Gun (Lack of) Control


A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (as always, locked for the duration of major international championship)

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby JRM » Tue Dec 18, 2012 9:00 am

Marlow wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:a bullet ban won't stop people from obtaining ammunition, since many folks load their own ammunition anyway, so all it would so is make more folks go this route.

Which is fine with me. Most of the mass-murders are not going to that much trouble. Anything we can do to stem the tide of mass-murder MUST be done.

With more gun control, murder sprees will NOT stop, but the body count will go WAY down. That's all we can (must) hope for.


Exactly. It isn't about the *act* of limiting bullets, but rather the result. How many of the recent mass shooters would have gone through the trouble of making 1000 bullets, if they couldn't pull 10 boxes off the shelf at Walmart? If you remove easy access, you likely remove 99% of the incidents.
JRM
 
Posts: 2625
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Woodland Hills, CA

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby preston » Tue Dec 18, 2012 9:02 am

jazzcyclist wrote:I'm not talking about "many folks", talk show hosts and internet posters, I'm talking about a sitting congresswoman and the mayor of this nation's biggest city, both who have the ear of the President. Bloomberg is the wrong person to be walking point on this issue if the gun control folks are trying to win people over. It would be much better to let someone like conservative, pro-gun Republican Joe Scarborough be the poster child for the movement since his recent epiphany.

Its happening on the other side as well, though. Gun advocates would be smart to make Louis Gohmert seal his mouth shut for the next few weeks.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby Marlow » Tue Dec 18, 2012 9:04 am

Daisy wrote:Why do avid hunters need semi-automatic rifles?

I was flipping through the channels and came across what appeared to be a wonderful little documentary about deer. It had gorgeous scenery in it and talked about how beautiful the deer were as they serenely grazed. I was enchanted until a shot rang out and blew a hole in the side of the buck. The hunter then gleefully ran up and posed with its head for his buddies to admire.

[rant]I get that hunting is necessary (I eat burgers - same thing), but I am at a complete loss how hunting is 'sport' and how someone can derive so much pleasure from killing a defenseless animal. [I killed and ate a raccoon in Navy Survival Training; it was not a happy occasion for either of us] That's why I always cheer for the bull in the ring. I can almost see the sport in that (except it is not exactly a level playing field). [/rant]
Marlow
 
Posts: 21079
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby Blues » Tue Dec 18, 2012 9:04 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
Daisy wrote:Jazz, how does banning semi-automatic weapons, armor piercing bullets and flesh-shredding bullets impinge on the second amendment?

By "armor piercing bullets", I assume you mean full-metal jacket bullets, but what do you mean by "flesh-shredding bullets"? I've never head of this term. As for the idea of banning all semi-automatic weapons, I guess gun control advocates can try, but the likelihood of them succeeding is about as slim as the likelihood of them bringing back Prohibition. There are simply too many avid hunters who use semi-automatic rifles as their weapons of choice. Yesterday, one of my co-workers, who is an avid hunter and fisherman, showed me a picture of a custom-made, semi-automatic rifle that got over the weekend that he paid $1400 for and had to wait for over a year for it to be built. Also, a bullet ban won't stop people from obtaining ammunition, since many folks load their own ammunition anyway, so all it would so is make more folks go this route.


C'mon Jazz... You and the rest of us know that Daisy's "flesh shredding bullets" referred to hollow points, whether Daisy knew the term or not... And although various bans may not eliminate the banned items completely, they'll make it a lot more difficult to obtain them, thus cutting down availability to those who might commit this type of crime.

Also, regarding the argument that a deranged individual will find alternative ways to kill en masse if he or she doesn't have access to high powered firearms, I don't think that's necessarily a valid argument. In many instances, having the easily available weapons in one's hands can drastically increase the "courage" or "mental testosterone" of an individual, to a point that the individual may attempt to commit an atrocity that he or she normally wouldn't have the balls to commit, or wouldn't commit if significantly more time and effort was required for thinking and planning.
Blues
 
Posts: 1088
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:58 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby Marlow » Tue Dec 18, 2012 9:06 am

Blues wrote:having the easily available weapons in one's hands can drastically increase the "courage" or "mental testosterone" of an individual, to a point that the individual may attempt to commit an atrocity that he or she normally wouldn't have the balls to commit, or wouldn't commit if significantly more time and effort was required for thinking and planning.

That has been my point too.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21079
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby preston » Tue Dec 18, 2012 9:06 am

JRM wrote:...How many of the recent mass shooters would have gone through the trouble of making 1000 bullets, if they couldn't pull 10 boxes off the shelf at Walmart? If you remove easy access, you likely remove 99% of the incidents.

This is not correct. When you're talking about Javon Belcher, the answer is yes; however, in the case of mass killings where the person has little or no connection to the strangers they aim to kill we KNOW that this is something that they PLAN. It's not a crime of passion or greed; this is an act of evil. It's about as premeditated as something can be and people like these will not be stopped or deterred; they'll just research another way to inflict their mayhem.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Dec 18, 2012 9:10 am

Daisy wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:but what do you mean by "flesh-shredding bullets"?

I have no idea what the real term is. The point is that some bullets are designed to damage people more than others. Why are hi-tech bullets available, what do gun enthusiasts need them for?

You're using a bunch of vague terms. Please be more precise and I'll try to answer you questions as best I can.
Daisy wrote:Why do avid hunters need semi-automatic rifles?

No one needs to hunt in 2012 America, so the entire activity is unnecessary, not to mention the instruments folks choose to pursue this hobby. Some folks hunt with bows & arrows, some with high-powered handguns, some with shotguns, some with muzzle-loaders (muskets), some with bolt-action rifles and some with lever-action rifles. What hunters choose to hunt and what they choose to kill their prey with is a matter of personal preference.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby Daisy » Tue Dec 18, 2012 9:13 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
Daisy wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:but what do you mean by "flesh-shredding bullets"?

I have no idea what the real term is. The point is that some bullets are designed to damage people more than others. Why are hi-tech bullets available, what do gun enthusiasts need them for?

You're using a bunch of vague terms. Please be more precise and I'll try to answer you questions as best I can.

OK, blues just gave me the term. Hollow point bullets. So, why do gun enthusiasts need them?
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby JRM » Tue Dec 18, 2012 9:13 am

preston wrote:...however, in the case of mass killings where the person has little or no connection to the strangers they aim to kill we KNOW that this is something that they PLAN. It's not a crime of passion or greed; this is an act of evil. It's about as premeditated as something can be and people like these will not be stopped or deterred; they'll just research another way to inflict their mayhem.


Nonsense. I'm tired of the ridiculous argument that "they'll find another way to do it!". Remove easy access, and you remove motivation. I reject the notion that all these shooters are the Unibomber, with unlimited time to sit in a cabin, writing manifestos, and building one bullet at a time while plotting their actions.

The CT shooter snapped at home on Friday morning, grabbed a gun, killed his mom, and for whatever reason went to the school on the spur of the moment. I very much doubt he sat at home saying "One day, I'm going to take out those kids..."
JRM
 
Posts: 2625
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Woodland Hills, CA

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby kuha » Tue Dec 18, 2012 9:14 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
kuha wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:But there are some politicians, like Michael Bloomberg, who want to ban all private gun ownership. And Congresswoman Carol McCarthy, a.k.a. the "Gun Lady", wants Obama to ban guns by executive order. On MSNBC's Hardball today, it was pointed out folks like Bloomberg and McCarthy would hurt the gun control movement since they fit the worst anti-gun stereotype imaginable and can be easily caricatured
And there are many people in the US right now who want their state(s) to secede from the Union. In both cases, the chatter means nothing: it ain't happening. To get worked up about either view right now is a giant distraction from reality.

I'm not talking about "many folks", talk show hosts and internet posters, I'm talking about a sitting congresswoman and the mayor of this nation's biggest city, both who have the ear of the President. Bloomberg is the wrong person to be walking point on this issue if the gun control folks are trying to win people over. It would be much better to let someone like conservative, pro-gun Republican Joe Scarborough be the poster child for the movement since his recent epiphany.


First, I did a quick google search on Michael Bloomberg and gun control and came up with lots of pieces with words like "stronger" and "tougher" controls. I couldn't find any comment by him advocating anything like a complete ban. Second, when Manchin and Scarborough are saying sane things on this subject, you have a clear sense that the tide (at least for now) has turned.

But really, to leap from the idea of "stronger/tougher" gun laws to the Chicken-Little position that the Feds are confiscating all guns is just a non-starter. It doesn't advance the conversation in any constructive way.
kuha
 
Posts: 9014
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Dec 18, 2012 9:14 am

Blues wrote:C'mon Jazz... You and the rest of us know that Daisy's "flesh shredding bullets" referred to hollow points, whether Daisy knew the term or not....

No, I did not know what he meant. There are all sorts of bullets, so why would I assume he meant hollow points? I'm trying to have an honest debate, I'm not playing games.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby jeremyp » Tue Dec 18, 2012 9:19 am

Cooter Brown wrote:If you want to be licenses as a gun owner, you should have to pass a mental health assessment. Maybe require an update to it every 10 years. If you have someone with mental health issues living in your home, guns can't be housed on site.

It'd be really hard for the pro-gun lobby to argue and win over public opinion that the mentally ill have a right to own or have access to guns.

In 25 years as a mental health professional I can recall only 2-3 murders by our patients in a semi large metropolitan area. There is no assessment that can show how prone to violence an individual is. Most mass killings done by mentally ill individuals involve paranoids, and paranoids are notorious for keeping their cards close to their chest. Lanza was a social "weirdo," as was Loughner, are we going to deny guns to the nerds? Depression is a mental illness and many shooters are depressed and suicidal but are we going to deny guns to those assessed as depressed? That would be millions. Sociopaths are killers but quite capable of fooling the best assessor. What is needed however is for the health industry to add mental health to it's treatment options and not keep it available for only the wealthy and those on medicaid.
jeremyp
 
Posts: 4542
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Florida

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby Blues » Tue Dec 18, 2012 9:23 am

Marlow wrote:
Blues wrote:having the easily available weapons in one's hands can drastically increase the "courage" or "mental testosterone" of an individual, to a point that the individual may attempt to commit an atrocity that he or she normally wouldn't have the balls to commit, or wouldn't commit if significantly more time and effort was required for thinking and planning.

That has been my point too.


I'm sorry if my post restated what you'd already posted Marlow... I didn't have time to thoroughly read all 10 pages of the thread, so I apologize if I duplicated arguments that you've already posted. It's a very valid point though in response to those who argue that having no guns wouldn't have made a difference in all these mass killings, so reiterating it might not have been a bad idea.
Blues
 
Posts: 1088
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:58 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby preston » Tue Dec 18, 2012 9:29 am

JRM wrote:
preston wrote:...however, in the case of mass killings where the person has little or no connection to the strangers they aim to kill we KNOW that this is something that they PLAN. It's not a crime of passion or greed; this is an act of evil. It's about as premeditated as something can be and people like these will not be stopped or deterred; they'll just research another way to inflict their mayhem.


Nonsense. I'm tired of the ridiculous argument that "they'll find another way to do it!". Remove easy access, and you remove motivation. I reject the notion that all these shooters are the Unibomber, with unlimited time to sit in a cabin, writing manifestos, and building one bullet at a time while plotting their actions.

The CT shooter snapped at home on Friday morning, grabbed a gun, killed his mom, and for whatever reason went to the school on the spur of the moment. I very much doubt he sat at home saying "One day, I'm going to take out those kids..."

What's ridiculous is your hyper-emotional response to a factual argument. Which gun did the Unabomber use? How about Timothy McVeigh? YOU. ARE. WRONG. Gun control will certainly stop a hell of alot of killing (Jealous lover, Burglary gone bad, etc) but it WILL NOT stop people hell bent on creating a delusional "legend" status for themselves. The only thing it MIGHT stop is the requisite suicide that seems to accompany these killings (CO theater, VaTEch, Newtown).
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby Conor Dary » Tue Dec 18, 2012 9:34 am

A relevant column in today's NYTimes:

    In Gun Debate, a Misguided Focus on Mental Illness

    Alcohol and drug abuse are far more likely to result in violent behavior than mental illness by itself. In the National Institute of Mental Health’s E.C.A. study, for example, people with no mental disorder who abused alcohol or drugs were nearly seven times as likely as those without substance abuse to commit violent acts.

    All the focus on the small number of people with mental illness who are violent serves to make us feel safer by displacing and limiting the threat of violence to a small, well-defined group. But the sad and frightening truth is that the vast majority of homicides are carried out by outwardly normal people in the grip of all too ordinary human aggression to whom we provide nearly unfettered access to deadly force.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/healt ... .html?_r=0
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby Blues » Tue Dec 18, 2012 9:39 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
Blues wrote:C'mon Jazz... You and the rest of us know that Daisy's "flesh shredding bullets" referred to hollow points, whether Daisy knew the term or not....

No, I did not know what he meant. There are all sorts of bullets, so why would I assume he meant hollow points? I'm trying to have an honest debate, I'm not playing games.


A flesh shredding bullet is obviously one designed to inflict as much damage on a person's body as possible, ie, hollow points. It appears you might be trying to defend your minority anti-gun law position in the group by insisting you aren't playing games, and maybe I'm wrong, but if I asked 1000 gun owners, 1000 law enforcement personnel, or 1000 medical personnel what they thought a "flesh shredding bullet" might be, I'd venture a guess that all of them would suggest a hollow point type bullet.

For those unfamiliar with the concept, this is what a hollow point bullet does when it hits a person, making the wound much larger and more potentially fatal:

http://www.taurus45acp.com/gallery/slid ... risons.jpg

In states with stricter gun laws, hollow points are illegal to possess for those who aren't in law enforcement.
Blues
 
Posts: 1088
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:58 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby JRM » Tue Dec 18, 2012 9:48 am

preston wrote:What's ridiculous is your hyper-emotional response to a factual argument. Which gun did the Unabomber use? How about Timothy McVeigh? YOU. ARE. WRONG. Gun control will certainly stop a hell of alot of killing (Jealous lover, Burglary gone bad, etc) but it WILL NOT stop people hell bent on creating a delusional "legend" status for themselves. The only thing it MIGHT stop is the requisite suicide that seems to accompany these killings (CO theater, VaTEch, Newtown).


My point is that the majority of these idiots who pick up three semi-automatic weapons and head to the mall do not have the patience to see a long-term plan through. The "Unabomber" was a euphemism for the latter -- I'm fully aware he didn't use a gun. McVeigh was such an individual as well. These recent rampaging rambos, however, are not.

And I think it's appropriate you brought up McVeigh: following that incident, sale of fertilizer and home-made bomb ingredients were severely restricted and monitored so that a similar incident would not repeat itself (and hasn't since). We should be so lucky that bullets and guns are seen as a similar threat.
JRM
 
Posts: 2625
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Woodland Hills, CA

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby Blues » Tue Dec 18, 2012 9:51 am

Conor Dary wrote:A relevant column in today's NYTimes:

    In Gun Debate, a Misguided Focus on Mental Illness

    Alcohol and drug abuse are far more likely to result in violent behavior than mental illness by itself. In the National Institute of Mental Health’s E.C.A. study, for example, people with no mental disorder who abused alcohol or drugs were nearly seven times as likely as those without substance abuse to commit violent acts.

    All the focus on the small number of people with mental illness who are violent serves to make us feel safer by displacing and limiting the threat of violence to a small, well-defined group. But the sad and frightening truth is that the vast majority of homicides are carried out by outwardly normal people in the grip of all too ordinary human aggression to whom we provide nearly unfettered access to deadly force.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/healt ... .html?_r=0


That's true... To also comment on the mental health issue though, in recent years many public psychiatric hospitals have been closed for financial reasons... Because of that a greater number of previously institutionalized patients are on the streets, and there are less beds for patients who probably do require inpatient care. Another major problem is that in those patients with major psychotic disorders, whether or not they take their medication as directed determines the manifestations of the illness. If a patient is discharged from a facility because they're no longer deemed to be a risk to the public or to themselves while on medication, things can change rapidly if they don't take their medication as directed, and it's extremely difficult, or impossible, for healthcare providers to guarantee medication compliance, especially in this patient population.

In the large psychiatric hospital I worked at, many of the patients would be routinely readmitted a week or two after they were discharged, usually because they'd stopped taking their meds and ended up doing something that required them to be institutionalized again.
Last edited by Blues on Tue Dec 18, 2012 10:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
Blues
 
Posts: 1088
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:58 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby preston » Tue Dec 18, 2012 10:01 am

JRM wrote:
preston wrote:What's ridiculous is your hyper-emotional response to a factual argument. Which gun did the Unabomber use? How about Timothy McVeigh? YOU. ARE. WRONG. Gun control will certainly stop a hell of alot of killing (Jealous lover, Burglary gone bad, etc) but it WILL NOT stop people hell bent on creating a delusional "legend" status for themselves. The only thing it MIGHT stop is the requisite suicide that seems to accompany these killings (CO theater, VaTEch, Newtown).


My point is that the majority of these idiots who pick up three semi-automatic weapons and head to the mall do not have the patience to see a long-term plan through. The "Unabomber" was a euphemism for the latter -- I'm fully aware he didn't use a gun. McVeigh was such an individual as well. These recent rampaging rambos, however, are not.

And I think it's appropriate you brought up McVeigh: following that incident, sale of fertilizer and home-made bomb ingredients were severely restricted and monitored so that a similar incident would not repeat itself (and hasn't since). We should be so lucky that bullets and guns are seen as a similar threat.

Ok, thanks for that response. The other was a bit out of character for you. I think I'm making a distinction that you don't feel is different. I think the guy who gets fired and goes back to work to kill as many of his former co-workers is different than Lanza. (he might not be, I'm only saying that I see them as different) For this guy, I believe you are right: restricting easy access to guns will definitely stop him. However, for the loner-dude(s) who has been planning this type of thing...these nuts will press their own bullets, custom make their own semi-autos, build their own bombs and wait until that thing sets them off and they try to carry out their plan. I don't think there is anything that will stop him.

Interestingly, the same people who are trying to infringe on the rights of guns owner arguing "that it only makes sense" and "who needs a semi-auto to hunt..." , often seems to be the same ones who invoke first amendment rights and howl about "censorship". If the 2nd amendment has to give, then the first will have to give too.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby Daisy » Tue Dec 18, 2012 10:08 am

preston wrote:Interestingly, the same people who are trying to infringe on the rights of guns owner arguing .... "who needs a semi-auto to hunt..." ........If the 2nd amendment has to give, then the first will have to give too.

So why does the second amendment need to give in this scenario?
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby Blues » Tue Dec 18, 2012 10:09 am

preston wrote:
JRM wrote:...How many of the recent mass shooters would have gone through the trouble of making 1000 bullets, if they couldn't pull 10 boxes off the shelf at Walmart? If you remove easy access, you likely remove 99% of the incidents.

This is not correct. When you're talking about Javon Belcher, the answer is yes; however, in the case of mass killings where the person has little or no connection to the strangers they aim to kill we KNOW that this is something that they PLAN. It's not a crime of passion or greed; this is an act of evil. It's about as premeditated as something can be and people like these will not be stopped or deterred; they'll just research another way to inflict their mayhem.


But what some of us are saying is that some of those involved may not have planned it if they didn't already have the high powered weapons in their hands or know they were readily available, to make them feel the atrocity was easily attainable...
Blues
 
Posts: 1088
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:58 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby JRM » Tue Dec 18, 2012 10:13 am

preston wrote:Interestingly, the same people who are trying to infringe on the rights of guns owner arguing "that it only makes sense" and "who needs a semi-auto to hunt..." , often seems to be the same ones who invoke first amendment rights and howl about "censorship". If the 2nd amendment has to give, then the first will have to give too.


Then maybe it's time for people to realize that possessing a tool is not a "right."
JRM
 
Posts: 2625
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Woodland Hills, CA

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby Blues » Tue Dec 18, 2012 10:28 am

Daisy wrote:
preston wrote:Interestingly, the same people who are trying to infringe on the rights of guns owner arguing .... "who needs a semi-auto to hunt..." ........If the 2nd amendment has to give, then the first will have to give too.

So why does the second amendment need to give in this scenario?


I'm curious too. Does the second amendment actually state that it protects "the right of the people to keep and bear ANY AND ALL arms"? Or were the creators of the 2nd amendment incompetent enough back in the late 1700's to somehow leave out the ANY AND ALL part and risk violating the God given rights of the NRA and hunters of the 21st century? :wink:
Blues
 
Posts: 1088
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:58 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby preston » Tue Dec 18, 2012 10:37 am

I don't disagree that possessing a "tool" is not a right, but neither should the ability to go on the internet and learn how to build a nuclear device be "right" either. But, the internet is defended as the almost the last right. I'm just saying that the proliferation of some IDEAS are far more dangerous than any tool. There's no right to be able to learn how to build a dirty bomb, or a nuclear device, or a Molotov cocktail but someone with child pornography on their hard-drive is going to jail.

Ted Bundy's granddad:
    His pathology may have been due to his relationship with his grandfather, Samuel Cowell, a church deacon, who was described as a "tyrannical bully". Samuel was a known bigot, who hated blacks, Hispanics, Italians, Catholics, and Jews. Bundy stated that Samuel also tortured small animals, including neighborhood dogs and cats, and kept an extensive collection of "odd" pornography in his greenhouse. It would later be revealed that the pornography was of a violent nature; rape, torture, and mock-snuff.

...an episode of Criminal Minds where Rossi claims that Ted Bundy told him the story about pornography contributing to his violent impulses, stating "If you want to stop people from becoming like me, don't burn Catcher in the Rye, burn Hustler".

Are we gonna ban violent video games, movies, etc? South Korea is having one hell of a time trying to ban pornography, btw.http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digit ... vigilantes

The point is that "freedom" is as much of the problem as the "tools". Freedom is a concept, a thought, a belief, but to many it is tangible, real and ... inalienable. That freedom seems to show MORE of a connection to the eventual crimes than the actual presence of the tools.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby Pego » Tue Dec 18, 2012 10:53 am

preston wrote:Ted Bundy story


I suspect that inheriting grandpa's tendencies toward violent behavior rather than the relationship with him is more likely the explanation of TB's psychopathology.
Pego
 
Posts: 10196
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby Blues » Tue Dec 18, 2012 11:07 am

jeremyp wrote:
Cooter Brown wrote:If you want to be licenses as a gun owner, you should have to pass a mental health assessment. Maybe require an update to it every 10 years. If you have someone with mental health issues living in your home, guns can't be housed on site.

It'd be really hard for the pro-gun lobby to argue and win over public opinion that the mentally ill have a right to own or have access to guns.

In 25 years as a mental health professional I can recall only 2-3 murders by our patients in a semi large metropolitan area. There is no assessment that can show how prone to violence an individual is. Most mass killings done by mentally ill individuals involve paranoids, and paranoids are notorious for keeping their cards close to their chest. Lanza was a social "weirdo," as was Loughner, are we going to deny guns to the nerds? Depression is a mental illness and many shooters are depressed and suicidal but are we going to deny guns to those assessed as depressed? That would be millions. Sociopaths are killers but quite capable of fooling the best assessor. What is needed however is for the health industry to add mental health to it's treatment options and not keep it available for only the wealthy and those on medicaid.


Good comments. In my 8 years as a healthcare provider at a large state psychiatric hospital though, I saw severely ill patients who'd committed a combined total of dozens of murders, but the majority of those murders were committed before they were admitted to the hospital and were what led to their being committed. And that hospital wasn't even the one that housed the most severely and incorrigibly criminally insane in the state.
Blues
 
Posts: 1088
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:58 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby bijanc » Tue Dec 18, 2012 11:19 am

One of my fellow contributors to AlterNet suggested that the issue be championed not by politicos, but by independent advocates, with MADD as the model.
bijanc
 
Posts: 1412
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby Conor Dary » Tue Dec 18, 2012 11:40 am

This is a start in the change of mood:

    The reaction to the Newtown shootings spread to corporate America and to California on Tuesday, as a private equity firm said it would immediately sell the company that made the assault-style rifle used in shootings, while California lawmakers announced an effort to regulate the sale of ammunition more tightly.

    In announcing the sale of the gun manufacturer, the private equity firm Cerberus Capital Management made clear that the decision stemmed from the killings at Sandy Hook Elementary School, in Newton, Conn. “It is apparent that the Sandy Hook tragedy was a watershed event that has raised the national debate on gun control to an unprecedented level,” Cerberus said in a news release.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012 ... n-guns/?hp
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Dec 18, 2012 11:56 am

Daisy wrote:OK, blues just gave me the term. Hollow point bullets. So, why do gun enthusiasts need them?

Is this a serious question? What do you think the objective is when hunters shoot animals? And since you’re also opposed to “armor piercing” bullets which maintain their shape upon impact, as opposed to deforming, what type of bullets are you okay with? FYI, information about the hows and whys of bullet design can be easily found on the internet with minimal effort.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby JRM » Tue Dec 18, 2012 12:01 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:
Daisy wrote:OK, blues just gave me the term. Hollow point bullets. So, why do gun enthusiasts need them?

Is this a serious question? What do you think the objective is when hunters shoot animals?


I think this encapsulates a bigger issue: "what is the objective of shooting things?", regardless of the type of bullet or gun involved...
JRM
 
Posts: 2625
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Woodland Hills, CA

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby Daisy » Tue Dec 18, 2012 12:10 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:
Daisy wrote:OK, blues just gave me the term. Hollow point bullets. So, why do gun enthusiasts need them?

Is this a serious question? What do you think the objective is when hunters shoot animals? And since you’re also opposed to “armor piercing” bullets which maintain their shape upon impact, as opposed to deforming, what type of bullets are you okay with? FYI, information about the hows and whys of bullet design can be easily found on the internet with minimal effort.

Your snide comments and evasion are pathetic.

Hunters do not need the most powerful bullets, or the most powerful guns to 'enjoy' their sport. Obviously they think they do though.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Dec 18, 2012 12:19 pm

Blues wrote:if I asked 1000 gun owners, 1000 law enforcement personnel, or 1000 medical personnel what they thought a "flesh shredding bullet" might be, I'd venture a guess that all of them would suggest a hollow point type bullet.

And you would guess wrong. As a matter of fact I'm pretty certain you would confuse most gun enthusiasts. I work with dozens of avid gun owners and hunters, and we discuss guns all the time, so I'm familiar wieth the lingo. Additionally, I'm a former FFL holder, with all that entails, and the first time I'd ever seen or heard that term was in Daisy's post. I've heard of flesh-eating bacteria but never flesh-eating bullets. In case you didn't know it, there are other types of deform-on-impact bullet designs besides hollow points. Are you familiar with Glaser safety slugs? By the way, Blues, what's you firearms background?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Dec 18, 2012 12:32 pm

Daisy wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:
Daisy wrote:OK, blues just gave me the term. Hollow point bullets. So, why do gun enthusiasts need them?

Is this a serious question? What do you think the objective is when hunters shoot animals? And since you’re also opposed to “armor piercing” bullets which maintain their shape upon impact, as opposed to deforming, what type of bullets are you okay with? FYI, information about the hows and whys of bullet design can be easily found on the internet with minimal effort.

Your snide comments and evasion are pathetic.

You question was pathetic. I would suggest that you educate yourself just a little so as not to reveal your dearth of knowledge on the subject.

Daisy wrote:Hunters do not need the most powerful bullets, or the most powerful guns to 'enjoy' their sport. Obviously they think they do though.

Please tell me how powerful a weapon hunters need to enjoy their sport. FYI, the standard unit of measurement is foot-pounds of muzzle energy. Are you can give your answer in joules if you'd like.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Dec 18, 2012 12:41 pm

preston wrote:Interestingly, the same people who are trying to infringe on the rights of guns owner arguing "that it only makes sense" and "who needs a semi-auto to hunt..." , often seems to be the same ones who invoke first amendment rights and howl about "censorship". If the 2nd amendment has to give, then the first will have to give too.

This morning on CNN, I heard one Joe Klein suggest that laws need to be passed against violent video games and movies, which he feels has desensitized a generation of young people to violence. If government can regulate the sexual content that we are exposed to, why can't it regulate violent content? Why shouldn't overly violent video games be treated like child porn?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby preston » Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:07 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:...If government can regulate the sexual content that we are exposed to, why can't it regulate violent content? Why shouldn't overly violent video games be treated like child porn?

I didn't say violent video games should be regulated and I'm not advocating for their regulation, either. I'm just noting that the same people who want to take away someelse's "right" are usually hell bent on protecting their own. I think it's easy to say that violent video games and a number of societal "breakdowns" are responsible and you would be half right and all wrong. These are not easy problems. If we NEVER want another single person to die in a HWY accident all we have to do is lower automobile speeds to be no faster than 15 mph, but when it takes some people a full week to go to work, some will realize that whatever the number of deaths are "acceptable".

And, THAT'S what we're talking about in Sandy Hook/Newtown. If this was just about kids dying then MORE would have been done after Ok City, or Ruby Ridge, etc, but those were political statements and didn't strike at the heart of people who THOUGHT they had safely buffered themselves from the nonsense that others have to live through. This WASN'T the inner city; this was the protected dream. Look at the demographics of Sandy Hook, according to wikipedia
As of the census of 2000, there were 25,031 people, 8,325 households, and 6,776 families residing in the town.
-The racial makeup of the town was 95.14% White, 1.75% Black or African American, 0.14% Native American, 1.40% Asian, 0.04% Pacific Islander, 0.64% from other races, and 0.89% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 2.36% of the population.
-There were 8,325 households out of which 44.7% had children under the age of 18 living with them,
-73.3% were married couples living together, 5.8% had a female householder with no husband present, and 18.6% were non-families. 14.8% of all households were made up of individuals and 5.8% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.90 and the average family size was 3.24.
-In the town the population was spread out with 29.3% under the age of 18, 4.4% from 18 to 24, 32.5% from 25 to 44, 25.1% from 45 to 64, and 8.7% who were 65 years of age or older.
-The median age was 38 years. For every 100 females there were 104.9 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 103.5 males.
-The median income for a household in the town was $90,193, and the median income for a family was $99,192 (these figures had risen to $101,937 and $119,175 respectively as of a 2007 estimate[8]). Males had a median income of $68,965 versus $42,217 for females.
-The per capita income for the town was $37,786. About 2.2% of families and 3.1% of the population were below the poverty line, including 3.0% of those under age 18 and 3.9% of those age 65 or over.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby Daisy » Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:08 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:
Daisy wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:
Daisy wrote:OK, blues just gave me the term. Hollow point bullets. So, why do gun enthusiasts need them?

Is this a serious question? What do you think the objective is when hunters shoot animals? And since you’re also opposed to “armor piercing” bullets which maintain their shape upon impact, as opposed to deforming, what type of bullets are you okay with? FYI, information about the hows and whys of bullet design can be easily found on the internet with minimal effort.

Your snide comments and evasion are pathetic.

You question was pathetic. I would suggest that you educate yourself just a little so as not to reveal your dearth of knowledge on the subject.

Daisy wrote:Hunters do not need the most powerful bullets, or the most powerful guns to 'enjoy' their sport. Obviously they think they do though.

Please tell me how powerful a weapon hunters need to enjoy their sport. FYI, the standard unit of measurement is foot-pounds of muzzle energy. Are you can give your answer in joules if you'd like.

Again, just hiding behind the terminology. And if the other side is ignorant of this terminology you just blow off their opinions. Are you really saying that you can't discuss this in big picture concepts?

And still no one has said anything about how a restriction on all semi-automatic weapons and certain bullets impinge on the second amendment.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby Conor Dary » Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:15 pm

Daisy, this might answer your question in today's Times:

    The courts have upheld federal laws banning gun ownership by people convicted of felonies and some misdemeanors, by illegal immigrants and by drug addicts. They have upheld laws making it illegal to carry guns near schools or in post offices. They have upheld laws concerning unregistered weapons. And they have upheld laws banning machine guns and sawed-off shotguns.

    Nor does Heller impose any major hurdles to many of the most common legislative proposals in the wake of the Newtown shootings, said Adam Winkler, a law professor at the University of California in Los Angeles and the author of “Gun Fight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America.” Among the responses that Heller allows, he said, are better background checks, enhanced mental health reporting and a ban on high-capacity ammunition clips.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/19/us/gu ... ng.html?hp
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby Daisy » Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:25 pm

Conor Dary wrote:Daisy, this might answer your question in today's Times

That helps.

The article wrote:The main obstacles to the passage of such measures is likely to be politics, not constitutional law, scholars say

So the NRA and their puppets.

The article wrote:Justice Scalia added that laws banning “dangerous and unusual weapons” are “another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms.”

So what is dangerous and unusual? Scalia's example was “M-16 rifles and the like”, so should semi-automatics be in the same class?
Last edited by Daisy on Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby preston » Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:29 pm

Conor Dary wrote:Daisy, this might answer your question in today's Times:

    ...Adam Winkler, a law professor at the University of California in Los Angeles and the author of “Gun Fight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America.” Among the responses that Heller allows, he said, are better background checks, enhanced mental health reporting and a ban on high-capacity ammunition clips.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/19/us/gu ... ng.html?hp

Lanza's purported Asberger's syndrome would not have fallen under the Aegis of mental illness; Asberger's is a developmental disorder and his mother would have probably passed a background check. The only thing, of the 3 listed, that could have LIMITED the amount of casualties is a ban on high-capacity ammunition clips.
Daisy wrote:...
Justice Scalia added that laws banning “dangerous and unusual weapons” are “another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms.”

So what is dangerous and unusual? Scalia's example was “M-16 rifles and the like”, so should semi-automatics in the same class?

The question that jazz asked is how would you define semi-automatic? I've heard other politicians say that too, so it's NOT jazz playing semantics, it's real. I don't know how you do it; I'm not nearly as versed in guns as jazz or others, but that is what MAY be hindering a well-written bill that can actually find the funding to be effective.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby Daisy » Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:36 pm

preston wrote:The question that jazz asked is how would you define semi-automatic? I've heard other politicians say that too, so it's NOT jazz playing semantics, it's real.

My instinct would say that 'rate of fire' is a key thing here. This from the perspective of trying to reduce the killing rate.

If Lanza's mother had owned 5 shot guns would we have seen the same thing?

I then read about semi-automatics with respect to the 1994 legislation.
Congress didn’t want to ban all semiautomatic weapons — that would ban most guns, period. So, in crafting the 1994 ban, lawmakers mainly focused on 18 specific firearms, as well as certain military-type features on guns. Complicated flow charts laid it all out. Certain models of AR-15s and AK-47s were banned. Any semiautomatic rifle with a pistol grip and a bayonet mount was an “assault weapon.” But a semiautomatic rifle with just a pistol grip might be okay. It was complicated. And its complexity made it easy to evade.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... -one-post/


Red is why the politicians are afraid to do anything concrete. Blue is why half ass legislation does not work.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests