The Gun Control Crowd just doesn't get it

[BigLar]

I know! I'm preaching to the choir. But hear me out. In this opinion piece from CNN.com

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/28/opinion/ghitis-isla-vista-killing/index.html?hpt=op_t1

The author makes some fairly typical gun control statements. But what struck me most was a comment on making it easier to commit someone who may be mentally ill.

Like that would be some panacea that the anti's and 2A supporters could all rally behind together.

I obviously think we should do our best as a country to make sure that dangerous criminals and mentally unstable people don't have access to deadly weapons. But I find it very disturbing this author and many like her believe that taking away anyone's rights (2a, being involuntarily committed) would be an effective and equitable answer.

TL DR: Amazing that certain groups have no qualms at all about trampling other peoples rights.

 

[rondog]

Oh, they "get it" alright. They'll do anything to rid the country of our evil guns and subjugate us into good little drones like themselves. Pay attention to what's being taught to children in schools, they're being trained that guns are evil, anything to do with guns is evil, and people who have guns are evil. The medical profession is on the train too, with their "any guns in the house?" questions. Death by a thousand cuts.

 

[Bexar]

The Communist countries and other tyrannical regimes in order to remove dissidents from their societies often declare them mentally ill then putting these dissidents in "institutions". This is to fade the heat of world opinion about said countries having political prisoners.

The "convicted of domestic violence" and "stalking or harassing" etc. questions on the gun form are an example of how these type of prohibitions can escalate. The question, Have you ever been diagnosed with...the kitchen sink of possibilities" or "Are you currently prescribed anti-depressants...etc." is a very possible scenario.

Hysteria and misguided public opinion get onerous and capricious laws written. The government is not out to get us...they are out to get reelected. Serving public opinion, whether a fact based opinion or hysterical (read media) based, makes legislatures think not about what's important to society but what's important to their reelection.

The media loves a good dramatic controversy because it sells soap. So the media is also going to sell to those that watch their programs and respond. That's generally those that can be easily influenced or all their dogma is wasted.

Fox news and Megan Kelly sell to us. CNN and whoever sell to them. They consider Fox as a bunch of radical misfits and we generally do the same for CNN.

Liberals are more easily influenced to try new things. New fads...new products new programs. We are on the other hand are conservative and members of the, "If it was good enough for grandpa it's good enough for me" crowd.

The very terms "liberal" and "conservative" define "us." A liberal "changeable and open to interpretation" Constitution or a conservative unchangeable and not open for interpretation" Constitution.

We need to keep buying firearms and related items to support our industries. Especially, those manufacturers that use some of their profits to support the NRA or other similar organizations. Every purchase we make goes into a ticker that goes into a statistic that turns into a multi-billion dollar industry. Politicians know that kind of sales represents two things...people voting for the taxes and jobs in their districts tied to those industries. Remington and others like Magpul are examples of how bad laws can be bad for business.

 

[hso]

This is an argument that the pro 2A side has used. Don't blame the firearm or the dealer for what someone does with the firearm. Focus on the root cause of these violent acts, the mental health of the perpetrator. That's going to require earlier reporting when warning signs manifest themselves to friends, family, and mental health professionals. It was what failed in Colorado, Connecticut, and now in California where there were clear signs of mental health problems not reported to the authorities or acted on in time.

Either we admit these are rare and statistically irrelevant events, which is a very hard sell to the public, or we have to look as how we keep firearms out of the hands of people who are suicidal or homicidal.

 

[Trent]

This is an argument that the pro 2A side has used. Don't blame the firearm or the dealer for what someone does with the firearm. Focus on the root cause of these violent acts, the mental health of the perpetrator. That's going to require earlier reporting when warning signs manifest themselves to friends, family, and mental health professionals. It was what failed in Colorado, Connecticut, and now in California where there were clear signs of mental health problems not reported to the authorities or acted on in time.

Either we admit these are rare and statistically irrelevant events, which is a very hard sell to the public, or we have to look as how we keep firearms out of the hands of people who are suicidal or homicidal.

The problem with this is the harsher we make mental health laws, the less likely people are to get treatment or counseling. After an employee of mine passed away in March I offered free grief counseling to other employees; ALL refused because they were afraid of the new mental health laws in IL (all of my employees are gun owners...).

There have been CCL instructors revoked in IL, gun collections seized, even FFL holders revoked, etc; over our new "clear and present danger" mental health laws that went in to effect on January 1st. It has gun owners EXTREMELY paranoid about seeking professional help for issues such as anxiety or minor depression.

ANY medical professional who has a patient which has undergone psychiatric evaluation (voluntary or involuntary) is reporting it to the state (mandated), and those individuals are getting their FOID revoked or suspended. Which, coupled with the new state laws, means that 48 hours later, an armed state police or county sheriff group shows up at your door to get a firearms disposition record (where your guns went), OR to seize your firearms.

A CCL instructor, the VERY first to be revoked, was also a type 1 FFL. He went to the hospital with a respiratory infection, nearly died, was there for 12 days. The last day of his stay they monitored him for 24 hours to make sure that the drugs they'd pumped him with were out of his system and that he was mentally functional to leave.

Because this was classified as '24 hours of involuntary psychiatric evaluation' following his 11 day treatment of his illness, a physician was required to report it to the state police. 48 hours later he received a revocation notice of his FOID card and instructor credentials. 24 hours later the ATF showed up and pulled his FFL. The next day the sheriff's department showed up to confiscate his firearms.

Now everyone in the state who has heard the story and understands how these new laws interact won't step foot inside the door of a psychiatrist.

 

[GEM]

Progun folks have attempted to shift the blame for the rampages to the mentally ill or video games at times. Curtailing the rights of people seeking treatment or 1st Amend. rights have appealed to gun folks sense of the moral panic of having to do something. But don't curtail gun rights - just curtail these other ones.

In reality, none of these measures would do much to reduce the low probability statistical event. Removing all guns, incarcerating mentally ill on weak grounds or controlling free speech - all great ideas as we have to do something.

The NRA went after games at first. They didn't appreciate that the research (itself a touch suspect) that promoted the idea that games cause aggression also uses the same methodologies to demonstrate that the presence of firearms causes aggression. Oops.

Too many folks who don't know the scientific details spouting off ideas that are self-serving or promote their biases.

 

[Sol]

I think people just need to understand the small inherent risk we all take living in not just a free society, but all of society.

Really, are these people chasing immortality?

From the dawn of time we have been running a non winning race against death.
Early animal predation to plauges and disease to war to natural disaster.

Now it's global warming and guns.

We need to take our money and put it somewhere useful, such as finding cures to diseases.

Much good could come from people like Bloomberg or Soros, yet they'll spend to take our rights away instead of pouring money into useful medical R&D.

 

[barnbwt]

"We need to take our money and put it somewhere useful, such as finding cures to diseases."
Plenty of waste in medicine, too, no doubt. Better to put it somewhere useful like living our own free lives and enriching others' as best we are able while doing so.

A CCL instructor, the VERY first to be revoked, was also a type 1 FFL. He went to the hospital with a respiratory infection, nearly died, was there for 12 days. The last day of his stay they monitored him for 24 hours to make sure that the drugs they'd pumped him with were out of his system and that he was mentally functional to leave.

Because this was classified as '24 hours of involuntary psychiatric evaluation' following his 11 day treatment of his illness, a physician was required to report it to the state police. 48 hours later he received a revocation notice of his FOID card and instructor credentials. 24 hours later the ATF showed up and pulled his FFL. The next day the sheriff's department showed up to confiscate his firearms.

Very cautionary tale. I'll remember to bring this up whenever people blindly advocate expanding the mental health enforcement structure (call a spade a spade). Just because it's not a 'criminal' thing, people act like there are no consequences to getting wrapped up in the system --in reality they are far more severe, it seems, and there is very little to keep their abuse in check since mental health enforcement does not have the same sort of intrinsic system of checks and balances as other areas of our legal system (in who's best interest is it to ensure sane people are not locked up again? The civil-rights lawyer a 'patient' bankrupts themselves supporting? Not good enough)

I can't even begin to understand the legal justification for removing a person's civil rights based solely upon how long they have been under investigation (which is what a mental-health observation/evaluation period is, after all). It'd be like removing your voting rights like a felon, even though your protracted trial ended in an acquittal . "Sentence now, trial later!"

TCB

 

[hso]

Trent,

Sounds like either a misinterpretation or abuse of the law took place since he wasn't held for observation, but was held as part of treatment for the medical and not psychological problem. I'd hope an appeal or lawsuit is taking place.

The high notoriety shootings are statistically rare and never make the needle move on violence data, but they incite many reactions. It is important to point out every unintended consequence to every idea brought up to deal with the outlier incidents and how those consequences may be much worse applied across all of society than the rare events.

 

[alsaqr]

Today the US House funded a measure designed to assist the states in reporting folks with firearms disabilities to the FBI.

The measure provides $19.5 million in additional grant financing to help states submit records to a federal database aimed at preventing felons and the mentally ill from buying weapons.

Supporters of the amendment, which passed 260 to 145 as part of a $51 billion spending bill for the Commerce and Justice Departments expected to be approved later Thursday, say the measure would keep guns out of the hands of potentially dangerous people.

http://news.yahoo.com/us-house-moves-bolster-gun-background-check-system-233357263.html

 

[JRH6856]

Supporters of the amendment...say the measure would keep guns out of the hands of potentially dangerous people.

Oh joy. I once had a mental health professional tell me that anyone with a desire to own a gun was a "potentially dangerous person" because no normally adjusted person would desire something designed only to kill another person. And possibly narcissistic because such an irrational need for self-defense suggested an exaggerated sense of self worth.

 

[j1]

If you do not think that a mentally ill person should not have the "right" to own a firearm you ought to think more and I hope that your views do not prevail.

 

[JRH6856]

j1, please define "mentally ill".

 

[barnbwt]

Define "morally unfit" while we're at it, since that was a prohibitory criteria back in the day as well . Same risk of abuse.

TCB

 

[joshk1025]

This is an argument that the pro 2A side has used. Don't blame the firearm or the dealer for what someone does with the firearm. Focus on the root cause of these violent acts, the mental health of the perpetrator. That's going to require earlier reporting when warning signs manifest themselves to friends, family, and mental health professionals. It was what failed in Colorado, Connecticut, and now in California where there were clear signs of mental health problems not reported to the authorities or acted on in time.

Either we admit these are rare and statistically irrelevant events, which is a very hard sell to the public, or we have to look as how we keep firearms out of the hands of people who are suicidal or homicidal.

Admitting that these are rare events tnat are statistically irrelevant is the only answer. People die in car accidents all the time, yet somehow people get in their cars and drive without fear because they accept the risk as being small. That needs to happen with guns as well.

 

[Trent]

Trent,

Sounds like either a misinterpretation or abuse of the law took place since he wasn't held for observation, but was held as part of treatment for the medical and not psychological problem. I'd hope an appeal or lawsuit is taking place.

The high notoriety shootings are statistically rare and never make the needle move on violence data, but they incite many reactions. It is important to point out every unintended consequence to every idea brought up to deal with the outlier incidents and how those consequences may be much worse applied across all of society than the rare events.

Yes there is a lawsuit taking place. The individual in question (Jordan) is already $30k out of pocket (last I checked) - the majority of that getting a professional psych evaluation that will be admissible in court. He's receiving some assistance from the NRA, from what I understand.

The point you raise about knee-jerk reactionism is quite valid. Connecticut and New York are prime examples of this, in recent memory. As is Colorado's magazine ban. "One person committed a crime, punish everyone else" seems to be the socialist response to every issue out there now.

I guarantee you that with "stronger mental health laws" all we are doing is starting a witch hunt, because we've seen it happen now in NJ, IL, etc. You give additional power and it WILL be abused. Not if. But when. And as we saw in Illinois once those laws went in to effect it was mere *weeks* before they were being abused by someone, somewhere.

 

[BullfrogKen]

Read This Before Posting In Activism Discussion

If you need to hammer out ideas, or plans of action, use this forum to do it. This will keep the Activism forum clear to execute those plans.

This isn't a place for partisan politics, whining, big philosophy or thread drift. Keep focused on constructive ideas to develop real plans to make real change.

The main Activism forum is to act and report.

^^^^^
From the sticky.


Get on topic discussing and planning some activism for your story quickly, please.

 

[Green Lantern]

The problem with this is the harsher we make mental health laws, the less likely people are to get treatment or counseling. After an employee of mine passed away in March I offered free grief counseling to other employees; ALL refused because they were afraid of the new mental health laws in IL (all of my employees are gun owners...).

This is what I fear. AFAIK the shooter used "CA-compliant" 10-round magazines...except for a few extremists, the main focus of the debate is not what evil feature/capacity to ban, but keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.

It's one thing to argue against magazine limits and bans on "shoulder thingies that go up," but IMO we need to tread carefully here, lest we be accused by the antis/media of "demanding guns for psychopaths" and whatever other things they can use to demonize us with.

I heard one commentator on CNN bemoaning that the police were unable to search the shooter's home during a "welfare check," as they had no warrant to do so Saying "the legislatures need to look at this..."

Is it CERTAIN that had the cops been able to search, they would have found evidence enough to take him off the streets? Nope. If they had taken him off the streets at that time, would that have been a guarantee his insane plans were stopped for good? NOPE.

BUT, that's not how "joe public" sees it, IMO. Yeah, there IS chance they could have stopped him altogether. And THAT'S what they see, 4th Amendment be damned. Sorry, not 2nd Amendment, but very very relevant for the fallout of this shooting.

To steer back into more solid 2A territory, now. I know all I need to know about the political leanings of my local doctors by seeing that they endorsed Obama en masse, at least the first time. Some have even written anti-2A letters to the newspapers. These are NOT the sort of people I want to hand the authority to arbitrarily strip people of their gun rights based on a "diagnosis" that I'd be hard pressed to fight. Mental illness is not a virus or bacteria. It's not like there's a blood test or something to PROVE that one is sane or not sane.

Even many antigunners would, after some thought, balk at the notion of letting the police do a warrentless search of your home based on an anonymous tip that you "weren't well." But they all would relish the thought of giving doctors the ability to strip someone's RKBA away at the stroke of a pen...

 

[barnbwt]

but IMO we need to tread carefully here, lest we be accused by the antis/media of "demanding guns for psychopaths" and whatever other things they can use to demonize us with.

Uh, "Gun Nut?" They already think we're psychopaths . I think the best course of action is to re-double our efforts to impart the importance of our constitutional freedoms and protections, especially when JQ Public wants them subverted out of misguided convenience or survivor guilt (is that what you'd call being willing to do "anything" to retroactively remedy some terrible tragedy that happened to someone else, which you could yourself do nothing to stop?). I fully believe "doing nothing" is an acceptable and respectable course of action for one-off events like these; it's just not easily marketable to emotional people distraught by tragedy. We just need to try our best to hold the line until cooler heads prevail; whether those heads want to do nothing, or something else, we'll be in a better place to make the decision, then.

TCB

 

[KSCCHTrainer]

The problem is not that the gun control crowd "doesn't get it" but the fact that the people fueling the blind hysteria of the gun control crowd "does get it" and they are deliberately twisting the facts or making up their own to further their agenda of disarming us so they can take over this country without much armed resistance.

 

[W.E.G.]

Whenever you are confronted with a loud-mouthed gun-control person, tell them you will not stoop to debating the issue with one-liner attacks that they are parroting from stuff they read on Facebook.

Tell them to read THIS article, and come back with intelligent response:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1994/03/the-false-promise-of-gun-control/306744/

 

[hso]

We're not just here to jaw about it, but to come up with a plan of some sorts.
What are the points that need to be made?
What should we do about this?

 

[Trent]

EDIT; whoops wrong thread.

 

[Trent]

OK to the topic;

Every time there is a "big event" (in this case the California stabbing/shooting/driving rampage), the anti-gun crowd will flood the media in every way they can. This includes anywhere they can get opinions in - social media, mainstream media opinion pieces, editorials, etc.

The pro-gun crowd needs to take some notes here because it is a place we are failing.

Every time bodies hit the ground the anti-gunners are jumping up and writing opinion pieces before they've chilled in the morgue. It's grim, but true. They've basically got their talking points laid out and ready to go, and all they need to do is insert location, names, and specifics on the event in question. Each one reads the same.

Since they work off of emotion they don't need to bother themselves with fact-checking, or truth, or how ALL of our existing laws have failed.

We need to make a better effort here, and not be so reactionist. We respond to these articles and events AFTER they've hit the news; and become news, and MADE news. We need to stop being reactionary.

If we sit on our haunches waiting for bad things to happen, to let the other side get the news, and then we react to it, our efforts are scattered, while theirs remain focused.

Instead we need to push our side more frequently.

I found myself going "idle" this spring - no news is good news, right? But complacency is dangerous for us.

I recently spoke at the Central IL chapter of Guns Save Life in May, where I gave a presentation on "how to be an effective 2nd Amendment activist", and wrote a lengthy article on here. Hopefully others can read it and review what YOU can do to further the gun rights cause.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=751156

If everyone picks out one or two hours a week - not much time - to dedicate to doing SOMETHING to advance our cause, the amount of push that will have would be incredibly strong.

We have Throwback Thursday, and Hump Day (Wednesday), etc.

Pick out a day of YOUR week and make a point to find something pro-gun, and post or promote it on social media, or write a letter to your paper, or go to a local gun rights meeting or rally, or take a new shooter to the shooting range.

DO something pro-gun, to advance our cause, once per week.

 

[XD 45acp]

Slippery slope with the mental thing. I take Ambien, so in a way, with the right wording, I'm mental. Stress is a mental thing, so you could do it to a Father of 5 screaming kids.... I would really watch this "Mental" thing. No person is "Perfect", so in a way, with the right wording, we are all mental to some degree. I think I'd keep that door shut as a "Covers all" law and just deal case by case basis.