GeorgeW Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Mother Jones says that many shooters showed signs of possible mental illness before their killing. But what laws will be written to make it easier to force someone to be diagnosed and to undergo treatment. It seems to me that with strict licensing, a person could be required to undergo some sort of assessment before issuing them a license to own a gun. These are dangerous weapons and I can envision a system with a high bar to qualify for possession - training, testing, etc. George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Another esssay that examines the logic of an armed society in which everyone is armed. http://opinionator.b...-not-enough/?hp The author concludes with a good question: "In other Western countries, per capita homicide rates, as well as rates of violent crime involving guns, are a fraction of what they are in the United States. The possible explanations of this are limited. Gun advocates claim it has nothing to do with our permissive gun laws or our customs and practices involving guns. If they are right, should we conclude that Americans are simply inherently more violent, more disposed to mental derangement, and less moral than people in other Western countries?" If the NRA is right (implicitly) about Americans being inherently violent and deranged, then I am embarrassed to be an American. George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulS Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 In Australia the test is pretty high to obtain a firearm. However, once you have obtained the licence legally, there are no further checks or ongoing monitoring. So if in 10 or 15 years time the owner develops mental health issues, they still have their guns. There's also the access issue - The firearm owner may not be mentally unwell, but what about family members, housemates, neighbours, who might be able to access this guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Exactly how will banning hand guns be anymore effective in reducing their availability and crime than banning drugs has prevented the availability and use of illegal drugs and related crimes? -------------------------------- This a false or irrelevant analogy. It implies that owning guns is an addiction and that individual discharge of a gun is no more dangerous than smoking pot. Why isn't the wearing of seat belts or the elimination of DDT the correct analogy? Dutch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephM Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 (edited) Dutch said...This a false or irrelevant analogy. It implies that owning guns is an addiction and that individual discharge of a gun is no more dangerous than smoking pot. Dutch, The question implied no such thing except perhaps in the mind of the responder. Yet since you mention it, perhaps many crimminals may be in a sense addicted to crime and guns and some people addicted to guns? (Some have enormous collections of guns and ammo) Your analogy of discharge of a gun and pot to me seems totally unrelated to the question. Dangerous drugs such as cocaine, heroine and meth are banned yet they still remain available to social circles from a 'black market' and are often crime related. This relates to the same thing that happens when you ban all guns. In my view, there is always a lucrative market for smugglers willing to take the risk when you tell people they can't have something they think they need or want. I believe history shows whether it is booze, drugs, or guns makes no difference. I think our real problem is social/culture and deeper than banning all guns. I think one sided emotional rants do nothing to understanding both sides of the issues and uncovering the root of our problems. Joseph. PS For those wishing to hear another side here is a Canadian Link comparing Canada with the US and offering some reasons to consider for the difference in gun related death rates. And this Canadian link also Edited December 21, 2012 by JosephM added PS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 -----rant--- __________________ Jospeh Point taken The fewer of the heavy drugs and assault rifles in America the safer we all will be. Dutch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rivanna Posted December 21, 2012 Author Share Posted December 21, 2012 (edited) Joseph, In my opening post on this thread I tried to point to a clear distinction between legal handguns and the assault weapons and semi-automatics that enable mass murders like the one in Newtown. I wish you could keep these two ideas separate instead of translating a ban on these weapons as ‘banning all guns.’ It’s the same irrational frenzy that makes people rush out to buy more guns when there’s talk of renewing the ban. Has a legal ban on all handguns ever been proposed in the US? I don’t understand where this fear comes from, unless it’s a deep distrust of government or of authority figures in general. The latest massacre of innocents has all but ruined my Christmas spirit this year--a dark cloud over this entire country. And to keep hearing from you, the administrator of this progressive, moral, intelligent Christian forum, that you don’t support a ban on military weapons—assault weapons, not all handguns - is salt in the wound. Karen Edited December 21, 2012 by rivanna 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 Joseph, I am curious if you support any gun regulation? Your posts on this subject have been, I think, all in opposition to regulation ideas posed here. If you do support regulation, what do you support? If you don't support any regulation, do you include all weapons including automatic rifles, shoulder-fired missiles, etc." If there is a line, where would you draw it? Do you agree with everyone having access to weapons including those with criminal records, mental illness, records of domestic violence? If not, what restrictions would you propose? George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 I don't wish to offend anyone here and I am not proposing any generalities applying to everyone. But, it seems to me there are a number of factors that motivate American obsession with guns. I would like to pose several ideas: 1. I think there is an illusion of safety that comes with gun ownership. I say an illusion because, in fact, possessing a gun makes one less safe by a factor of 22. A gun owner is 22 times more likely to do personal harm or harm a family member than use it in self defense. 2. I suspect, with some people, there is a psychological need for power that gets expressed in carrying a gun. I don't think society should take huge risks to placate this psychological need. 3. And, of course, we were once a frontier society in which there was little organized security and people used guns to feed their families. I think this cultural heritage persists although we are now an urbanized, industrial society and we have organized security. If the security is inadequate, instead of spending billions of dollars arming ourselves, we could spend a fraction of that to improve police services. George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephM Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 Karen, I am most sorry that you have allowed your spirit of Christmas to be ruined this year. Both the incident and the excessive media coverage has been unfortunate for many. You are correct that you and many others here have not proposed banning all guns. My use of the word "all" was not meant to insinuate you or another did. It was meant to make a point that even if all guns were banned they could still be had by those whose intentions were criminal or 'evil' from those who would make a smuggling ring or 'black market' out of it. I think the majority of gun owners support (including myself) background checks, and training requirements. I have undergone both in KY and Florida and am licensed in both states for concealed carry which i used in the past conducting of a business with inherent risk and dangers. I am thankful i never had to use it. To limit an administrator, moderator, or a member of this site in having or expressing a different view from your own or the majority here is not acceptable whether concerning religion or other subjects brought up on this site. If one has a problem with that, they are free to search for a site where everyone , especially an administrator is expected to agree on what that person may deem as an important , more moral or intelligent view. We have no such accurate gauge here as relates to personal views being more or less worthy of expression. (JosephM as Admin) George, Since you ask.... I am in favor of background checks including both criminal and mental and , safety and use training requirements for all gun owners. I am also in favor of forbidding convicted felons from owning and stricter enforcement of present laws, I am in favor of our present fully automatic weapons ownership special permit laws and the forbidding of tanks, missile launchers, flame thrower and other such weapons of war without express government knowledge and licensing and other requirements. I am NOT in favor of a ban on the present definition of assault weapons that are purchased by individuals who have qualified by background checks and training. I am in favor of stricter laws pertaining to gun sales. I do not think at this point in time we can depend on police for complete protection of our family or our own life and doubt we will anytime in the near future even by spending more dollars. Yet, i do respect your right or for that matter the right of anyone to differ on this personal view of mine. Joseph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dusktilldawn Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 I think the majority of gun owners support (including myself) background checks, and training requirements. I ... am licensed in both states for concealed carry which i used in the past conducting of a business with inherent risk and dangers. I am thankful i never had to use it. To a Brit like me following this discussion that quote perfectly sums up the cultural chasm that divides our countries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 Joseph, Do you think anything can be done regarding gun control that will contribute to a decrease in mass killings? I feel that you don't. Dutch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephM Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 Dutch, Yes, most definitely. Gun control is not banning weapons, it is better control and enforcement before and after purchase. Joseph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 I am NOT in favor of a ban on the present definition of assault weapons that are purchased by individuals who have qualified by background checks and training. I am in favor of stricter laws pertaining to gun sales. Joseph, Thanks for the clarification of your position on this issue. I am curious why you think people should be able to own assault weapons. What useful purpose would they serve that would justify the obvious negative consequences? George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 FWIW, I watched most of the NRA press conference today. My reaction: absurd! Their solution is for more people ("the good guys") to have guns. They propose armed guards at all schools. Given the current legal and cultural situation here, I think I agree. But, should we have armed guards everywhere we go - every restaurant, every store, every theatre, school bus, church, subway, political rally, every town-hall meeting, train, every . . . .? Is this the kind of society we want to live in? NOT ME. George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted December 21, 2012 Share Posted December 21, 2012 Dutch, Yes, most definitely. Gun control is not banning weapons, it is better control and enforcement before and after purchase. Joseph How exactly would better enforcement reduce the chances that the Sandy Hook shooter or the Aurora theater shooter could obtain their weapons? In both cases the guns were purchased legally. Should households with mentally ill residents not be allowed to own guns? Dutch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephM Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 How exactly would better enforcement reduce the chances that the Sandy Hook shooter or the Aurora theater shooter could obtain their weapons? In both cases the guns were purchased legally. Should households with mentally ill residents not be allowed to own guns? Dutch Dutch, my response was to your question... "Do you think anything can be done regarding gun control that will contribute to a decrease in mass killings?" In general my answer was yes to your initial question not of these specific incidents but rather "mass kilimgs" (in general) by better gun control and enforcement. Your return to me was "How exactly would better enforcement reduce the chances that the Sandy Hook shooter or the Aurora theater shooter could obtain their weapons" i can't speak specifically to those 2 specific cases as far as enforcement goes "to obtain their weapons?" All incidents are not avoidable by either means but there are indeed cases where better gun control and enforcement of existing laws and possibly some new testing requirements might prevent an actual act along with citizen cooperation by reporting of any tale tell signs that might be suspicious in nature. "Should households with mentally ill residents not be allowed to own guns?" No but required training might include education of precautions to keep guns out of the hands of such. Will that guarantee it will not happen? No , of course not. Joseph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephM Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 Joseph, Thanks for the clarification of your position on this issue. I am curious why you think people should be able to own assault weapons. What useful purpose would they serve that would justify the obvious negative consequences? George I believe the individual right to keep and bear arms was pre-existing under common law and not just for hunting. The Second Amendment doesn't establish any rights, it prevents the government from infringing on them. Obviously one can see from the increase in sales from the threat of a ban on assault weapons that there are many individuals who feel that right includes weapons presently defined as "assault weapons" Those weapons while presently used by some for target practice and sport shooting and hobby reasons (collections) are i believe by most purchased for family protection of home and property against armed perpetrators or a group of perpetrators whether foreign or domestic. An assault weapon puts the individual citizen on more equal ground with any well armed perpetrator(s) . And yes for the same reasons our founding fathers are quoted saying THESE THINGS which are concerning guns and were not directed to hunting food.... I think many of the negative consequences can be addressed more properly and more effectively by better gun control, education, enforcement, training and a shift in our culture including raising more responsible citizens, less glorifying of violence and violent movies and game entertainment that desensitize many youth to acts of violence. All this along with a myriad of other social changes that include preventing repeat offenders, stiffer sentences to those who do harm, better recognition of the mentally ill and many other changes well thought out by those who specialize in such things. Joseph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulS Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 Joseph, In my opening post on this thread I tried to point to a clear distinction between legal handguns and the assault weapons and semi-automatics that enable mass murders like the one in Newtown. I wish you could keep these two ideas separate instead of translating a ban on these weapons as ‘banning all guns.’ It’s the same irrational frenzy that makes people rush out to buy more guns when there’s talk of renewing the ban. Has a legal ban on all handguns ever been proposed in the US? I don’t understand where this fear comes from, unless it’s a deep distrust of government or of authority figures in general. The latest massacre of innocents has all but ruined my Christmas spirit this year--a dark cloud over this entire country. And to keep hearing from you, the administrator of this progressive, moral, intelligent Christian forum, that you don’t support a ban on military weapons—assault weapons, not all handguns - is salt in the wound. Karen Karen, Whilst Joseph can look after himself, I have to say that I don't agree with your sentiment that he should refrain from debating this issue or expressing his views like the rest of us here, and I certainly don't agree with your put down that he is not being progressive, moral, and/or intelligent. We all have different opinions on a range of things and no single position is the 'right' one, as I understand PC and all that it entails. Clearly I don't agree with much of Joseph's view on this matter, but I am glad for his arguments and counterarguments. If nothing else, it helps me understand another's views and how perhaps we can come up with solutions that will see better results. I see you having a big battle in the US with those in favour of firearm laws as they stand, and I don't think you will succeed by simply trying to block them out of the dicussion and over-rule them. Don't let it ruin your Christmas. Cheers Paul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulS Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 I believe the individual right to keep and bear arms was pre-existing under common law and not just for hunting. The Second Amendment doesn't establish any rights, it prevents the government from infringing on them. Obviously one can see from the increase in sales from the threat of a ban on assault weapons that there are many individuals who feel that right includes weapons presently defined as "assault weapons" Those weapons while presently used by some for target practice and sport shooting and hobby reasons (collections) are i believe by most purchased for family protection of home and property against armed perpetrators or a group of perpetrators whether foreign or domestic. An assault weapon puts the individual citizen on more equal ground with any well armed perpetrator(s) . And yes for the same reasons our founding fathers are quoted saying THESE THINGS which are concerning guns and were not directed to hunting food.... I think many of the negative consequences can be addressed more properly and more effectively by better gun control, education, enforcement, training and a shift in our culture including raising more responsible citizens, less glorifying of violence and violent movies and game entertainment that desensitize many youth to acts of violence. All this along with a myriad of other social changes that include preventing repeat offenders, stiffer sentences to those who do harm, better recognition of the mentally ill and many other changes well thought out by those who specialize in such things. Joseph Does anybody know if any other country in the world enshrines the 'right to bear arms' in its constitution? From what I can see, only Mexico (which also says no military firearms in domestic possession) and North Korea (but theirs is more about arming the populace against an outside country). The US seems to pretty much standout alone on this fascination with possessing firearms, and you happen to be one of the highest western countries with homicide rates. I don't think it is just coincidence. These words from an article in the Huff Post sum it up for me: I'll tell you how. It's because a man walked into a school with at least one gun and shot and killed nearly 30 people. Nearly 20 children are among the victims. One man. With a gun (or two). I don't know how he got his weapon(s) and to be frank, I do not care. Because after seeing similar scenarios play out over and over again, in schools, movie theaters and malls, I'm ready to throw the 2nd Amendment out the f*cking window. Someone's "right to bear arms" is not more important than a child's right to grow old enough to get to middle school, have her first kiss, see Santa or light the final candles on the Menorah. Having access to a gun cannot take precedence over the safety of our schools. It simply can't. The answer isn't to wrap our schools in barbed wire and turn them into prisons with pretty murals on the wall and jungle gyms. The answer is to stop ignoring the fact that the availability of guns in this country is literally killing us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 Paul, Although we have a long history of gun fascination, it is only recently been determined by our right-wing Supreme Court that we have an individual right to bear arms. Throughout previous history, it was understood that this "right" was related to a "militia" need. Also until the Reagan revolution, we could actually discuss sensible gun restrictions. In the last 20 or so years, discussing gun control has become a taboo or useless topic. At one time we had a ban on assault weapons but under George W. Bush this was allowed to lapse and no serious discussion of renewal has since been held. Maybe, just maybe, as a result of Newtown, we will get some serious discussion and action, but I am not holding my breath. There is a powerful lobby against any restriction of this newly discovered "right." George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 Maybe the NRA is just taking position as far away from the center as possible at the beginning of the compromising. Oh, if only. Armed guards at school? Yes, at Columbine. It did not stop the killing. Here is a Facebook entry by my son, Chad. There is a time when you need armed guards and there is a time when you don't. I am a gun owner and an NRA certified instructor. I am not, and never have been, an NRA member. They do not speak for me. And if the world they envision requires armed guards for safety, I want no part of it. I've been in several places where the presence of armed guards made me feel secure. I remember Christmas Eve services in Al Faw Palace, Baghdad, 2007, in particular, when I looked up and saw Tongan Soldiers on guard in the upper balcony, watching over us. It was as close as I'll ever come to seeing an Angel while I'm alive, and it definitely made me feel safe and secure. But that is not what I want at home. I don't want to feel like I need an armed guard at school, or church, or at the grocery store. I don't want to have to check my bags and show my ID when I walk into the chow hall/restaurant. I don't want to have to park my bicycle a few dozen yards from the building because you can fit a couple kilos of explosives in a bike frame. I refuse to believe that the future of humanity depends on us being ready to shoot each other. Dutch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephM Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 Paul, Although we have a long history of gun fascination, it is only recently been determined by our right-wing Supreme Court that we have an individual right to bear arms. Throughout previous history, it was understood that this "right" was related to a "militia" need. George George, Read ALL THESE QUOTES by our founding fathers which includes multiple ones from President Thomas Jefferson and tell me if you still believe your statement " it is only recently been determined by our right-wing Supreme Court that we have an individual right to bear arms." I believe you will find that the recent determination was just a clarification because of a challenge to it and that the right has always existed.since the forming of our Constitution. I believe you will find It did not according to the quotes and arguments in the Federalist papers, just have to do with a militia but extended to personal protection and included even from our own government and standing army if need be. Joseph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 Joseph, We could debate endlessly the founder's intent on any portion of the Constitution. I am sure I can find many citations of early writings to support my point. But, the fact remains that it was a very recent decision by a very right-wing Supreme Court that interpreted the 2nd Amendment as an individual right. George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulS Posted December 22, 2012 Share Posted December 22, 2012 For those wishing to hear another side here is a Canadian Link comparing Canada with the US and offering some reasons to consider for the difference in gun related death rates. And this Canadian link also I don't actually seeing this person making an argument for 'the other side'. In fact, I see these articles as affirming what the majority here are saying - gun culture in America is ridculous, too many people have guns, the wrong people seem to easily access them and commit mass murder. The author argues along the lines that "guns don't kill people, people kill people". Well of course. I have never seen a firearm lift itself off the bench and shoot somebody. However, when you have such ready access to weaponry one seems to in the US, it's no flippin' wonder that "people kill people"! We all know there are many facets to the gun control issue, but whilst you are all waiting for this massive mindset swing away from firearm ownership and better mental health, better support and identification of at-risk persons, it seems to me a very logical and easy to implement short-term solution that will have an immediate impact (see Australian statistics posted earlier) is to remove and ban from society military-type weapons, rapid-repeating weapons, and handguns. As for some specifics from the first article itself - the author doesn't seem to have approached the matter in a balanced frame of mind: He says that if guns were eliminated from the US, and no weapon substituted, then the murder rate would remain roughly the same. Hello? Of all US homicides, 60% are committed by firearm (source - http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list). How on earth would the statistcs remain the same! He incorrectly states that the number of firearms per person between Canada and the US is similiar. Wrong - The US has 88 guns per 100 people whilst Canada has only 30.8 per 100 (source - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country). He calls firearms a 'symptom' and not a cause. We all know there's merit to that but we're facing one pretty blinking lethal symptom here! He incorrctly asserts that if it rerally was firearms that caused murder then places like Switzerland, Israel & Norway would have murder rates similiar to the US. Yet these countries are well and truly less armed than US citizens, so what is he talking about? Switzerland - 45 guns per 100, Israel 7.3/100, Norway 31.3/100 (source - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country). It seems to me this guy is either deliberately playing loose with the truth to make his argument, or he is simply ignoring the data. An argument from 'the other side' - it certainly seems so! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts