The Topic of Gun Control and How it Relates to Recent Mass Shootings

Really not here to argue with anyone, but I truly hope we will now move toward restrictions of certain types of weapons and ammunition in this country. It’s time and I think the majority of the country agrees.

 

Sorry if already posted, but I thought this review of other countries dealing with shootings was valuable, for perspective. I'm sure both sides can find what they want. On the one hand, these things do still happen elsewhere (with much less frequency), and on the other hand, the shootings without semi-automatics tend to have lower body counts. (Sorry if that is simply too "duh," but there it is.)

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/17/world/world-newtown-shootings-gun-controls/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

They include Great Britain, Finland, Norway, and Australia, each with their own response to tragedies in terms of gun laws.

 

I think we need to focus more on Mental Health as a country but there flip side of this not every one with a mental issue is a psychopath in the waiting. So far the only thing this guy had was a personality disorder if that and was anti-social. Do you realize how many people with that that DON'T go on to kill lots of people?

It's still America, you can get them help and counseling - look how much that worked for the VT guy - he had all sorts of people try to help him before hand.

we can't label everyone with a mental issue a potential threat to society.

 

I don't hate Mike Moore.
but
This seems almost like sickeningly glee that they have an event to push their
agenda
This is almost as if they are saying THIS IS OUR 9/11

We can get out gun control version of a Patriot Act.

I am for more gun control to an extent
I amd for more mental health

I just get tired of tragedy being USED to promote agendas.

Rocket River

 

If Obama introduces some kind of added legislation, I am 100 percent against it. But I understand...what choice does he have now by those around him? A Feinstein or Schumer would have done this on day 1, but Obama is better than that and has background in constitutional law and isn't quick to act against a bill of right as many liberals might...
In fact, while he certainly is no fan of gun rights, he has respected the issue of gun rights and has given every chance for gun rights to overcome multiple mass shootings abuse...but the 4th time with such innocent kids is a breaking point I even understand.
I have little to no doubt Obama would not infringe any further against guns rights until the last tragedy...Obama had all the power to act in year one (which would NOT have likely stopped the guns the mother already had), but he chose to think and respect a bill of right the majority of his party doesn't care for...
I actually like Obama for being fair and trying to give gun rights an opportunity. It just sickens me there are idiots out there who will ruin anything the vast majority of citizens can enjoy, and it sickens me further to know 20 innocent, precious children will never see another day. My heart and soul hurts so much right now...

 

That's the thing that sucks. A small minority of idiots or mentally ill people ruin it for the majority of responsible owners. It's really a shame.

 

Just curious, would you ever change your mind? If this type of events happens 10 times a day every day for a year, would that change your mind?

 

If it really were the case of a few bad apples ruining the bunch, it would be a lot simpler, but that's horribly soft-peddling the pervasiveness of gun culture.

But there's nothing otherwise desirable about having an armed-to-the-teeth society even discounting these horrible massacres. If gun lovers have to bear the price of prevention by making it more inconvenient/expensive etc for them to target shoot or whatever, then so be it - I don't consider that a shame, it's efficient economics.

 

Allow me to interject the cynical...

It may happen that this most recent atrocity leads to legislation. But maybe not. Moreover, I would be completely not surprised if said theorized legislation was riddled with loopholes. (atrocious pun intended)

 

Au contraire. I only suggested that we actually provide adequate care to those with mental health issues. This will lessen, not exacerbate, labeling the mentally ill as violent time-bombs.

Congress and the president can do something about this today. The mental health parity act of 1996 made it illegal for insurance companies to treat mental illness differently in their coverage than other illnesses. Since 96 the act has repeatedly morphed and has sometimes become an altered version of itself and entered into law. But it has never been enforced. Hopefully this will kick in in a few years due to an increased focus on it as part of Obamacare.

Worse, we have no real, good, affordable treatment for the mentally ill. If someone is ill enough to be hospitalized, one can spend about $1,200/day for a boutique stay with very white sheets in which the patient is visited once weekly by a doctor or he can be tossed into a virtual dungeon.

Ronald Reagan properly identified U.S. mental hospitals as hellholes that did nothing but remove the worst head-cases from the streets; those hospitals were often worse than jails. His plan was to close those hospitals and open new ones that provided adequate care and treatment for patients. Unfortunately he forgot to do the second part. Remember the homeless explosion of the 1980s? The one that continues to this day? Trace it back to the hospitals closings. Crazy people were pushed out into the streets with nothing.

I'm not saying to increase the stigma on mental illness; I'm saying to remove it by giving good care to those in need of it. We can't eliminate the problem (just as we can't with guns) but we can do a hell of a lot better job of managing it. From there the stigma would improve, not worsen.

Crazy people are not, by and large, dangerous to others. They are far more likely to be dangerous to themselves. Untreated crazy people though will hit a limit and push back. If it's a homeless veteran that might take the form of yelling at every passerby. If it's a person of any sort of means, possessed by a mental illness that has gone too long untreated (as it was in this case), a person that can afford or access guns, the lashing out can be far worse, as we've seen.

Background checks are incredibly inadequate. Most mentally ill resist treatment (there is no such thing as a minor personality disorder -- you don't get a touch of borderline personality disorder for example) because of the stigma. Meanwhile the stigma continues as does the resistance to treatment. All you have to do to pass a background check and buy an assault rifle is to be one of those mentally ill that has so far resisted treatment.

We don't just need to improve avenues to treatment, we need to change attitudes about it entirely. I am a high-functioning mentally ill person that, at a time of getting very close of going off the rails sought treatment instead. I have type 1 bipolar disorder and intermittent explosive disorder. Those things never go away; they must be properly managed. I spend around 15-20K annually, out-of-pocket, to see a decent analyst and a decent psychiatrist. If I didn't do that, I have no doubt I'd be dead by now by my own hand and money means little to a dead person. Happily, though I am possessed on occasion by a murderous rage, I do not actually have fantasies about harming others physically. Only myself. But I am a rare case.

How many of the shooters in these (how is it even possible?!) national tragedies has suffered from some form of mental illness?

How often has the cry gone out to tighten gun laws?

I kind of think the genie is out of the bottle on gun laws. Of course, we could improve the situation with assault weapons bans and of course I think the people opposing restrictions on gun rights are total ****ing idiots.

I also think that the factor that leads to these heinous actions is going completely ignored. As usual when it comes to mental health care.

 

How does one "enjoy" assault weapons exactly? I mean, you don't use them for hunting do you?

 

I believe it's illegal to use assault weapons for hunting (at least for deer.)

I shouldn't speak to why others would enjoy assault weapons, but ... some people do feel safer in the modern world knowing they have serious armament, come what may.

Having been to shooting ranges several times, there can definitely be fun in target practice. I've never shot anything close to a war weapon, so there is probably an extra thrill of power in that.

I had a friend who went through a really sad divorce and took up gun collecting and shooting at ranges all the time. It seemed obvious to me (in that one case) that he felt more manly and it might have helped him cope with losing his woman to another man. (Not saying that's the case for anyone here, at all.)

All hobbies are a little weird, at some level. (e.g. I don't think painting figurines makes anymore sense than wanting assault weapons.) It's just that this hobby can be pretty dangerous if you don't guard your weapons and/or keep yourself incredibly sane.

 

How about this?

 

During an early (soon after the news broke) interview with a former ATF official (I believe under the Bush admin), the CNN anchor (Soledad O'Brien) asked why people like the killer's mom collected weapons like the Bushmaster. His answer was interesting: because they are attracted to guns and because they can.

Both answers don't seem that controversial, but they do seem to suggest that stricter laws on what types of weapons people can collect will help... if folks are more limited in the types of weapons they can collect, they will still be able to collect guns, just not those the new law prohibits.

 

depends.. what's the definition of an assault weapon? full auto?

I actually hunt with a camo AR-10 and lo cap mag ... but it's semi auto like any other rifle. I also go to the range and sight my optics in regularly. I know others at the range that are into 3gun and competition target shooters that use AR's. There are more valid uses than hunting. Hunting with an AR-15 is illegal in some states and have various regulation on caliber and magazine capacity. Most require .224 and greater which eliminates AR-15's. AR-10 is .308.

 

I grew up in a family that owned a number of rifles, shot guns and hand guns. For example, over the Thanksgiving break I spent a day at the range with my brother shooting a variety of pistols and rifles, including an AR15, a Glock, a 30-30 and several other pistols and rifles. I've always supported the right to own guns, but been open to gun control legislation. It was just never a political priority for me.

I have been deeply affected by what happened at Newtown and my political priorities have shifted as well.

However, I think the proposals that I've seen floated around the last few days may be missing the mark. It seems to me there are a couple of realities that lead to the bulk of gun deaths. Guns in the hands of the wrong people- criminals, the mentally ill, children. And guns with high capacity magazines.

To address these issues I would propose federal legislation that includes-

mandatory home storage of guns in gun safes. (This would reduce access to guns by the mentally ill, criminals, and children.)

harsh penalties for gun owners that have guns stolen or used in crimes because they were not secured in gun safes.

illegal to own a gun if convicted of a violent felony

increase penalties on illegal gun ownership and crimes committed with guns.

outlaw high capacity magazines. (Every reload is an opportunity to stop the shooting.)

I also think we need higher barriers to, and more regulation of gun ownership. I would propose federal legislation that includes-

gun registration

5 day waiting period, criminal mental health background checks, (eliminate gun show loop hole)and mandatory gun safety classes prior to gun purchase.

I think focusing on types of guns (like the assault weapon ban) is a mistake. The real issues are guns in the wrong hands and high capacity mags. Without high capacity mags there's little difference between the damage that can be done with an "assault weapon" and a revolver like a 357 in a situation like occurred in Newtown. And a pistol with a high capacity mag will do more damage. However, "assault weapons" get outsized attention because they look scary.

 

Well, it is Monday and wingnut Talk Radio is out in force trying to shore up the constitution of the wingers and do away with any lingering questions that may have crept in to challenge the orthodoxy since Friday. As the week goes on, the language will become more strident. I give us until midday tomorrow before people start saying Obama arranged the shooting to create an opportunity to take people's guns away.

 

I agree in part with your point about the assault weapons, but the assault weapons ban previously in place, and which I'd like to see return did ban the high capacity magazines. That's what I think the main benefit of the assault weapons is. Sure getting rid of some assault weapons might help out a bit, but the real meat is in the ban of high capacity magazines which the assault weapons ban does.

I would like lawmakers to have to undertake gun safety class and fire the weapons so they can understand more about it, and won't be as misdirected in their efforts.