

    Why is the burden on me to prove that I'm responsible? Why should my rights as an adult be taken away for a certain amount of years so I can prove myself? Why am I, at eighteen, considered a functioning adult enough to be charged AS AN ADULT in a court of law, but not considered an adult enough to protect myself with what I deem necessary?

    Frankly, this is the most insulting part of your argument. It does NOT respect the law-abiding gun owners of America. All it does is sign away rights that responsible gun owners like myself have for no reason but the actions of a few individuals.
     
  11. coloradokevin

    coloradokevin Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Messages:
    3,214
    Quick note on mental illness:

    Obviously to address that issue I believe we'd need to have involvement from the courts, and some reasonable belief, supported by facts, that the person is a danger to themselves or others (standard mental health hold terminology there).

    Mental illnesses run the gamut from very minor (and benign) psychological disorders in very high-functioning individuals to truly crippling diseases that make it extremely hard for people to function in society. Although someone has already mentioned in this thread that there is no real "proof" of mental illnesses, I'd say that my life experiences have shown me otherwise. While I'm a staunch supporter of gun rights, I'm also darn glad that some of the paranoid schizophrenics I've dealt with in the course of my duties are NOT in possession of guns. Some people are just off the deep end. We all know that much.

    But, I certainly see the threat of abuse on this issue too. My girlfriend's brother was briefly committed to a mental hospital in 2008, after making a couple of stupid comments about suicide shortly after a bad breakup with a girlfriend. He was initially placed on a 72-hour emergency hold by the local Sheriff (standard procedure) after their mother called the police because she was worried about him. As a young and arrogant guy at the time, he didn't really want to cooperate with the psychiatric doctors on what he called "psycho-babble-BS". So, he didn't cooperate during that 72-hour period. They then committed him for an additional week for evaluation, before releasing him without further commitment. But, as a result of that involuntary commitment, he's now prohibited from buying firearms. He's not really a danger to anyone, and he's never been convicted of any crime. He was just young and loose with his tongue. He's not diagnosed with any mental illness, but now carries the label of a "mental defective" (which, incidentally, we love to jab him about).

    All of that aside, some people are simply too crazy to own guns.
     
  12. MachIVshooter

    MachIVshooter Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    16,371
    Location:
    Elbert County, CO
    How do you figure? You think tens of millions of us would turn over the firearms and magazines we paid for with hard-earned money just because of some ridiculous and unconstitutional (hence null & void) law?

    Things get amnesty and grandfathering because it's a legal, logistical and physical nightmare to make them retroactively prohibited. Guns, zoning regulations, building codes, the list goes on.

    The compulsory turn-in of guns may have worked in other countries, but they didn't have:

    *more than 80 million armed citizens
    *more than 300 million firearms in circulation
    *anything close to the 2nd amendment

    An attempt to disarm this country would result in civil war, and the odds are heavily against the ones who wish to do the disarming.

    Exactly. In point of fact, type of weapon really doesn't matter. Lest we forget than on 3 out of 4 jetliners, just a few people managed to control captive, unarmed adult crowds outnumbering them 30-1 with simple box cutters.

    And we absolutely cannot lose sight of this, nor can we allow our compatriots to. Every one of these incidents, tragic as they are, is but a drop in the swimming pool when compared to overall death rate. You want to go after a serious and preventable threat to our youngest citizens? Get on the shaken baby cause; About 1,200 infants are shaken to death every year in this country.
     
  13. Rmfcasey

    Rmfcasey Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2009
    Messages:
    23
    Problems I see with these "solutions". These " common sense " ideas won't fix the problem because guns are not the problem. Guns are simply the to used to create evil. If the guns had not been available these monsters could use many other tools to kill.Knive machetes axes cars trucks bombs fire molotov coctails clubs the list is long. He also could have killed with a single shot shotgun of homemade gun. Restricting the rights of 150million people to control the behavior of 20 is perhaps the greatest waste of resoures possible.
     
  14. LNK

    LNK Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2010
    Messages:
    386
    Location:
    E TN
    Funny how New York Recognizes my MA drivers license, yet not my MA Concealed weapons permit.

    LNK
     
  15. bigfatdave

    bigfatdave Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2008
    Messages:
    5,961
    Location:
    Near Camp Perry
    Well, if you are going to link your fundamental right to arm yourself to bloomberg and a cowardly spree-murderer - you can just de-link them from me.
    You aren't going to make me feel guilty about the actions of scum outside my control.
     
  16. bigfatdave

    bigfatdave Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2008
    Messages:
    5,961
    Location:
    Near Camp Perry
    CT has an AWB.
    So does NJ.
    Try again.

    And I disagree, the VPC, Brady campaign, CSGV, etc are looking for the compromise-accepting fudds to make their case for them, you're a far more desirable "right winger" than I am, because they can trot you out as a "reasonable, compassionate, conservative".
    And calling me "right wing" is laughable in the first place, you obviously have no idea who you're typing at.
    I still think you're some type of ASHA toady, if you're not they should be paying you for this waste of time.
     
  17. shadowen

    shadowen Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2009
    Messages:
    24
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    Apologies for not reading the /entire/ thread here, however, I wanted to respond to some of the crazy concessions I've seen proposed (in this thread and else where; if someone else already mentioned this, my bad for not reading the entire thread ^_^).

    Lets take a hypothetical position of saying we did pass some of these concessions. What concessions will you make after the next mass killing? And the one after that? etc...

    Will you keep making concessions until you have no rights? Or do you truly believe that these concessions will prevent mass killings? And don't say it may prevent some/most of them because even if it does (highly unlikely anyway), the first mass killing following the concessions will just give rise to another round of more requests for concessions.

    Its really simple: you can't fix this by banning the objects (guns); you need to attack the roots of the problem, which include basic mental health issues, poverty issues, and many others. Violence, even though often simple in its methods and delivery, is still in general a complex and varied problem with no simple set of solutions and many wrong and hurtful ones.
     
  18. Justin

    Justin Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    19,328
    Location:
    THE CHAIR IS AGAINST THE WALL
    As of right now, the most extreme ideas for gun control that have been forward from even the most anti-gun politicians has been a renewal of the utterly useless ban on so-called 'assault weapons.'

    If your proposed 'compromise' is clearly and significantly worse than what known anti-gun activists are proposing, perhaps you ought to reexamine your proposal to throw a significant number of gun owners under the bus, rather than getting all butt-hurt because someone points out that your plan reads like an anti-gun activists deepest desires.

    Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S3 using Tapatalk. Hence all the misspellings and goofy word choices.
     
  19. Justin

    Justin Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    19,328
    Location:
    THE CHAIR IS AGAINST THE WALL
    Neither of the proposals from hammerhead or rocket medic contain anything close to workable or effective solutions from either public policy or pro-gun positions.

    Bad ideas can and should be shot down, and frankly I would have expected better from this group of people.

    Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S3 using Tapatalk. Hence all the misspellings and goofy word choices.
     
  20. M-Cameron

    M-Cameron member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2009
    Messages:
    2,865
    i must say, i was shocked to see how willing some supposed 'pro2A' people are to enact new regulations....

    not 24 hrs after the tragedy, you have gun owners posting about how we need to restrict and regulate gun ownership......simply to appease those who are going to use this tragedy to further their previously existing anti-gun sentiment.

    as if they have learned nothing from history.... gun bans, prohibition, and all the regulations on the books wont prevent tragedies from happening...

    but they propose them anyways, because somehow giving away rights is better than fighting to keep them.
     
  21. Dr. Sandman

    Dr. Sandman Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2010
    Messages:
    530
    Location:
    Northern Indiana
    I was talking about the 4473 where they ask if you have been ejudicated mentally defective. Perhaps a little broad of me. The issue is "how mentally ill does one have to be to be denied the right to buy a gun?" I do not have an answer for that question. It is very complex.
     
  22. gossamer

    gossamer Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2009
    Messages:
    421
    Consider yourself corrected.

    The discussion would be improved if you demonstrated maturity and respectfulness in carrying it out.
     
  23. MachIVshooter

    MachIVshooter Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    16,371
    Location:
    Elbert County, CO
    Wrong question. There isn't a graph, chart or bell curve for putting a number on mental illness, nor is a particular classification of illness a positive precursor to acts of random violence. People who are not clinically diagnoseable as mentally ill are equally capable of terrible acts of violence against innocent people, and are, in fact, responsible for the majority of said acts.

    Should someone who can't tell right from wrong and reality from fiction be allowed to have deadly weapons? Nope. But they also shouldn't be roaming free in society. We need to use the same litmus test that we should use for violent criminals; If you're too dangerous to be trusted with a deadly weapon, you're too dangerous to be free in society where you can inevitably procure said weapon despite countless laws disallowing it.

    We cannot prevent all acts of violence. Violence is innate in humanity, just as it is in all species. The only difference between us and the animals is that we see it as wrong and have emotions for people we didn't even know.

    If one wants to see how non-violent and safe a completely government controlled environment with absolute prohibition on weapons is, then look at a prison.

    Liberty is not certified safe.
     
  24. gossamer

    gossamer Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2009
    Messages:
    421
    I agree that it's better that ideas be vetted and "shot down" here than in the public forum of policy debate - before those with little to no understanding of the subject stamp their rhetoric on them. I also wonder if there isn't a better way to vet those ideas than to wag your finger at those who bring them up. Wouldn't you rather they vet their ideas here among pro-RKBA folks, re-think them after a respectful discussion of facts and data as to why and how they will not work?

    The alternative is that these ideas are presented in a forum or context much less open to the RKBA.

    If you feel these ideas are truly bad and without any merit, then wouldn't the "high road" thing to do be to welcome and encourage them here, discuss them without shaming the folks who bring them up and then demonstrate through fact-based argument how they are incapable of solving the problems at hand?

    I read people in this discussion giving these ideas a fair and respectful airing which gives me hope. Unfortunately I see some who feign this righteous indignation (the same kind that the anti's are so famous for) at the mere thought that any kind of these ideas would EVER appear on a forum for General Gun Discussion.
     
  25. gossamer

    gossamer Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2009
    Messages:
    421
    Please excuse my long-winded reply:

    Agreed on the whole with a few exceptions. First, where we agree:

    Notoriety of perpetrators: This has been postulated by some. Called "sensationalism in the media," "wall-to-wall coverage," etc.. As HSO rightly pointed out these are exceptionally, EXCEPTIONALLY rare events. One thing I know from personal experience is that we only learn the "right" way to do something by repetition. Thankfully, we have precious little repetition in dealing with mass kills and school shootings. The same is true for the much-maligned media. 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.

    Video Games: Again postulated by many people. On the other hand, I have many friends who play videos games for hours and do not perpetrate acts of violence.

    Maybe if we encourage people to stop looking at this as an equation where 1+1=2, and to look at it as an algorithm, where there are many variables along a continuum we will have success in finding a solution?

    Gun control alone will not solve this problem. There is ample data to suggest that it will not even minimize it's effect. Video Game control alone will not solve this problem. Mental Healthcare alone will not solve this problem. Media correction will not solve this problem. Putting a weapon in the hands of every principal in every school in America will not solve this problem.

    Even careful and elegant attention to all these factors will not eliminate this problem. However, considering all these things can help minimize this problem.

    What can we as responsible gun owners suggest publicly to address the dangerous area where guns and the mentally ill overlap? Better yet, what can we as responsible gun owners ASK FOR to address this issue? What can we ask of the mental health field to help us make suggestions? I've read a lot about what we CAN'T suggest and can't do here. But precious little about what we can do to help and even less about what we can ask FOR in order to protect our rights and address the dangerous place where guns and mental illness intersect. All too often the voices of pro-RKBA come across as individualized know-it-alls rather than members of a community seeking answers like everyone else. What if we spoke with a voice that said "We understand that there is inherent danger where guns and mental illness intersect. We have suggestions but they require the help of the mental health community, psychological forensics community, and the political leaders, to help us find a way to ensure that our rights are protected in total while we help our communities minimize the instances where mental illness and guns intersect in tragedy."

    The fact is, there is forensic evidence that helps us understand the mentally ill and how they get to this point. Just like EVERY VIOLENT ENCOUNTER, there is, in fact, a process of escalation that leads to these tragic outcomes. In these cases the escalation is different (slower) than it is in the typical tactical "street fight" scenario, but it is nonetheless real.

    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)

    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.

    As I said, changing one thing isn't going to solve this problem. Nothing is going to eliminate this problem. But I think there are opportunities to inform and learn from these situations and be seen as part of the solution while still respecting our rights.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice