The Gun Control Debate Thread

[DogofWar1]

I've been looking for numbers on that, Kilmer, and I've seen 60% of mass shooters showed some signs of mental defects. I'm gonna keep looking.

It's worth mentioning that the mentally ill are also twice as likely to be victims of physical violence, for context purposes.

[Larry]

I've been looking for numbers on that, Kilmer, and I've seen 60% of mass shooters showed some signs of mental defects. I'm gonna keep looking.

Pointing out that "showed some signs of mental defects" is a pretty broad net.

Have you looked in the 2016 election thread?

[Burgold]

Pointing out that "showed some signs of mental defects" is a pretty broad net.

Have you looked in the 2016 election thread?

Agreed. It wouldn't be hard to make the argument that the act of mass murder is in of itself proof of a mental defect. It certainly does not comport to "normal" or "acceptable" behavior and easily falls in the range of abnormal.

 

Poor Abby Normal, she never had a chance.

[tshile]

the far right is already passing around the "they're going to take our guns away!" articles.

 

you know how we fix this?

 

start requiring an intelligence test before you can cast a vote.

 

probably have better luck of getting that through scotus than any real gun control laws that would actually work (like tracking the guns)

[twa]

well when a angry POTUS calls for gun control and cites two countries that took guns away a reasonably intelligent fellow would see that reaction coming.

 

But I'm all for a intelligence test to vote or hold office.....or at least a competency hearing 

[DogofWar1]

Pointing out that "showed some signs of mental defects" is a pretty broad net.

Have you looked in the 2016 election thread?

 

Well, they deal with some specifics in the article, just haven't been able to post until now.  Still perhaps broad, but with some guides on it.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4318286/

 

 

 

And, of course, scripts linking guns and mental illness arise in the aftermath of many US mass shootings in no small part because of the psychiatric histories of the assailants. Reports suggest that up to 60% of perpetrators of mass shootings in the United States since 1970 displayed symptoms including acute paranoia, delusions, and depression before committing their crimes.

 

 

...which links to http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/11/jared-loughner-mass-shootings-mental-illness

 

 

After another young man unleashed horror inside a Colorado movie theater this July, we set out to track mass shootings in the United States over the last 30 years. We identified and analyzed 62 of them—25 in the last seven years alone.

Nearly 80 percent of the perpetrators in these 62 cases obtained their weapons legally. Acute paranoia, delusions, and depression were rampant among them, with at least 36 of the killers committing suicide on or near the scene. Seven others died in police shootouts they had little hope of surviving (a.k.a. "suicide by cop"). And according to additional research we completed recently, at least 38 of them displayed signs of possible mental health problems prior to the killings. (That data is now included in the interactive guide linked above.)

 

Then there was a 2001 study that found a smaller percent, http://www.psmag.com/health-and-behavior/actually-know-connections-mental-illness-mass-shootings-gun-violence-83103

 

 

 

THIS IS THE QUOTE, BUT THE QUOTE BOX REFUSES TO WORK FOR THIS ONE:

A 2001 study looked specifically at 34 adolescent mass murderers, all male. 70 percent were described as a loner. 61.5 percent had problems with substance abuse. 48 percent had preoccupations with weapons; 43.5 percent had been victims of bullying. Only 23 percent had a documented psychiatric history of any kind―which means three out of four did not.

THIS IS THE END OF THE QUOTE BOX

 

...but the rub is in the documented history bit.  That and the 15 year difference (20 shootings per year average 1999 to 2003, compared to 31 in 2014 and 32 so far in 2015, the makeup of shooters may have changed).  If a person wasn't previously documented as having mental health issues, they wouldn't show up, but plenty of people fly below the radar, and testing on dead shooters (as many die during their incidents) is tough if not impossible, so I would suspect the 23% number is low, while the 60% number might be high.

Chalk it up as another reason for more non-stigmatized and comprehensive mental healthcare in the US; we'd get data on this stuff that is missing at present.

Edited October 4, 2015 by DogofWar1

[Stugein]

Well, behavioral changes do occur in people, and some of these, sadly take stable, reasonable people, and make them less so.

 

Lots of mental illnesses do not appear until adulthood. It's terribly sad to see a successful business person just utterly implode due to a mental illness starting in their late 20's, but it happens.

 

Sometimes it might be less drastic, but no less dangerous.  The people who were lured in by Manson likely were, for the most part, reasonably balanced human beings, but maybe they were susceptible to whatever advances he made, and the result was significant change in personality, and ultimately, actions.

 

If a person buys Sudafed a couple times a year, that's normal.  If they buy it 50 times in a month, something changed.  A gun owner who buys maybe a gun every three years over a 12 year span suddenly buying 5 guns in a month?  You know, no need to no-knock warrant the guy or interrogate his grandma, but, you know, maybe just check in on him.  See if he's still okay in the head.

 

I hear you, I guess I just don't see buying another gun as an indicator of mental illness.  Heck, I've bought 3 over the last 4 months but that's only because NJ's process is so slow otherwise I would've bought all 3 in the same month.  But who knows.  Maybe instead of disallowing it, doing like you said and engaging in a friendly check-in.  I don't see the harm in it, unless it becomes abused to harass gun owners.

 

You know what is an indicator though, is multiple gun sales.  I've read that a pretty high percent of the guns used in crimes were originally purchased as part of a multi-gun purchase (a person buying 3+ guns at the same time).  Seems that often those types of purchases are a hint that someone is making straw purchases or intending to buy guns for resale without doing the diligence that an FFL does.  Maybe on top of the background checks that exist, there needs to be an added layer of scrutiny and tracking when someone is attempting to purchases several guns in a single go.

Edited October 5, 2015 by Stugein

[abdcskins]

I've being trying to come up with solutions other than an all out ban, because we all know that wouldn't work.

I think the easiest and most obvious would be to increase screening heavily and make it more difficult to purchase a gun. I think this is the, "loophole," people are referring to.

You will need three personal references and must be interviewed by a mental health professional. Drug tests. Something along those lines. You must provide solid reasoning why you want to own a gun. And it better be a good one.

I think that casual gun owning should be examined. It shouldn't be a leisurely thing to fire a gun. These are deadly objects made to kill. I still don't understand why any average citizen would want a gun. I don't see why they should be given the right either. They should be restricted to professionals aka police. But hey...changing the Constitution is a difficult thing.

I do get the logic of owning a gun to protect yourself, so I'm not going to claim it doesn't have any practical value. But I hardly think it is ever really applied.

By the way I just watched Obama's speech immediately following the shooting. He was completely on point.

Edited October 5, 2015 by abdcskins

[Stugein]

I do get the logic of owning a gun to protect yourself, so I'm not going to claim it doesn't have any practical value. But I hardly think it is ever really applied.

 

Guns are used defensively many thousands of times each year.  They may prevent more death and injury than they cause.  And I only say "may" because there's really no way to say how many of the crimes they prevent would've resulting in injury or death.  You generally just don't hear about them because sadly a crime prevented and a life saved doesn't often make for big headlines.

[Slateman]

I've being trying to come up with solutions other than an all out ban, because we all know that wouldn't work.

I think the easiest and most obvious would be to increase screening heavily and make it more difficult to purchase a gun. I think this is the, "loophole," people are referring to.

You will need three personal references and must be interviewed by a mental health professional. Drug tests. Something along those lines. You must provide solid reasoning why you want to own a gun. And it better be a good one.

I think that casual gun owning should be examined. It shouldn't be a leisurely thing to fire a gun. These are deadly objects made to kill. I still don't understand why any average citizen would want a gun. I don't see why they should be given the right either. They should be restricted to professionals aka police. But hey...changing the Constitution is a difficult thing.

I do get the logic of owning a gun to protect yourself, so I'm not going to claim it doesn't have any practical value. But I hardly think it is ever really applied.

By the way I just watched Obama's speech immediately following the shooting. He was completely on point.

So I need you to explain something, because I'm incredibly confused about this.

 

Do you understand that owning a firearm is a Constitutional right? Because you're basically demanding that references, drug tests, psyc evals, and a reason for exercising an right. And, frankly, that scares the everliving crap out of me. We're already up in arms over a voter ID law and forcing women to undergo an ultrasound to terminate a pregnancy. Seems like you are opening Pandora's Box and effectively turning a right in a privileged that can be arbitrarily revoked by the government.

[abdcskins]

So I need you to explain something, because I'm incredibly confused about this.

Do you understand that owning a firearm is a Constitutional right? Because you're basically demanding that references, drug tests, psyc evals, and a reason for exercising an right. And, frankly, that scares the everliving crap out of me. We're already up in arms over a voter ID law and forcing women to undergo an ultrasound to terminate a pregnancy. Seems like you are opening Pandora's Box and effectively turning a right in a privileged that can be arbitrarily revoked by the government.

Well I'm not sure what else to do. When you are talking about something as grave as owning a gun, I think it should be a privilege. Not everyone should be allowed to own a gun. Do you think Adam Lanza should've had the right to own a weapon?

[Bang]

This is why it will never happen.

 

This moronic little piece of grabage is floating around my facebook page today.

There is a large group of people who believe such idiotic lies that they are afraid of their own shadows, who are as dumb as a box of very dim rocks.

 

because the largest lobby in the country pushes these lies so you will keep buying guns.
education down, propaganda up, fear up, paranoia up.

 

because the largest lobby in the country realizes that every murder rings the cash register, and when it is as easy to fool the weak minded among us with such easy bull**** like posted above, then common sense can't win.

 

and while we're at it, forget addressing the vague "mental health problem" that the morons who believe the above will also never happen because the largest lobby in the country knows that paranoid crazy people are easy customers and so they are made even more crazy using the various propaganda wings that serve as news, but really exist to increase the cashflow of the gun lobby.

 

Nothing. Will. Ever. Change.

And the meme above is a perfect representative as to why.

You simply can't fight willful ignorance when it is mixed with rampant paranoia fed to the idiots by people promising truth.

 

 

~Bang

Edited October 5, 2015 by Bang

[Slateman]

Well I'm not sure what else to do. When you are talking about something as grave as owning a gun, I think it should be a privilege. Not everyone should be allowed to own a gun. Do you think Adam Lanza should've had the right to own a weapon?

He didn't. That's why he murdered his mother to get one.

 

My point is that now you're opening up something that we may not be able to close. What if they decided that those rules should apply to voting? To refusing a search? To writing a news article or blog? To holding a protest?

 

Not to mention, how open the system would be to abuse. A reason? What reason is substantial? The governing body can decide, literally, what would be reason enough. You've been attacked before? Not a good enough reason. Someone threatened you? Not enough of a threat.

 

Why should I trust my government when it has shown time and time again it will trample my rights (looking at you NSA)?

 

I think voting should be a privilege. I think everyone should have to pass an exam in order to become a citizen. But what I think is irrelevant, because the constitution says that what I think is not acceptable.

[Popeman38]

Hillary Clinton states she will use executive action if elected to enact tougher gun control, to include opening up manufacturers and distributors to liability - even if the guns were sold legally. 

 

http://time.com/4060744/hillary-clinton-oregon-shooting-gun/

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/hillary-clinton-announce-gun-control-proposals-article-1.2385328

 

So if a business follows all applicable laws, they can be sued. Genius.

[Slateman]

Hillary Clinton states she will use executive action if elected to enact tougher gun control, to include opening up manufacturers and distributors to liability - even if the guns were sold legally. 

 

http://time.com/4060744/hillary-clinton-oregon-shooting-gun/

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/hillary-clinton-announce-gun-control-proposals-article-1.2385328

 

So if a business follows all applicable laws, they can be sued. Genius.

Except, there's a law that already specifically prevents that, isn't there?

 

Obama/Clinton don't seem to actually understand the purpose of the Presidency ...

[Popeman38]

Except, there's a law that already specifically prevents that, isn't there?

 

Obama/Clinton don't seem to actually understand the purpose of the Presidency ...

Click the links. She vows to repeal those laws.

[tshile]

Hillary Clinton states she will use executive action if elected to enact tougher gun control, to include opening up manufacturers and distributors to liability - even if the guns were sold legally. 

 

http://time.com/4060744/hillary-clinton-oregon-shooting-gun/

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/hillary-clinton-announce-gun-control-proposals-article-1.2385328

 

So if a business follows all applicable laws, they can be sued. Genius.

 

The people who support this will then turn around and chastise anyone against it as being a far right gun nut that doesn't care about the massacre of children.

 

The pro gun control group just can't get out of their own way.

Edited October 5, 2015 by tshile

[Slateman]

Click the links. She vows to repeal those laws.

Oh ... okay.

[mistertim]

So I need you to explain something, because I'm incredibly confused about this.

 

Do you understand that owning a firearm is a Constitutional right? Because you're basically demanding that references, drug tests, psyc evals, and a reason for exercising an right. And, frankly, that scares the everliving crap out of me. We're already up in arms over a voter ID law and forcing women to undergo an ultrasound to terminate a pregnancy. Seems like you are opening Pandora's Box and effectively turning a right in a privileged that can be arbitrarily revoked by the government.

So there can be no limits on any constitutional rights, no matter what? Its already there for other rights, why not the 2nd amendment?

 

And your fear is exactly what's wrong with this whole thing, just like Bang was talking about earlier. You've had the whole "they're coming to take your guns!" meme pretty much programmed into you. Won't happen, but that doesn't matter. As long as the fear can be manipulated they win, and cha-ching goes the cash register.

Edited October 5, 2015 by mistertim

[Stugein]

So there can be no limits on any constitutional rights, no matter what? Its already there for other rights, why not the 2nd amendment?

 

 

It's already there for the 2nd far more-so than any other right.  People would flip their **** if they had to go through the same stuff gun owners do in order to exercise other rights.

[mistertim]

It's already there for the 2nd far more-so than any other right.  People would flip their **** if they had to go through the same stuff gun owners do in order to exercise other rights.

And the 2nd amendment has far more deadly potential consequences than others. I see no reason why that shouldn't be well vetted and regulated.

[Stugein]

And the 2nd amendment has far more deadly potential consequences than others. I see no reason why that shouldn't be well vetted and regulated.

I was just pointing out that there are limits.  Lots of limits.  Just like those ignorant pro-gun folk who think every proposed new law is a precursor to the government coming to take their guns in the dark of night, you have a subset of anti-gun folk who make it sound like firearm ownership in America is an unregulated free-for-all with people buying guns unchecked down at 7-11. The fact is that in many places exercising your 2nd amendment right is exceedingly burdensome.  And yes, in some states it's probably way too easy.  It's just harder I think for people to come to an understanding on some middle ground if we aren't honest about where we are now.

[mistertim]

I was just pointing out that there are limits.  Lots of limits.  Just like those ignorant pro-gun folk who think every proposed new law is a precursor to the government coming to take their guns in the dark of night, you have a subset of anti-gun folk who make it sound like firearm ownership in America is an unregulated free-for-all with people buying guns unchecked down at 7-11. The fact is that in many places exercising your 2nd amendment right is exceedingly burdensome.  And yes, in some states it's probably way too easy.  It's just harder I think for people to come to an understanding on some middle ground if we aren't honest about where we are now.

That's fair, and I agree.

[twa]

And the 2nd amendment has far more deadly potential consequences than others. I see no reason why that shouldn't be well vetted and regulated.

 

 

I think that is a misconception brought on by media ,the same media that feeds these idiots seeking fame by killing.

 

I can give many ways to kill  more efficiently than firearms.

 

but it is best not to.

[TheGreatBuzz]

So I proposed a while back about the Left and the Right doing a little negotiation on both abortion and gun control.  This is having the hope that some give and take on both sides from both parties can get us to a "better" place.  Both sides would have to give up some things that they don't want to but can get some things they claim they want.  Unless they are just grand standing and don't care as much as they say they do about abortion/gun control.  So here is what I propose.  This would come down from the federal level making it a requirement for all states.  Let me know your thoughts.

 

Abortion:

-No late term abortions unless the life of the mother is in danger.

-Mandatory ultrasound for the mother before the abortion.

-Mandatory "options" education showing alternatives to abortion (adoption, etc).  Training limited to 30 minutes (to limit the brow beating).

-Mandatory family planning class after the abortion (to prevent another one from being needed).

 

Gun Control:

-No private gun sales.  All must take place using an FFL person so a background check can be done, etc just like if I bought a gun at a dealer.  This is the heart of the "gun show loophole" everyone talks about.

-Mandatory 7 day waiting period for all firearms unless expedited by the local police (in case you have a stalker or something).

-Require that all but one weapon (limited to a 10 round capacity) in a household be locked up in a safe that must meet certain specifications.  Hold gun owners responsible for what happens if their gun is "stolen" from their home.  This won't necessarily be easy to enforce but will hold people liable for when a mass shooter gets a hold of their weapon which will hopefully make them think twice about leaving it out.  The one weapon that is allowed to be left out is for home defense.  If you need more than 10 rounds to protect you home, you need to work on your accuracy.  Gun owners would still be responsible for what happens with this weapon so it would be in their best interest to either keep it in a fingerprint safe or only have it accessible when they are home.

-Mandatory gun safety training required every 5 years.  Limited to 8 hours for initial training.  4 hours for refresher training.

 

Thoughts??  Remember this isn't meant to stop ALL gun crimes/abortions.  But hopefully the Left will like some meaningful gun laws while not loosing the rights to abortions.  And the Right will like the exact opposite.

 

EDIT:  For anyone that wants to say "you can't limit the access to/require this to get XXXX, it's a right!" please realize that is exactly what you are asking to be done to the other side.  Funny how that works.

Edited October 5, 2015 by TheGreatBuzz