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

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21060
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 09 Nov 2017, 1:47 pm

rickyp wrote:fate
Fate
Sorry, but this is not a serious approach. No gun has ever killed a person without a person first loading the gun, then pulling the trigger. People are the problem


And this is not a serious answer.
Its not people who are the problem.
Its people with guns..


37% of Americans own guns. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... s-unclear/ An infinitesimal percentage of them are "the problem." In fact, some mass shootings have been done by people who don't own guns (like at Newtown).
.
If you are serious about keeping people with mental problems away from guns, how do you do that?


Institutionalize those with violent mental issues.

And how do you ensure that all the gun owners retain their sanity after they originally qualify for ownership?


Primarily, by keeping them away from you.

Secondarily, by noting people rarely go violently insane.

The only way is a comprehensive system like the one that exists for cars, drivers and automobile ownership.
Anything less than that is lip service. I'm sure your thoughts and prayers go out to all the victims too.


Rubbish.

I know a woman right now who should not be driving. She is blind as a bat. Her doctor finally pulled her permit, but it took about 6 or 7 accidents. Please don't tell me how well-regulated car driving is.

And, your "thoughts and prayers" jab is beneath decency. Then again, it's you.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1512
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 09 Nov 2017, 1:58 pm

Fate:

And, fewer mental health centers because funding has dried up.


Not exactly. In the early 1980s Reagan diverted funding set aside for mental health facilities to go elsewhere. This is what led to the rise in homelessness incidentally.

But that's neither here nor there.

Look, there are very intelligent people that visit redscape and contribute to the various issues discussed here inspite of their complexity.

Can we please come up with some solutions? I'd like to collect them and present them to a few legislators.

Fate, I have to say you aggravate me. Can't you bother to offer some ideas? Anything? You could help to improve the situation you know.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21060
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 09 Nov 2017, 2:13 pm

dag hammarsjkold wrote:Fate, I have to say you aggravate me. Can't you bother to offer some ideas? Anything? You could help to improve the situation you know.


Sorry.

I keep asking for "experimental ideas." Wasn't that what you wanted?

My take: enforce the laws on the books. In almost every case, this is not done. The Vegas shooting is certainly an exception.

I don't think there is a neat and tidy solution. I favor more instruction for, wait for it, children. They should know the real-world consequences of guns, starting at about age 10. That said, they should be taught by someone NRA-certified. Guns are not evil. Evil people using guns, trucks, or fertilizer, are the problem.

If I had a solution, I'd present it.

The Left has a solution: ban guns. Drive up the cost on crooks. That way, only the State has weapons.

I don't think that will ever fly in the US.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3194
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 09 Nov 2017, 4:17 pm

Doctor Fate wrote:My take: enforce the laws on the books.


What about taking laws on the books that have reduced gun violence in one jurisdiction and spreading them over a larger area? That would be enforcing the laws on the books like you want. Unless you're law enforcement, or otherwise have a demonstrated need for a gun, you can't buy one in NYC. If you got one, and don't have one of those licenses, that's a weapons charge and off to Rikers with you. Laws on the books that reduce, but not eliminate, gun violence.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1512
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 09 Nov 2017, 4:33 pm

Fate, I remember one night about 15 years ago when I was visiting a friend's house in southern Missouri.

Her 9 year old son came into the living room with his shotgun and announced that, "Jimmy is here and we're going out to hunt for a minute."

And with that her son and his friend, also about 9 years old, took off down the driveway toward the woods.

I about fell over. My friend asked what's the matter? I replied, "your son is walking down the driveway with a shotgun slung over his shoulder. That's a bit much for me to digest."

She laughed and laughed. "Trevor has been hunting squirrels since he was about 6 with his dad and brothers."

It was culture shock for me certainly but to your point, for those who have been trained, it's just a non issue.

However, we live in a world where that kind of training is non existent. So there must be a via media. I don't know what it is. I've offered a couple of ideas here but as I've said, I'm not steeped in the debate to know all the ins and outs. We need someone who is knowledgeable of the topic to present some ideas.

To say you don't think there are any solutions is to dodge responsibility for your community on some levels.

I'm surprised by the lack of creativity here. I expect more from this group.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21060
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 09 Nov 2017, 5:14 pm

geojanes wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:My take: enforce the laws on the books.


What about taking laws on the books that have reduced gun violence in one jurisdiction and spreading them over a larger area? That would be enforcing the laws on the books like you want. Unless you're law enforcement, or otherwise have a demonstrated need for a gun, you can't buy one in NYC. If you got one, and don't have one of those licenses, that's a weapons charge and off to Rikers with you. Laws on the books that reduce, but not eliminate, gun violence.


Wait. Doesn't that disproportionately affect minorities? It must be racism!

Your solution is brilliant. Put the government in charge. I mean why should the individual determine his/her own fate or security needs? The government knows best! That's really the essence of the Bill of Rights,, isn't it? A deep trust of government.

:uhoh:
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3025
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 09 Nov 2017, 6:30 pm

Your story of that 9 year with the shotgun reminds of when I was growing up. I have a brother only about 13 months younger than I. We fought a lot. But we survived.

I saw this story on TV about a gun owner. Looked like a very responsible guy. Had two sons close in age. Instructed his sons on the use of guns from an early age. Taught them about gun safety.

One day the two sons got into an argument. One of them pulled out a Remington shotgun just to scare his brother. The trigger went off--blew his brother's head off. He claimed he did not pull the trigger. The DA did not agree. He went to jail. So this good guy from what I can tell lost the one son that was killed and the other went to prison.

Turns out this particular shotgun model had a problem with it going off without the trigger being pulled. Eventually, the son was freed after several years in prison. Smith & Wesson settled a class action but still denied that that their firearm was defective.

You can instruct all you want about gun safety. Guns are dangerous. Human emotions override any instruction about gun safety. The one son said he was told never to do what he did.

The gun lobby has put this black and white conception of guns--in some respects literally so--that bad guys will get guns no matter what and if we restrict guns then we are taking guns out of good guys'hands. But that is a false conception. The reality is that there many types of situation where there is conflict, not just criminal encounters. Domestic situations, a fight, all the innumerable situations in which human beings grate on each other. And of course depressed people thinking of suicide. When guns are added...the situation just becomes more lethal. And even criminal situations become much more lethal. You get robbed in New York...you have a 54 times greater chance of getting killed than if you're robbed in London.

That's why this comparison to other countries with their rates of violence is so important. Otherwise one can maintain the illusion that somehow we're a sui generis country, that somehow we're more violent than other countries. Maybe a bit more violent, but mostly violent acts here are just more lethal. And that is due to guns.

You want to reduce gun violence? Reduce the number of guns. Yeah, maybe individuals pull the trigger and they are responsible. But we are dealing with human beings and they are fallible. And prone to anger. And fear. People in other countries have people who are just as fallible as people here...it's just that their violent acts are not as lethal as here.

If people think the Second Amendment is worth the carnage that's one thing. But of course gun proponents don't agree that easy access to guns causes additional deaths. Let's at least get that straight.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21060
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 09 Nov 2017, 6:57 pm

freeman3 wrote:Your story of that 9 year with the shotgun reminds of when I was growing up. I have a brother only about 13 months younger than I. We fought a lot. But we survived.

I saw this story on TV about a gun owner. Looked like a very responsible guy. Had two sons close in age. Instructed his sons on the use of guns from an early age. Taught them about gun safety.

One day the two sons got into an argument. One of them pulled out a Remington shotgun just to scare his brother. The trigger went off--blew his brother's head off. He claimed he did not pull the trigger. The DA did not agree. He went to jail. So this good guy from what I can tell lost the one son that was killed and the other went to prison.

Turns out this particular shotgun model had a problem with it going off without the trigger being pulled. Eventually, the son was freed after several years in prison. Smith & Wesson settled a class action but still denied that that their firearm was defective.

You can instruct all you want about gun safety. Guns are dangerous. Human emotions override any instruction about gun safety. The one son said he was told never to do what he did.

The gun lobby has put this black and white conception of guns--in some respects literally so--that bad guys will get guns no matter what and if we restrict guns then we are taking guns out of good guys'hands. But that is a false conception. The reality is that there many types of situation where there is conflict, not just criminal encounters. Domestic situations, a fight, all the innumerable situations in which human beings grate on each other. And of course depressed people thinking of suicide. When guns are added...the situation just becomes more lethal. And even criminal situations become much more lethal. You get robbed in New York...you have a 54 times greater chance of getting killed than if you're robbed in London.

That's why this comparison to other countries with their rates of violence is so important. Otherwise one can maintain the illusion that somehow we're a sui generis country, that somehow we're more violent than other countries. Maybe a bit more violent, but mostly violent acts here are just more lethal. And that is due to guns.

You want to reduce gun violence? Reduce the number of guns. Yeah, maybe individuals pull the trigger and they are responsible. But we are dealing with human beings and they are fallible. And prone to anger. And fear. People in other countries have people who are just as fallible as people here...it's just that their violent acts are not as lethal as here.

If people think the Second Amendment is worth the carnage that's one thing. But of course gun proponents don't agree that easy access to guns causes additional deaths. Let's at least get that straight.

You know the Constitution. Get busy.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3025
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 09 Nov 2017, 8:03 pm

Nah...let's wait until after the 2018 elections and there is a crater where the Republican Party used to be. The Republican Party needs to get back to fiscal responsibility, low taxes, social conservatism and a robust foreign policy. This White Nationalist divisive stuff has got to go. Otherwise the dodo will be the Party symbol and not the elephant. The Asian community you would think would be Republican-oriented, maybe Hispanics with their conservative social values...but White Nationalism tends to scare away the non-whites.

I say this as a friend of course...
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21060
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 09 Nov 2017, 8:15 pm

freeman3 wrote:Nah...let's wait until after the 2018 elections and there is a crater where the Republican Party used to be. The Republican Party needs to get back to fiscal responsibility, low taxes, social conservatism and a robust foreign policy. This White Nationalist divisive stuff has got to go. The dodo will be the Party symbol and not the elephant. The Asian community you would think would be Republican-oriented, maybe Hispanics with their conservative social values...but White Nationalism tends to scare away the non-whites.

I say this as a friend of course...


Keep playing identity politics . . . That will surely unite the country.

I say that as a friend, of course . . .
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10946
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 10 Nov 2017, 1:57 pm

Rickyp
And how do you ensure that all the gun owners retain their sanity after they originally qualify for ownership?


Fate
Secondarily, by noting people rarely go violently insane.


And yet, when they do, and they have access to firearms... they can kill dozens...
So again ...
How do you actually keep people who develop mental issues away from firearms?

If its your answer to institutionalize all people who develop mental health issues ... please describe how that would work. Use a few examples from recent shootings in Vegas, Texas or the Charlston Church.
And please describe how your system adheres to the constitutional rights of the people you want to jail....

Dag
Can we please come up with some solutions? I'd like to collect them and present them to a few legislators

What was wrong with my plan Dag?
Other than the fact that Americans are willing to accept the slaughter of thousands from guns rather than accept the same kinds of restrictions and responsibilities that come with driving a and owning a car?
Strikes me that if you believe in "personal responsibility", and "personal accountability" that accepting a parallel system for guns versus cars would be perfectly acceptable. It would only be the criminal element that wouldn't follow the law. And over time, those guns would disappear as they were confiscated.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21060
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 10 Nov 2017, 3:34 pm

rickyp wrote:Rickyp
And how do you ensure that all the gun owners retain their sanity after they originally qualify for ownership?


Fate
Secondarily, by noting people rarely go violently insane.


And yet, when they do, and they have access to firearms... they can kill dozens...
So again ...
How do you actually keep people who develop mental issues away from firearms?


By putting everyone in a hermetically-sealed bullet-proof bubble.

You're being asinine. Then again, that's repetitive.

Look, how do you keep people who develop mental issues away from vehicles? How do you stop them from hurting/killing people?

A couple of years ago, someone I knew tangentially decided to kill himself. I don't take that lightly. However, as I could not stop him (and did not know ahead of time), I would have preferred he use a gun. Why?

Attempt #1: He took his car out and crashed it into a telephone pole. He survived and the car was totaled.

Attempt #2 (a few days later): He took the second car our and crashed it into another car--head on. The other driver suffered massive injuries. My acquaintance died.

His suicide left his wife destitute. His death benefit went to his victim.

If its your answer to institutionalize all people who develop mental health issues ... please describe how that would work. Use a few examples from recent shootings in Vegas, Texas or the Charlston Church.


Texas: he clearly should not have been able to buy a weapon. The Air Force dropped the ball.

Charleston: I don't know.

How about Antioch? https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2017/11/0 ... -outcomes/

The church was in Antioch, Tennessee. That’s where an armed man decided to kill everyone he could at the church.

How did it get lost amid two mass shootings and a terrorist attack in the six weeks since then?

There are two simple reasons, the first was a good guy with a gun in a position to stop the attack far sooner.

A man by the name of Caleb Engle was able to get to his gun and put a stop to the attack. As a result, he wasn’t able to kill as many people as the Sutherland Springs killer, not by any stretch of the imagination.

The other reason you’ve heard so little about it is because of the killer’s motivation. You see, what we had in Antioch was a racially motivated crime. The epitome of a hate crime. You see, the black shooter wanted to kill white people in retaliation for the racially motivated murder of people in a South Carolina church by an avowed white supremacist. The epitome of a hate crime.

As a result of that, lawmakers had little they could do. All the anti-gun narratives were useless. Anti-gun politicians couldn’t demonize the shooter for fear of being called racist–the chickens of identity politics coming home to roost–nor could they claim guns were horrible when the body count was so low precisely because of how an armed citizen ended the fight.


Vegas: how do you know he had mental issues? What was his motive?

And please describe how your system adheres to the constitutional rights of the people you want to jail....


I'm not jailing them. So, put that in your crack pipe and smoke it.

Mental health evaluations/confinements are not "jail."

Strikes me that if you believe in "personal responsibility", and "personal accountability" that accepting a parallel system for guns versus cars would be perfectly acceptable. It would only be the criminal element that wouldn't follow the law. And over time, those guns would disappear as they were confiscated.


Strikes me that you, being a socialist, don't really understand "personal responsibility."

You also don't understand the United States, guns, or life in general. Your opinion is like being Vice President.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10946
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 11 Nov 2017, 9:50 am

Fate
Look, how do you keep people who develop mental issues away from vehicles? How do you stop them from hurting/killing people?


At the moment its not possible to keep people completely safe from motor vehicle mishaps nor from those who wish to use their vehicles as weapons.
However, regulation, restrictions and enforcement have dramatically decreased deaths and accidents from motor vehicle incidents over the last 6 decades. As we move to autonomous vehicles over the next decades, the rate of accidents will decrease exponentially. (Already accident prevention features, that are the precursors to complete automation are having this affect) And the opportunity to turn a vehicle into a weapon or suicide vehicle will diminish to near zero.
Can you anticipate the same kinds of changes with fire arms?
We can point to examples where increased regulation and restrictions have had the same affect on firearms deaths and injuries... Most dramatically in other countries, like Australia. But even within the US there are examples where improvement in the deaths and injuries per capita have been achieved ... New York has demonstrated such efficacy as Freeman noted..
Perfection cannot be achieved. But that should not be an excuse to attempt to make improvements.


Fate
Vegas: how do you know he had mental issues? What was his motive?


Does a paragon of mental health do what he did?
Is his motive really as relevant as his ability to act on his motivations? Whatever they were?
If he were a muslim versus a white nationalist versus just a nutter .... is the impact any different? He was just an old white guy, with lots of guns and ammo. Sure he could have been a disaffected Muslim, or an aggrieved nazi... But what mass shooters all have in common are lots of guns and ammo. No matter what their motivations, restricting their access would at least mitigate the end result.
Is there really a defense that says we shouldn't make ownership of guns and ammo more restrictive in order to reduce potential harm? That is a defense that is more than, "It would inconvenience gun owners to have to be held to the same kind of responsibilities that they have when owning and operating a motor vehicle?

Fate
I'm not jailing them. So, put that in your crack pipe and smoke it

You said ...
Fate
Institutionalize those with violent mental issues
.
So describe the difference between the two. Are those you institutionalize" free to go about their daily activities? Work, recreation etc?
This is a large part of what you suggested was a remedy so you should have thought this through.
BTW, a comprehensive mental health program would require a tremendous investment in socialized delivery of this medical service. Its probably a great idea, as long as it isn't just warehousing or jailing.

Fate
Strikes me that you, being a socialist, don't really understand "personal responsibility."
You also don't understand the United States, guns, or life in general.

I know that you haven't got any answers to reducing the carnage from gun violence. Nor has anyone else who uses the 2nd amendment and the US way of life as an excuse for acceptance of the continued carnage. And you do accept the level of violence don't you?

I know that the right to vote is enshrined in the Constitution but you, and many conservatives, have no problem placing restrictions and regulations on how people may register and vote.
But gun ownership? Any attempt to regulate, restrict and drive personal responsibility in order to reduce the damage from guns is met with stubborn unthinking resistance.
Meanwhile, the mass shootings continue and the daily domestic violence continues and more ...
At some point this will change, as society changes and tires of accepting the continued toll. Its a shame that there will be many more events like Vegas and
Charleston before the majority come to realize that the notion that continuing the current policies dooms thousands more to die..
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21060
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 11 Nov 2017, 11:27 am

rickyp wrote:Does a paragon of mental health do what he did?


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

Did you know MA is the ONLY state that requires an attorney to be involved in the sale of real estate? Lawyers here call it "The Attorney Full Employment Act."

To ensure every gun owner or vehicle driver, or everyone who does anything that could endanger others, is "a paragon of mental health" would be "The Psychologist Full Employment Act" and it might not work (see Aurora, Colorado shooting).

Is there really a defense that says we shouldn't make ownership of guns and ammo more restrictive in order to reduce potential harm? That is a defense that is more than, "It would inconvenience gun owners to have to be held to the same kind of responsibilities that they have when owning and operating a motor vehicle?


Show me another Constitutional right that is more restricted than gun ownership already is.

Fate
I'm not jailing them. So, put that in your crack pipe and smoke it

You said ...
Fate
Institutionalize those with violent mental issues
.
So describe the difference between the two. Are those you institutionalize" free to go about their daily activities? Work, recreation etc?


A mental health facility is not a warehouse--or it shouldn't be. If you can't understand that, do some research.

Fate
Strikes me that you, being a socialist, don't really understand "personal responsibility."
You also don't understand the United States, guns, or life in general.

I know that you haven't got any answers to reducing the carnage from gun violence. Nor has anyone else who uses the 2nd amendment and the US way of life as an excuse for acceptance of the continued carnage. And you do accept the level of violence don't you?


In most cases, laws failed. Your "solution?"

More laws. More failure.

No thanks.

Stay in Canada.

I know that the right to vote is enshrined in the Constitution but you, and many conservatives, have no problem placing restrictions and regulations on how people may register and vote.


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

Stay in Canada. Your safe there.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10946
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 11 Nov 2017, 1:07 pm

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

going to be accomplished?

Or was it just deflection?

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?

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?

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.

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