Deanimator
Member
Divert 100% of the funding for the BATFE and Obamacare to school "resource" officers.
Will We Sit at the Table?
- Thread starter HoosierQ
- Start date
- Status
JohnBT
Member
"manage those dangerous to the public"
The problem is simple, you don't know they are dangerous until after they do something.
I recently retired after 37 years of working with individuals with disabilities. Simply having a diagnosis is not a predictor of future violence.
And anyway, do you realize how many millions of people you're talking about managing?
Schizophrenia - 2.2 million
Bipolar Disorder - according to NIMH - is 2.6% of U.S. adults. Percent.
That's just a start, and it's getting late, and I haven't gotten to major depression, developmental disabilities, autism spectrum disorders, etc.
John
The problem is simple, you don't know they are dangerous until after they do something.
I recently retired after 37 years of working with individuals with disabilities. Simply having a diagnosis is not a predictor of future violence.
And anyway, do you realize how many millions of people you're talking about managing?
Schizophrenia - 2.2 million
Bipolar Disorder - according to NIMH - is 2.6% of U.S. adults. Percent.
That's just a start, and it's getting late, and I haven't gotten to major depression, developmental disabilities, autism spectrum disorders, etc.
John
Deanimator
Member
That doesn't really seem to be the case.
These freaks ALWAYS seem to have histories, and pretty long ones at that, with Cho Sung Hui being the poster child for unaddressed or poorly addressed threatening behavior.
Greenmachin3
Member
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2009
- Messages
- 93
I don't regularly post on THR, but I do lurk for about 20min a day perusing the forums. This thread and the current events are very important.
As for "Sitting at the table to open dialogue". I agree that "we" should sit at the table and open a dialogue, and it should be as public as possible. This dialogue, and it pains me to say it, should not be about making concessions or compromise. I think concessions and compromise are absolutely necessary for a working republic and political environment. However, the 2nd ammendment is such a fundamental notion of freedom and free will that I think there shouldn't be compromise.
Instead, I propose that while sitting at the high profile table "we" inform exhaustively and loudly why the 2nd amendment is so important. It isn't just the right to bear firearms, it's the right to bear "arms" of any kind. It goes hand in hand with the first amendment... both protecting it and giving it teeth. This is how the table should be approached. Inform the public that treating death by firearm in society by repealing or modifying or infringing on the 2nd amendment is like treating heart disease with a pill. Both methods merely treat the symptoms and not the system. Explain how modern medicine is taking a more systemic approach and how we ought to treat our society in a similar way. The USA is a very sick environment right now where people feel the need to lash out and destroy others in vain attempt to exhaust their frustration, anger, anguish, whatever.
I hate to say it, because I hate this tactic, but we just have to be plain louder than them at the end of the day.
As for "Sitting at the table to open dialogue". I agree that "we" should sit at the table and open a dialogue, and it should be as public as possible. This dialogue, and it pains me to say it, should not be about making concessions or compromise. I think concessions and compromise are absolutely necessary for a working republic and political environment. However, the 2nd ammendment is such a fundamental notion of freedom and free will that I think there shouldn't be compromise.
Instead, I propose that while sitting at the high profile table "we" inform exhaustively and loudly why the 2nd amendment is so important. It isn't just the right to bear firearms, it's the right to bear "arms" of any kind. It goes hand in hand with the first amendment... both protecting it and giving it teeth. This is how the table should be approached. Inform the public that treating death by firearm in society by repealing or modifying or infringing on the 2nd amendment is like treating heart disease with a pill. Both methods merely treat the symptoms and not the system. Explain how modern medicine is taking a more systemic approach and how we ought to treat our society in a similar way. The USA is a very sick environment right now where people feel the need to lash out and destroy others in vain attempt to exhaust their frustration, anger, anguish, whatever.
I hate to say it, because I hate this tactic, but we just have to be plain louder than them at the end of the day.
krupparms
Member
Revolversbetter: If you find no legitimate use for that glock, why do you own if? You can send it to me as I can put it to good use! Why raise the age limit on gun owners? We send younger people into combat! I think our troops have shown they are responsible enough to own guns! I also don't believe violence on video games are damageing our kids! That's better than them doing drugs or joining gangs! JMO.
JN01
Member
It seems like this is probably the area that would be most likely to reduce some of these senseless killings, but personally, I don't know all that much about the subject.
When you think about the guy that shot Rep. Giffords, the Virginia Tech killer, and some others, you would think that someone would have noticed how really screwed up they were and that they could have been committed to a mental institution. What is the process for doing that?
On the other hand, if they keep their bizarre behavior to themselves, no one will know until they snap.
larryh1108
Member
These incidents are mass murders. Think back in history and you will see mass murders done with any means possible. Anybody remember Tylenol? How about Gacy? The Boston Strangler? James Jones? The Unabomber? Timothy McVie? 911? The list goes on and on. If someone is bent on mass murder he can and has chosen other ways to get it done. The antis need to see that it isn't the gun, it's the murderer. Making more and more people unarmed invites these tragedies, not lessen the chance. I don't understand how these very intelligent people can't see this. It's backed by statistics as well. I just don't get the mindset.
revolversrbetter
Member
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2010
- Messages
- 84
I bought it a few years ago to see what all the fuss was about, shot a few boxes of .40 S&W, and put it in the safe. I had it up for sale for a while and if I could get out of it what I put into it, I would sell it.
Our troops are acting under supervision when they are in possession of a firearm. James Eagan Holmes was far from home, without nearby emotional support or supervision. Around the time of the Aurora shooting, he was 25, acting erratically and legally purchasing a couple of Glocks and a S&W M&P.
...another case in point. Cho Sung Hui was 23 and was acting erratically. By 25, odds are he would have had a record of some sort and been prohibited from purchasing a firearm.
I didn't say raise the age limit on gun owners, I said raise the age limit on firearms that can facilitate mayhem. Revolvers, bolt action, pump action, etc can do damage and provide stopping power, but they're probably not going to facilitate mayhem. I'm saying I would support waiting until after the age that mental instability becomes apparent before granting the right to purchase something that can facilitate mayhem.
Last edited:
And therein lies the problem. We closed institutions for the mentally ill in the '80s because we couldn't stand warehouseing them as a society in spite of the fact that we didn't have an effective mode of treatment for the most needy. But then cost cutting lead to a reduction in support and treatment so now we're faced with the question of exactly how do we go about paying for a system that will reduce the number of mass shootings to one a decade instead of a "few" a year.
Do we as gunowners want to pay for the system through taxes on ammunition and firearms or do we want to consider something like secure storage requirements that mean we pay for an RSC or more extensive background checks that includes combing information from Social Security for individuals who have their checks sent to a guardian because they're not competent with the NICS check for it instead?
Bobson
Member
I agree with you, sir. Crime-friendly zones need to be done away with. What right does the government have to place limits on our abilities to defend ourselves? This is America. Its time people wake up to that and stop sitting back on the notion that its out of our hands.
By pointing out the facts about gun free zones and how dangerous they are, by sticking to facts and limiting emotional interference, I've been successful in changing the minds of several hardcore antis over the past year. Two of those people were my inlaws, who were raised with the "guns are bad" mentality ever since their childhoods, being raised in communist Romania.
And I just turned another in the last few minutes: a college student friend of the family who's been raised believing guns are the problem.
The point is, with the right approach, we can win the minds and hearts of anyone who is currently blind to the truth about violence.
Last edited:
krupparms
Member
I can assure you at 18 as a USAF Security Police out in the field I had NO supervision! And you're second example was 25 according to You! Almost everyone has said no giving in. I cannot believe that raising the gun ownership to age 25 would make an impact on gun shootings! And find it hard to give any thought to it other than to say I disagree strongly with you!revolversrbetter
Member
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2010
- Messages
- 84
Well, that is the reason we both love our country. America is a unique place in the world where we can safely disagree and openly discuss our disagreement!
Let's remember what began this discussion. It's too horrible to repeat. What can we, as responsible gun owners, constructively suggest to prevent anything like CT, like Virginia Tech, like Aurora from ever happening again?
Rather than recoiling out of fear that 2nd Amendment rights are revolked, what can we suggest in courage and want of doing the right thing?
Bobson
Member
I agree. I understand the thought process: give people more time to mature before handling firearms. Its a nice idea but the result is inconsistent with the goal. Multiple active shooters of the last 20 years were over age 25. As for those who were under, most remaining were under age 18. The obvious conclusion here is that when someone has a goal, they'll find a way to make it a reality, whether the goal is noble or wicked.
The bottom line is that balanced, responsible people won't commit this kind of crime, whether they're 16 or 40. The only immediate, effective solution is the elimination of gun free zones.
A coworker suggested that its good guns arent allowed in some places, like banks. The fact is that simply having a firearm does NOT create the impulse to commit crimes, unless that impulse is present to begin with.
If that impulse is present in a person, no amount of words on paper will ever convince them to ignore the impulse to kill. Murder has alwaya been illegal, and murders have always taken place anyway. So what prevents a man from being killed? The ONLY thing that is effective, short of divine intervention, is giving that man the ability to match the force used by his attacker.
Last edited:
Mental health and safe firearm storage are both relatively safe talking points.
A number of these recent crazies managed to legally acquire guns even though they had known mental health issues. I don't know exactly how the background check system works, but things like that shouldn't be falling through the cracks. And mental health isn't just for gun owners; counselling should be an integral part of the school system, such that kids grow up thinking they're a valuable resource and not just for crazy people. Periodic psychological evaluations and counseling could also have a place in the workplace; I have periodic evaluations because of the nature of my work, and haven't found it to be intrusive. Aside from helping with mental illness, work sponsored counseling could help with employee satisfaction and productivity.
Talking about safe gun storage provides us with a number of options:
1. The importance of proper gun safety and training, and the promotion of easily accessible and low cost classes on such.
2. The use of gun safes and other storage devices. I'd bet most gun owners don't have their guns locked up (I'm basing that solely on personal observations and my own experience, so correct me if you have data that suggests otherwise). Especially in crime ridden low income areas where people own a cheap gun for protection and can't afford to shell out cash for a safe. These high crime areas are also at high risk of burglaries that could result in those guns getting into the wrong hands. If people want guns off the street, let them put their money where their mouth is; sponsor programs to make safes affordable through subsidies, rebates, etc.
3. This one will be a little more controversial, but laws requiring guns to be secured when not under immediate control by their owners.
A number of these recent crazies managed to legally acquire guns even though they had known mental health issues. I don't know exactly how the background check system works, but things like that shouldn't be falling through the cracks. And mental health isn't just for gun owners; counselling should be an integral part of the school system, such that kids grow up thinking they're a valuable resource and not just for crazy people. Periodic psychological evaluations and counseling could also have a place in the workplace; I have periodic evaluations because of the nature of my work, and haven't found it to be intrusive. Aside from helping with mental illness, work sponsored counseling could help with employee satisfaction and productivity.
Talking about safe gun storage provides us with a number of options:
1. The importance of proper gun safety and training, and the promotion of easily accessible and low cost classes on such.
2. The use of gun safes and other storage devices. I'd bet most gun owners don't have their guns locked up (I'm basing that solely on personal observations and my own experience, so correct me if you have data that suggests otherwise). Especially in crime ridden low income areas where people own a cheap gun for protection and can't afford to shell out cash for a safe. These high crime areas are also at high risk of burglaries that could result in those guns getting into the wrong hands. If people want guns off the street, let them put their money where their mouth is; sponsor programs to make safes affordable through subsidies, rebates, etc.
3. This one will be a little more controversial, but laws requiring guns to be secured when not under immediate control by their owners.
I have spent a LOT of time attempting to discuss/debate/argue gun control with those who have a differing opinion than myself.
99% of the time there is no discussion be had because they will not accept reality, or even partake in an actual discussion.
I've been doing a lot of it the past day or two now, and it's basically just this :banghead:
I don't see it being any different at the national level.
Just remember, what you say/write is for the fence sitters. You will never convince the true antis, as for them it is either all about Control or they exercise willful ignorance and won't let any of what you say through
99% of the time there is no discussion be had because they will not accept reality, or even partake in an actual discussion.
I've been doing a lot of it the past day or two now, and it's basically just this :banghead:
I don't see it being any different at the national level.
Just remember, what you say/write is for the fence sitters. You will never convince the true antis, as for them it is either all about Control or they exercise willful ignorance and won't let any of what you say through
Bobson
Member
You're wrong, Warp. And that defeatist attitude is downright dangerous. I mean no disrespect, but you surely can't intend to damage the will of those on our side as much as your post actually will.
This is being discussed on another forum I frequent, but with much less maturity. Lots of, "this is not our problem, it's the Antis that are the problem, RIGHTS, patriots, blah, blah." It's refreshing to see such a rational discussion here. Thanks and carry on!
Bubbles
Member
This was my first thought. Fortunately this isn't 2008 and the House falls to the pro-RKBA side.
I'm sure it varies by state, but I actually chose my local bank because they do not ban guns.
krupparms
Member
Rovrbetter : That is something we can agree on, Loveing our country! &You are right that we can agree to disagree. You keep you're beliefs & I will keep mine. I do understand what you are saying, but something I learned while a PO & that is when it's your life on the line! YOU CAN'T GIVE ANYTHING TO YOUR OPPONENTS! NOT ONE INCH! HAVE A NICE EVENING &HAPPY HOLIDAYS!
The poster you quoted is surely referring to the fact that some businesses, banks included, have rules or policies that prohibit firearms. This is a completely separate issue from the law.
Apachedriver
Member
While I agree that mental health and safe firearm storage are important issues to responsible firearm ownership, my initial reaction to the suggested options is not a positive one. They suggest, and require, greater gov't involvement/control in our daily lives and wallets.
Giving more money to those that can't afford the things they want is irresponsible. Handing more money out doesn't teach personal responsibility, prioritization of goals, a desire to succeed or improve one's station in life, or anything else other than gimme gimme gimme.
As for that last suggestion about laws dictating proper storage, how do we enforce that? Shall we have random home inspections to ensure compliance? In truth that suggestion accomplishes nothing more than a quick feel good bandage on the gushing wound. Instead, let's hold people accountable when their actions enable someone else to break the current laws?
ETA: Personally I refuse to agree that we pay bribes or appeasement money in the form of new taxes specific to firearms or related materials in order to maintain our 2A right. The 2A is a part of our national laws so therefore if they want more taxes, everyone should pay; gun owners and non-owners alike. And that money should be used to reform the mental health system. If they can use our tax monies to pay for life necessities like cell phones, et al, then they can do the same for mental health.
Last edited:
coloradokevin
Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2008
- Messages
- 3,285
Fremmer said:
That sounds like a hard-line and fanatical approach. Or, at least that's what many of the people who will attempt to take away our rights will say.
These days I completely agree with what you said. For too many years (think AWB 1994-2004) gun owners allowed themselves to feel guilty for enjoying this constitutional right. We were asked to come to the table, and we were accused of being extremists when we didn't give an inch, or a mile. We have nothing to give, and we owe nothing to those who would seek to take away our rights.
Hopefully our community has learned from past lessons, and hopefully we won't give in to political pressure when asked to, this time. Sadly, I don't think we're going to be asked this time. I think we'll be told.
Blackstone
Member
Good luck guys, from a citizen of a country that lost its pistols after a tragic school shooting. Please sit at the table and make your voice heard, because we didn't. We were content to bury our heads in the sand and hope it would blow over.
- Status
Similar threads
