8circles Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 Serious question - if the Constitution is stopping your from making sensible decisions around gun control, in order to save lives of your fellow citizens, isn't the Constitution a problem ? Instead of being an accepted road block to reform, shouldn't it be amended ? (Yes, I know, not going to happen. But how free/unfree does veneration of the Constitution actually make you ?) Do pro-control posters here think determined leadership, from either side, could make a difference ? Are rates of street crime, especially against women, actually higher in the US than other places ? Is the perception of being unsafe connected to base rates of crime ? I honestly don't know. I can (and have done) do my own google search but it's hard to know what's accurate. We categorize crimes differently & some of the sources are ones I'm unfamiliar with so I'm not sure if it's credible. I would love for someone more in the know about this stuff to answer you. I did find this article which I think is apropos to the conversation although it's from 2012. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2012/0109/US-crime-rate-at-lowest-point-in-decades.-Why-America-is-safer-now 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slojo Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 I think the work will have to start at the state level and move to the national level. And the change will have to come via legislation. The courts cannot toughen gun control laws (the bigger concern is some facing challenges could be struck down) and executive orders are limited in what they can do. Wins at the state level can help diminish the NRA lobbying power little by little and well written regulations which go into place and show that responsible, law abiding citizens are not adversely affected in the ways the tinfoil hat/black helicopter clowns seem to fear. No, the court cannot toughen laws, but I'm wondering (and I am way out of my league on Constitutional law) if they can decide on a "rights" case (maybe the right to reasonable protection, I admittedly don't know. I'm spitballing here, can't all be gold ;-) in which one entity sued a state that had less regulation (or a state sued another state -- "your lack of regulation has caused a problem for us" kind of thing)... someone who knows Constitutional law please help with possible scenarios. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TechWife Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 No, the court cannot toughen laws, but I'm wondering (and I am way out of my league on Constitutional law) if they can decide on a "rights" case (maybe the right to reasonable protection, I admittedly don't know. I'm spitballing here, can't all be gold ;-) in which one entity sued a state that had less regulation (or a state sued another state -- "your lack of regulation has caused a problem for us" kind of thing)... someone who knows Constitutional law please help with possible scenarios. It's interesting you bring this up. My husband thinks that the way true reform will happen is through the civil courts. Specifically, that there would need to be a class action lawsuit brought by victims of gun crime or their survivors against one or more of the manufacturers. I'm still working that idea out in my brain right now. He cites the tobacco industry of an example of where changes in regulations became acceptable to the tobacco industry when it was found to be liable for tobacco related deaths. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 It's interesting you bring this up. My husband thinks that the way true reform will happen is through the civil courts. Specifically, that there would need to be a class action lawsuit brought by victims of gun crime or their survivors against one or more of the manufacturers. I'm still working that idea out in my brain right now. He cites the tobacco industry of an example of where changes in regulations became acceptable to the tobacco industry when it was found to be liable for tobacco related deaths. The protection of lawful commerce in arms act would make that extremely difficult. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 No, the court cannot toughen laws, but I'm wondering (and I am way out of my league on Constitutional law) if they can decide on a "rights" case (maybe the right to reasonable protection, I admittedly don't know. I'm spitballing here, can't all be gold ;-) in which one entity sued a state that had less regulation (or a state sued another state -- "your lack of regulation has caused a problem for us" kind of thing)... someone who knows Constitutional law please help with possible scenarios. States can sue each other but the claim here would be a bit nebulous although there may be some precedent with states suing each other over environmental issues (ie waste water run off). In those cases there is a direct, measurable impact and here the cause and effect/damages would be much less clear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 The protection of lawful commerce in arms act would make that extremely difficult. Correct. And even without that law, the plaintiffs would have to show the gun manufacturers are acting negligently, which is a tough standard if they are following state and federal laws regarding sales and distribution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NicksMama-Zack's Mama Too Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 It's interesting you bring this up. My husband thinks that the way true reform will happen is through the civil courts. Specifically, that there would need to be a class action lawsuit brought by victims of gun crime or their survivors against one or more of the manufacturers. I'm still working that idea out in my brain right now. He cites the tobacco industry of an example of where changes in regulations became acceptable to the tobacco industry when it was found to be liable for tobacco related deaths.How about suing the DOJ for not enforcing existing laws?http://m.jsonline.com/news/crime/milwaukee-man-to-be-sentenced-on-gun-fraud-charge-b99560011z1-322283481.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 It's interesting you bring this up. My husband thinks that the way true reform will happen is through the civil courts. Specifically, that there would need to be a class action lawsuit brought by victims of gun crime or their survivors against one or more of the manufacturers. I'm still working that idea out in my brain right now. He cites the tobacco industry of an example of where changes in regulations became acceptable to the tobacco industry when it was found to be liable for tobacco related deaths. The tobacco companies lost those suits because they knew the products were harmful, actively withheld the information (and denied they were harmful), and produced the products anyway. The case against the gun manufacturers would be much more tenuous unless it could be proven they were knowingly/negligently selling guns that they could reasonable expect to be used for criminal purposes. The bill passed in 2005 does not provide a protection for companies aiding in gun trafficking or other negligent activity but I am not aware of any successful suits against a manufacturer but there is at least one that has been working through the system. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldberry Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 Why biometric guns will never happen to any useful degree as long as extreme anti-gun control activists keep getting their way.. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/threats-against-maryland-gun-dealer-raise-doubts-about-future-of-smart-guns/2014/05/02/8a4f7482-d227-11e3-9e25-188ebe1fa93b_story.html Gun shops that *support* gun ownership are being pressured not to sell certain guns that can be made safer. The basic argument is, "If guns are made safer, then the government will want everyone to have them and stop using other guns. So, we can't make guns any safer." Talk about an example of no logical discussion being possible... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 How about suing the DOJ for not enforcing existing laws? http://m.jsonline.com/news/crime/milwaukee-man-to-be-sentenced-on-gun-fraud-charge-b99560011z1-322283481.html No case there against the DOJ. They prosecuted the case and got a conviction. And the judge can't be sued. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 Why biometric guns will never happen to any useful degree as long as extreme anti-gun control activists keep getting their way.. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/threats-against-maryland-gun-dealer-raise-doubts-about-future-of-smart-guns/2014/05/02/8a4f7482-d227-11e3-9e25-188ebe1fa93b_story.html Gun shops that *support* gun ownership are being pressured not to sell certain guns that can be made safer. The basic argument is, "If guns are made safer, then the government will want everyone to have them and stop using other guns. So, we can't make guns any safer." Talk about an example of no logical discussion being possible... The best way around that will be biometric gun locks that don't require cooperation from the manufacturers. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldberry Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 The best way around that will be biometric gun locks that don't require cooperation from the manufacturers. The problem is decent and effective technology being developed when *right now* no one will sell it. Capitalism, baby! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 The best way around that will be biometric gun locks that don't require cooperation from the manufacturers. I agree and would be for that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 The problem is decent and effective technology being developed when *right now* no one will sell it. Capitalism, baby! Have the trigger locks been developed? I read an article on Wired about one that is promising but it was still in development. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldberry Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 Have the trigger locks been developed? I read an article on Wired about one that is promising but it was still in development. Honestly don't know. I just would imagine based on history that it's not a hugely popular endeavor, and that there would be plenty of opposition to its marketing. It's hard to find people willing to invest time and money without a guarantee of return. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 Honestly don't know. I just would imagine based on history that it's not a hugely popular endeavor, and that there would be plenty of opposition to its marketing. It's hard to find people willing to invest time and money without a guarantee of return.I think if the lock is installed and coded by the owner and only the owner, most gun owners I know would be okay with that and even eager for it. If however the lock is somehow coded or protected via a third party, especially if the third party is a paid agency, a govt agency, or any form of computer database - most would be strongly against it bc then they are one easy hack or code entry by a third party they have no control over from not being able to use their own gun. Anything that gives third party access to their gun is going to be met with considerable doubt to its security ability. But most gun owners I know would be eager for safer more secure ways to protect their guns from use by other people. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 I don't know if it is any good or affordable or what all else, but I went looking out of curiosity and found this... Wow. If it can be coded and fitted to an existing gun by the owner? That's pretty cool imnsho. Are there any gun owners willing to chat about this? http://kodiakarms.com 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carol in Cal. Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 This answer always confuses me, because guns against a government seems a little beside the point, when the government now has weapons the average citizen can only dream of. Do you really feel that the government, at any point now or in the future, will come for you ? And that your hand gun will be a defence ? Nope, but it's still our heritage so it goes pretty deep, I think. And it's not so much about the government 'coming for people' as it is about them clearly not being able to reliably control crime, and people having to be able to defend their own homes, at this point. The truth is, I don't own a gun--I'm just trying to explain some of the thinking. My own personal view is that I can defend my home best by being friendly with all of the neighbors, and by watching out for them somewhat, and hoping that they will reciprocate if necessary. About 5 years ago, though, there were a series of burglaries in the same block as our home, on the other side of the street, while people were home in the late evening. I believe that 3-4 houses on our block were robbed that way. I didn't get a gun then either, but it was pretty creepy. Later on they caught the burglars, IIRC there were two of them working together, with stolen stuff from a lot of areas of town found in their garage. If I had found someone in my home robbing it, or if someone had come in while I was there, I probably would have wished to have done the whole buy a gun and learn to use it thing though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NicksMama-Zack's Mama Too Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 I don't know if it is any good or affordable or what all else, but I went looking out of curiosity and found this... Wow. If it can be coded and fitted to an existing gun by the owner? That's pretty cool imnsho. Are there any gun owners willing to chat about this? http://kodiakarms.com I have no interest in this technology. When the police are willing to have this technology put on their duty weapon, then I would be willing to look at it. Until then, no thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergath Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 I have no interest in this technology. When the police are willing to have this technology put on their duty weapon, then I would be willing to look at it. Until then, no thanks. What do the police have to do with it? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
8circles Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 And it's not so much about the government 'coming for people' as it is about them clearly not being able to reliably control crime, and people having to be able to defend their own homes, at this point. See, I don't see this at all. Like I've said before, I live in a CC state. I only know a few CC holders but I suspect I interact with many without knowing it. In addition, I know many people who owns guns - usually more than one - for hunting and/or/sport. My city was recently #1 on top 10 safe cities in my state. The ones who CC will make the same point that you are, that it's for self-defense. I call bupkis. "at this point" - can you explain what you mean? because the people I know with weapons for self-defense (or home-defense) don't live in areas where the police don't respond. Our police response times are excellent. Are you under the impression that this kind of crime is on the rise? Is it actually on the rise in your area? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktgrok Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 This answer always confuses me, because guns against a government seems a little beside the point, when the government now has weapons the average citizen can only dream of. Do you really feel that the government, at any point now or in the future, will come for you ? And that your hand gun will be a defence ? Honestly, looking at the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq it seems that a determined population with weapons taht are much less advanced than the opposing force (say, US military) can still provide quite a bit defense. Guerrilla warfare. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktgrok Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 I don't know if it is any good or affordable or what all else, but I went looking out of curiosity and found this... Wow. If it can be coded and fitted to an existing gun by the owner? That's pretty cool imnsho. Are there any gun owners willing to chat about this? http://kodiakarms.com Myhusband was telling me about this. we are very interested in it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NicksMama-Zack's Mama Too Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 What do the police have to do with it?I would think that if it were a good, effective technology, the police would be utilizing it. The police fear their duty weapon being taken from them during a confrontation with a criminal. If this system were reliable, they would be using it.http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2014/03/19/Smart-gun-technology-has-promise-but-needs-to-be-reliable-police-say/5001395178358/ Not reliable enough for the police, not reliable enough for me. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergath Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 I would think that if it were a good, effective technology, the police would be utilizing it. The police fear their duty weapon being taken from them during a confrontation with a criminal. If this system were reliable, they would be using it. http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2014/03/19/Smart-gun-technology-has-promise-but-needs-to-be-reliable-police-say/5001395178358/ Not reliable enough for the police, not reliable enough for me. And when it comes to these police lobbyist groups making claims about new gun technology, I would have to know how much of their funding comes from the NRA before I would take them seriously. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NicksMama-Zack's Mama Too Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 And when it comes to these police lobbyist groups making claims about new gun technology, I would have to know how much of their funding comes from the NRA before I would take them seriously. I know quite a few LEOs. I'm pretty sure they'd lobby for it if they thought it was beneficial. Just like they do for body armor and AR-15s (which most have now). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 And when it comes to these police lobbyist groups making claims about new gun technology, I would have to know how much of their funding comes from the NRA before I would take them seriously. There are still some issues with biometric technology but the development is ongoing and it wouldn't shock me if it were to improve greatly in the next few years. There is going to be continued pressure on gun manufacturers *thanks NRA) to not move forward with it though. Hopefully this will be successfully countered by smaller tech companies who see a potentially large market. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FaithManor Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 I think until this country decides to do something about mental health care, not much will improve the situation. It is like treating MRSA by carving out some flesh but not providing antibiotics for the cause, so the disease remains. Dealing with my now mentally ill, potentially suicidal, and a few weeks ago even violent father has made me keenly aware of how little mental health help is available in this country and even fewer options for family members seeking to commit a person who is a danger. I absolutely agree that the obssessive reporting on individuals who commit such acts seems to potentially glorify the shooter in unhealthy minds. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms.Ivy Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 You know what I find weird....Even though women have a much bigger chance of being raped than shot, Californians voted to make possession of roofies a misdemeanor. Actually, they voted to make gun theft a misdemeanor too. Of course the vast majority of crimes are done with guns that were illegally obtained, but not stolen, so I doubt it will really change much. But anyway, it's just kind of weird that the current regulations don't work on people who don't follow regulations, but people want more regulations for people who already follow regulations, but don't want to take off the streets the people who steal guns or who have roofies. I honestly believe people have a warped sense of danger and a warped sense of empathy for criminals from watching so much television in the past couple of decades. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stacia Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 I think you have to be American to understand the cultural attachment. It's not really possible for outsiders. If you're talking about the cultural attachment to guns, I'm American & I don't understand it at all. And, I even grew up in a military family. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 Are any of the suggestions in this article remotely doable ? close loopholes in background checks end ban on federal funding in research on gun violence make gun trafficking a federal crime expand ban on sales to DV offenders restore ban on assault weapons + more Definitely at the state level. With the current Congress...maybe at the federal level but I hold out hope for yes. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TechWife Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 I think until this country decides to do something about mental health care, not much will improve the situation. It is like treating MRSA by carving out some flesh but not providing antibiotics for the cause, so the disease remains. Dealing with my now mentally ill, potentially suicidal, and a few weeks ago even violent father has made me keenly aware of how little mental health help is available in this country and even fewer options for family members seeking to commit a person who is a danger. I absolutely agree that the obssessive reporting on individuals who commit such acts seems to potentially glorify the shooter in unhealthy minds. Are you interested in a spin off to discuss this? I think this is a very important point. I have a little bit of research on some pending legislation and a lot of opinions on some things that are happening here on a state level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alicia64 Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 I completely understand the desire for gun control. But I also understand the fear of being a sitting duck in a gun-free area, knowing that there are corrupt people who will happily make guns available to the highest bidder. It was very eye-opening for me when a leading California state Senator, an award-winning gun control advocate, was arrested for attempting to buy automatic firearms and missiles from a terrorist organization in the Philippines, and sell them in the US for a $2 million dollar deal. Of course then we have the whole problem with the guns being supplied to Mexican gangs by the ATF and then turning up being used in US murders. So until we can deal seriously with crap like that, I don't think many will take kindly to being told to remain sitting ducks. Leland Yee! Wasn't that the craziest thing?! I wonder how many totally corrupt people are in the gov't. Super scary that if you want to become a multi-, multi-millionaire: move to DC. Oops. Off topic. That Leland Yee situation was just awful. Alley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TechWife Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 Are any of the suggestions in this article remotely doable ? close loopholes in background checks end ban on federal funding in research on gun violence make gun trafficking a federal crime expand ban on sales to DV offenders restore ban on assault weapons + more Yes, I think much is doable. I think the article did a good job of outlining some of the problems that are faced by each of the ideas. I think the biggest problem is the NRA lobby and the reluctance of people to open up their minds to the possibility of meaningful dialogue and action. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 I would think that if it were a good, effective technology, the police would be utilizing it. The police fear their duty weapon being taken from them during a confrontation with a criminal. If this system were reliable, they would be using it. http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2014/03/19/Smart-gun-technology-has-promise-but-needs-to-be-reliable-police-say/5001395178358/ Not reliable enough for the police, not reliable enough for me. I agree that should in theory be a valid litmus. BUT Like police get the best or most advanced stuff first? Um. No. They usually don't. The police are usually forever playing catch up to the tech on the streets. Even in the bigger cities some times and absolutely in the smaller ones. Maintaining state of the art tech is incredibly expensive and difficult to convince taxpayers to fund. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TechWife Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 The protection of lawful commerce in arms act would make that extremely difficult. Thanks for this - I didn't know it was out there. If anyone else wants to read about it, I found this from the Congressional Research Service. My husband says he's disappointed but not entirely surprised. The only way to move forward with his idea is to repeal this law, then. Probably not very likely to happen - I'm sure the NRA would throw it's weight around to prevent that from happening. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TechWife Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 The case against the gun manufacturers would be much more tenuous unless it could be proven they were knowingly/negligently selling guns that they could reasonable expect to be used for criminal purposes. The bill passed in 2005 does not provide a protection for companies aiding in gun trafficking or other negligent activity but I am not aware of any successful suits against a manufacturer but there is at least one that has been working through the system. Yes, with the law that was introduced to me above, I think it might be impossible. I guess there is a small outside chance that, if they don't use available technology to attempt to ensure the legal gun owner is using the gun (the smart technology others have been talking about), that might one day be seen as negligence, but that won't help matters now. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TechWife Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 Best of luck. I know it can come across as snarky when someone outside is looking in and making comments. It's not that I think we have all the answers here; it's more a feeling of helplessness when you see mass shootings in the news again and again. I hope the US finds something that is workable, within the constraints of your system of law, which does reduce the number of these crimes. I don't think you're coming off as snarky - no worries! I think many of us in the states feel somewhat helpless as well - it's hard to get the right mix in congress for less controversial issues to be tackled and so this is really hard. If we can at least get to where we can talk about it with a view towards action, it will be a step in the right direction. Loosing the momentum is a danger, as well. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TechWife Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 I agree that should in theory be a valid litmus. BUT Like police get the best or most advanced stuff first? Um. No. They usually don't. The police are usually forever playing catch up to the tech on the streets. Even in the bigger cities some times and absolutely in the smaller ones. Maintaining state of the art tech is incredibly expensive and difficult to convince taxpayers to fund. I think the military gets the most advanced stuff first. Costs have to come way down in order for most average-sized local police departments to afford the technology, so they don't get it anywhere near when it's first available. I think taxpayer funding in this area is largely reactionary. By that I mean that taxpayers are more likely to fund something once there is a problem, but they aren't as likely to fund something in order to be proactive and prevent a problem from occurring. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klmama Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 Going back to the discussion of the mentally ill.... Medical researcher William J. Walsh explains the problem of school shooters from a medical standpoint: In a nutshell, he has years and years of experience doing research on behavior disordered patients, and he says most start acting "off" in early childhood. He says school shooters are different. They seem fine until teen years when they become anxious or depressed and are put on SSRI meds. Their biochemistry isn't a good match for the SSRIs; their illness worsens, and they start having violent and/or suicidal ideation. This is a known side effect for some meds, but doctors don't test patients for the markers that indicate they are likely to respond with violence when exposed to those drugs. Walsh suggests doctors should test patients before prescribing those meds in order to get a better match for the patient's biochemistry and thus reduce the violence. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laundrycrisis Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 Discussion of control laws, I will set aside; but IMO much wider and open education of firearm safety in general, and open, non-political and non-stigmatized discussion of how to be safe around firearms is needed. The education should include the implications of using a firearm. Some of my thoughts on this ... Too many people will never be part of any discussion which might lead them to understand how to safely possess and use a firearm, how to store it securely, how to educate their children, etc, because their knee jerk response to the topic is to freak out with the idea that firearms are evil and should all go away. Another thought is that people have grown up seeing very casual use of firearms on entertainment screens, but never faced the thought of the consequences of using one to injure or kill someone, either in crime or self defense. For example, some people would never feel okay about killing an intruder. These people should never own a firearm for home defense, because they won't ever be open to really learning how to own and use it if they are that conflicted about it. Another...I have known people to own firearms whose understanding of proper safety and use is reckless and immature. People need a more real understanding about firearms. That can't happen when they are so stigmatized as evil that people can't talk about them and people aren't willing to learn and think about them. Firearms are very much in the wild here. They aren't going away. I think it would be better for more people to have a deeper understanding of them, and I don't just mean how to shoot... I mean practical and emotional understanding. A deadly weapon is a powerful thing. Life is beautiful, and hurting or killing anything shouldn't be left as a casual topic just for action movies. We should talk about it. More open education may prevent accidents, and it may reduce some of the mystique, and perhaps some crimes. The message that guns are all bad and only bad or crazy people have or use them isn't doing anything to prevent either accidents or crimes. Sorry I'm rambling..it is late and I'm typing on my phone. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stacia Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 Life is beautiful, and hurting or killing anything shouldn't be left as a casual topic just for action movies. Yes, that's why I was asking earlier what, other than killing, is the purpose of a gun? Is there any other purpose? The only reason I can think of is to shoot/to kill. If so, a person holding a gun holds a life or death machine in their hands. That's a huge responsibility. Huge. And most individuals in our society can legally get one or more. As I mentioned before, even some states don't get to exercise that option (life or death). Such serious responsibility should also come with some serious restrictions and serious rules regarding access to & use of such machinery. Imo. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joker Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 Discussion of control laws, I will set aside; but IMO much wider and open education of firearm safety in general, and open, non-political and non-stigmatized discussion of how to be safe around firearms is needed. The education should include the implications of using a firearm. Some of my thoughts on this ... Too many people will never be part of any discussion which might lead them to understand how to safely possess and use a firearm, how to store it securely, how to educate their children, etc, because their knee jerk response to the topic is to freak out with the idea that firearms are evil and should all go away. Another thought is that people have grown up seeing very casual use of firearms on entertainment screens, but never faced the thought of the consequences of using one to injure or kill someone, either in crime or self defense. For example, some people would never feel okay about killing an intruder. These people should never own a firearm for home defense, because they won't ever be open to really learning how to own and use it if they are that conflicted about it. Another...I have known people to own firearms whose understanding of proper safety and use is reckless and immature. People need a more real understanding about firearms. That can't happen when they are so stigmatized as evil that people can't talk about them and people aren't willing to learn and think about them. Firearms are very much in the wild here. They aren't going away. I think it would be better for more people to have a deeper understanding of them, and I don't just mean how to shoot... I mean practical and emotional understanding. A deadly weapon is a powerful thing. Life is beautiful, and hurting or killing anything shouldn't be left as a casual topic just for action movies. We should talk about it. More open education may prevent accidents, and it may reduce some of the mystique, and perhaps some crimes. The message that guns are all bad and only bad or crazy people have or use them isn't doing anything to prevent either accidents or crimes. Sorry I'm rambling..it is late and I'm typing on my phone. There are also many like me, though. We are educated on guns. We know how to use them. We grew up with them. We have an understanding of them and still feel they are unnecessary. We still feel they aren't a good thing for many to own simply because they desire it. I do not desire nor need my dds to handle a gun to understand this. They do not need more education on what it means to kill another living thing. 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsuga Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 I really wonder about the places some of you guys live if children are being raped left and right. I mean, why in the world wouldn't you move? Why wouldn't the city or the state come in and do something if there's such a high concentration of child rapists in one place? Honestly, I think Heigh Ho lives in Lagos. Seriously, the situations she describes are beyond awful. They don't even have calculus in high schools. It's actually worse than Lagos. I think she might live in Jackson, Mississippi or something. I have no idea. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms.Ivy Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 Yes, that's why I was asking earlier what, other than killing, is the purpose of a gun? Is there any other purpose? The only reason I can think of is to shoot/to kill. If so, a person holding a gun holds a life or death machine in their hands. That's a huge responsibility. Huge. And most individuals in our society can legally get one or more. As I mentioned before, even some states don't get to exercise that option (life or death). Such serious responsibility should also come with some serious restrictions and serious rules regarding access to & use of such machinery. Imo. You are right that the purpose of a gun is to kill. That's exactly why guns play into the definition of a government, and why it's a big deal for people who genuinely believe that the US is a government of the people by the people. Guns give the power of death... force.... to the user. That's why people get disturbed at the idea that only criminals can have them in public. Whoever has the guns, is the government. Those who are forced to obey with guns, are the governed. One thing I believe you're missing though is that there is no state in the US that does not have the death penalty. Sure, there are some that don't use it as a sentence during a trial, but guess what happens if a guy decides to point a gun at a cop and refuses to drop it? The state executes him on the spot. So the question comes back to who is the state, who has the monopoly on force, etc. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FaithManor Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 Are you interested in a spin off to discuss this? I think this is a very important point. I have a little bit of research on some pending legislation and a lot of opinions on some things that are happening here on a state level. I hope some of you will discuss it. I am currently living in my parents' home caring for my injured mother and my psychotic father - non small cell lung cancer adenocarcinoma stage 4 whose break with reality was caused by paraneoplastic syndrome and whom I am supposed to believe has been magically stabilized and could not possibly become violent again (which I am not stupid enough to believe for even a damn minute) - and my posting will be extremely sporadic for the next couple of months. What does my life look like in the land of caring for this mentally ill person? You do not even want to know!!! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FaithManor Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 And by the way, my dad is in the legal system - court ordered psychiatric treatment (abysmal care I might add) - and is an Air Force veteran with nine registered guns, seven hunting and two handguns, and despite the fact that he is in care for having attempted to kill my mother and himself by driving their van into a tree at high speed durinh one of his hallucinations about demons, no law enforcement official has come around to confiscate them. We had to remove them. On top of which, it was technically illegal for us to do so - theft. The law will not come after us so long as we do not dispose of them. We can't actually turn them in to the police department because they are his!!! So maybe this is where the discussion should begin. If police order a person taken by ambulance to the hospital for a 72 hour psyche hold, the law should state that the household be checked for guns, and the weapons confiscated pending the competency hearing. It won't solve the problem by any stretch but it is a place to start. I can hear him asking to use the bathroom so my day has begun. I don't know when I will get to check the thread again. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laurie Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 Going back to the discussion of the mentally ill.... Medical researcher William J. Walsh explains the problem of school shooters from a medical standpoint: In a nutshell, he has years and years of experience doing research on behavior disordered patients, and he says most start acting "off" in early childhood. He says school shooters are different. They seem fine until teen years when they become anxious or depressed and are put on SSRI meds. Their biochemistry isn't a good match for the SSRIs; their illness worsens, and they start having violent and/or suicidal ideation. This is a known side effect for some meds, but doctors don't test patients for the markers that indicate they are likely to respond with violence when exposed to those drugs. Walsh suggests doctors should test patients before prescribing those meds in order to get a better match for the patient's biochemistry and thus reduce the violence. Yes, why is it that when these school shootings happen we only hear about gun control, not drug control! And if our government can manage a "no-fly" list of names, why couldn't there be a "no-buy" list so that anyone who fills a prescription for a psychiatric drug is automatically put on a list of people who can't buy guns...or at the very least let those specific people go through another level of screening. I also like Bill O'Reilly's idea that he's been talking about for a few years...it includes making all gun crimes a federal crime with a 10 year prison sentence. http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2013/01/17/bill-oreilly-guns-and-federal-government/ I would also like to add that Adam Lanza's mother was taking her troubled son target shooting. The Oregon shooter's mother was apparently going target shooting with her troubled son as well. Does anyone else agree with me that THIS IS VERY STUPID AND DANGEROUS? If you have a friend/family member/neighbor, etc. and you know this is going on, please say something to them, like "Are you trying to train the next school shooter?" I think we as a society need to utilize some shaming and shunning. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anne in CA Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 I'm trying to stifle my rising horror that you keep a loaded weapon in the house. In the Australian army, soldiers only carry loaded weapons on the range or on the battlefield. Are you telling me you live in a battlefield? Where we live calling 911 takes forty-five minutes minimum for a response. We own a business that often has large amounts of cash on hand and a fifteen year old daughter that some weirdo might find irresistable. We ALWAYS have a loaded gun. We know how to use it. I could never wait for the police to stop someone from taking my daughter. We also live close to where the state releases large amounts of sex offenders. So, yes, even though it might seem nuts to you, some people would be irresponsible not to own a gun to protect their family. America is a large diverse place, and many people live where law enforcement is ineffective in one manner or the other. People who believe that if only police and criminals had guns most police would be criminals also are not nuts, no matter how much some people would like to live in denial over that reality. We are not Europe, and our police force is very different. We would be more like Mexico where the difference between police and criminals is thin. Sometimes you must deal with what is, not with what you think could be. When I lived in the Portland Metro area the difference between city police forces was very different. Hillsboro had a very good police force, Beaverton next to Hillsboro did not, ect. Many police forces in this country do not have the integrity to be armed when citizens are not. Ferguson comes to mind, many do, but the people who live where the police are not good would really be living in a battlefield, completely unarmed if they had no guns. My father lives in a remote area of eastern Oregon and had criminals dumping stolen cars they had parted out on his ranch. The state police and the sheriff''s department refused to help him. At all. Law enforcement where he lives is known to be corrupt. He confronted one of the criminals with a gun, and while that may seem nuts to you, and I myself wish he hadn't done it, it worked and the problem ended. Some people in this country have a different reality than others. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 So maybe this is where the discussion should begin. If police order a person taken by ambulance to the hospital for a 72 hour psyche hold, the law should state that the household be checked for guns, and the weapons confiscated pending the competency hearing. It won't solve the problem by any stretch but it is a place to start.Possibly be an illegal search without a warrant? Just thinking that's the likely block. However, if a background check and serial number registration were required to buy a gun, then the police would be able to pull up that information and require the guns be turned in or someone who does not live in the home could sign an affidavit saying they removed them and will hold them safely before someone who fails their psych hold can be released? I'd be okay with that I think. I'm not a fan of the police taking ownership of other people's property. But given to a family member or held until the owner sells it would be acceptable to me. ETchange: Your father's court order psych for a violent offense would get him denied a CC permit here. Because ANY violent infraction (for example domestic violence) would get a denial of a CC permit in my state. And I would be okay with expanding that law to also deny purchase of a gun and to require rechecking backgrounds every 5-10 years. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.