Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20649
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 11 Nov 2017, 2:34 pm

rickyp wrote:Fate
And, there's the issue: who decides who is a "paragon of mental health?

Well, your the one who thinks institutionalizing every with a mental health condition is part of the answer to lowering gun violence.
I don't.


Not what I said.

So how is your previous comment
Institutionalize those with violent mental issues

going to be accomplished?


By doing it. Don’t be a jackass. I know it’s difficult.

The Aurora shooter, the Newtown shooter, the Texas shooter—they were all known seriously mental ill people with very violent tendencies. Why were they free?

Or was it just deflection?


No, you just want to pretend nothing can be done other than banning guns.

The truth is those three, and many more, should be in treatment until they are “well.”

Fate
More laws. More failure.

Ah. Your a nihilist now? So what other laws that are failing to provide 100% protection shall we undo?Drunk driving laws?


More idiocy from you.

First, that’s not “nihilism.”

Second, if I were king, there would be no drunk drivers. Trust me. To be clear, I would institute a “one and done” policy. There would be no second chance and there would be no leniency.

You want to pretend as if more restrictions on law-abiding citizens are going to impact the criminals and criminally insane. Your theory is “trickle-down” law enforcement: by punishing those who don’t break the law, eventually criminals would suffer via higher prices. What you decry in tax cuts, you laud in gun control.

fate
The same "restrictions" are basic to life: renting/owning a residence, buying allergy meds, driving a car, obtaining a credit card

And yet you have a problem applying them to gun ownership?


I have no problem with identifying those who are buying guns. I don’t even mind background checks. They just won’t have the impact you dream they might. We already do those things. In fact, in California, you have to take a written test, which is unconstitutional.

Fate
Stay in Canada. Your safe there

That's true. Our gun ownership laws and regulations are saner..
Plus if I do get injured my health coverage will ensure I get out of the hospital without huge medical bills... Wise of you to notice.


Great. Keep your Marxism and your “government knows best” ideas north of me.

really Fate... You have nothing to offer Dag at all do you? Just more of the same.
And you think that's okay?


Sure I do. Let’s actually enforce the laws we have. And, let’s re-examine our mental health system.

It’s a bit bizarre to demand those who obey the law sacrifice their rights when it’s the government not doing its job.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10771
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 12 Nov 2017, 10:18 am

Fate
I have no problem with identifying those who are buying guns. I don’t even mind background checks. They just won’t have the impact you dream they might.


The State of California has a gun death rate of only 7.89 per 100,000. The US nation had a rate of 10.64...
The States with the most relaxed gun ownership laws had the highest rate of gun death (Alaska and Louisiana)
So there's no reason to deduce what might happen with stricter gun laws in the US. You can actually see the results when you compare states...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_d ... s_by_state

Here's a up to date rank of States with highest per capita rate of gun deaths...
The top 20 all have the most relaxed gun ownership laws...
https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/death- ... est-rates/

Fate
By doing it

To how many?
The US already has the highest incarceration rate in the world for criminal offences, and yet the crime rate hasn't gone down.
https://qz.com/458675/in-america-mass-i ... prevented/
Now you want to take away the freedom of people who some doctor or bureaucrat thinks "might" be dangerous .... thinking it will prevent gun violence...
Exactly how many are now going to have their freedom taken away?
It's nice that you think its difficult... Shows you've thought about it a little bit.
But maybe you could deal with the complexities of your solution a little more intelligently?
How many will in affect? How will all of this be adjudicated? At what cost?
Fate
It’s a bit bizarre to demand those who obey the law sacrifice their rights when it’s the government not doing its job


I think its strange that you have no problem considering taking away the freedom of those who you loosely term mentally ill .... but restricting fire arms ownership isn't a liberty you want to restrict.
You have a problem with the "government" ..when it comes to enforcing gun laws... But don't seem concerned that mentally ill people (who are rarely dangerous) have their liberty curtailed by the same government...
I think you are a bit bizarre.

Fate
The Aurora shooter, the Newtown shooter, the Texas shooter—they were all known seriously mental ill people with very violent tendencies. Why were they free?

Why did they have access to fire arms?
Its complicated, but Jame Holmes, for instance,One of the psychiatrists he saw was Dr Lynne Fenton, the medical director of the school's Student Mental Health Services. At the trial, she testified that "Holmes told her he wanted to kill as many people as possible, but that she did not believe she had the legal authority to place him on a mental-health hold because he did not specify a target or plan.
Would it not have been easier to make a report to police who could investigate his current gun ownership and place him on a no buy list for guns and ammo?
With a system that demands responsibility, the police could have confiscated his firearms until he proved he was not a risk. If he had no guns he would have been stopped, and the attempt to buy should have alerted the authorities who could have interviewed him.... Perhaps then he would have been institutionalized...
The point is, that its the possession of the firearms and ammo that made him particularly dangerous. And its at that nexus of responsibility that both mental health and police authorities could and should have acted.
No system will ever be perfect. But if gun ownership had the kinds of restrictions that I've suggested, there would be more interdiction of people like Holms.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2810
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 12 Nov 2017, 12:20 pm

With regard to your suicide example that is tragic, DF. What I don't understand is why that person would be so selfish as to crash into another person's vehicle. But the data shows a high correlation between gun ownership and suicide rates. So when guns are more readily available, suicide rates go up (in general). Some people might be hell-bent on suicide and will do it no matter what; others might be in a dark period of their lives and if a gun is around they do it...and if it isn't around they don't (or they try another, less effective method.)

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magaz ... revalence/

But who cares about suicide rates? That's an individual decision, right? But homicide rates and other violent crime go up when gun ownership rates goes up.

http://www.csus.edu/faculty/m/fred.moli ... 0crime.pdf

More guns, more homicide. Across 26 developed nations.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/fire ... and-death/

But what about deterring crime? Well, one would reasonably expect that if high levels of gun ownership deterred crime...then low levels of gun ownership would increase stranger homicide levels. People without guns are easy pickings for criminals, right? Nope.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4167105/

For inclusiveness sake, I cite an article by Eugene Volokh supposed to be contra to linkage between guns and homicide. But he twisted the data like a corkscrew to get the result he wanted. He excluded suicides of course. That's ok. There is a rational reason to distinguish between suicides and murders And he looked at total intentional homicides plus accidental deaths rather than just intentional homicides plus accidental gun deaths.Ok, fine. Dead is dead. But where he really gamed his results was by comparing states' Brady scores with the data. In other words, he compared how a state's gun control were assessed and compared it with the data. Well, that's just ridiculous. What matters is at any point of time the level of gun ownership. Why wouldn't he look at gun ownership levels?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/vol ... ebed915fbd
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20649
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 12 Nov 2017, 1:28 pm

rickyp wrote:I think its strange that you have no problem considering taking away the freedom of those who you loosely term mentally ill .... but restricting fire arms ownership isn't a liberty you want to restrict.


Other than yourself, how many mentally-ill people have you dealt with?

I've dealt with thousands. Generally, it's not too difficult to discern which are violent and which are not. The problem with the state of the law is that it often is unhelpful when it comes to those with violent ideation (see Newtown and Aurora) or who are in fact violent (see Texas).

What you fail to acknowledge: the law failed. Government failed. These people were sending every sign they could, but the law prohibited/inhibited mental health workers from doing what they should do.

You have a problem with the "government" ..when it comes to enforcing gun laws... But don't seem concerned that mentally ill people (who are rarely dangerous) have their liberty curtailed by the same government...
I think you are a bit bizarre.


And, I think you are dishonest. I've consistently talked about "violent" mental health issues, not just randomly locking people up.

So, you're lying. It's what you do. It's who you are. Own it.

Fate
The Aurora shooter, the Newtown shooter, the Texas shooter—they were all known seriously mental ill people with very violent tendencies. Why were they free?

Why did they have access to fire arms?
Its complicated, but Jame Holmes, for instance,One of the psychiatrists he saw was Dr Lynne Fenton, the medical director of the school's Student Mental Health Services. At the trial, she testified that "Holmes told her he wanted to kill as many people as possible, but that she did not believe she had the legal authority to place him on a mental-health hold because he did not specify a target or plan.
Would it not have been easier to make a report to police who could investigate his current gun ownership and place him on a no buy list for guns and ammo?
With a system that demands responsibility, the police could have confiscated his firearms until he proved he was not a risk. If he had no guns he would have been stopped, and the attempt to buy should have alerted the authorities who could have interviewed him.... Perhaps then he would have been institutionalized...


Ah, yeah--this is exactly what I've been arguing for. So, what's your beef?

The point is, that its the possession of the firearms and ammo that made him particularly dangerous. And its at that nexus of responsibility that both mental health and police authorities could and should have acted.


Thank you for proving my point.

No system will ever be perfect. But if gun ownership had the kinds of restrictions that I've suggested, there would be more interdiction of people like Holms (sic).


If the mental health system worked as it should, "there would (have been an) interdiction (with) Holmes."
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20649
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 12 Nov 2017, 1:30 pm

Freeman3, respectfully, we are not going to agree on this.

To you: guns are evil.

To me: guns represent protection and freedom.

Your recourse: repeal the Second Amendment.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3127
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 12 Nov 2017, 2:19 pm

Just listened to this wonderful podcast on the legal history of the second amendment:

http://www.wnyc.org/story/gun-show

It's over an hour, but if you have an interest in the topic and how we got here, very worthwhile. Learned a lot.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1497
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 12 Nov 2017, 5:06 pm

Rickyp:

What was wrong with my plan Dag?


Nothing that I can remember off the top of my head but I will go back and reread what you wrote.

I plan to collect the ideas here and present them to my legislator. I also plan to present these ideas to a lobbyist I've known for years.

So far I've got content from Bbauska, Rickyp and myself. Freeman, I don't remember anything specific from you. Fate - more restrictions for those experiencing violent mental illness. And Geo, interesting perspectives but nothing put forward in the way of a potential solution. If I am misrepresenting one of you I apologize. I will go back and reread what everyone has written.

I'm doing this because I've had enough. The effort may not result in anything but I'm going to try. I'd like more minds here (i.e. Danivon, Tom, Sasasenach et al) to contribute. I don't want to type up the ideas and have it look lean. I hope to present the information in a menu format. Recommendation A, B or C for example.

So please help. I'm asking you in sincerity to contribute.

Thank you
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2810
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 12 Nov 2017, 6:12 pm

DF, my position is more nuanced than you are making it out to be. I have not forgotten that the Revolutionary War originated from the actions of citizen armed militias at Concord and Lexington. Without those citizens having personal access to guns our country might never have been founded. I'm quite sure Concord and Lexington were on the minds of those who wrote the Constitution (not self-defense as Scalia purported to find as one of the purposes of the Second Amendment).

But rights have to be reasonably interpreted. I think access to guns in the US is greater than the Second Amendment requires. I think the marketing of the gun industry is causing people to have more guns and more powerful guns than would happen with a more passive gun industry. The NRA is preventing reasonable gun regulation at the national level. And somehow guns have become part of the culture wars, part of red vs blue, part of right-wing talk radio, the South and heartland vs the coasts and Great Lakes region.

Looking at guns epidemiology is important because from a public health standpoint we should not let people have unfettered access to guns. We should try to keep gun access at a level that is required by the Second Amendment.

There are other Western Democracies that to seem to avoid totalitarianism with low rates of gun ownership. I suspect that mature democracies like ours can change to a low gun ownership level without too much fear of tyranny because the best opponents to totalitarianism are the hearts and minds of our citizens.

Be that as it may we do have a Second Amendment. And I do not want to get rid of it because there is a nagging discomfort with the government having total control of guns. But we need reasonable regulation. We're getting to absurd levels of guns, gun violence, and mass shootings. And the gun industry and NRA are preventing any regulation of the industry. I have no doubt that without the lobbying of the NRA and the marketing of gun makers they we would have far fewer guns and far fewer assault rifles in the US.

Dags, what's really important is keeping gun ownership levels down. My recommendations would be:

(1) 10 year ban on owing guns on those convicted of any crime of violence or who have had a restraining order (after hearing) issued against them;
(2) Ban on those whose that have been diagnosed by a psychologist or psychiatrist as having a mental disorder. The details would work like this. A mental health professional would notify the appropriate state agency of the diagnosis. The state agency would do an internal assessment of whether a ban is required. If they think it is they will notify the person that they will banned by date certain and their right to appeal. There would then be an administrative hearing with judicial review.
(3) Getting rid of any gun modification that allows mimicking of automatic fire
(4) Get rid of assault rifles
(5) Get rid of large gun magazines. No more than 10 round clips.
(6) Some kind of rational limits on how many guns you can purchase in a year. Three? Five? I don't know.
(7) Make it a crime to sell a gun to anyone without that person having to go through a background check
(8) Require everyone to pass a written test on basic gun safety and a 1 hour course at a gun range about shooting a gun and basic maintenance
Last edited by freeman3 on 14 Nov 2017, 12:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20649
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 12 Nov 2017, 8:11 pm

freeman3 wrote:DF, my position is more nuanced than you are making it out to be. I have not forgotten that the Revolutionary War originated from the actions of citizen armed militias at Concord and Lexington. Without those citizens having personal access to guns our country might never have been founded. I'm quite sure Concord and Lexington were on the minds of those who wrote the Constitution (not self-defense as Scalia purported to find as one of the purposes of the Second Amendment).


So, the “penumbra” of the Second Amendment doesn’t include self-defense, but the penumbra of the right to privacy includes the unfettered right to abortion?

Got it.

But rights have to be reasonably interpreted. I think access to guns in the US is greater than the Second Amendment requires.


That’s a position. It’s not a well-anchored position, but it is a position.

I think the marketing of the gun industry is causing people to have more guns and more powerful guns than would happen with a more passive gun industry. The NRA is preventing reasonable gun regulation at the national level. And somehow guns have become part of the culture wars, part of red vs blue, part of right-wing talk radio, the South and heartland vs the coasts and Great Lakes region.


I’ve yet to see “reasonable gun regulation.” In California, it’s daft. The efforts across the country have been uniformly pointless. Restrict magazine size? Really? So, a shooter has to carry more magazines? Or, so a person willing to shed innocent blood has to violate a magazine law?

Oh, I bet that will stop him!

Background checks? Fine.

That will stop like . . . Zero shootings.

Looking at guns epidemiology is important because from a public health standpoint we should not let people have unfettered access to guns. We should try to keep gun access at a level that is required by the Second Amendment.


As determined by people who hate guns. Sure.

Let’s have the Church Lady decide what kind of movies should be made.

There are other Western Democracies that to seem to avoid totalitarianism with low rates of gun ownership. I suspect that mature democracies like ours can change to a low gun ownership level without too much fear of tyranny because the best opponents to totalitarianism are the hearts and minds of our citizens.


Yeah, the “hearts and minds” who elected Trump? The same people who can’t tell you how laws get passed, how many Justices sit on the Supreme Court, or what the term of a Senator is? Those people?

Be that as it may we do have a Second Amendment. And I do not want to get rid of it because there is a nagging discomfort with the government having total control of guns. But we need reasonable regulation. We're getting to absurd levels of guns, gun violence, and mass shootings. And the gun industry and NRA are preventing any regulation of the industry. I have no doubt that without the lobbying of the NRA and the marketing of gun makers they we would have far fewer guns and far fewer assault rifles in the US.


Is that true? Is it really about guns? Is it about a change in our culture? What are the specific, “reasonable” restrictions that will have an impact?

Dags, what's really important is keeping gun ownership levels down. My recommendations would be:

(1) 10 year ban on owing guns on those convicted of any crime or violence or who have had a restraining order (after hearing) issued against them;
(2) Ban on those whose that have been diagnosed by a psychologist or psychiatrist as having a mental disorder. The details would work like this. A mental health professional would notify the appropriate state agency of the diagnosis. The state agency would do an internal assessment of whether a ban is required. If they think it is they will notify the person that they will banned by date certain and their right to appeal. There would then be an administrative hearing with judicial review.
(3) Getting rid of any gun modification that allows mimicking of automatic fire
(4) Get rid of assault rifles
(5) Get rid of large gun magazines. No more than 10 round clips.
(6) Some kind of rational limits on how many guns you can purchase in a year. Three? Five? I don't know.
(7) Make it a crime to sell a gun to anyone without that person having to go through a background check
(8) Require everyone to pass a written test on basic gun safety and a 1 hour course at a gun range about shooting a gun and basic maintenance


1. Agree.
2. Agree.
3. Impossible.
4. Vague. The last “ban” did nothing and was mostly about cosmetics.
5. Foolhardy.
6. Pointless. If the only goal is to make sure the Vegas shooting doesn’t happen again, why do we have to restrict rights for a once in a century event? Mass punishment of the innocent is not “reasonable.”
7. I’d be okay with this with some limits—like between family members.
8. Nope. Not gonna happen.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1497
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 13 Nov 2017, 9:40 pm

Fate:

1. Agree.
2. Agree.
3. Impossible.
4. Vague. The last “ban” did nothing and was mostly about cosmetics.
5. Foolhardy.
6. Pointless. If the only goal is to make sure the Vegas shooting doesn’t happen again, why do we have to restrict rights for a once in a century event? Mass punishment of the innocent is not “reasonable.”
7. I’d be okay with this with some limits—like between family members.
8. Nope. Not gonna happen.


Too cavalier. My wife of 20 years already requires that I read her mind. I shan't do it with you. Please explain.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20649
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 14 Nov 2017, 6:39 am

dag hammarsjkold wrote:Fate:

1. Agree.
2. Agree.
3. Impossible.
4. Vague. The last “ban” did nothing and was mostly about cosmetics.
5. Foolhardy.
6. Pointless. If the only goal is to make sure the Vegas shooting doesn’t happen again, why do we have to restrict rights for a once in a century event? Mass punishment of the innocent is not “reasonable.”
7. I’d be okay with this with some limits—like between family members.
8. Nope. Not gonna happen.


Too cavalier. My wife of 20 years already requires that I read her mind. I shan't do it with you. Please explain.


I'm not sure what you're referring to, so I'll read your mind. :laugh:

#3 is impossible because, for example, there is no way to stop someone who knows what they're doing from modifying an AR-15 to fully automatic. Furthermore, technology (like the bump stock) changes, which will probably make modifying weapons, or printing automatic weapons, easier.

#4 is meaningless without a definition. Previous definitions had more to do with appearances than function.

#5 is just dumb. Anyone who knows about magazines can bypass this. Magazines are easier to make than weapons. Furthermore, restrictions on magazine size mean what to potential murderers?

#6 Do we restrict how much beer you can buy in a year? Whiskey? Isn't there already a ban on buying heroin? Should the FBI be monitoring who buys how many weapons? Is the number of weapons purchased an issue, other than the Vegas shooter? And, if he had purchased a few less would anyone have survived who otherwise didn't?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20649
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 14 Nov 2017, 2:36 pm

The impossible is happening in the UK!!!!

Air guns, rifles, BB guns, shotguns and pistols, including antiques and ex-military, are among the weapons police said should be handed in.

The amnesty comes less than a month after national figures revealed the number of crimes involving firearms in England and Wales increased by 27% to 6,696 in the year ending June 2017.


This is Nirvana, the place with no gun crime.

And, the place with more acid attacks than we get. But, they're going to solve that by restricting acid.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1497
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 15 Nov 2017, 8:35 am

Fate:

I'm not sure what you're referring to, so I'll read your mind. :laugh:

#3 is impossible because, for example, there is no way to stop someone who knows what they're doing from modifying an AR-15 to fully automatic. Furthermore, technology (like the bump stock) changes, which will probably make modifying weapons, or printing automatic weapons, easier.

#4 is meaningless without a definition. Previous definitions had more to do with appearances than function.

#5 is just dumb. Anyone who knows about magazines can bypass this. Magazines are easier to make than weapons. Furthermore, restrictions on magazine size mean what to potential murderers?

#6 Do we restrict how much beer you can buy in a year? Whiskey? Isn't there already a ban on buying heroin? Should the FBI be monitoring who buys how many weapons? Is the number of weapons purchased an issue, other than the Vegas shooter? And, if he had purchased a few less would anyone have survived who otherwise didn't?


Thank you for the clarification.