another shooting

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by Danzig

yes, i'm saying the background check is insufficient. especially when they said not long ago that many states don't submit a lot of the info that they're looking for in the background checks. and with the hippa laws, many are also no longer submitting any mental health info. also, background checks are only done in about 4/5 of purchases. when the most recent attempt was made to close loopholes such as gun shows, private purchases, internet sales, people went nuts. saw a lot of comments about 'constitutionality'. er, that ship has sailed. checks are being done, just not in every instance. and i'm sure we know who benefits, knowing they can avoid a check and make a purchase.

the law they tried to pass was to help with state reporting of felony criminals, etc, and to change hippa laws in regards to reporting the mentally ill. youi know, the very people who shouldn't be able to buy. but the republicans did a great job in lying and getting people riled up (and then there's the nra), thus assuring a failure.

What is "mentally ill"? Or " Under a physicians care for mental issues?"

A middle-aged man or woman who may be going through a particularly stressful patch in their everyday life (ie. lost a career and/or lost a home due to the economy, lost a parent) who then go to their doctor and are prescribed Ambien or Xanax is technically "Under a physician's care for mental issues".

I don't believe they should be required to forfeit their liberties to give others the false impression of "feeling" "more secure".

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

What is "mentally ill"? Or " Under a physicians care for mental issues?"

A middle-aged man or woman who may be going through a particularly stressful patch in their everyday life (ie. lost a career and/or lost a home due to the economy, lost a parent) who then go to their doctor and are prescribed Ambien or Xanax is technically "Under a physician's care for mental issues".

I don't believe they should be required to forfeit their liberties to give others the false impression of "feeling" "more secure".

i'm talking about people under a physicians care who the physician feels is very much a danger to society, is violent, etc. not talking about someone taking lexapro because they have anxiety or stress and can't sleep well.

[Rudeboyelvis]

A federal database of crazy people? Hmmmm...I think if they want one bad enough they will get one regardless...

I can tell you from first hand experience that I've been required (by the seller) to fill out a background check in two instances; once from an individual and once at a gun sale. Seller's who don't abide by the law need to be held accountable

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

A federal database of crazy people? Hmmmm...I think if they want one bad enough they will get one regardless...

I can tell you from first hand experience that I've been required (by the seller) to fill out a background check in two instances; once from an individual and once at a gun sale. Seller's who don't abide by the law need to be held accountable

i agree.
every gun we've aquired has had a background check done. but there are loopholes, and i'd bet good money who is utilizing those holes.

[GenuineRisk]

The government is not going to pass any laws making gun ownership more restrictive. They're just not. But unfortunately, the NRA is more than happy to stir up people's fears that the government will, because it will sell more guns. Gun ownership is declining in terms of the number of households that own guns, but the number of guns in those households is increasing. Danzig gave a perfect example, when she said she's likely to purchase more, even though she already owns more than she ever thought she would (I'm not saying you're buying out of fear, of course, Danzig, just that you're an example of a household owning more than one firearm, which is a change from a few decades ago).

It's all about moving product, and fear is an exceptionally effective marketing tool.

I wish we could have a conversation about gun violence without it turning into screaming cries of "Freedom!" because, mental health issues aside, there are many, many gun owners who should not be gun owners because they are simply not responsible enough to own one (I have the same feeling about many pet owners). The NY Times ran a piece a few weeks ago about children who die from accidental gun shootings and it was both heartbreaking and head slapping in the careless way these parents and relatives treated their firearms. But even a level-headed conversation is hard because the US gov't froze funds on research into gun violence 20 years ago and even Newtown couldn't change that:

http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa...-violence.aspx

The NRA continues to spend a lot of money lobbying against any research into gun violence. What are they so afraid of?

Maybe the findings of the 1993 study that led to the slashing of federal funding:

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056...99310073291506

[Danzig]

no, we haven't bought one in forever. i think we've won more than we've bought, and then there's the hand me downs, and the ones he inherited from his grandfather. i just know we'll be going to more nwtf events in future, so i have no doubt we will win more guns. all of which go thru a b/g check.

and i agree, it would be nice if we adults could speak with one another as adults, and it not degenerate into 'you're a (insert label here).

it's funny, in a sad way, that just like asking people if they like the rules in the aca (they do), that when you asked people about the individual rules in the latest gun control attempt, they liked them. but, just like obamacare, if you used whatever the name was of the overall bill, they were against it. i guess branding does work.

people won't hand a sharp knife or scissors to a little kid...but many adults sure will hand over a gun without a thought.

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

The government is not going to pass any laws making gun ownership more restrictive. They're just not. But unfortunately, the NRA is more than happy to stir up people's fears that the government will, because it will sell more guns. Gun ownership is declining in terms of the number of households that own guns, but the number of guns in those households is increasing. Danzig gave a perfect example, when she said she's likely to purchase more, even though she already owns more than she ever thought she would (I'm not saying you're buying out of fear, of course, Danzig, just that you're an example of a household owning more than one firearm, which is a change from a few decades ago).

It's all about moving product, and fear is an exceptionally effective marketing tool.

I wish we could have a conversation about gun violence without it turning into screaming cries of "Freedom!" because, mental health issues aside, there are many, many gun owners who should not be gun owners because they are simply not responsible enough to own one (I have the same feeling about many pet owners). The NY Times ran a piece a few weeks ago about children who die from accidental gun shootings and it was both heartbreaking and head slapping in the careless way these parents and relatives treated their firearms. But even a level-headed conversation is hard because the US gov't froze funds on research into gun violence 20 years ago and even Newtown couldn't change that:

http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa...-violence.aspx

The NRA continues to spend a lot of money lobbying against any research into gun violence. What are they so afraid of?

Maybe the findings of the 1993 study that led to the slashing of federal funding:

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056...99310073291506

I would tend to agree with the majority of this - Namely:

1. The principle issue being irresponsible possession - people that should not have guns are getting them from someone/somewhere that circumvents/violates the background checklist.

2. Which immediately knee-jerks directly into "more laws" against responsible gun ownership.

3. which then immediately knee-jerks into "OMG they are grabbing our guns! Let's buy more before Obama outlaws them!!"

4. Which feeds the lobby and in turn the legislature responsible for the laws in the first place.

Rinse. Repeat.


For the record, I am a staunch Constitutionalist, and I DO NOT support the govt's intervention into any sort of national database of insane people, or serialized gun registration. If the woman in Newtown, who's alleged crazy son grabbed her guns to kill those kids isn't held accountable for her poor judgement which led to her decision to keep firearms within arm's reach of the nutcase - then the whole discussion devolves into meaningless finger-pointing.

Owning a gun is probably the most important decision an American can make; because once you take ownership of that weapon, YOU are responsible for what happens with it. Period.

[Danzig]

regarding a database....
if someone was not a felon, and then they become one, who makes sure they no longer own the guns they had, but aren't allowed to have now? or what if they own a gun, and then a restraining order comes out. if he wanted to buy a gun, would that show up? if so, why not retroactively for the one he could buy when he bought it, but he's banned now?
regarding the mentally ill-if you blackout, go to the doctor, and the doctor can find no reason why you blacked out (which means no treatment, thus you're at risk to blackout again)....he is required to report you to the dmv, and you lose your drivers license for a year. public safety and all that.
so, why can he report, but the psychiatrist treating a guy who is showing signs of severe illness can't? or won't? or he's on meds and quits taking them?
if someone is a stalker, with a history, what does that mean with guns?

and how come the guy who killed his buddy in a hunting 'accident' still owned guns, still hunted, took his kid hunting? but didn't give his 14 year old hunter orange to wear, and then killed his kid-cause he thought the kid was a deer? (i didn't know deer walk upright, amazing feat). how much stupid do you have to put on display before you're not fit to own a firearm?
can a database be used to disarm everyone? yeah. which is why you have rules prohibiting using the database to just go around and confiscate for no good reason. drivers are in a database, dui's come off your mvr after so long, but they still can find that you're a repeat offender.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

Owning a gun is probably the most important decision an American can make; because once you take ownership of that weapon, YOU are responsible for what happens with it. Period.

This. I would support laws that hold gun owners responsible for any crime committed by a gun they own, including an accidental shooting and including a gun stolen from them. Give them a grace period to report a weapon stolen (72 hours or whatever), but after that, it's on the owner. I really don't think people start to take responsibility until the risk of not taking responsibility becomes enough of a threat to them. And for those for whom that's too much of a hassle, maybe they'll choose to not own a gun.

Thanks to the constant fear mongering of the media over gun control laws that will never be passed, and turning it into a FREEDUMB issue, I think a lot of people get them as some kind of status thing. Like people who get a thrill out of owning mean dogs, to use the canine analogy again.

My uncle had a lovely collection of hunting rifles, and they were on display... in a locked cabinet, and they were unloaded. I never saw him open the cabinet. He also was a cop, and I have no idea where he kept his revolver because I never, ever, ever saw it. I know first hand it's possible to own guns safely.

Now, if I could also come up with a solution for the a**h*les in Central Park who don't leash their f*cking dogs, I'd be ecstatic.