Gun control/being safe out there....

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: 97tbird
What I am trying to say (sorry for the inappropriate initial use of words) by NEED is not the amount/proof/authenticity of need, but the specific type of USE when purchasing - as in, Hunting, home defense/self defense.

Sorry - I didn't mean that one should be questioned on actual NEED to own a gun. I should have said specific type of use it's needed FOR, rather.


No problem. I got it now.

I think we just have a deeply messed up society and a culture that seems to glorify violence. I honestly don't see things changing in a way to solve these types of incidents.
It would be nice if people weren't so prone to kill others.
 
Yep, and I know: Al is right - none of these ideas will be practically implementable; It's just the way I wish things were. (And the way things would be, if I had the miraculous power to make it work without any glitches)

Easier said than done, etc. But I hope some little part of it will be worked out in several decades perhaps.
 
Last edited:
All this talk about how many guns I can own and what kind and how many is just [censored].

That's like saying, you can only buy one shot of liquor every 12 hours because if I sell you more you will get drunk, and go kill somebody with your car. Fact is from 2003-12 there were 119,100 people killed by drunks.
 
But they were not intentional and planned. At least not all of them.
ACCIDENTS involving cars and planned and calculated and INTENDED mass shootings are NOT the same.
 
Originally Posted By: 97tbird
Yep, and I know: Al is right - none of these ideas will be practically implementable; It's just the way I wish things were. (And the way things would be, if I had the miraculous power to make it work without any glitches)

Yea..don't we all.
 
Originally Posted By: 97tbird
It is MAINLY a gun issue. Not a mental health issue. THAT is used as an argument every time, IMO.

If the mentally ill didn't have such easy access to guns the possibility of them taking so many innocents with them will go down.


I disagree. Look at every mass shooting where the shooter was later found to have some pretty bad mental issues. It was never really known until after they committed the mass shooting that there were major mental issues causing the person to act.

So you're saying take the guns away from everyone just so the mentally ill can't get them? That's never going to happen in this country.

So there needs to be a way to keep the guns away from only the mentally ill people ... so therefore it IS a mental health issue.

And as I said in the thread that got deleted a day ago, good luck with that too because in order to try and identify and screen who's mentally competent to have guns or not will probably start upsetting the civil right people. It might be possible to identify the obvious people with issues, but the ones who keep it hidden until after they explode (like pretty much all of these mass shooters) will probably never be able to be detected until it's too late.

The Oregon shooter obtained all of his guns legally, so the gun buying process raised no red flags on him in terms of mental health. If there can be some kind of accurate way to detect those who are mentally unstable (without civil rights violation), then that is a step in the right direction. Question is, if someone has medal records, etc that show they have or had mental issues does a background check actually have authority to obtain those records? If they are locked down due to privacy standards, then that information needs to be able to be obtained during a background check.

And how far should it go? It might even come down to saying that anyone on (or even had been on) certain kinds of prescription drugs that alter someones thinking (ie, anti-depressants) can not own a gun. And the background check would have full access to everyone's medial and prescription records. This could go really deep ... time will tell what happens, but it's going to be a huge quagmire.
 
Originally Posted By: 97tbird
But they were not intentional and planned. At least not all of them.
ACCIDENTS involving cars and planned and calculated and INTENDED mass shootings are NOT the same.


Can you not read? I did not say accidents. I said drunks killing people every year by the thousands. That's not counting the people that get crippled, and the damage to personal property.

Anyway, I am done with this thread because I think I made my point in my first post.
 
DUI is an offense- i know that.
But even a (typical) DUI accident is still not INTENDED.

As in, in a fatal accident resulting due to DUI, the driver still not INTEND AND PLAN TO KILL the person. THAT is what I was trying to say. Killed doesn't always mean INTENTIONALLY KILLED after planning and premeditation. HUGE difference.
 
Originally Posted By: 97tbird
It is MAINLY a gun issue. Not a mental health issue. THAT is used as an argument every time, IMO. If the mentally ill didn't have such easy access to guns the possibility of them taking so many innocents with them will go down.
Sure there are other means, but not as easy as this.

Disarming people in this country is not going to happen. CONTROL is what is needed:

-Types of guns CIVILIANS are allowed to own. (based on PROVEN type of need / use - yearly checks if special need still exists)
-NUMBER of guns, say you own 1 gun for 5 yrs and if you're still being a responsible gun owner and everything seems ok still, THEN you get to apply to own ONE MORE gun.
-AMOUNT of ammunition that CIVILIANS can buy at ONE time.
-YEARLY MANDATORY checks of background, mental health, criminal activity etc. If you don't show up, your permit and gun(s) are GONE.

These countries don't have mentally ill people or what?




The problem with this is all you are doing is controlling responsible gun owners, nothing more.
Felons cant legally own firearms, and i suspect almost none of these gang bangers are using a legally bought weapon either.
How many of the gun related deaths in a city like Chicago were committed by responsible gun owners with legally purchased and registered guns?
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix


And how far should it go? It might even come down to saying that anyone on (or even had been on) certain kinds of prescription drugs that alter someones thinking (ie, anti-depressants) can not own a gun. And the background check would have full access to everyone's medial and prescription records. This could go really deep ... time will tell what happens, but it's going to be a huge quagmire.


If someone knew before going to see a shrink that it could put their guns in jeopardy, they'd be less likely to go. And more likely to snap. Private patient records remaining private is a cornerstone of us encouraging people to be frank with their doctors.

It would be a market-based solution to require insurance on gun ownership, and the insurance company would hire a psychologist to check their customers out. They could ask questions and make requirements the gov't could not. My homeowners insurance is the only company that I've found that doesn't mind my (half) pit bull, for example.

It wouldn't fly in a million years. Wouldn't get the political traction.
 
Originally Posted By: Whitewolf
You have that spot on. The most common theme seems to be mental health so isn't that where attention and resources should be focussed?


ABSOLUTELY.

But, a certain 'worldview' does not even think that there is such a thing as a "mental health problem", and seems to have the belief that anyone claiming one, or even diagnosed with one, is "faking it" for their benefit (kind of like the way Patton did with soldiers who WERE actually suffering from 'shell shock'/PTSD).
mad.gif


That same 'worldview' would also cause them to NOT allow even a single penny be spent on Mental Health in this country by ANY 'gummint' agency/dept., EVEN IF they DID think that insanity/mental health issues were real.
frown.gif


CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS!!
31.gif
 
Can doctors be held liable if their patients kill someone and it was found they were unstable and not reported? Maybe victims family's should start suing any medical person who did not report seriously unstable persons.

Maybe medical persons should be required to report dangerous persons that would red flag on background searches so that they can't purchase deadly weapons.
 
Originally Posted By: Nate1979
Can doctors be held liable if their patients kill someone and it was found they were unstable and not reported?


I think the doctor-patient confidentiality laws make the info private even to law authorities, which means it may not be found even through an extensive background check. Not to say that might not change someday through law changes due to the way all these mass shootings keep escalating.

The firearms purchase paperwork asks the buyer if he's ever had any kind of psychiatric treatment (or words similar), but of course people can simply lie about it and get the gun.

I know when people apply for a secret clearance for Gov't related defense work, they have to sign a form that relinquishes the doctor-patient privacy, so they can did down into medical records, etc. Maybe that is something that needs to be applied to purchasing firearms.
 
Originally Posted By: 97tbird
CONTROL is what is needed:

-Types of guns CIVILIANS are allowed to own. (based on PROVEN type of need / use - yearly checks if special need still exists)
-NUMBER of guns, say you own 1 gun for 5 yrs and if you're still being a responsible gun owner and everything seems ok still, THEN you get to apply to own ONE MORE gun.
-AMOUNT of ammunition that CIVILIANS can buy at ONE time.
-YEARLY MANDATORY checks of background, mental health, criminal activity etc. If you don't show up, your permit and gun(s) are GONE.



While I disagree with nearly all of your "solutions", you are one of a few posters that offers possible solutions. I believe that the main reasons why this seems to be occurring with more frequency is the breakdown of society (fewer church going individuals, divorce rate leaving many kids to raise themselves, rampant drug use, etc.) and nothing I could recommend would solve any of those problems.

What I would like to see is:

1. Thorough national background check conducted by a third party entity (NOT THE GOVERNMENT!). Right now there are some states that don't "communicate" with others when a background check is done. The background check WOULD NOT include any information about what gun is being purchased...just whether the purchaser is cleared or not.

2. Development of comprehensive country-wide database which would not only allow criminal entries but access for health professionals to put "disturbed" people on the "not allowed to buy list" (ACLU would throw a hissy fit).

3. There shouldn't be a time period for renewal...it should be continuous. When your name first appears on the database for a criminal or psychiatric reason, your firearms are taken from you and held until/if you are cleared.

4. Schools/Colleges/Public buildings (where applicable) need to be protected by armed security guard(s).

This past week, I had to take my middle school child to a doctor appointment so i needed to take him out of school a bit early. I went to get him and found out our local school system changed their security policies including: only 1 access door to the entire facility, an armed guard, and a computer system to verify your credentials. I told my wife when I went home that I have no problem paying more taxes for keeping my kids safe. Hopefully they also allowed some of the teachers/administrators to conceal carry.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Trav
Originally Posted By: 97tbird
It is MAINLY a gun issue. Not a mental health issue. THAT is used as an argument every time, IMO. If the mentally ill didn't have such easy access to guns the possibility of them taking so many innocents with them will go down.
Sure there are other means, but not as easy as this.

Disarming people in this country is not going to happen. CONTROL is what is needed:

-Types of guns CIVILIANS are allowed to own. (based on PROVEN type of need / use - yearly checks if special need still exists)
-NUMBER of guns, say you own 1 gun for 5 yrs and if you're still being a responsible gun owner and everything seems ok still, THEN you get to apply to own ONE MORE gun.
-AMOUNT of ammunition that CIVILIANS can buy at ONE time.
-YEARLY MANDATORY checks of background, mental health, criminal activity etc. If you don't show up, your permit and gun(s) are GONE.

These countries don't have mentally ill people or what?




The problem with this is all you are doing is controlling responsible gun owners, nothing more.
Felons cant legally own firearms, and i suspect almost none of these gang bangers are using a legally bought weapon either.
How many of the gun related deaths in a city like Chicago were committed by responsible gun owners with legally purchased and registered guns?



Trav,

I think you scared him away with logic.
crackmeup2.gif
 
Originally Posted By: Trav
Originally Posted By: 97tbird
It is MAINLY a gun issue. Not a mental health issue. THAT is used as an argument every time, IMO. If the mentally ill didn't have such easy access to guns the possibility of them taking so many innocents with them will go down.
Sure there are other means, but not as easy as this.

Disarming people in this country is not going to happen. CONTROL is what is needed:

-Types of guns CIVILIANS are allowed to own. (based on PROVEN type of need / use - yearly checks if special need still exists)
-NUMBER of guns, say you own 1 gun for 5 yrs and if you're still being a responsible gun owner and everything seems ok still, THEN you get to apply to own ONE MORE gun.
-AMOUNT of ammunition that CIVILIANS can buy at ONE time.
-YEARLY MANDATORY checks of background, mental health, criminal activity etc. If you don't show up, your permit and gun(s) are GONE.

These countries don't have mentally ill people or what?




The problem with this is all you are doing is controlling responsible gun owners, nothing more.
Felons cant legally own firearms, and i suspect almost none of these gang bangers are using a legally bought weapon either.
How many of the gun related deaths in a city like Chicago were committed by responsible gun owners with legally purchased and registered guns?



+1 Really good, logical posts. I heard on the news that something like over 100 people had been shot (killed and wounded) in Chicago over the past two weekends. That is over ten times how many people were shot at the Oregon community college. And hardly anybody even talks about how many people get shot and how many people are killed and wounded in cities like Chicago and Baltimore. And Chicago has some of the strictest gun controls in the country.
 
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
Trav,

I think you scared him away with logic.
crackmeup2.gif


Nope - nothing to be scared of, I am not "away". I already admitted that some of my suggestions may not be practically feasible, and that they were "solutions" that I WISH would be practical.

No need for childish posts like yours. You're the type of poster who posts inflammatory, non-contributing stuff and attack other posters, which gets threads deleted and locked. Thankfully, there's an Ignore Button.
smile.gif


Most of the mass/school shootings in recent history were not done by felons or "gangbangers" (as Trav put it), but by single individuals who legally owned guns (in some cases more than 10 or more guns!). So if the price to pay is applying whatever control methods to responsible gun owners too, then that's what it should take, if the potential to reduce mass shootings can be reduced by doing so.

No point in discussing this further, really. We all know what kind of bias exists in this board when it comes to discussions like this. So, just because someone stops responding to a post, or doesn't choose to answer, do NOT think/assume that he/she has been "scared away".
 
Originally Posted By: 97tbird

Most of the mass/school shootings in recent history were not done by felons or "gangbangers" (as Trav put it), but by single individuals who legally owned guns (in some cases more than 10 or more guns!). So if the price to pay is applying whatever control methods to responsible gun owners too, then that's what it should take, if the potential to reduce mass shootings can be reduced by doing so.



Most of the mass/school shootings weren't done by felons? I'd say they were ALL felons the moment they opened fire on innocent victims..

Furthermore, killing random people for no reason is already illegal. What makes you or anyone think that someone intent on killing with a gun, a pressure-cooker, a knife, a car, or any other inanimate object which can be used to kill, will just magically decide to obey some new more restrictive law?
 
Originally Posted By: eljefino
Originally Posted By: MolaKule

thumbsup2.gif


According to latest reports , the "shooter" was lining up people and asking if they were Christian. If they answered in the affirmative, they were shot in the head.

What kind of literature was he reading on the Internet? What kind of information was he receiving in school? Was he an anti-Christian Islamist?

From the new york times: (link)
The profile described Mr. Harper-Mercer as “Not Religious, Not Religious, but Spiritual,” and it said he belonged to a group called “Doesn’t Like Organized Religion.”

So he was self-hating. I wouldn't drag Islam into this.


No YOU sure wouldn't. But that does not mean others should feel that they could't or shouldn't. We all have a right to say what we feel and what we think. At lest in America we do. Albeit soft technique, your comments can make some weaker folk feel that they should suppress their statements form fear of being branded. The left has a known tendency to brand those who express their constitutional rights.
 
Originally Posted By: 97tbird
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
Trav,

I think you scared him away with logic.
crackmeup2.gif


Nope - nothing to be scared of, I am not "away". I already admitted that some of my suggestions may not be practically feasible, and that they were "solutions" that I WISH would be practical.

No need for childish posts like yours. You're the type of poster who posts inflammatory, non-contributing stuff and attack other posters, which gets threads deleted and locked. Thankfully, there's an Ignore Button.
smile.gif


Most of the mass/school shootings in recent history were not done by felons or "gangbangers" (as Trav put it), but by single individuals who legally owned guns (in some cases more than 10 or more guns!). So if the price to pay is applying whatever control methods to responsible gun owners too, then that's what it should take, if the potential to reduce mass shootings can be reduced by doing so.

No point in discussing this further, really. We all know what kind of bias exists in this board when it comes to discussions like this. So, just because someone stops responding to a post, or doesn't choose to answer, do NOT think/assume that he/she has been "scared away".


I'm not attacking you and you will not get any disrespect from me. I do want you to do some research though. Look into the shooters over the last 20 years...almost every single one was one 1 of 5 anti depressant prescriptions. I believe you to be intelligent so once you see that FACT there is no saying mental health is not a portion of this issue. And what you will also find is most of the RX's have been given in incorrect manners and dosage has been way off. But you check it out.

It is not the tool. Our society use to have kids bringing guns to school. No kid ever thought of killing another. Never mind multiples. This is about our society. Control does nothing but harm and corral everyone. Freedom is a basic tenant of man. We as a society have lost so many core values, values that are the basis of just about every religion. It's so much more than guns. We (and I mean both sides of the argument) have become mindless (dumb!!!) drones for a political side instead of basic compromise and common sense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top