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

I rarely agree with you but you are spot on with your position here.

 

sorry double post

 

I am not from Europe nor have I shot guns there but this is what I have read about their firearm etiquette. Feel free to research for yourself but that is what I gathered.

Have you ever shot at a crowded indoor shooting range? If not, then I could see why you have a hard time believing it.

 

In general, I don't think it's a good idea to argue which right is more important in the constitution. It probably will not be very productive going down that path on each side.

However, talking about speaking one's mind. After watching Wayne LaPierre's interview on "meet the press", I just don't think the "everthing else but guns" argument is all that convincing and productive for the anti-gun control stance. It sounds disingenuous by shifting the blame to other causes. It makes NRA more of an easy target in the wake of Sandy Hook. It probably also turned off a lot people in other communities, like the video gamers, who were not necessarily for a stricter gun control before. This tactic has to stop. The best defense, IMVHO, for the gun cause is the individual right gurantteed by the Const. Wayne LaPierre should have come out swinging left and right on the importantance of gun rights on an Individual basis and pound on the facts and stats don't support each Individual gun owner's const right should be infringed based on few unique incidents. He should have said something like no sensible society should draw a line to ostricize a right set forth in the constitution based on almost non-existent likelihood of harm brough about each of individual gun owners. He should have recognized there is a limit of 2nd am, but that limit has to be acertained by substaintial evidence that INDIVIDUAL gun ownership such as owning a semi-automatic rifle warrants a limit to exclude such ownership, and the facts and stats don't support such a limit. Basically he should fashion the argument on the facts that these mass shootings are done in very unique circumstances that do not apply to gun owners around the country and stay focused on that only. Just my 2 cents, not saying these would be the winning arguments, and I have counters to each of them.

 

I thought you were talking about the US, my mistake.

Reading up on the actual physics of it (i.e. gun shot decibels and how many decibels proper ear protection negates), it appears this is not true.

 

I can give you my practical experience and say that my ears ring after shooting with hearing protection. I haven't been tested for hearing loss but at the very least it is painful.

There was a study performed on 37 shooters, some of which used hearing protection and it concluded that, "commercial hearing protectors probably reduce the amount of hearing loss from gun shooting, but hearing loss still results after much shooting because of the intensity of gunfire and the limitations of the hearing protectors used."

"Gun-shooting hearing loss": a pilot study
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/41430068_Gun-shooting_hearing_loss_A_pilot_study

 

Sounds like they're not wearing proper hearing protection.

 

In a nutshell, the national database would increase accountability by allowing doctors to more easily monitor prescriptions of controlled substances to a given patient. In other words, it would afford greater prevention of addicts and/or dealers from easily obtaining narcs by getting multiple scripts from multiple docs, and having those scripts filled at multiple pharmacies.

That's not really a fair assumption. Shooting ranges, especially indoor ranges, can get VERY loud, regardless the quality of ear protection utilized. When I go to an indoor range, I double up: in-ear plugs and over-the-ear, ear-muff-style.

 

A good friend of mine is a retired cardiovascular surgeon, and a gun collector (some of you would freak out if you saw his collection), so I have a lot of respect for his medical opinion. He always wears earplugs under his hearing protectors (the gizmos that look like ear muffs), and says that's the way to do it. Seems logical to me.

 

I think it's BS that silencers are illegal -- why should I ruin my hearing and risk the hell of tinnitus if I have to fire a gun without hearing protection?

They should sell legal silencers that drop the sound down where it's still loud, but it won't hurt your ears.

 

If you wear something that is rated for gunfire, you will not have hearing problems. Pretty simple. This isn't an assumption. It isn't magic. It's physics.

 

Rated for gunfire is one thing. Rated for multiple guns of varying calibers in the enclosed confines of an indoor range is something else.

As I said, and as Deckard posted above, I double up on ear protection when I go to the range.

 

Yes, as you very well should. If you're experiencing pain or hearing loss while wearing ear protection, then you either need to stop shooting or go get some better ear protection (which includes layering). This is not a valid reason for silencers, IMO.

 

Pretty much. But poor funding + ignorant public = it's not a priority. More patients wind up being discharged who might otherwise be committed were funding (and thus the number of beds) available. What is also lacking re: funding is the ability for social workers to follow up. For example: A crazy homeless guy comes in, gets stabilized on meds, and discharges with a plan to check into a half-way house/partial care facility, only to wind up back on the streets, off their meds, and unstable once again. Or, a kid discharges home with various plans in place re: follow-up, but the kids parents suck, scripts don't get filled, no-show for follow-up appointments, and wind up neglected and unstable yet again. It's a vicious cycle.

Well, this ain't the PRC. I said "easier," not "easy." Better funding + better care + better followup = "easier."

You should be surprised. Mentally ill people are thrown back into society and everything is expected to be okay. It's that pesky thing again about funding, followup, available care for crisis management, etc.

"Us." Us where? In this thread? I'm talking about the headlines I read and see on the news. I might see one headline about mental health for every five I see about gun control.

I have no idea why they have or have not done so. I'd venture to guess it's because, again, mental health, particularly in Texas, isn't a priority. It all goes back to funding, education, ignorance, etc. combined with a politically charged issue.

The simple truth is that assessing a person for potential violence isn't easy. Increased funding and education to the public regarding mental health and addiction wouldn't be a cure-all, but it would certainly help.

 

Fair enough.

Maybe you know this, but silencers don't work the way they do in movies. It's generally recommended that you continue to wear ear protection, even with a silencer, because it doesn't make the firearm anywhere near silent.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/qQAITej3mGU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Also, the purpose of a silencer isn't so a person can sneak around, Metal Gear-style, and kill people undetected. A silencer reduces recoil, which improves accuracy, and is important for both hunting and competetive/target shooting alike.

 

I have and with ear protection it is not a problem at all. In fact every time I go to the indoor range I have NEVER scene ANYONE with a silencer. You are full of bull****.

 

I could have written this myself:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/26/opinion/our-failed-approach-to-schizophrenia.html

 

Hmm... perhaps you didn't read this as closely as you thought, but if you did, and still believe you could have written this yourself, then perhaps there is a chance of greater agreement...

 

Do you live in Europe? If so, which country?

 

I misspoke re: the part above in bold. A patient can admit to the hospital on a court order from a judge. While a judge can issue an OPC prior to admission, it's the doc who initiates the OPC if it becomes necessary after a patient has already been admitted to the hospital. A patient can also be on court-ordered meds, and that's always fun, but probably a discussion for another thread.

I'm an RN, so the legal stuff isn't really my department; I just follow the doc's orders and do patient care. Sorry for any confusion.

Perhaps you didn't read my posts as closely as you thought: 1) Nowhere did I say that I was against reasonable controls for purchase of firearms, 2) every one of my posts has been about the mentally ill and the relationship to firearms, and 3) greater care of the mentally ill with regard to funding and education of the public about mental illness.

Your definition of 'reasonable controls' most likely differs from mine with regard to non-felon, non-mentally ill citizens such as myself, and that's fine, but I started posting in this thread to discuss the greater problem of mental illness, which is the common link between the shootings in Arizona, Virginia Tech, Colorado, and now Connecticut, which is exactly what the author of that article is saying.