Stephen, every time a crazy person shoots up a movie theater (Aurora), a school (Sandy Hook), an office (FedEx in Kennesaw or the Navy Yard in D.C.) or their neighborhood (Elliott Rodger in Santa Barbara), you want to ignore certain facts and manipulate the tragedy to fit your liberal agenda of tighter gun control laws.
You don't want to talk about or acknowledge things such as the shooter's history of mental illness (Holmes, Lanza, Kramer, Alexis and Rodger all had well documented, long histories of mental illness).
You don't want to talk about how the city already had strict gun laws (Aurora).
You don't want to talk about how the location of the shooting was a gun-free zone (FedEx, Navy Yard).
You don't want to talk about or use an example of a city that already has the toughest gun laws in the nation (Chicago) but had 421 murders last year, 108 this year and has on average about 30-35 people get shot each weekend.
You don't want to talk about how there were 30 people shot in that same city this past weekend and 4 of them died.
You don't want to talk about how when the CEO of a company like Jack In The Box bans guns from his restaurants, his restaurants then get robbed 3 times in 10 days.
Nope. None of that.
Instead, you deflect away from all of that. You want to make assumptions that those people and politicians who are not for stricter gun laws and/or pro-concealed carry do not care about the victims of these shootings. The way you see it, the Republican party (and the NRA) is at fault because they refuse to act on more gun control. And you post propaganda that echoes these sentiments and use snide remarks to try and label those that disagree with you as "not caring", which couldn't be further than the truth.
Just because someone doesn't agree with your views on gun laws does not mean that they do not care about the innocent victims of shootings, mass shootings, etc.
In a way, this Las Vegas shooting is perfect for your agenda. The far-right extremism (the opposite of your views) and the Gadsden flag (associated with the Tea Party, which you despise) helps your spin of trying to blame these mass shootings on the right's gun control policy instead of things like mental illness.
As for me, I am for concealed carry, I am for background checks and I am for psychological evaluations for those who wish to purchase assault rifles.
Quote from: stephendare on June 11, 2014, 09:29:28 AM
Quote from: Jameson on June 10, 2014, 05:34:41 PM
As for me, I am for concealed carry, I am for background checks and I am for psychological evaluations for those who wish to purchase assault rifles.
Then we are for the same thing. You are just too indoctrinated to ever listen to what anyone else is saying, jameson.
Sez the kettle... or is it pot?
Quote from: BridgeTroll on June 11, 2014, 09:40:00 AM
Quote from: stephendare on June 11, 2014, 09:29:28 AM
Quote from: Jameson on June 10, 2014, 05:34:41 PM
As for me, I am for concealed carry, I am for background checks and I am for psychological evaluations for those who wish to purchase assault rifles.
Then we are for the same thing. You are just too indoctrinated to ever listen to what anyone else is saying, jameson.
Sez the kettle... or is it pot?
^ Exactly.
Quote from: stephendare on June 11, 2014, 09:52:01 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on June 11, 2014, 09:40:00 AM
Quote from: stephendare on June 11, 2014, 09:29:28 AM
Quote from: Jameson on June 10, 2014, 05:34:41 PM
As for me, I am for concealed carry, I am for background checks and I am for psychological evaluations for those who wish to purchase assault rifles.
Then we are for the same thing. You are just too indoctrinated to ever listen to what anyone else is saying, jameson.
Sez the kettle... or is it pot?
Neither, Bridge Troll. I try and listen through some of the silliest and most poorly constructed arguments every concocted in genuine hopes of getting the logical gist of people's POV. I don't extend that courtesy to discourteous trolls or racist posters (apvbeachguy, bill, north miami, sometime I-10) but generally I listen and debate. I will never back your Bracero's idea, obviously, and I do not like extremism that is either violence or hatefully based, but other than that, I am a pretty open minded person. I often do not have very interesting or well constructed opposition, but I enjoy being able to see and agree with an opposing point of view.
When someone starts screaming 'liberal' 'disgusting' and the other unsophisticated vomit, Its generally a good indicator that they are going to just regurgitate talking points until they turn blue.
In this matter, you can't even get to something sensible---like screening for mental illness or background checks, without some asinine bloviator blocking all conversation with foamy mouthed claims about gun snatching or the like.
Its irritating. My personal position on the matter hasn't changed in years (pro gun, pro restrictions, belief in technology and implementation) but no one can talk about those things really, without some jackass calling people names (usually during a conversation about dead children or massacred bystanders) yowling about gun snatching, cold making up shit about Hitler having seized the guns too, and accusing people of not clearly reading the word 'gun' in the constitution (in which it doesn't actually appear).
Like this thread for example. Which isn't even about guns.
And yet here we are again, with the same attacks and name calling from the same three people.
Against my better judgement... I will take the bait. Lets start with...
Quoteget to something sensible---like screening for mental illness or background checks
This already happens... at least with legal over the counter gun sales. Criminal records are already screened. Are you suggesting a national mental illness database available to search? How would you feel about your psychologist submitting your diagnosis and treatments to the government for such a database?
How do we make the background check piece of puzzle more effective yet preserve freedoms and privacy?
Here is the Background check form.
http://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf
What is missing? Why do you think this does not work? How can it be improved?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Instant_Criminal_Background_Check_System
QuoteNational Instant Criminal Background Check System
The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) is a point-of-sale system for determining eligibility to purchase a firearm in the United States of America. Federal Firearms License (FFL) holders are generally required by law to use the NICS to determine if it is legal to sell a firearm to a prospective purchaser. Mandated by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 and launched by the FBI on November 30, 1998, NICS determines if the buyer is prohibited from buying a firearm under the Gun Control Act of 1968. It is linked to the National Crime Information Center and the Interstate Identification Index among other databases maintained by the FBI.[1]
The National Instant Criminal Background Check System is applicable to sales from federally licensed dealers. Sales of firearms by private sellers are allowed to proceed without a background check unless required by state law. These regulations remain in place at gun shows, where no special leniency is granted to licensed sellers, and no additional requirements are placed upon private sellers.
NICS is accessed by an FFL, on the firearm buyer's behalf, by phone or computer. When contacted by phone, the communication is either with an FBI/NICS Examiner, who directly receives the information submitted by the FFL, or by proxy through a Call Center representative, who forwards the information electronically to the NICS. Whether an Examiner or a Call Center representative is contacted depends on the state in which the sale is conducted. When using a computer, an FFL representative can submit the buyer's information using the E-Check system which is a web interface to the NICS. An FFL can be an individual or an organization such as a retail store. An organization registered as an FFL minimizes the overhead involved in managing identification for multiple individuals who are employed by the organization.
By law, an FFL must receive a response from the NICS within 3 days or the firearm sale can proceed, although the FFL seller is not required to do so. If, after 3 days, the sale is completed and later it is determined the buyer should not have received the firearm, then the firearm must be retrieved.
Firearm Denial Appeals[edit]
If a buyer believes that the denial is erroneous based on a match to a record returned by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), the buyer may appeal the decision, by either challenging the accuracy of the record used in the evaluation of the denial or claiming that the record used as basis for the denial is invalid or does not pertain to the buyer.[2] The provisions for appeals are outlined in the NICS Regulations at Title 28, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 25.10, and Subsection 103 (f) and (g) and Section 104 of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993.
Persons subject to prohibition[edit]
Sections 922(g) and (n) of the Gun Control Act[3] prohibits certain persons from shipping or transporting any firearm in interstate or foreign commerce, or receiving any firearm which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, or possessing any firearm in or affecting commerce. These prohibitions apply to any person who:[1]
Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
Is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
Is a fugitive from justice
Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance
Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution
Is illegally or unlawfully in the United States
Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions
Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship
Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner
Has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence
In addition to local, state, tribal, and federal agencies voluntarily contributing information to the NICS Index, the NICS Section receives telephone calls from mental health institutions, psychiatrists, police departments, and family members requesting placement of individuals into the NICS Index. Frequently, these are emergency situations and require immediate attention. Any documentation justifying a valid entry into the NICS Index must be available to the originating agencies.[1]
Quote from: BridgeTroll on June 11, 2014, 10:26:15 AM
Here is the Background check form.
U.S. law requires background checks for all people who try to buy firearms from federally licensed dealers. But federal law does not require background checks for "private transactions," like sales at gun shows.
QuoteBut Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has said that he will join a filibuster of any gun control measure. And pro-gun-rights organizations remain staunchly opposed to universal background checks. They argue that such checks could lead to a de facto national gun registry and that criminals don't purchase guns through normal channels anyway, rendering the checks moot.
http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-congress-support-universal-background-checks-for-gun-purchases
Quote from: finehoe on June 11, 2014, 10:34:07 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on June 11, 2014, 10:26:15 AM
Here is the Background check form.
U.S. law requires background checks for all people who try to buy firearms from federally licensed dealers. But federal law does not require background checks for "private transactions," like sales at gun shows.
QuoteBut Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has said that he will join a filibuster of any gun control measure. And pro-gun-rights organizations remain staunchly opposed to universal background checks. They argue that such checks could lead to a de facto national gun registry and that criminals don't purchase guns through normal channels anyway, rendering the checks moot.
http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-congress-support-universal-background-checks-for-gun-purchases
To be clear... sales at gun shows from a dealer to a citizen must have a background check performed. The ONLY exception to the background check rule is sales between private citizens. If I sell or give my gun to you a background check is not required. I will agree that this is an area that may need to be strengthened.
To further clarify... the VAST majority of gun "transactions" are over the counter gun sales with the proper checks performed.
Stephen are you really complaining about people calling YOU names?
Quote from: BridgeTroll on June 11, 2014, 10:41:59 AM
Quote from: finehoe on June 11, 2014, 10:34:07 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on June 11, 2014, 10:26:15 AM
Here is the Background check form.
U.S. law requires background checks for all people who try to buy firearms from federally licensed dealers. But federal law does not require background checks for "private transactions," like sales at gun shows.
QuoteBut Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has said that he will join a filibuster of any gun control measure. And pro-gun-rights organizations remain staunchly opposed to universal background checks. They argue that such checks could lead to a de facto national gun registry and that criminals don't purchase guns through normal channels anyway, rendering the checks moot.
http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-congress-support-universal-background-checks-for-gun-purchases
To be clear... sales at gun shows from a dealer to a citizen must have a background check performed. The ONLY exception to the background check rule is sales between private citizens. If I sell or give my gun to you a background check is not required. I will agree that this is an area that may need to be strengthened.
To further clarify... the VAST majority of gun "transactions" are over the counter gun sales with the proper checks performed.
So... it appears that their is really NOTHING wrong with the current background check system except that the private sale of weapons is not monitored. That is certainly surprising given the previous rhetoric... but OK. We can scratch that one off the list.
Now that we have removed background checks from the equation... please pick another narrow and focused piece of the gun violence issue that we can discuss and propose solutions to...
Quote from: BridgeTroll on June 11, 2014, 12:26:07 PM
So... it appears that their is really NOTHING wrong with the current background check system except that the private sale of weapons is not monitored. That is certainly surprising given the previous rhetoric... but OK. We can scratch that one off the list.
Nothing wrong except for the large number of transactions it misses.
Study finds vast online marketplace for guns without background checkshttp://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/new-study-finds-vast-online-marketplace-for-guns-without-background-checks/2013/08/05/19809198-fd73-11e2-9711-3708310f6f4d_story.html
(http://i.imgur.com/vFATHkr.jpg)
I think I already acknowledged that private sales were exempt and was something I would be willing to consider tightening. Your article understood this also...
QuoteBackground checks — designed to keep guns out of the hands of convicted felons, domestic violence perpetrators or the severely mentally ill — are mandatory for gun sales at retail stores, but not at gun shows or for private sales, such as between neighbors and family members or between individuals online.
It also acknowledges that the online sales between private citizens is a relatively new phenomenon. I believe a reasonable concession could be made in this area.
Again... you ONLY objection to the current system is the private sales issue?
The FDLE website provides a way for private citizens to check for criminal history as well as stolen weapons. It has been my experience that in most private firearms transactions, responsible private sellers require a state issued CCW license when dealing with an unknown buyer.
Quote from: stephendare on June 11, 2014, 02:14:29 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on June 11, 2014, 01:58:31 PM
Quote from: stephendare on June 11, 2014, 01:43:57 PM
Quote from: coredumped on June 11, 2014, 12:51:57 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/vFATHkr.jpg)
how did these people get guns again?
Purchased legally?
Its a good thing that legal purchases kept them from being able to use a weapon of massacre.
Why would that be good?
So far you have not contributed so much as an idea to strengthen background checks. These three were identified as mentally unstable or having known issues. Should their medical records have been included in FBI and ATF records so their purchases would have been denied?
Quote from: BridgeTroll on June 11, 2014, 01:58:31 PM
Quote from: stephendare on June 11, 2014, 01:43:57 PM
Quote from: coredumped on June 11, 2014, 12:51:57 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/vFATHkr.jpg)
how did these people get guns again?
Purchased legally?
Lanza killed his mother to get his. All had serious mental health issues prior to their crimes. Again, a major part of our response to such crimes lies in the mental health arena.
Quote from: NotNow on June 11, 2014, 02:36:06 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on June 11, 2014, 01:58:31 PM
Quote from: stephendare on June 11, 2014, 01:43:57 PM
Quote from: coredumped on June 11, 2014, 12:51:57 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/vFATHkr.jpg)
how did these people get guns again?
Purchased legally?
Lanza killed his mother to get his. All had serious mental health issues prior to their crimes. Again, a major part of our response to such crimes lies in the mental health arena.
Understood... so to improve the background checks to prevent these people from getting them... their mental health records need to be in the federal database. Perhaps ALL mental health providers be required to submit names and SSNs of ther patients?
A custom-made 'gun nut' thread for Stephendare, finally!!! Thanks Jameson.
Only those patients who meet certain criteria. If they have threatened to hurt others or themselves, or they have fantasies of such things. Or loss of of a sense of reality. (Insert StephenDare! joke here.) ;D
Quote from: stephendare on June 11, 2014, 02:56:07 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on June 11, 2014, 02:22:50 PM
Quote from: stephendare on June 11, 2014, 02:14:29 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on June 11, 2014, 01:58:31 PM
Quote from: stephendare on June 11, 2014, 01:43:57 PM
Quote from: coredumped on June 11, 2014, 12:51:57 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/vFATHkr.jpg)
how did these people get guns again?
Purchased legally?
Its a good thing that legal purchases kept them from being able to use a weapon of massacre.
Why would that be good?
So far you have not contributed so much as an idea to strengthen background checks. These three were identified as mentally unstable or having known issues. Should their medical records have been included in FBI and ATF records so their purchases would have been denied?
So, you identify a further problem that illustrates what is wrong with our present system of ensuring public safety, well how would you solve it?
I provided a suggestion that addresses the issue...
QuoteShould their medical records have been included in FBI and ATF records so their purchases would have been denied?
It's funny that people like Stephen always so quick to give someone a scarlet letter (troll, homophobic, racist etc) when he and other people like him being racist themselves; apparently the only people who partake in gun violence 'gun nuts' are white gun owners with mental problems (just like the stupid picture that's shown above) or a NRA member. That's the description of a 'gun nut' in a nutshell....
Quote from: I-10east on June 11, 2014, 02:59:17 PM
It's funny that people like Stephen always so quick to give someone a scarlet letter (troll, homophobic, racist etc) when he and other people like him being racist themselves; apparently the only people who partake in gun violence 'gun nuts' are white gun owners with mental problems (just like the stupid picture that's shown above) or a NRA member. That's the description of a 'gun nut' in a nutshell....
I am trying to be "constructive" here. Please suggest a solution or remain silent.
Quote from: I-10east on June 11, 2014, 02:59:17 PM
It's funny that people like Stephen always so quick to give someone a scarlet letter (troll, homophobic, racist etc) when he and other people like him being racist themselves; apparently the only people who partake in gun violence 'gun nuts' are white gun owners with mental problems (just like the stupid picture that's shown above) or a NRA member. That's the description of a 'gun nut' in a nutshell....
That's because that is the description that fits the left's narrative.
That is also why you never hear the left cite the liberal utopia of Chicago (where there are already strict gun laws but innocent children are murdered almost daily by guns purchased illegally) in their gun control argument.
Agreed BT. Can we all agree that much more stringent mental health reporting for the purpose of "background check" is needed? Mandatory requirements that mental health providers report threats, fantasies of killing, and/or loss of connection with "right and wrong"?
Here are some steps that I think could prevent these mass shootings:
-There could be mental health evaluations required to purchase assault weapons.
-Family and friends could do more to act such as notifying authorities when they suspect that someone they know has been acting and talking crazy. The authorities can then do more to act by following through and following up. In the case of Holmes and Rodger, authority figures were notified. But Holmes' case wasn't followed through on and Rodger duped the cops who came to his apartment. In the case of Lanza, he was about to be committed before he murdered his mother.
-I realize that this option is crazy talk to the liberal left, but certain environments could have armed guards. As was the case in the FedEx shootings, Navy Yard shootings, Aurora and Sandy Hook, the psycho gunmen knew that they were walking into an area where they would encounter no resistance. In all except for Aurora, the gunmen turned the gun on themselves when authorities closed in. I tend to think that if these headcases who are amateurs with firearms knew that they had to get by a trained professional (or professionals) whose sole purpose is to prevent something bad from happening, that they would think twice about it. You think that Holmes would have stood up in a dark movie theater and started shooting if he knew 3 people with concealed weapons were somewhere in the theater and could fire back at him? I don't think so.
Quote from: NotNow on June 11, 2014, 03:12:23 PM
Agreed BT. Can we all agree that much more stringent mental health reporting for the purpose of "background check" is needed? Mandatory requirements that mental health providers report threats, fantasies of killing, and/or loss of connection with "right and wrong"?
I agree.
"-I realize that this option is crazy talk to the liberal left, but certain environments could have armed guards. As was the case in the FedEx shootings, Navy Yard shootings, Aurora and Sandy Hook, the psycho gunmen knew that they were walking into an area where they would encounter no resistance. In all except for Aurora, the gunmen turned the gun on themselves when authorities closed in. I tend to think that if these headcases who are amateurs with firearms knew that they had to get by a trained professional (or professionals) whose sole purpose is to prevent something bad from happening, that they would think twice about it. You think that Holmes would have stood up in a dark movie theater and started shooting if he knew 3 people with concealed weapons were somewhere in the theater and could fire back at him? I don't think so. "
I could not agree more.
Quote-There could be mental health evaluations required to purchase assault weapons.
Are you suggesting an additional form to be submitted along with the background check at time of purchase? So someone with no history of mental health issues would have to seek out a psychologist to be evaluated as "Fit or unfit to Own"?
Quote from: NotNow on June 11, 2014, 03:40:26 PM
"-I realize that this option is crazy talk to the liberal left, but certain environments could have armed guards. As was the case in the FedEx shootings, Navy Yard shootings, Aurora and Sandy Hook, the psycho gunmen knew that they were walking into an area where they would encounter no resistance. In all except for Aurora, the gunmen turned the gun on themselves when authorities closed in. I tend to think that if these headcases who are amateurs with firearms knew that they had to get by a trained professional (or professionals) whose sole purpose is to prevent something bad from happening, that they would think twice about it. You think that Holmes would have stood up in a dark movie theater and started shooting if he knew 3 people with concealed weapons were somewhere in the theater and could fire back at him? I don't think so. "
I could not agree more.
Are you agreeing with the armed guards or the concealed weapons? Jameson post makes them sound like one and the same, which they are not.
Quote from: stephendare on June 11, 2014, 03:50:19 PM
So what happens when someone purchases a gun and then gets diagnosed with a serious mental disorder months (or years later).
Is there a tracking system that monitors this?
What about additional precautions for people who are living in the same house as a person with documented violent felonies?
Fair points and questions. To me this goes back to a national mental health database. Doctors would be required to submit information on their patients. The purchase is in the database and when at a future date a name is entered into the mental side it would be flagged. Now what happens? Is the weapon confiscated? Not sure how this part would work...
Suggestions?
More forms, bureaucrats, databases, etc. are not going to fix the problem. The demise of the stable family unit in this country has been degrading since the end of WWII. We are seeing the results. No right, no wrong, just areas of gray. We deserve it. This won't be fixed over night or ten years from now, assuming this country survives that long.
Quote from: RMHoward on June 11, 2014, 03:58:12 PM
More forms, bureaucrats, databases, etc. are not going to fix the problem. The demise of the stable family unit in this country has been degrading since the end of WWII. We are seeing the results. No right, no wrong, just areas of gray. We deserve it. This won't be fixed over night or ten years from now, assuming this country survives that long.
How would you suggest we fix this?
Interesting discussion.
To the point of the medical / mental screening requirement and Stephen's counterpoint, I think a renewal period between 2-4 years would make sense. Sure, it wouldn't catch every nut that cracked, but it would definitely harvest a few.
What is the renewal period on a concealed permit?
With regard to a people living with others that wouldn't pass screening, I would also be for more liability for the gun owners in the event that their registered firearm was used in a crime. Unless the gun is properly reported as stolen, then I believe if the owner is just as liable as the person committing the crime, then it would provide more incentive to be a bit more cautious when storing the gun.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on June 11, 2014, 03:59:25 PM
Quote from: RMHoward on June 11, 2014, 03:58:12 PM
More forms, bureaucrats, databases, etc. are not going to fix the problem. The demise of the stable family unit in this country has been degrading since the end of WWII. We are seeing the results. No right, no wrong, just areas of gray. We deserve it. This won't be fixed over night or ten years from now, assuming this country survives that long.
How would you suggest we fix this?
Although I am under no obligation to "fix this", I can see the BS (for lack of a better term) solutions previously offered. Its a moral rot problem in this country. Until we teach our children right from wrong, reestablish the strong family unit, bring religion/church back into our lives, loose the selfishness in our society, loose the PC culture, stop demonizing the "thing" and demonize the offender, we are not fixing anything no matter how many forms you print or databases you bring on-line. Having said all that, we are always going to have crazies in this country who are willing to commit atrocities. The 24 hour news cycle makes sure we hear about every one of them ad nauseum.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on June 11, 2014, 03:44:24 PM
Are you suggesting an additional form to be submitted along with the background check at time of purchase? So someone with no history of mental health issues would have to seek out a psychologist to be evaluated as "Fit or unfit to Own"?
Something of the sort, yes. I'm not quite sure of the right way to go about it though.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on June 11, 2014, 03:57:49 PM
Quote from: stephendare on June 11, 2014, 03:50:19 PM
So what happens when someone purchases a gun and then gets diagnosed with a serious mental disorder months (or years later).
Is there a tracking system that monitors this?
What about additional precautions for people who are living in the same house as a person with documented violent felonies?
Fair points and questions. To me this goes back to a national mental health database. Doctors would be required to submit information on their patients. The purchase is in the database and when at a future date a name is entered into the mental side it would be flagged. Now what happens? Is the weapon confiscated? Not sure how this part would work...
Suggestions?
I would suggest the same method that is currently used in domestic violence cases.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on June 11, 2014, 04:08:16 PM
Interesting discussion.
To the point of the medical / mental screening requirement and Stephen's counterpoint, I think a renewal period between 2-4 years would make sense. Sure, it wouldn't catch every nut that cracked, but it would definitely harvest a few.
What is the renewal period on a concealed permit?
With regard to a people living with others that wouldn't pass screening, I would also be for more liability for the gun owners in the event that their registered firearm was used in a crime. Unless the gun is properly reported as stolen, then I believe if the owner is just as liable as the person committing the crime, then it would provide more incentive to be a bit more cautious when storing the gun.
Then you better be willing to do the same thing with automobiles and any other property. Perhaps even children. That is a slippery slope.
Quote from: RMHoward on June 11, 2014, 04:28:53 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on June 11, 2014, 03:59:25 PM
Quote from: RMHoward on June 11, 2014, 03:58:12 PM
More forms, bureaucrats, databases, etc. are not going to fix the problem. The demise of the stable family unit in this country has been degrading since the end of WWII. We are seeing the results. No right, no wrong, just areas of gray. We deserve it. This won't be fixed over night or ten years from now, assuming this country survives that long.
How would you suggest we fix this?
Although I am under no obligation to "fix this", I can see the BS (for lack of a better term) solutions previously offered. Its a moral rot problem in this country. Until we teach our children right from wrong, reestablish the strong family unit, bring religion/church back into our lives, loose the selfishness in our society, loose the PC culture, stop demonizing the "thing" and demonize the offender, we are not fixing anything no matter how many forms you print or databases you bring on-line. Having said all that, we are always going to have crazies in this country who are willing to commit atrocities. The 24 hour news cycle makes sure we hear about every one of them ad nauseum.
RM makes a good point, in the long run.
I would be interested in whether you had anything to ADD to this thread. Per the title, what would StephenDare! propose as a solution to gun violence?
Why is the gun violence rate in the USA so much higher than other industrialized countries?
"Lack of religion" is offered - but most European countries are more secular (lower levels of attendance at services and lower reported levels of belief in a supreme deity) than the US, but have much lower gun violence rates. What are they doing that we are not?
Quote from: NotNow on June 11, 2014, 06:18:25 PM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on June 11, 2014, 04:08:16 PM
Interesting discussion.
To the point of the medical / mental screening requirement and Stephen's counterpoint, I think a renewal period between 2-4 years would make sense. Sure, it wouldn't catch every nut that cracked, but it would definitely harvest a few.
What is the renewal period on a concealed permit?
With regard to a people living with others that wouldn't pass screening, I would also be for more liability for the gun owners in the event that their registered firearm was used in a crime. Unless the gun is properly reported as stolen, then I believe if the owner is just as liable as the person committing the crime, then it would provide more incentive to be a bit more cautious when storing the gun.
Then you better be willing to do the same thing with automobiles and any other property. Perhaps even children. That is a slippery slope.
Are they not already? I hate to use an extreme as an example, but since it's the only one I can think of....
There is a case of a young man who has served 10ish years of a life sentence because his roommate took his car to commit a murder while he was supposedly sleeping on the couch. Seems a bit far-fetched and I can't validate the truthfulness of it, but it's one that stands out in my head.
If someone were to come onto my property, legally or illegally, and hurt themselves because they fell into my half-full pool, or bitten by my dogs or any myriad of situation, then I'll be held liable and will be facing, at the minimum, a civil suit and the possibility of a criminal suit.
And the same may be true with firearms, I don't know, I'm just posing a question and an opinion.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on June 11, 2014, 08:42:16 PM
Quote from: NotNow on June 11, 2014, 06:18:25 PM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on June 11, 2014, 04:08:16 PM
Interesting discussion.
To the point of the medical / mental screening requirement and Stephen's counterpoint, I think a renewal period between 2-4 years would make sense. Sure, it wouldn't catch every nut that cracked, but it would definitely harvest a few.
What is the renewal period on a concealed permit?
With regard to a people living with others that wouldn't pass screening, I would also be for more liability for the gun owners in the event that their registered firearm was used in a crime. Unless the gun is properly reported as stolen, then I believe if the owner is just as liable as the person committing the crime, then it would provide more incentive to be a bit more cautious when storing the gun.
Then you better be willing to do the same thing with automobiles and any other property. Perhaps even children. That is a slippery slope.
Are they not already? I hate to use an extreme as an example, but since it's the only one I can think of....
There is a case of a young man who has served 10ish years of a life sentence because his roommate took his car to commit a murder while he was supposedly sleeping on the couch. Seems a bit far-fetched and I can't validate the truthfulness of it, but it's one that stands out in my head.
If someone were to come onto my property, legally or illegally, and hurt themselves because they fell into my half-full pool, or bitten by my dogs or any myriad of situation, then I'll be held liable and will be facing, at the minimum, a civil suit and the possibility of a criminal suit.
And the same may be true with firearms, I don't know, I'm just posing a question and an opinion.
No. They are not. I have never heard of the case you quote, and I know of no statute that would apply in such a situation. As for someone "on your property", you are speaking of civil liability only. You could not be held criminally negligent in almost any circumstance. A more accurate description of the current legal climate is that your friend/relative takes the keys to your car from the table in your entryway where they are unsecured. He/she then uses your car to murder 12 people by running them down in the street. You can not be held criminally responsible. Even if your friend/relative just left the mental health facility after an involuntary admit. But, it that were a firearm, you must be able to prove that the firearm AND the ammunition were secured appropriately, no matter the circumstance.
I would ask any of our attorney posters to correct me if I have misrepresented anything here.
Quote from: NotNow on June 11, 2014, 08:51:37 PM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on June 11, 2014, 08:42:16 PM
Quote from: NotNow on June 11, 2014, 06:18:25 PM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on June 11, 2014, 04:08:16 PM
Interesting discussion.
To the point of the medical / mental screening requirement and Stephen's counterpoint, I think a renewal period between 2-4 years would make sense. Sure, it wouldn't catch every nut that cracked, but it would definitely harvest a few.
What is the renewal period on a concealed permit?
With regard to a people living with others that wouldn't pass screening, I would also be for more liability for the gun owners in the event that their registered firearm was used in a crime. Unless the gun is properly reported as stolen, then I believe if the owner is just as liable as the person committing the crime, then it would provide more incentive to be a bit more cautious when storing the gun.
Then you better be willing to do the same thing with automobiles and any other property. Perhaps even children. That is a slippery slope.
Are they not already? I hate to use an extreme as an example, but since it's the only one I can think of....
There is a case of a young man who has served 10ish years of a life sentence because his roommate took his car to commit a murder while he was supposedly sleeping on the couch. Seems a bit far-fetched and I can't validate the truthfulness of it, but it's one that stands out in my head.
If someone were to come onto my property, legally or illegally, and hurt themselves because they fell into my half-full pool, or bitten by my dogs or any myriad of situation, then I'll be held liable and will be facing, at the minimum, a civil suit and the possibility of a criminal suit.
And the same may be true with firearms, I don't know, I'm just posing a question and an opinion.
No. They are not. I have never heard of the case you quote, and I know of no statute that would apply in such a situation. As for someone "on your property", you are speaking of civil liability only. You could not be held criminally negligent in almost any circumstance. A more accurate description of the current legal climate is that your friend/relative takes the keys to your car from the table in your entryway where they are unsecured. He/she then uses your car to murder 12 people by running them down in the street. You can not be held criminally responsible. Even if your friend/relative just left the mental health facility after an involuntary admit. But, it that were a firearm, you must be able to prove that the firearm AND the ammunition were secured appropriately, no matter the circumstance.
I would ask any of our attorney posters to correct me if I have misrepresented anything here.
Emphasis added.
Quotehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Holle
Ryan Joseph Holle (born November 17, 1982) was convicted in 2004 of first-degree murder under the felony murder rule for lending his car to a friend after the friend and others at the party discussed their plans to steal drugs, money and beat up the 18 year old daughter of a marijuana dealer.[2][3][4] A former resident of Pensacola, Florida, United States, he is now serving a sentence of life without the possibility of parole at the Graceville Correctional Facility.[2]
Quote from: NotNow on June 11, 2014, 06:18:25 PM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on June 11, 2014, 04:08:16 PM
Interesting discussion.
To the point of the medical / mental screening requirement and Stephen's counterpoint, I think a renewal period between 2-4 years would make sense. Sure, it wouldn't catch every nut that cracked, but it would definitely harvest a few.
What is the renewal period on a concealed permit?
With regard to a people living with others that wouldn't pass screening, I would also be for more liability for the gun owners in the event that their registered firearm was used in a crime. Unless the gun is properly reported as stolen, then I believe if the owner is just as liable as the person committing the crime, then it would provide more incentive to be a bit more cautious when storing the gun.
Then you better be willing to do the same thing with automobiles and any other property. Perhaps even children. That is a slippery slope.
Yes and IMO worth it. I like the automobile solution. Licensed, registered(to owner) and insured. I know why tracking is scary to some and it is a reasonable fear but again IMO worth it.
This won't be perfect nothing is but owning a gun seems to me like it should be a big and ongoing responsibility.
I also like the idea of bio locks and kill switch tech going forward, no more I lost it or it was stolen excuses.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on June 11, 2014, 08:57:57 PM
Quote from: NotNow on June 11, 2014, 08:51:37 PM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on June 11, 2014, 08:42:16 PM
Quote from: NotNow on June 11, 2014, 06:18:25 PM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on June 11, 2014, 04:08:16 PM
Interesting discussion.
To the point of the medical / mental screening requirement and Stephen's counterpoint, I think a renewal period between 2-4 years would make sense. Sure, it wouldn't catch every nut that cracked, but it would definitely harvest a few.
What is the renewal period on a concealed permit?
With regard to a people living with others that wouldn't pass screening, I would also be for more liability for the gun owners in the event that their registered firearm was used in a crime. Unless the gun is properly reported as stolen, then I believe if the owner is just as liable as the person committing the crime, then it would provide more incentive to be a bit more cautious when storing the gun.
Then you better be willing to do the same thing with automobiles and any other property. Perhaps even children. That is a slippery slope.
Are they not already? I hate to use an extreme as an example, but since it's the only one I can think of....
There is a case of a young man who has served 10ish years of a life sentence because his roommate took his car to commit a murder while he was supposedly sleeping on the couch. Seems a bit far-fetched and I can't validate the truthfulness of it, but it's one that stands out in my head.
If someone were to come onto my property, legally or illegally, and hurt themselves because they fell into my half-full pool, or bitten by my dogs or any myriad of situation, then I'll be held liable and will be facing, at the minimum, a civil suit and the possibility of a criminal suit.
And the same may be true with firearms, I don't know, I'm just posing a question and an opinion.
No. They are not. I have never heard of the case you quote, and I know of no statute that would apply in such a situation. As for someone "on your property", you are speaking of civil liability only. You could not be held criminally negligent in almost any circumstance. A more accurate description of the current legal climate is that your friend/relative takes the keys to your car from the table in your entryway where they are unsecured. He/she then uses your car to murder 12 people by running them down in the street. You can not be held criminally responsible. Even if your friend/relative just left the mental health facility after an involuntary admit. But, it that were a firearm, you must be able to prove that the firearm AND the ammunition were secured appropriately, no matter the circumstance.
I would ask any of our attorney posters to correct me if I have misrepresented anything here.
Emphasis added.
Quotehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Holle
Ryan Joseph Holle (born November 17, 1982) was convicted in 2004 of first-degree murder under the felony murder rule for lending his car to a friend after the friend and others at the party discussed their plans to steal drugs, money and beat up the 18 year old daughter of a marijuana dealer.[2][3][4] A former resident of Pensacola, Florida, United States, he is now serving a sentence of life without the possibility of parole at the Graceville Correctional Facility.[2]
The "felony murder rule" applies when you have knowledge of and assist in the crime, even though you were not "present" at the crime. It is the same rule that is used when getaway drivers get charged with murder when their partner goes in a business and kills someone.
The question is if the criminal acts without your knowledge. He takes your car and uses it to commit vehicular homicide. You had no previous knowledge of his plan...should you be charged? If you loaned him your duck gun because he said he was going to shoot clays, but then he killed his boss with the shotgun...should you be charged? Hopefully I have communicated the difference here.
Quote from: JeffreyS on June 11, 2014, 09:19:46 PM
Quote from: NotNow on June 11, 2014, 06:18:25 PM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on June 11, 2014, 04:08:16 PM
Interesting discussion.
To the point of the medical / mental screening requirement and Stephen's counterpoint, I think a renewal period between 2-4 years would make sense. Sure, it wouldn't catch every nut that cracked, but it would definitely harvest a few.
What is the renewal period on a concealed permit?
With regard to a people living with others that wouldn't pass screening, I would also be for more liability for the gun owners in the event that their registered firearm was used in a crime. Unless the gun is properly reported as stolen, then I believe if the owner is just as liable as the person committing the crime, then it would provide more incentive to be a bit more cautious when storing the gun.
Then you better be willing to do the same thing with automobiles and any other property. Perhaps even children. That is a slippery slope.
Yes and IMO worth it. I like the automobile solution. Licensed, registered(to owner) and insured. I know why tracking is scary to some and it is a reasonable fear but again IMO worth it.
This won't be perfect nothing is but owning a gun seems to me like it should be a big and ongoing responsibility.
I also like the idea of bio locks and kill switch tech going forward, no more I lost it or it was stolen excuses.
I'm against the 'mandated' use of the above. Murphy's Law and all, the moment that you need it to not fail, it will. But I would be for more liability in the event that your firearm is used in a crime, even if unbeknownst to you.
And to responsible gun owners, it is considered a "...big and ongoing responsibility". I may not own one now, but I was raised around them, know how to handle, clean, load & fire, and believe that most who have purchased a firearm through typical, standard means share the same belief, and I believe that's why there's such opposition to gun regulations. The majority is being subjected to increased scrutiny due to the action of the few.
If we were to use a car comparison, then why don't they make cars that travel over 80mph illegal? Why do you 'need' a street legal car that goes 160 when the fastest that the law allows is around 70? Who's responsible for more deaths, automobile accidents involving speeds over the posted limit or licensed / registered guns being involved in crimes?
Quote from: JeffreyS on June 11, 2014, 09:19:46 PM
Quote from: NotNow on June 11, 2014, 06:18:25 PM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on June 11, 2014, 04:08:16 PM
Interesting discussion.
To the point of the medical / mental screening requirement and Stephen's counterpoint, I think a renewal period between 2-4 years would make sense. Sure, it wouldn't catch every nut that cracked, but it would definitely harvest a few.
What is the renewal period on a concealed permit?
With regard to a people living with others that wouldn't pass screening, I would also be for more liability for the gun owners in the event that their registered firearm was used in a crime. Unless the gun is properly reported as stolen, then I believe if the owner is just as liable as the person committing the crime, then it would provide more incentive to be a bit more cautious when storing the gun.
Then you better be willing to do the same thing with automobiles and any other property. Perhaps even children. That is a slippery slope.
Yes and IMO worth it. I like the automobile solution. Licensed, registered(to owner) and insured. I know why tracking is scary to some and it is a reasonable fear but again IMO worth it.
This won't be perfect nothing is but owning a gun seems to me like it should be a big and ongoing responsibility.
I also like the idea of bio locks and kill switch tech going forward, no more I lost it or it was stolen excuses.
It would certainly make tracking the weapons easier, but would not necessarily help with the mental health or stolen gun issues. Any tech can be hacked, and it adds complication, cost, and failure rate to the weapon. Not to mention the largest block to such a plan...Constitutionality.
I don't think this plan could be instituted in this country at this time.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on June 11, 2014, 09:57:14 PM
Quote from: JeffreyS on June 11, 2014, 09:19:46 PM
Quote from: NotNow on June 11, 2014, 06:18:25 PM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on June 11, 2014, 04:08:16 PM
Interesting discussion.
To the point of the medical / mental screening requirement and Stephen's counterpoint, I think a renewal period between 2-4 years would make sense. Sure, it wouldn't catch every nut that cracked, but it would definitely harvest a few.
What is the renewal period on a concealed permit?
With regard to a people living with others that wouldn't pass screening, I would also be for more liability for the gun owners in the event that their registered firearm was used in a crime. Unless the gun is properly reported as stolen, then I believe if the owner is just as liable as the person committing the crime, then it would provide more incentive to be a bit more cautious when storing the gun.
Then you better be willing to do the same thing with automobiles and any other property. Perhaps even children. That is a slippery slope.
Yes and IMO worth it. I like the automobile solution. Licensed, registered(to owner) and insured. I know why tracking is scary to some and it is a reasonable fear but again IMO worth it.
This won't be perfect nothing is but owning a gun seems to me like it should be a big and ongoing responsibility.
I also like the idea of bio locks and kill switch tech going forward, no more I lost it or it was stolen excuses.
I'm against the 'mandated' use of the above. Murphy's Law and all, the moment that you need it to not fail, it will. But I would be for more liability in the event that your firearm is used in a crime, even if unbeknownst to you.
And to responsible gun owners, it is considered a "...big and ongoing responsibility". I may not own one now, but I was raised around them, know how to handle, clean, load & fire, and believe that most who have purchased a firearm through typical, standard means share the same belief, and I believe that's why there's such opposition to gun regulations. The majority is being subjected to increased scrutiny due to the action of the few.
If we were to use a car comparison, then why don't they make cars that travel over 80mph illegal? Why do you 'need' a street legal car that goes 160 when the fastest that the law allows is around 70? Who's responsible for more deaths, automobile accidents involving speeds over the posted limit or licensed / registered guns being involved in crimes?
Another good point. Thanks.
The discussion of this topic is most difficult. So difficult in fact that I was hoping to limit discussions to narrow and focused subjects such as... "ways to improve background checks" or "pros and cons or civil liability".
As interesting as it is... the pros and cons of nuclear vs extended family should probably take place in another thread...
NRW brought up an interesting point during the discussion about responsibility and liability. He asked...
QuoteIf we were to use a car comparison, then why don't they make cars that travel over 80mph illegal? Why do you 'need' a street legal car that goes 160 when the fastest that the law allows is around 70? Who's responsible for more deaths, automobile accidents involving speeds over the posted limit or licensed / registered guns being involved in crimes?
If we are concerned with "saving innocent lives"... perhaps we should be licensing and permitting alcohol users. In Florida alone we kill 700 a year in DUI accidents. Each year on your birthday you go to city hall... participate in a 4 hour class, pay a fee, and get a "Alcohol Consumption Card that you would have to produce at the bar, club, liquor store, football game, when purchasing. Those convicted of alcohol related offenses would have their ACC revoked for a period of time.
Another slippery slope?
Interesting thought BT I will let it ferment for a while.
NRW provided this in another thread on a similar subject... I copied the "stats" portion for our use in this thread... it may come in handy...
QuoteAmong the major findings of this Pew Research Center report:
U.S. Firearm Deaths
In 2010, there were 3.6 gun homicides per 100,000 people, compared with 7.0 in 1993, according to CDC data.
In 2010, CDC data counted 11,078 gun homicide deaths, compared with 18,253 in 1993.5
Men and boys make up the vast majority (84% in 2010) of gun homicide victims. The firearm homicide rate also is more than five times as high for males of all ages (6.2 deaths per 100,000 people) as it is for females (1.1 deaths per 100,000 people).
By age group, 69% of gun homicide victims in 2010 were ages 18 to 40, an age range that was 31% of the population that year. Gun homicide rates also are highest for adults ages 18 to 24 and 25 to 40.
A disproportionate share of gun homicide victims are black (55% in 2010, compared with the 13% black share of the population). Whites were 25% of victims but 65% of the population in 2010. Hispanics were 17% of victims and 16% of the population in 2010.
The firearm suicide rate (6.3 per 100,000 people) is higher than the firearm homicide rate and has come down less sharply. The number of gun suicide deaths (19,392 in 2010) outnumbered gun homicides, as has been true since at least 1981.
U.S. Firearm Crime Victimization
In 2011, the NCVS estimated there were 181.5 gun crime victimizations for non-fatal violent crime (aggravated assault, robbery and sex crimes) per 100,000 Americans ages 12 and older, compared with 725.3 in 1993.
In terms of numbers, the NCVS estimated there were about 1.5 million non-fatal gun crime victimizations in 1993 among U.S. residents ages 12 and older, compared with 467,000 in 2011.
U.S. Other Non-fatal Crime
The victimization rate for all non-fatal violent crime among those ages 12 and older—simple and aggravated assaults, robberies and sex crimes, with or without firearms—dropped 53% from 1993 to 2000, and 49% from 2000 to 2010. It rose 17% from 2010 to 2011.
Although not the topic of this report, the rate of property crimes—burglary, motor vehicle theft and theft—also declined from 1993 to 2011, by 61%. The rate for these types of crimes was 351.8 per 100,000 people ages 12 and older in 1993, 190.4 in 2000 and 138.7 in 2011.
Context
The number of firearms available for sale to or possessed by U.S. civilians (about 310 million in 2009, according to the Congressional Research Service) has grown in recent years, and the 2009 per capita rate of one person per gun had roughly doubled since 1968. It is not clear, though, how many U.S. households own guns or whether that share has changed over time.
Crime stories accounted for 17% of the total time devoted to news on local television broadcasts in 2012, compared with 29% in 2005, according to Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism. Crime trails only traffic and weather as the most common type of story on these newscasts.
QuoteBack to the thread...BT, I'm not sure that the "alcohol card" would work. Like most overreaches of government control, it would control an obvious cause of early death and misery...in theory. In reality, I believe that most Americans would ignore and violate such a law. Just as Americans would ignore over reaching laws on firearms.
And perhaps... indirectly... that was the reason I posed the hypothetical solution to an alcohol death problem that is at least as deadly as gun violence. How much "over-reach" by the government are people willing to accept to be "safer"? Many here have made light of those who think enhanced security at airports is good... or cameras on street corners and stoplights... yet somehow can justify other "over-reach's" in the name of gun safety.
BT, its not a slippery slope at all & its part of the bigger picture that we all seem to forget. I've constantly made these arguments & it almost always seems to get brushed aside while we all can't wait to get back to yammering on & taking our sides.
We know from stats that gun violence isn't out of control, we're not living in a "war zone", etc. Yes, gun violence is there, esp in many urban blighted areas (but that's something different). So while we're going on about a couple people who got shot somewhere by a right wing nutjob, dozens were shot in places like Chicago (not a peep from anyone), hundreds were seriously injured or killed in car crashes (which is somehow "acceptable deaths" that no one blinks an eye over), preventable health issues kills thousands upon thousands, etc. Yet, here we are talking about that one crazy dude somewhere who went off his nut.
But we're not the only ones, everyone does it. Even the Pres himself with his "oh, if we could just save one life it'll all be worth it". What a load of BS. Yes, saving a single life is important, but why not step back, take off the blinders, stop plucking at heart strings & look at the bigger picture. You wanna save lives? There's a million other places you could start first instead of worrying about some almost nonexistent threat of loony conspiracy theorist white guy.
I can't argue with your analysis, pee. You don't mind if I call you by your first name, do you? ;D
Quote from: peestandingup on June 12, 2014, 09:05:36 AM
BT, its not a slippery slope at all & its part of the bigger picture that we all seem to forget. I've constantly made these arguments & it almost always seems to get brushed aside while we all can't wait to get back to yammering on & taking our sides.
We know from stats that gun violence isn't out of control, we're not living in a "war zone", etc. Yes, gun violence is there, esp in many urban blighted areas (but that's something different). So while we're going on about a couple people who got shot somewhere by a right wing nutjob, dozens were shot in places like Chicago (not a peep from anyone), hundreds were seriously injured or killed in car crashes (which is somehow "acceptable deaths" that no one blinks an eye over), preventable health issues kills thousands upon thousands, etc. Yet, here we are talking about that one crazy dude somewhere who went off his nut.
But we're not the only ones, everyone does it. Even the Pres himself with his "oh, if we could just save one life it'll all be worth it". What a load of BS. Yes, saving a single life is important, but why not step back, take off the blinders, stop plucking at heart strings & look at the bigger picture. You wanna save lives? There's a million other places you could start first instead of worrying about some almost nonexistent threat of loony conspiracy theorist white guy.
I absolutely agree with you PSU... yet simply ignoring the voices like Stephen, the parents of dead school children, and now the President, will not work either. Securing public places like schools, malls and theaters may work but again... at what cost? (I'm not refering to money)
Quote from: peestandingup on June 12, 2014, 09:05:36 AM
BT, its not a slippery slope at all & its part of the bigger picture that we all seem to forget. I've constantly made these arguments & it almost always seems to get brushed aside while we all can't wait to get back to yammering on & taking our sides.
And the side we take is typically determined by which 'facts' we choose to hear.
According to the Pew research article that I posted, statistically, gun crimes overall are down almost 50% from where they were a decade ago. And that's a total number. So we have an even larger population with fewer gun crimes. So, as you posted, we choose to focus on the few extreme examples, have each 'side' spew whatever information that suits their agenda which in turn coerces the average person into taking a side based on skewed facts.
The unfortunate part is the amount of people who are entirely unwilling to even discuss the issue, perceived or not, without going straight to their 'ace-in-the-hole'. It tends to always devolve into, "You're not taking my guns away" or "We need to restrict all guns".
That's why I use my car analogy, because in its purest form, it's the exact same thing. Inanimate objects don't kill people until they're misused.
I differ with NRW on the auto analogy... I do not like it because there is no "Right to Drive" specifically listed in the Constitution.
Oh I agree, BT & its def important. But everytime something like this happens, there's a lot of people who can't WAIT to paint the picture that this is some national crisis that requires emergency action & a Constitutional rewrite, completely brushing aside things that are much MUCH more likely to kill them or a loved one/someone they know. I mean, a life is a life, right??
But yes, these things are always sad & I couldn't imagine what the victim's loved ones go through. On the same note though, we could say the same about car accident victim's families. Seriously, how easy could it be to blame our car culture & total reliance on automobiles brought on by corporate greed on people's unnecessary deaths? But no one ever does that. Why not? Is it not important? It certainly kills people in droves like there's no tomorrow.
Anyways, gun violence def need talked about & figured out. It's just that the extreme "ban all the things" side obviously uses instances as fuel to push an agenda trumped up by flaky stats. The media doesn't help either & distorts a lot of what's reality for ratings. But the other "everyone should be packing" camp prob isn't correct either.
When its all said & done though, no one can really keep you safe. If someone wants to hurt you in a mall, they will. Maybe not if we lived in a total surveillance locked down police state, but that would be worse than the former. Society's problems stem from things much greater than the tool used to inflict the harm.
Quote from: peestandingup on June 12, 2014, 10:47:22 AM
Oh I agree, BT & its def important. But everytime something like this happens, there's a lot of people who can't WAIT to paint the picture that this is some national crisis that requires emergency action & a Constitutional rewrite, completely brushing aside things that are much MUCH more likely to kill them or a loved one/someone they know. I mean, a life is a life, right??
But yes, these things are always sad & I couldn't imagine what the victim's loved ones go through. On the same note though, we could say the same about car accident victim's families. Seriously, how easy could it be to blame our car culture & total reliance on automobiles brought on by corporate greed on people's unnecessary deaths? But no one ever does that. Why not? Is it not important? It certainly kills people in droves like there's no tomorrow.
Anyways, gun violence def need talked about & figured out. It's just that the extreme "ban all the things" side obviously uses instances as fuel to push an agenda trumped up by flaky stats. The media doesn't help either & distorts a lot of what's reality for ratings. But the other "everyone should be packing" camp prob isn't correct either.
When its all said & done though, no one can really keep you safe. If someone wants to hurt you in a mall, they will. Maybe not if we lived in a total surveillance locked down police state, but that would be worse than the former. Society's problems stem from things much greater than the tool used to inflict the harm.
I like it... 8)
QuoteSociety's problems stem from things much greater than the tool used to inflict the harm.
Quote from: stephendare on June 12, 2014, 10:36:12 AM
But people always miss the other part of your analogy. Cars are the most heavily regulated, expensive to own, legally mandated to insure, and come with revokable licenses for even minor infractions if they rack up.
And attributable to more fatalities, injuries and incarcerations than both firearm supporters and detractors care to imagine, yet, there's no outrage at all of the red tape one must go through in order to drive.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on June 12, 2014, 10:43:50 AM
I differ with NRW on the auto analogy... I do not like it because there is no "Right to Drive" specifically listed in the Constitution.
True. I don't think I'm going to find "Right to Horse" in the constitution either. I think my position on the guns is that I'm all for possession of whatever, I'm for some stricter screening and an adaptation of a renewal period for licenses (if there isn't already). I'm also for gun owners having more liability when it comes to harm or damage done with a licensed firearm, no matter who pulls the trigger.
The beauty of the Constitution is that it's an amendable document and was written to be. We're dealing with a little more than muzzle-loaded muskets, and I wouldn't have an issue with it (the 2nd) being amended in way to add classifications of firearms - not to prevent people from possessing them, but only to hinder.
Do I think that someone needs a high-powered rifle with a high capacity magazine? Not really, but if they're willing to jump through the hoops to own one, then there should be a defined path to ownership.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on June 12, 2014, 07:56:46 AM
NRW provided this in another thread on a similar subject... I copied the "stats" portion for our use in this thread... it may come in handy...
QuoteAmong the major findings of this Pew Research Center report:
U.S. Firearm Deaths
In 2010, there were 3.6 gun homicides per 100,000 people, compared with 7.0 in 1993, according to CDC data.
In 2010, CDC data counted 11,078 gun homicide deaths, compared with 18,253 in 1993.5
Men and boys make up the vast majority (84% in 2010) of gun homicide victims. The firearm homicide rate also is more than five times as high for males of all ages (6.2 deaths per 100,000 people) as it is for females (1.1 deaths per 100,000 people).
By age group, 69% of gun homicide victims in 2010 were ages 18 to 40, an age range that was 31% of the population that year. Gun homicide rates also are highest for adults ages 18 to 24 and 25 to 40.
A disproportionate share of gun homicide victims are black (55% in 2010, compared with the 13% black share of the population). Whites were 25% of victims but 65% of the population in 2010. Hispanics were 17% of victims and 16% of the population in 2010.
The firearm suicide rate (6.3 per 100,000 people) is higher than the firearm homicide rate and has come down less sharply. The number of gun suicide deaths (19,392 in 2010) outnumbered gun homicides, as has been true since at least 1981.
U.S. Firearm Crime Victimization
In 2011, the NCVS estimated there were 181.5 gun crime victimizations for non-fatal violent crime (aggravated assault, robbery and sex crimes) per 100,000 Americans ages 12 and older, compared with 725.3 in 1993.
In terms of numbers, the NCVS estimated there were about 1.5 million non-fatal gun crime victimizations in 1993 among U.S. residents ages 12 and older, compared with 467,000 in 2011.
U.S. Other Non-fatal Crime
The victimization rate for all non-fatal violent crime among those ages 12 and older—simple and aggravated assaults, robberies and sex crimes, with or without firearms—dropped 53% from 1993 to 2000, and 49% from 2000 to 2010. It rose 17% from 2010 to 2011.
Although not the topic of this report, the rate of property crimes—burglary, motor vehicle theft and theft—also declined from 1993 to 2011, by 61%. The rate for these types of crimes was 351.8 per 100,000 people ages 12 and older in 1993, 190.4 in 2000 and 138.7 in 2011.
Context
The number of firearms available for sale to or possessed by U.S. civilians (about 310 million in 2009, according to the Congressional Research Service) has grown in recent years, and the 2009 per capita rate of one person per gun had roughly doubled since 1968. It is not clear, though, how many U.S. households own guns or whether that share has changed over time.
Crime stories accounted for 17% of the total time devoted to news on local television broadcasts in 2012, compared with 29% in 2005, according to Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism. Crime trails only traffic and weather as the most common type of story on these newscasts.
BT I find this very interesting was there a link on the original post?
Sorry. NRW deserves credit for the find...
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/
Quote from: peestandingup on June 12, 2014, 10:47:22 AM
But yes, these things are always sad & I couldn't imagine what the victim's loved ones go through. On the same note though, we could say the same about car accident victim's families. Seriously, how easy could it be to blame our car culture & total reliance on automobiles brought on by corporate greed on people's unnecessary deaths? But no one ever does that. Why not? Is it not important? It certainly kills people in droves like there's no tomorrow.
I think it's worth pointing out that prior to the mid-60s or so, carnage on the roads was just taken as a given (that's why crashes were called "accidents"), and that nothing really could be done about it, that humans were flawed creatures so auto-related deaths would always be with us. But then a change of mind-set came about, and death and injury by automobile came to be viewed as a public health problem. So we began to engineer roads and cars so that they were safer, and it resulted in this:
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/TIp8lXB5h2I/AAAAAAAAOW8/fmXi_SCP-jw/s400/highway2.jpg)
which is why I have a real problem with things like this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/us/26guns.html?ref=us&pagewanted=all&_r=1&
Quote from: finehoe on June 12, 2014, 11:36:46 AM
which is why I have a real problem with things like this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/us/26guns.html?ref=us&pagewanted=all&_r=1&
Can you help me understand how the NRA can stymie their research.
The basic questions that the researcher are trying to answer (according to the article):
1.) Are communities where more people carry guns safer or less safe?
2.) Does the availability of high-capacity magazines increase deaths?
3.) Do more rigorous background checks make a difference?
I'm curious how the NRA can prevent them from researching this. What methodology are they using that can/is blocked by legislature?
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on June 12, 2014, 11:57:59 AM
I'm curious how the NRA can prevent them from researching this. What methodology are they using that can/is blocked by legislature?
Do you understand how lobbyists work?
The article I linked to answers your question.
QuoteAlarmed, the N.R.A. and its allies on Capitol Hill fought back. The injury center was guilty of "putting out papers that were really political opinion masquerading as medical science," said Mr. Cox, who also worked on this issue for the N.R.A. more than a decade ago.
Initially, pro-gun lawmakers sought to eliminate the injury center completely, arguing that its work was "redundant" and reflected a political agenda. When that failed, they turned to the appropriations process. In 1996, Representative Jay Dickey, Republican of Arkansas, succeeded in pushing through an amendment that stripped $2.6 million from the disease control centers' budget, the very amount it had spent on firearms-related research the year before.
"It's really simple with me," Mr. Dickey, 71 and now retired, said in a telephone interview. "We have the right to bear arms because of the threat of government taking over the freedoms that we have."
The Senate later restored the money but designated it for research on traumatic brain injury. Language was also inserted into the centers' appropriations bill that remains in place today: "None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control."
The prohibition is striking, firearms researchers say, because there are already regulations that bar the use of C.D.C. money for lobbying for or against legislation. No other field of inquiry is singled out in this way.
Quote from: finehoe on June 12, 2014, 12:05:54 PM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on June 12, 2014, 11:57:59 AM
I'm curious how the NRA can prevent them from researching this. What methodology are they using that can/is blocked by legislature?
Do you understand how lobbyists work?
The article I linked to answers your question.
I do.
Sort of.
Do you believe that gun issues are indeed a 'public health' issue?
Since I've been reading more from here lately, I'll offer this nugget:
QuoteSince the CDC began publishing data in 1981, gun suicides have outnumbered gun homicides. But as gun homicides have declined sharply in recent years, suicides have become a greater share of all firearm deaths: the 61% share in 2010 was the highest on record. That year there were 19,392 suicides by firearm compared to 11,078 homicides by gun (35% of all firearm deaths). The rest were accidents, police shootings and unknown causes.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/05/24/suicides-account-for-most-gun-deaths/
When taken out of context, it seems that it's more of a private concern than a public one. Not to mention that guns being listed as the cause of death in the US is far, far, far down the list (#107 according to the CDC http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr62/nvsr62_06.pdf).
As PSU stated, quite nicely I might add:
Quote from: peestandingup on June 12, 2014, 09:05:36 AM
...Yes, saving a single life is important, but why not step back, take off the blinders, stop plucking at heart strings & look at the bigger picture. You wanna save lives? There's a million other places you could start first instead of worrying about some almost nonexistent threat of loony conspiracy theorist white guy.
So again, let's take a statement from your article,
"...The amount of money available today for studying the impact of firearms is a fraction of what it was in the mid-1990s, and the number of scientists toiling in the field has dwindled to just a handful as a result, researchers say."
and phrase it correctly,
"...The amount of free, federal, hand-out money available today for studying the impact of firearms is a fraction of what it was in the mid-1990s, and the number of scientists toiling in the field has dwindled to just a handful as a result, researchers say."
Because I think they should be able to answer their 'basic questions':
1.) Are communities where more people carry guns safer or less safe?
2.) Does the availability of high-capacity magazines increase deaths?
3.) Do more rigorous background checks make a difference?
Without the need of federal funds. Seems some private funding for some questionaires, surveys and door-to-door campaigns should be able to accomplish their 'non-partisan' goal.
Quote from: finehoe on June 12, 2014, 12:05:54 PM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on June 12, 2014, 11:57:59 AM
I'm curious how the NRA can prevent them from researching this. What methodology are they using that can/is blocked by legislature?
Do you understand how lobbyists work?
The article I linked to answers your question.
QuoteAlarmed, the N.R.A. and its allies on Capitol Hill fought back. The injury center was guilty of "putting out papers that were really political opinion masquerading as medical science," said Mr. Cox, who also worked on this issue for the N.R.A. more than a decade ago.
Initially, pro-gun lawmakers sought to eliminate the injury center completely, arguing that its work was "redundant" and reflected a political agenda. When that failed, they turned to the appropriations process. In 1996, Representative Jay Dickey, Republican of Arkansas, succeeded in pushing through an amendment that stripped $2.6 million from the disease control centers' budget, the very amount it had spent on firearms-related research the year before.
"It's really simple with me," Mr. Dickey, 71 and now retired, said in a telephone interview. "We have the right to bear arms because of the threat of government taking over the freedoms that we have."
The Senate later restored the money but designated it for research on traumatic brain injury. Language was also inserted into the centers' appropriations bill that remains in place today: "None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control."
The prohibition is striking, firearms researchers say, because there are already regulations that bar the use of C.D.C. money for lobbying for or against legislation. No other field of inquiry is singled out in this way.
As this is a thread about exploring solutions... We all understand what lobbyists do. Usually there are lobbyists on both sides of issues... pro and con. While we could debate whether these groups should have influence or not it really is not helpful here and now.
Your article blames the NRA and "pro gun lawmakers" for the loss of funding to research gun violence. The article fails to note what the "anti gun lobbyists and lawmakers were doing" while the other side was cutting funds. My guess would be that passage of the legislation to limit funding was a bipartisan vote.
My view is that blaming the NRA for gun control failures is just a red herring. Yeah they lobby... yeah they contribute to campaigns... but they cannot vote in congress. Like it or not... the NRA and other lobby organizations are part of the process...
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on June 12, 2014, 12:43:35 PM
Without the need of federal funds. Seems some private funding for some questionaires, surveys and door-to-door campaigns should be able to accomplish their 'non-partisan' goal.
Perhaps, but federal government spending dwarfs all other sources of scientific reseach in the United States and often sets the tone for other research it doesn't fund. I suppose gun manufacturers could sponsor it, but then the validity of the results would be questioned, even if everything was on the up-and-up.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on June 12, 2014, 01:05:39 PM
My guess would be that passage of the legislation to limit funding was a bipartisan vote.
And? Did anyone claim pro-gun politicians only belong to one party?
Quote from: finehoe on June 12, 2014, 01:09:11 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on June 12, 2014, 01:05:39 PM
My guess would be that passage of the legislation to limit funding was a bipartisan vote.
And? Did anyone claim pro-gun politicians only belong to one party?
Just an observation finehoe...
Here is a link to a listing of the "Gun control" lobby. Seems pretty large to me...
http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/fact-sheets/2004/anti-gun-lobbying-organizations.aspx
Quote from: BridgeTroll on June 12, 2014, 01:05:39 PM
As this is a thread about exploring solutions... While we could debate whether these groups should have influence or not it really is not helpful here and now.
Of course it is. If you have a group that by all accounts wields an extraordinary amount of lobbying firepower preventing even rudimentary research on how the ownership of guns affects society, who is against virtually any kind of regulation at all, how is it not relevant to note the existence of such a obstruction when talking about "solutions"?
Quote from: BridgeTroll on June 12, 2014, 01:14:37 PM
Quote from: finehoe on June 12, 2014, 01:09:11 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on June 12, 2014, 01:05:39 PM
My guess would be that passage of the legislation to limit funding was a bipartisan vote.
And? Did anyone claim pro-gun politicians only belong to one party?
Just an observation finehoe...
Here is a link to a listing of the "Gun control" lobby. Seems pretty large to me...
http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/fact-sheets/2004/anti-gun-lobbying-organizations.aspx
So what?
Quote from: finehoe on June 12, 2014, 01:17:11 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on June 12, 2014, 01:05:39 PM
As this is a thread about exploring solutions... While we could debate whether these groups should have influence or not it really is not helpful here and now.
Of course it is. If you have a group that by all accounts wields an extraordinary amount of lobbying firepower preventing even rudimentary research on how the ownership of guns affects society, who is against virtually any kind of regulation at all, how is it not relevant to note the existence of such a obstruction when talking about "solutions"?
It would seem an equally powerful anti lobby would even things out? Why is there not one? Why is the anti gun lobby apparently so powerless?
Quote from: BridgeTroll on June 12, 2014, 01:28:02 PM
It would seem an equally powerful anti lobby would even things out? Why is there not one? Why is the anti gun lobby apparently so powerless?
I've explained why I brought up the NRA-research thing. Apparently you think posting a listing of "gun control" groups somehow refutes my point, but unless you have a relevant example of how these groups hinder in finding solutions, you may want to follow your own admonition.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on June 12, 2014, 01:05:39 PM
As this is a thread about exploring solutions... We all understand what lobbyists do. Usually there are lobbyists on both sides of issues... pro and con. While we could debate whether these groups should have influence or not it really is not helpful here and now.
Quote from: Apache on June 12, 2014, 01:48:55 PM
So...no solutions/ideas then. check.
BT can you start a whine about the right thread for the finehoe?
Wow, what an intellectual powerhouse you are!
Easy, FH. Any solutions to suggest for this thread?
Lets circle back a bit and see if we can move into a more positive tone for everyone... finehoe brought up a perspective that I had heard before but no one has ever seriously tried to convince me that this would be a way to help end gun violence. finehoe said...
QuoteI think it's worth pointing out that prior to the mid-60s or so, carnage on the roads was just taken as a given (that's why crashes were called "accidents"), and that nothing really could be done about it, that humans were flawed creatures so auto-related deaths would always be with us. But then a change of mind-set came about, and death and injury by automobile came to be viewed as a public health problem.
How would you envision this? Is this a federal program? Expand this thought please...
The American College of Physicians believes doctors must take action against the 32,000 deaths and 74,000 injures caused by guns in the United States each year. To support their view that guns are a public health issue, the association of 137,000 internal medicine physicians noted that there are about 11,000 homicides, 19,000 suicides and more than 2,000 fatal accidents involving guns every year. The total is down from its 1993 peak, and the number of gun homicides has declined even more rapidly, but the figure is still one of the highest in the developed world.
The average of 88 gun deaths per day is "a good-sized airplane crash every three days," said Molly Cooke, the organization's president.
Some of the group's recommendations:
• Doctors should counsel patients on the risks of having guns in the home, particularly if children, adolescents, people with dementia, the mentally ill or people with substance abuse problems live there.
• Universal background checks for gun-buyers, a ban on guns that don't show up on metal detectors and tracers and tags on guns and ammunition.
• Laws to ban the sale and manufacture of guns for civilians that are designed with features that "increase their rapid killing capacity," i.e. assault weapons and semiautomatic weapons. Cooke called assault weapons "rapid slaughter machines" that were developed for military purposes. "We really could not persuade ourselves that there was a good reason for the average Joe Citizen to have a gun like that," Cooke said.
• Built-in trigger locks and signals that guns are loaded.
http://www.acponline.org/pressroom/reduce_firearms_deaths.htm
• Doctors should counsel patients on the risks of having guns in the home, particularly if children, adolescents, people with dementia, the mentally ill or people with substance abuse problems live there.
I think this is a reasonable idea.
• Universal background checks for gun-buyers, a ban on guns that don't show up on metal detectors and tracers and tags on guns and ammunition.
We have background checks... what would you do differently? If they are referring to ceramic and plastic guns I have no issue with that. Not sure what "tracers and tags" are.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on June 12, 2014, 02:06:19 PM
finehoe brought up a perspective that I had heard before but no one has ever seriously tried to convince me that this would be a way to help end gun violence.
Just for the record, when I brought up car crashes as a public health issue, it wasn't an advocacy of what the ACP is saying (I just posted their piece above for you all to debate). My point was this:
We had a problem that resulted in death and injury.
We made certain assumptions about why that was the case.
Then we did actual research and data collection on the problem and it showed that many of those assumptions weren't valid.
We came up with solutions that utilized the facts the research came up with.
Said solutions resulted in reduction of death and injury.
I get it, speculating and debating various "solutions" is fun, but in actuality without the facts on the ground to base those solutions on, there is a good chance they won't be valid. And if you have entities that would rather shut down research on what the facts actually are, then it suggests those entities aren't really interested in a "solution".
So I apologize for interjecting a bit of reality into the thread; I will refrain from further posting on it. :-X
Quote from: Apache on June 12, 2014, 03:25:13 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on June 12, 2014, 03:10:07 PM
• Doctors should counsel patients on the risks of having guns in the home, particularly if children, adolescents, people with dementia, the mentally ill or people with substance abuse problems live there.
I think this is a reasonable idea.
• Universal background checks for gun-buyers, a ban on guns that don't show up on metal detectors and tracers and tags on guns and ammunition.
We have background checks... what would you do differently? If they are referring to ceramic and plastic guns I have no issue with that. Not sure what "tracers and tags" are.
I don't see the correlation as to why doctors should counsel people regarding guns. Just because they read some statistics I suppose? Why not my financial advisor or mechanic. I also don't see that helping. Many people don't see doctors regularly. Doctors counsel people to eat right and not smoke, which is more aligned with their profession than gun deaths, and most people don't listen. I'm also not sure many doctors would embrace that role.
I'm starting to think it's not unreasonable to have a license for the responsibility of gun ownership. Counseling and education would come during the licensing.
I don't see this as a "public health" issue. It is a regulatory matter. What good would a "license" do? Do you think that would stop the kind of crazies that we are discussing here? Would it even stop the criminal element? How about suicides? I don't think licensing owners would be Constitutional either. So I vote no doctors and no licenses.
Quote from: finehoe on June 12, 2014, 03:54:44 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on June 12, 2014, 02:06:19 PM
finehoe brought up a perspective that I had heard before but no one has ever seriously tried to convince me that this would be a way to help end gun violence.
Just for the record, when I brought up car crashes as a public health issue, it wasn't an advocacy of what the ACP is saying (I just posted their piece above for you all to debate). My point was this:
We had a problem that resulted in death and injury.
We made certain assumptions about why that was the case.
Then we did actual research and data collection on the problem and it showed that many of those assumptions weren't valid.
We came up with solutions that utilized the facts the research came up with.
Said solutions resulted in reduction of death and injury.
I get it, speculating and debating various "solutions" is fun, but in actuality without the facts on the ground to base those solutions on, there is a good chance they won't be valid. And if you have entities that would rather shut down research on what the facts actually are, then it suggests those entities aren't really interested in a "solution".
So I apologize for interjecting a bit of reality into the thread; I will refrain from further posting on it. :-X
I think that's a good thing as you really did not contribute anything. It was also pretty clear that the most rabid Gun control nutz really did not have much to say at all. So as many of us already knew... finger pointing and name calling is all we can expect. I do realize it is therapeutic for those doing so as they try to assuage their own complicity in these tragic happenings.
I do want to thank those who did contribute in a positive manner. It is the proper way to have these discussions. Finger pointing, name calling, and one sided opinion pieces are counter productive and are only designed to inflame...
'Range "Cold"!Cylinders,actions open. All behind The Line until signal given to advance forward to targets'
......recited hundreds of times a month,Gateway Rifle & Pistol Club Just North of 103 street.
Check it out,and the surrounding neighborhoods too. Promise oneself to conduct both tours.