s/o - Abortion-Free Gun Control Thread

[Kat w]

... And u do agree with amendment s . we almost have to have them it seems.

 

But to start kicking things 'off' the Constitution. Personally , don't think we should do.

 

I know some see it as a living document. Others see it as simply words on a peice of paper.

 

I am the former. That's just me.

And that's why we vote :)

[SKL]

Let me try and explain why they are linked in my mind - recreational shooters and mass killers. I think it's because counties who don't have recreational sport shooting also don't have near daily shooting tragedies. I don't see any benefit personally from guns-as-recreation. I only get the tragedy. And the risk.

 

I am not proposing we limit ammo. The conversation is , is what we have right now the right balance of freedom vs safety? Let's look at various factors. The arsenal of the San Bernardino killers was legally obtained. In many parts of the world , they wouldn't have that opportunity. Do we love the status qui or are there lessons we could learn to benefit public safety?

 

I don't love the status quo, so I am asking questions. The answers I'm hearing don't make me feel better - they don't make me feel like the next tragedy isn't days away. Guns as sport are wrapped up in my mind . Because every proposal to try and make positive change might impact that sportsman too and he is the one standing in the way. And if the argument is 'well target practice daily requires lots of bullets' I do squint at that a little bit. A friend knows someone who died in the CA shooting and she's a mess about it. He had young kids.

 

Did you mean to say that countries who don't have rec shooting sports don't have many shooting tragedies?  What countries would those be?

 

Is your point that you think people should not engage in sports that can cause injury or death?  Because even where there aren't guns, there are risky sports.  That would seem to be a grown-up choice each person (or parent of an interested kid) gets to make.

 

I think the need to be able to fix everything is distorting reality.  We cannot prevent every tragedy.  It would be great if we could.  Sometimes we try so hard to prevent a certain kind of tragedy that we end up creating new problems without solving the original ones.

 

Personally I do think it's good to have a population of folks in the USA who know how to shoot a gun.  And of course how to safely handle a gun.  This is actually required in some countries (the ones that require military service by all).  If I wasn't too busy, I would probably do this, just to have the skill, and I probably will do this when my kids get old enough to do it with me.

[Sneezyone]

It's probably worth noting that the Supreme Court said this in its 2008 Heller decision :

 

The 2nd amendment does not allow citizens the "right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose," and noted the "longstanding" and "historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

 

The Supreme Court has also declined to reverse 'assault weapons' bans.

Edited December 7, 2015 by Sneezyone

[Katy]

This bit of your post screams ignorance of those with autism.

 

 

Thank you for pointing that out. What an awful, insensitive, insulting comment. 

 

I should say it's more practical to put religious people on the do-not-sell-guns-to list. 

 

Body-count for body-count, which group is more deadly? People with autism or people with gods? 

 

Or will people now start qualifying people with autism as "peaceful autists" like they do "peaceful muslims"? 

 

I am not at all ignorant about autism.  I have a nephew on the spectrum.  Here are the facts:

 

Again, 4 mass shootings in 2015 by the FBI definition of killing 4 strangers in a public place.

 

San Berardino and Chattanooga were both for Islamist motivations.

 

The Umpqua Community College shooter, Christopher Harper-Mercer, had been diagnosed with Asperger's.  He killed 9.

 

The Charleston Church shooter, Dylann Roof, had been diagnosed with Autism.

 

 

Previous incidents:

 

Adam Lanza, the Newtown shooter had autism.

 

The Isla Vista shooter Elliot Rodger had autism.

 

Here's a Washington Post article about the significant link between autism and mass murder.

[Kat w]

I am not at all ignorant about autism. I have a nephew on the spectrum. Here are the facts:

 

Again, 4 mass shootings in 2015 by the FBI definition of killing 4 strangers in a public place.

 

San Berardino and Chattanooga were both for Islamist motivations.

 

The Umpqua Community College shooter, Christopher Harper-Mercer, had been diagnosed with Asperger's. He killed 9.

 

The Charleston Church shooter, Dylann Roof, had been diagnosed with Autism.

 

 

Previous incidents:

 

Adam Lanza, the Newtown shooter had autism.

 

The Isla Vista shooter Elliot Rodger had autism.

 

Here's a Washington Post article about the significant link between autism and mass murder.

That's frietening. :/

[SKL]

The "but they had bombs" argument also applies to the well regulated militia. So you have the right to bear arms, but only guns not bombs, not fly military planes. How does that really help in a hostile overreaching government situation anyway? When your gov has military technology way way beyond the average recreational shooters arsenal. Maybe you use the guns to take over military equipment I don't know? I suppose isil have done it in the Middle East but I suspect they've had a lot of backing from around the world.

 

I'm curious whether it is actually illegal to make and keep explosives at home.  I think they have some practical uses.  I really don't know the law on them - I suppose it might vary geographically based on how big of a risk it is to the public good.

 

I agree that "right to bear arms" doesn't specifically exclude bombs, but I don't think there will be too many people willing to lobby the legislatures on that.  Good thing we don't have a National Bombmaker Association.  :P

[Sneezyone]

Oh Lord...

 

"It found some mass murderers and serial killers have something in common: autism and head injury."

 

=correlation

 

"The researchers stressed the study is “clearly limited†by the “anecdotal and speculative†nature of some of the published accounts." 

 

=no proof of causation.

 

...because, AGAIN, no research $$.

[NicksMama-Zack's Mama Too]

But it doesn't require quite 7000 rounds in the safe. So you even keep them in a safe?

 

I know this because my dh is very accurate and a friend of his is competition level. And yet ammunition here for their rifles cost over $1 per round. Trust me we don't have $7000 worth of ammunition sitting around!

 

They improve accuracy dramatically by using careful adjustments to technique and making their own rounds to suit themselves.

In my state, there is no requirement to store ammunition in a safe or locked up. Some are stored on shelves, some in our safes.

 

We tend to buy in bulk and my dh also reloads and experiments with different loads. We have both hanguns and rifles, all in various calibers, so we have a variety of ammunition.

 

I don't know where you live, but a national retailer here has 1200 rounds of .223/55 grain for $430. It comes in an ammo box. So, for about $2600, you can have 7200 rounds. Six ammo cans will fit in a small closet.

 

http://www.cabelas.com/product/pmc-223-bulk-ammunition-with-dry-storage-box/735146.uts?destination=%2Fcategory%2FRifle-Ammunition%2F104532480.uts&No=0

[Katy]

But it doesn't require quite 7000 rounds in the safe. So you even keep them in a safe?

 

I know this because my dh is very accurate and a friend of his is competition level. And yet ammunition here for their rifles cost over $1 per round. Trust me we don't have $7000 worth of ammunition sitting around!

 

They improve accuracy dramatically by using careful adjustments to technique and making their own rounds to suit themselves.

 

Does your government buy up as much ammunition as possible, probably to create a shortage of ammunition on store shelves?  Ours does.  Buying up ammunition when it is available is so you have it when you need it.

 

 

I completely agree with the ...bomb aspect. I have made thst point before.

 

And knives, about 2 weeks ago a terrorist group had knives on their website as the weapon of choice at thst time.

 

Fertilize r. Do we relegate thst? We have and its very expensive now.

 

On the autism ...hmm.

I have SN boys. I think it depends on where you are on the spectrum... But again..this becomes a slippery slope.

 

What would we do next. The elderly? They are a group that needs self defence / protection ..alot.

 

So. I think alot has to be considered on braod judgement calls.

It is a slippery slope.  I suspect due to supreme court rulings it would only slide to those with significant statistical risk- the mentally ill, those with damage to the parts of the brain that make them more likely to be violent, and the autistic.  Elderly with dementia, sure.

 

 

The "but they had bombs" argument also applies to the well regulated militia. So you have the right to bear arms, but only guns not bombs, not fly military planes. How does that really help in a hostile overreaching government situation anyway? When your gov has military technology way way beyond the average recreational shooters arsenal. Maybe you use the guns to take over military equipment I don't know? I suppose isil have done it in the Middle East but I suspect they've had a lot of backing from around the world.

 

As I posted earlier, bombs are not considered arms.  Arms (guns and ammunition) have a long history of legal purpose.  Bombs and other weapons of mass destruction do not. Military weapons are well guarded.

 

It's probably worth noting that the Supreme Court said this in its 2008 Heller decision :

 

The 2nd amendment does not allow citizens the "right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose," and noted the "longstanding" and "historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

 

The Supreme Court has also declined to reverse 'assault weapons' bans.

 

Correct.  It is clear that the right to bear arms extends only to those weapons that have legal purposes.

[TechWife]

 

 

Here's a Washington Post article about the significant link between autism and mass murder.

 

 

 

Did you read the article thoroughly before you linked it? I'm asking because here is a quote from the very article that contradicts your conclusions: 

 

The researchers stressed the study is “clearly limited†by the “anecdotal and speculative†nature of some of the published accounts. Lead researcher Clare Allely, of the University of Glasgow, emphasized the study did not suggest those with autism or Asperger’s are more likely to commit murder.

 

and another one: 

 

The director of the United Kingdom’s National Autistic Society’s Centre for Autism reacted to the study with caution. “We would urge people not to jump to conclusions about people with autism and to make judgements about a whole section of society,†Carol Povey told the Independent. “This and previous research shows that the vast majority of individuals with autism are law abiding and respect the rules of society. Indeed, in many cases, individuals with autism are unusually concerned to keep the letter of the law, due to the nature of the disability.

Edited December 7, 2015 by TechWife

[Sneezyone]

Did you read the article thoroughly before you linked it? I'm asking because here is a quote from the very article that contradicts your conclusions: 

 

The researchers stressed the study is “clearly limited†by the “anecdotal and speculative†nature of some of the published accounts. Lead researcher Clare Allely, of the University of Glasgow, emphasized the study did not suggest those with autism or Asperger’s are more likely to commit murder.

 

Seriously. Does no one even science anymore?

[Katy]

I'm curious whether it is actually illegal to make and keep explosives at home.  I think they have some practical uses.  I really don't know the law on them - I suppose it might vary geographically based on how big of a risk it is to the public good.

 

I agree that "right to bear arms" doesn't specifically exclude bombs, but I don't think there will be too many people willing to lobby the legislatures on that.  Good thing we don't have a National Bombmaker Association.  :p

 

It's not legal, and it has been ruled to exclude bombs.

[SKL]

 

Here's a Washington Post article about the significant link between autism and mass murder.

 

Hmm.  This makes me wonder whether some kids are being misdiagnosed with autism.  Autism used to be called "childhood schizophrenia" (but then it didn't include what we now call "Aspergers").

 

Autism by itself does not make people plot to go kill people.  But if the true condition is misdiagnosed (or undiagnosed) paranoid schizophrenia, then I could see it.

 

I would not support a rule that bars people with ASD from having guns, as long as they can independently pass a training course and test (which should also be required for non-ASD folks).

[Tanaqui]

Autism used to be called "childhood schizophrenia" (but then it didn't include what we now call "Aspergers").

 

Not exactly. Autism and childhood schizophrenia were different conditions, but many people who now would get a diagnosis of autism received a diagnosis of childhood schizophrenia because if not all conditions were met for autism, that was the default diagnosis.

 

[Kat w]

Does your government buy up as much ammunition as possible, probably to create a shortage of ammunition on store shelves? Ours does. Buying up ammunition when it is available is so you have it when you need it.

 

 

It is a slippery slope. I suspect due to supreme court rulings it would only slide to those with significant statistical risk- the mentally ill, those with damage to the parts of the brain that make them more likely to be violent, and the autistic. Elderly with dementia, sure.

 

 

 

As I posted earlier, bombs are not considered arms. Arms (guns and ammunition) have a long history of legal purpose. Bombs and other weapons of mass destruction do not. Military weapons are well guarded.

 

 

Correct. It is clear that the right to bear arms extends only to those weapons that have legal purposes.

I know. I agree. There, IMO, should be a...standard 'state of mind' a person should be in.

 

My 92 to grandmother couldn't understand why her kids would not let her drive when the DMV said it was OK lol.

 

In her state at the time the elderly only had tests lime about every 3 urs or so.

 

Not nearly enough for thst age IMO. Ntoo much can decline quickly etc.

 

I do love the open dialogue tho. I for one have changed my opinion in things they the years first called to my attention from an opposing viewpoints. After I researched it.....I did change my opinion.

 

I think all of us have somewhat the same goal in mind.

 

How do we protect our citizens without completely encroaching on our civil rights.

 

I think it will be more and more a cause for debate as things progress .

 

Let's face it. We are a hated nation by some.

[Katy]

Did you read the article thoroughly before you linked it? I'm asking because here is a quote from the very article that contradicts your conclusions: 

 

The researchers stressed the study is “clearly limited†by the “anecdotal and speculative†nature of some of the published accounts. Lead researcher Clare Allely, of the University of Glasgow, emphasized the study did not suggest those with autism or Asperger’s are more likely to commit murder.

 

and another one: 

 

The director of the United Kingdom’s National Autistic Society’s Centre for Autism reacted to the study with caution. “We would urge people not to jump to conclusions about people with autism and to make judgements about a whole section of society,†Carol Povey told the Independent. “This and previous research shows that the vast majority of individuals with autism are law abiding and respect the rules of society. Indeed, in many cases, individuals with autism are unusually concerned to keep the letter of the law, due to the nature of the disability.

 

Sure.  I didn't come up with this concept and neither did the writer of this article. I first heard it in Protecting the Gift which I found out about here on these boards.  The largest criticism of that book is the author used FBI crime statistics that make it clear autism is a risk factor in violence.  Does this mean I'm afraid of my nephew, or the couple boys in DS's Sunday school class, or in homeschool group, or anywhere else?  No.  I don't think any of them are likely to have the unique combination of violence, social isolation, or entitlement that are also factors in mass murder.  Does it mean I want to take any of them target shooting?  No.  I would also argue they shouldn't own or have access to guns.

 

Neither should our neighbor with brain damage, or my uncle with brain damage, or a couple of friends with bipolar.  None of them have the ability to clearly think through the consequences of their actions at all times.  This doesn't mean I think any of them are prone to mass murder.  It's just a common sense safety regulation.

[Kat w]

Not exactly. Autism and childhood schizophrenia were different conditions, but many people who now would get a diagnosis of autism received a diagnosis of childhood schizophrenia because if not all conditions were met for autism, that was the default diagnosis.

I think schizophrenia is more on the bi polar side of things...am I correct?

 

Not sure I've heard of autism and schizophrenia mentioned together before.

 

Not with new science anyway

[SKL]

FTR my nephew, who has ASD, has at least one gun and shoots for sport.  It is not scary in the least.

[Kat w]

Yes.

 

They are, of course, like people with mental illness issues, more likely to be VICTIMS of violence.

 

Which makes it even more appalling that someone in this thread would seriously suggest singling this population out

for 'special' gun control.

I agree that should be some standard of mental capacity be it sn , elderly, mental disorders .

 

Oops...I think I quoted the wrong person lol

 

But. We probably need a standard in which one can legally own and carry their firearm.

Just good sense to me.

Edited December 7, 2015 by Kat w

[Kat w]

FTR my nephew, who has ASD, has at least one gun and shoots for sport. It is not scary in the least.

∆∆∆....my son. And out shoots many grown men n competitions.

 

He's responsible. We've taught him and continue to do so.

 

We feel he's very competent .

Taking thst away from him would crush him.

[Katy]

Yes.

 

They are, of course, like people with mental illness issues, more likely to be VICTIMS of violence.

 

Which makes it even more appalling that someone in this thread would seriously suggest singling this population out

 for 'special' gun control.

 

Yes, they are much more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators of violence.  That doesn't mean that those with diminished capacity cannot also be more likely to be perpetrators of violence than others.  They are not mutually exclusive.

 

There is a reason it has been ruled it is constitutional  to stop those with mental or emotional issues from having guns.

[albeto.]

I am not at all ignorant about autism.  I have a nephew on the spectrum.  Here are the facts:

 

Again, 4 mass shootings in 2015 by the FBI definition of killing 4 strangers in a public place.

 

San Berardino and Chattanooga were both for Islamist motivations.

 

The Umpqua Community College shooter, Christopher Harper-Mercer, had been diagnosed with Asperger's.  He killed 9.

 

The Charleston Church shooter, Dylann Roof, had been diagnosed with Autism.

 

 

Previous incidents:

 

Adam Lanza, the Newtown shooter had autism.

 

The Isla Vista shooter Elliot Rodger had autism.

 

Here's a Washington Post article about the significant link between autism and mass murder.

 

 

Autistic groups and organizations didn't invent torturing people to convert before death. There's never been a "compel them to convert" campaign to "inspire" people to convert to autism. Autistic people have never identified people as enemies such as "witches" or "heretics," or argued that it's justifiable to steal land [ETA: or BABIES, for god's sake], imprison, or execute those who are not autistic enough. They've never waged wars or crusades, never led entire congregations to drink poisoned kool-aid until everyone is dead, or falsify reports, inspiring others to target workers in medical clinics or other places of work. Not a single abortion bombing, suicide bomb, or mass attack on a group of people has been waged in the name of autism or to appease some imaginary super-autistic individual who can only communicate through secret code (which looks to nonbelievers like ordinary coincidences). School girls are not kidnapped and sold into slaver, school boys are not beheaded to appease a super-autistic individual who is worthy of obedience and honor. 

 

Autism isn't an idea. It cannot breach physical borders. It does not inspire fear, and then turn around and offer hope. It is not shared or passed on by virtue of an entire culture normalizing certain beliefs and assumptions as valid and reliable. It does not inspire people to kill any more than red hair inspires people to steal souls. It is a neurological marker that is loosely identified by virtue of certain behaviors, it does not argue for challenging behaviors any more than Tourette's argues for ticks. 

 

Your analogy is sloppy, short-sighted, emotionally driven, and devoid of logical and factual substance. It's more fear-mongering. And it's shameful. An apology is the appropriate response. Education would help prevent more offensiveness. 

 

Edited December 7, 2015 by albeto.

[TechWife]

...the constitution doesn't allow the government to limit what a law-abiding private citizen purchases.  The constitution is designed to limit government intrusion on free citizens, not assert it.

 

 

Actually, the government regulates the sales of medications very heavily. All prescription medications must be accounted for from the time they are manufactured through the time they are administered. Every. Single. Dose. 

 

Schedule II narcotics are very limited - you can only purchase the prescribed dose for a specific period of time, the prescriptions have to be written by hand and presented in person (no electronic prescriptions, no phone refills) and you have to provide ID when you pick them up. 

 

OTC medicines are accounted for from the time of manufacture to the sale by a retail establishment. Not only are those OTC medications that contain pseudoephedrine are accounted for through the point of sale, we, as American citizens, are limited in the amount that we can buy within a thirty day period. Why? Because a relatively few buyers were using an ingredient to make meth in their homes. Because a very few people were breaking the law with a legal substance, we are all now subjected to tighter regulations on the purchase of this medication. This poses absolutely no problem for people who are using the substance legally. It is a huge deterrent for those who want to use it illegally. It doesn't make the home meth lab impossible, but it sure slows down production. 

 

Medications are highly regulated because if they are manufactured or used improperly they can seriously injure and/or kill people. 

 

 

 

If someone wants to have 5,000 bullets in their home, and you think it should be illegal to have that many, how do we police that sort of thing?  Regular home inspections?  A nationwide database of ammunition transactions?  Someone must keep track of every shot they fire at a range and report it to the authorities?  Is that what you're thinking?  I can even kiinda sorta understand wanting a national registry for guns, but bullets?  Like individual bullets?

 

Pharmacies keep track of every single dose of medication they have, and I daresay that the volume of individual doses sold through the average retail pharmacy in a typical day far exceeds the number of bullets a typical ammunition supplier sells (at least I hope so). They don't turn the records in to the government, but are, instead, required to have them always available to authorities. It is really not that hard - it's inventory control. The records are used, not only to make sure that the drugs aren't being stolen at various points through the manufacture, distribution, dispensing and administration process, they are also seen as a safeguard towards preventing a patient from having access to an amount of medication that could be either dangerous for them, or, as in the case of narcotics, be sold on the street. 

 

These laws and inventory control systems do not prevent stockpiling, but they sure make it a lot harder. 

[Katy]

So, those of you who are judging me for mentioning that one of the risk factors for violence is autism...  which of you want to repeal the second amendment and remove gun rights from all of us?  Or just remove the right to semi-automatic weapons?

 

FTR, I suspect autism is several different issues, and hopefully in the future there will be more clear diagnostic criteria to help suss out those who are more likely to be violent from those who are not. But at this point it is a risk factor.

[Ausmumof3]

Does your government buy up as much ammunition as possible, probably to create a shortage of ammunition on store shelves? Ours does. Buying up ammunition when it is available is so you have it when you need it.

 

 

It is a slippery slope. I suspect due to supreme court rulings it would only slide to those with significant statistical risk- the mentally ill, those with damage to the parts of the brain that make them more likely to be violent, and the autistic. Elderly with dementia, sure.

 

 

 

As I posted earlier, bombs are not considered arms. Arms (guns and ammunition) have a long history of legal purpose. Bombs and other weapons of mass destruction do not. Military weapons are well guarded.

 

 

Correct. It is clear that the right to bear arms extends only to those weapons that have legal purposes.

I believe our ammo shortages directly correlate to yours because most of it is imported from US. Generally as soon as there's talk of changing laws in us we get a shortage here as a result of us buyers stockpiling. Most of the expense I think is just the australia tax. Shipping costs isolation lack of local manufacturing. Cost has jumped crazily in the last six months, probably in part due to the Aud$ dropping so much.

 

I wish I could multiquote but.

 

I always thought the constitutional protection was to so with arms actually being able to be used for purposes that would be deemed illegal- resisting over reaching government. That's my point. How does it actually work? Do guns actually enable resistance? It doesn't seem that way. Admittedly my understanding of the US constitution is very superficial so I may have it wrong.

 

Eta if think maybe that is a wrong understanding of it that I've picked up from some civil resistance thing or something.

 

But if you can limit the right to bear arms to only apply to guns not bombs etc without impacting in 2nd amendment can't the type of guns be limited to those that would actually be required in a self defence or safety scenario?

 

With our gun laws you can apply for a different class if you are rural, you just have to justify the need for it.

Edited December 7, 2015 by Ausmumof3

[Katy]

Actually, the government regulates the sales of medications very heavily. All prescription medications must be accounted for from the time they are manufactured through the time they are administered. Every. Single. Dose. 

 

Schedule II narcotics are very limited - you can only purchase the prescribed dose for a specific period of time, the prescriptions have to be written by hand and presented in person (no electronic prescriptions, no phone refills) and you have to provide ID when you pick them up. 

 

OTC medicines are accounted for from the time of manufacture to the sale by a retail establishment. Not only are those OTC medications that contain pseudoephedrine are accounted for through the point of sale, we, as American citizens, are limited in the amount that we can buy within a thirty day period. Why? Because a relatively few buyers were using an ingredient to make meth in their homes. Because a very few people were breaking the law with a legal substance, we are all now subjected to tighter regulations on the purchase of this medication. This poses absolutely no problem for people who are using the substance legally. It is a huge deterrent for those who want to use it illegally. It doesn't make the home meth lab impossible, but it sure slows down production. 

 

Medications are highly regulated because if they are manufactured or used improperly they can seriously injure and/or kill people. 

 

 

Pharmacies keep track of every single dose of medication they have, and I daresay that the volume of individual doses sold through the average retail pharmacy in a typical day far exceeds the number of bullets a typical ammunition supplier sells (at least I hope so). They don't turn the records in to the government, but are, instead, required to have them always available to authorities. It is really not that hard - it's inventory control. The records are used, not only to make sure that the drugs aren't being stolen at various points through the manufacture, distribution, dispensing and administration process, they are also seen as a safeguard towards preventing a patient from having access to an amount of medication that could be either dangerous for them, or, as in the case of narcotics, be sold on the street. 

 

These laws and inventory control systems do not prevent stockpiling, but they sure make it a lot harder. 

 

Right, but the regulations are to ensure the medications are being used for traditional uses and lawful purposes. They are not designed to keep people from obtaining medications altogether, as that ruling overturned in the case of the gun control rules.

[Kat w]

You can have all the firearms your hearts desire....

 

Without ammo. It ain't gonna happen lol.

Hence, IMO, govt 'ordering' yet not paying and having shipped ALL of what they have on hold.

#reloader

:)

[Kat w]

Right, but the regulations are to ensure the medications are being used for traditional uses and lawful purposes. They are not designed to keep people from obtaining medications altogether, as that ruling overturned in the case of the gun control rules.

Unfortunately , my state of Florida has all but stopped seeling any narcotics.

Pill mills were rampant... This has hindered true legitimate diagnosed pain sufferers form obtaining them.

[Kat w]

Correction:

 

Many large chains no longer sell them at all in there pharmacies .

The dwindling number of pharmacies willing to sell them...heavy regulations on them.

[Katy]

I believe our ammo shortages directly correlate to yours because most of it is imported from US. Generally as soon as there's talk of changing laws in us we get a shortage here as a result of us buyers stockpiling. Most of the expense I think is just the australia tax. Shipping costs isolation lack of local manufacturing. Cost has jumped crazily in the last six months, probably in part due to the Aud$ dropping so much.

 

I wish I could multiquote but.

 

I always thought the constitutional protection was to so with arms actually being able to be used for purposes that would be deemed illegal- resisting over reaching government. That's my point. How does it actually work? Do guns actually enable resistance? It doesn't seem that way. Admittedly my understanding of the US constitution is very superficial so I may have it wrong.

 

Our ammo shortages are due to the government buying up ammunition on a massive scale.

I've heard gun rights advocates say that guns enable resistance, but I don't think they do. 

 

All the legal arguments I've read that have to do with actual case law have rulings much more to do with natural and constitutional rights to defend oneself, and the government not being allowed to interfere in lawful uses.  I don't think resistance would be considered a lawful use.

[Sneezyone]

So, those of you who are judging me for mentioning that one of the risk factors for violence is autism...  which of you want to repeal the second amendment and remove gun rights from all of us?  Or just remove the right to semi-automatic weapons?

 

FTR, I suspect autism is several different issues, and hopefully in the future there will be more clear diagnostic criteria to help suss out those who are more likely to be violent from those who are not. But at this point it is a risk factor.

 

Not me. I'm a policy wonk. I prefer regulation and public policy based on facts. I want research, not to jump straight into repealing the 2nd amendment. There's no need since it already allows for gun restrictions (that well-regulated bit). It'd also be nice if we could get folks to stop presenting this as an all or nothing proposition, it's not, and to stop claiming that the constitution prohibits all gun restrictions. Spoiler alert: it doesn't.

Edited December 7, 2015 by Sneezyone

[TechWife]

Autism used to be called "childhood schizophrenia" (but then it didn't include what we now call "Aspergers").

 

 

 

No it wasn't. 

 

Also, Asperger Syndrome is no longer used as a diagnosis. It was, and continues to be, a very controversial change, but at this point, and for the foreseeable future, there is no official diagnosis of Asperger Syndrome. Some people who had this as a diagnosis may meet the diagnostic criteria for Autism Spectrum Disorder, but some will not. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

lol This thread is completely off the rails when people start muttering about Obama buying up all their bullets.

[TechWife]

nm

 

Edited December 7, 2015 by TechWife

[TechWife]

So, those of you who are judging me for mentioning that one of the risk factors for violence is autism...  which of you want to repeal the second amendment and remove gun rights from all of us?  Or just remove the right to semi-automatic weapons?

 

FTR, I suspect autism is several different issues, and hopefully in the future there will be more clear diagnostic criteria to help suss out those who are more likely to be violent from those who are not. But at this point it is a risk factor.

 

:banghead:  :banghead:

 

I think this smilie is my new friend. 

[Tanaqui]

I think schizophrenia is more on the bi polar side of things...am I correct?

 

Not sure I've heard of autism and schizophrenia mentioned together before.

 

Not with new science anyway

 

Well, schizophrenia and bipolar disorder are both mental illnesses, while autism is categorized as a developmental disorder. However, I don't think that schizophrenia and bipolar share many traits in common. On the OTHER hand, we've recently found that all three conditions and also ADHD share several genes in common.

 

Also, Asperger Syndrome is no longer used as a diagnosis.

 

In the DSM. I believe - but don't quote me! - that it's still a valid diagnosis in Europe, where they use a different handbook.

 

So, those of you who are judging me for mentioning that one of the risk factors for violence is autism...  which of you want to repeal the second amendment and remove gun rights from all of us?  Or just remove the right to semi-automatic weapons?

 

I don't know, which of us is it? People keep saying on this thread that "we all" keep talking about banning all guns, but I don't see the people saying that. Am I blind? Help me out here!

 

Edited December 7, 2015 by Tanaqui

[Kat w]

Well, schizophrenia and bipolar disorder are both mental illnesses, while autism is categorized as a developmental disorder. However, I don't think that schizophrenia and bipolar share many traits in common. On the OTHER hand, we've recently found that all three conditions and also ADHD share several genes in common.

 

 

In the DSM. I believe - but don't quote me! - that it's still a valid diagnosis in Europe, where they use a different handbook.

 

 

I don't know, which of us is it? People keep saying on this thread that "we all" keep talking about banning all guns, but I don't see the people saying that. Am I blind? Help me out here!

No no , I know.

I have over our way...aspergers and bipolar ( different ppl of course :))

 

And tho bi polar and schizophrenia are very different things.....they can often go hand in hand.

 

Aspergers with other developmental developing...thsts a mouthful :)....but likewise you can often find similar development. Defeicits! I'm sorry. I try to hit the autoful when u can.

 

Did not me only part of the word to be there.

 

 

I see both

Edited December 7, 2015 by Kat w

[TechWife]

nm again, sorry! 

Edited December 7, 2015 by TechWife

[Joanne]

It says "the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." My understanding is that for the purposes of the second amendment, other weapons such as bombs are not considered arms. "Arms" means firearms and ammunition. Basically, firearms and ammunition have traditional uses and lawful purposes. Bombs, missiles, and nuclear technologies do not.

 

In 2008, the supreme court ruled in DC vs Heller that DC's regulations banning handguns, semiautomatic, and automatic weapons, and requiring rifles and shotguns be kept unloaded with a trigger lock were unconstitutional, and that individuals have rights to possess firearms and ammunition for lawful purposes including self-defense, and that the requirement for weapons to be kept unloaded and locked up was also unconstitutional, as it restricted the right to self-defense. That applied to a federal area though, not to individual states.

 

s.

 

...... And so sayeth gun culture. Ladies and gentleman, can I get an amen?

[Ausmumof3]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/frankminiter/2013/10/20/is-the-obama-administration-the-cause-of-gun-ammunition-shortages/

 

Ammo shortage explanation.

 

I had to satisfy my curiosity as I hadn't heard the government buying up all the ammo theory before.

[TechWife]

Right, but the regulations are to ensure the medications are being used for traditional uses and lawful purposes. They are not designed to keep people from obtaining medications altogether, as that ruling overturned in the case of the gun control rules.

 

They are designed to make sure that they go to the right people and to try to prevent them going to the wrong people. Good gun regulations would work towards doing the same, tracking ammunition purchases could easily be a part of that. 

 

I'm not sure what you are talking about with regard to "ruling overturned" or what that would have to do with inventory control. 

[albeto.]

So, those of you who are judging me for mentioning that one of the risk factors for violence is autism...  which of you want to repeal the second amendment and remove gun rights from all of us?  Or just remove the right to semi-automatic weapons?

 

FTR, I suspect autism is several different issues, and hopefully in the future there will be more clear diagnostic criteria to help suss out those who are more likely to be violent from those who are not. But at this point it is a risk factor.

 

For what it's worth, I'm not judging you for mentioning something, I'm judging your argument. I judge it to be shortsighted, sloppy, based on emotional pleading, and remarkably insensitive towards the people in this community. More data is needed to determine if autism is any more relevant to the safety of the public as it relates to the second amendment than red hair, being born last, being left handed, or even the ease with which one can purchase certain weapons. Interestingly, there is a clear and obvious correlation between religious beliefs and mass murder, and in many cases, that correlation is divulged publicly and proudly. Why dismiss it? Religion is often a stated intent in mass murder, from the hundreds of events expelling and executing Jews throughout Europe, to the Inquisition to ISIS, and that's just the Abrahamic religions! Religion is less directly correlated to other wars and battles throughout history, as well as those inspiring our modern "peacekeeping" agenda and political motives around the world. To argue that autism increases the risk of being killed by a mass murderer belongs with the same statistic that shows being killed by falling furniture is more likely to end an American's life than a terrorist. 

[Ausmumof3]

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-08/us-rush-on-guns-triggers-shooting-supplies-shortage/5507752

 

And a link that explains how your shortage affects ours.

 

Also although bombs may have no legitimate purpose the ingredients were used in the past. Clearing of land etc was completed by explosives to remove stumps etc. They are still used for mining quarries etc but supplies are controlled and restricted.

Edited December 7, 2015 by Ausmumof3

[TechWife]

Unfortunately , my state of Florida has all but stopped seeling any narcotics.

Pill mills were rampant... This has hindered true legitimate diagnosed pain sufferers form obtaining them.

 

 

Correction:

 

Many large chains no longer sell them at all in there pharmacies .

The dwindling number of pharmacies willing to sell them...heavy regulations on them.

 

 

I wonder if Florida will see an increase in independent or compounding pharmacies as a result of these changes by the chains. 

[Kat w]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/frankminiter/2013/10/20/is-the-obama-administration-the-cause-of-gun-ammunition-shortages/

 

Ammo shortage explanation.

 

I had to satisfy my curiosity as I hadn't heard the government buying up all the ammo theory before.

I find Forbes credible as a magazine/research at large.

 

I didn't see the date on this article, I think I've read it before tho.

If not, one similar, it was in Forbes couple years ago.

And gosh I haven't bookmarked situation, credible citation , but haven't looked hard for it either.

 

There have since been other, that I deemed credible anyway, and jus in case ya wonder...no, it wasn't the NRA, tho,my dh is a member.

 

But, it had been refuted and I'm not sure how much there wound up being, noone likes to talk about it, but. Shipments on shelves that were in reserve.

 

The military for example has always done that. The govt has first priority , I think most times in writing. Thst could be found as well, I think my husband found it, but.

The gun manu's have always supplied our military. It's not unusual for has been unsusual.

 

Ppl think it's an attack on the govt. It's not, not as I mean it Anyway.

 

I know pppl who serve,I want them protected at all cost even if I didn't know anyone who served.

That I think we can all agree.

They do protect us BTW.

[Kat w]

I wonder if Florida will see an increase in independent or compounding pharmacies as a result of these changes by the chains.

I'm not sure of the term compounding pharacies but there have been more independent s who have tried.

 

Thwy don't , well alot , don't last more than a year or maybe 3. Some make it for along time but. The change has only been a couple years for this

[Ausmumof3]

Article was from 2014 which is around when prices started jumping.

[Kat w]

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-08/us-rush-on-guns-triggers-shooting-supplies-shortage/5507752

 

And a link that explains how your shortage affects ours.

 

Also although bombs may have no legitimate purpose the ingredients were used in the past. Clearing of land etc was completed by explosives to remove stumps etc. They are still used for mining quarries etc but supplies are controlled and restristed.

I dont know about explosives. I can't speak to that.

 

Sure does make fertilizing my feild more expensive and not on the list of to dos anymore lol

 

 

Maybe this is possibly confusing? Not sure.

Fertilizer is used on making those :/

Edited December 8, 2015 by Kat w

[Kat w]

Article was from 2014 which is around when prices started jumping.

I'm gonna go check. I know I should bookmark more :)

[Ausmumof3]

Sorry that was in response to the argument that guns have a legitimate purpose and bombs don't hence guns aren't controlled but bomb making stuff is. I was just pointing out that stuff did have legitimate purposes but ultimately here it was deemed that the risk outweighs the benefit so they were restricted.