How long until the NRA has some sort of function in the area? I'm guessing sometime before the year is over.

Quote :

" and I am about to buy the fuck out of some guns now--especially assault weapons."

You and every other reactionary. There still remains an irrational fear that our politicians would actually do something about our retarded gun laws. If a US representative can get shot in the fucking head without any actual gun law reform, then nothing will ever change.

Gun sales go up every time these shootings occur, and the NRA keeps getting more powerfu. You've got nothing to worry about when it comes to your guns.

Now, getting massacred in public....that's another issue altogether.




[Edited on December 14, 2012 at 6:23 PM. Reason : ]

12/14/2012 6:14:00 PM

So you shop around doctors until you find one doctor in this new gun-certification industry who is getting through as many certifications as they can who gives you a certificate.


Also, what mental illnesses should disqualify someone? Caffeine-induced sleep disorder (When caffeine is consumed immediately before bedtime or continuously throughout the day, sleep onset may be delayed, total sleep time reduced, normal stages of sleep altered, and the quality of sleep decreased) is a mental illness listed in the DSM-IV. What about nicotine withdrawal, stuttering, bulimia, etc... All of these things are listed mental illnesses, should all of these people be prohibited from buying a gun?

Or how about the fact that most mentally ill people (by large) will never be violent? ( mentally ill people account for just 3% to 5% of violent crimes http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=deranged-and-dangerous )

If we want to do 90 day screenings, shouldn't we check for signs of violence rather than mental illness? Those would be much better indicators and have statistical support. Do we develop a standard test or leave it to the doctors? If we leave it to the doctors, isn't that what we already do except that some people never make it to a doctor? Should we require every American to see a psychologist?

Being reactionary after a tragedy is how we end up with laws that erode our rights and freedoms with no or only marginal effectiveness. It's security theater to placate simple minds.

12/14/2012 6:17:44 PM

^ a violent person might murder someone for an iPod, but they won't murder a classroom of children for anything.

A mentally ill person however would do both.

I think the larger issue is that gun organizations like the NRA put relatively little resources into the mental health angle.

Where were they when the NC cut funding to Dorothea Dix and sick people were pushed out onto the streets?

Despite the fact that it's a real issue, gun nuts™ are just using it as a red herring. They don't ACTUALLY care about reform of the mental health system or prison system.

12/14/2012 6:30:25 PM

Again, it's not a perfect idea. But nothing about gun control, including our current system, is. There will never be a policy that is 100% effective.

Quote :

"Also, what mental illnesses should disqualify someone? Caffeine-induced sleep disorder (When caffeine is consumed immediately before bedtime or continuously throughout the day, sleep onset may be delayed, total sleep time reduced, normal stages of sleep altered, and the quality of sleep decreased) is a mental illness listed in the DSM-IV. What about nicotine withdrawal, stuttering, bulimia, etc... All of these things are listed mental illnesses, should all of these people be prohibited from buying a gun? Or how about the fact that most mentally ill people (by large) will never be violent? ( mentally ill people account for just 3% to 5% of violent crimes http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=deranged-and-dangerous ) If we want to do 90 day screenings, shouldn't we check for signs of violence rather than mental illness? Those would be much better indicators and have statistical support."

I mentioned "predilection for violence" in a previous post. If a doctor determines that you have a certain likelihood of using your gun to intentionally harm people for anything but self-defense, they won't give you the certificate or license.

Quote :

"Do we develop a standard test or leave it to the doctors?"

I don't know. People with knowledge and experience in these areas would need to come up with the answers. I'm not qualified to do so.

Quote :

"If we leave it to the doctors, isn't that what we already do except that some people never make it to a doctor? Should we require every American to see a psychologist? "

Not every American. Just those looking to purchase guns. And if it is a requirement, the people that never make it to a doctor would be forced to either do so or pursue illegal channels to get their guns.

Quote :

"Being reactionary after a tragedy is how we end up with laws that erode our rights and freedoms with no or only marginal effectiveness."

I agree. Which is why I'm not advocating the immediate implementation of the system I've been describing. But I do think something needs to be done at some point. The powers that be need to engage in these types of discussions. Weed out the terrible ideas (which a gun buyer's license probably is) and come up with a workable solution that saves lives and retains our individual right to self-defense.

12/14/2012 6:37:25 PM

But if we accept that you must see a psychologist to determine that you are not violent to buy a gun, why are we limiting this to gun purchases? Plenty of other things can be used as weapons, for example it's really simple to make a devastating bomb. Shouldn't we require that everyone see a psychologist to make sure that they are not violent to participate in society? Plenty of assaults happen with other weapons, shouldn't we just control the violent people instead of trying to get every possible weapon?

If we find that this violent tendency has a significant correlation to genetical markers, can we save time and just do a blood test?

If we are okay with preemptive health checks, why should we limit them to gun purchases? Lets stop the person before they even try to get a gun or end up just using something else.

12/14/2012 6:49:50 PM

$500/bullet. Chris Rock figured this shit out ages ago.

12/14/2012 6:50:06 PM

^It really does always go back to Chris Rock's idea

12/14/2012 6:51:14 PM

^^^ then once we all agree that people should see a psychologist, maybe instead of throwing laws at this we should make access to mental healthcare better and approach this from a healthcare, outbreak standpoint and try to end this trend

[Edited on December 14, 2012 at 6:57 PM. Reason : So it all comes full circle, we need to approach this from another angle ]

12/14/2012 6:56:55 PM

Yeah, but the same people who want everyone to have easy access to guns simultaneously want only rich people to have access to health care. See the problem here?

12/14/2012 7:00:33 PM

Quote :

"But if we accept that you must see a psychologist to determine that you are not violent to buy a gun, why are we limiting this to gun purchases? Plenty of other things can be used as weapons, for example it's really simple to make a devastating bomb."

Because for the most part, it's already illegal (or at least very difficult) to own something that has more killing potential than a gun.

Quote :

"Shouldn't we require that everyone see a psychologist to make sure that they are not violent to participate in society? Plenty of assaults happen with other weapons, shouldn't we just control the violent people instead of trying to get every possible weapon?"

Yes, I agree that the way our society identifies and deals with mental health problems in general needs a lot of work, which is what I believe your point is. But I think that can be done in conjunction with reform on the gun control side, too. And I think that side is slightly less complex and easier to deal with than the mental health side.

Quote :

"If we find that this violent tendency has a significant correlation to genetical markers, can we save time and just do a blood test?"

I have no idea. I don't know what future technologies or discoveries might allow that to be feasible or what drawbacks they might have.

Quote :

"If we are okay with preemptive health checks, why should we limit them to gun purchases? Lets stop the person before they even try to get a gun or end up just using something else."

It depends on what other context you're using preemptive health checks in. But, again, I do agree that more needs to be done to prevent a sick person from becoming so sick that they want to harm large groups of people.

Quote :

"then once we all agree that people should see a psychologist, maybe instead of throwing laws at this we should make access to mental healthcare better and approach this from a healthcare, outbreak standpoint and try to end this trend [Edited on December 14, 2012 at 6:57 PM. Reason : So it all comes full circle, we need to approach this from another angle ]"

Right, but it doesn't have to be an either/or situation.

[Edited on December 14, 2012 at 7:14 PM. Reason : ]

12/14/2012 7:13:05 PM

Quote :

"^^^ then once we all agree that people should see a psychologist, maybe instead of throwing laws at this we should make access to mental healthcare better and approach this from a healthcare, outbreak standpoint and try to end this trend"

This shit doesn't just happen, it's a reaction to environment. Who knows, this guy may have had something genetically that made him more likely to do something like this, but ultimately the environment turns those genes on. The dude killed both of his parents and then shot up a school. Something fucked up happened during this guy's childhood, but who knows if we'll find out exactly what led to this.

12/14/2012 7:19:59 PM

Quote :

"Because for the most part, it's already illegal (or at least very difficult) to own something that has more killing potential than a gun."

And it's already illegal to buy a gun in the US from a dealer if you have been adjucated mentally ill

(also kill someone, it's already illegal to do that)

12/14/2012 7:23:42 PM

As soon as we all decide that this kind of tragedy is different from other gun crimes i would like to discuss this:
states with more restrictive gun control laws have fewer gun related deaths
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/01/the-geography-of-gun-deaths/69354/

12/14/2012 7:31:40 PM

http://m.nydailynews.com/1.1220230

Chinese man goes in a rampage against children. Uses knife, doesn't kill anyone.

12/14/2012 7:39:53 PM

Most people don't know what an assault rifle is....

12/14/2012 7:57:00 PM

Quote :

"And it's already illegal to buy a gun in the US from a dealer if you have been adjucated mentally ill"

Right, but the current enforcement can obviously be improved.

Quote :

"(also kill someone, it's already illegal to do that)"

Yes. And I believe we should make it more difficult for the people who want to kill large numbers of other people to obtain the tools to do so. I just don't know what the best method of doing that would be.

12/14/2012 7:57:58 PM

Yeah, its a bad argument to show why your argument against screening the population in general to prevent a bomb attack because bombs are already illegal is a bad argument

Everyone should have to go to a psychologist to participate in society. Mentally I'll should be preemptively incarcerated

[Edited on December 14, 2012 at 8:03 PM. Reason : .]

12/14/2012 8:02:42 PM

^^^^^ most likely includes gun suicides (which is useless since people can kill themselves in thousands of ways but in places with more gun obviously guns are used more often) and accidental deaths (which are an issue but have more to with education that restricting guns).

[Edited on December 14, 2012 at 8:04 PM. Reason : ]

12/14/2012 8:03:26 PM

So people can kill themselves in many ways, just not other people in many ways. So guns are the problem, and not some deeper societal problem, when the victim is another person, but not when the victim is themselves?

12/14/2012 8:06:17 PM

What? Yeah you can kill others in many ways also.

I was just saying the map would be more relevant if it was just gun homicide instead of all gun deaths.

12/14/2012 8:10:18 PM

Quote :

"Yeah, its a bad argument to show why your argument against screening the population in general to prevent a bomb attack because bombs are already illegal is a bad argument Everyone should have to go to a psychologist to participate in society. Mentally I'll should be preemptively incarcerated"

[quote]

I don't know you well enough to determine if this is sarcasm or not, so I don't know how to reply to this. Are you genuinely advocating a psychological evaluation for every person in the country? Or are you intentionally extrapolating my idea to a ridiculous degree in an attempt to point out its flaws?

12/14/2012 8:12:58 PM

Grenade control has worked pretty well.

12/14/2012 8:24:50 PM

^^im showing you how it's a ridiculous invasion of privacy especially considering that only 3%-5% of violent crimes are committed by the mentally ill.

if you are okay screening mentally ill people for guns, why not for other violent crimes? why not for other weapons? it's easy to make a devastating bomb and anyone can buy what it takes, so the conclusion is we need to screen everyone.

12/14/2012 8:31:24 PM

Quote :

"I searched for previous threads and most are too old to bring back. In light of today's news I feel there is clear enough reason to make a national policy limiting the process of obtaining firearms. I don't want to ban guns from everyone or take away the 2nd Amendment, but there should be a stricter process for earning a permit to own or carry a gun."

And how would this have prevented the events of today? What would you change about current law? What would you add?

Typical generic anti-gun statement the second someone hears about a shooting. If you actually examine the statistics behind everything as well as the totality of these situations you'd understand that this will not solve any problems. These types of statements also immediately take the focus off of the person who actually committed the crime. Then again America is all about abdicating responsibility for anything and anyone in any situation so I'm not surprised. "It wasn't me, it was a pill. It wasn't me, it was someone else's fault. It's not my fault I got hit by a car crossing a street against the signal. Pay me." etc.

That being said I appreciate that you aren't for a total ban and I think I understand where you are coming from.

Quote :

"And I believe we should make it more difficult for the people who want to kill large numbers of other people to obtain the tools to do so."

I'm actually intrigued by this statement, though, given the crafty nature of humanity, I feel it's entirely impossible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4nknAzQPHE

[Edited on December 14, 2012 at 8:47 PM. Reason : jank]

12/14/2012 8:42:59 PM

Quote :

"Grenade control has worked pretty well."

There aren't hundreds of millions of grenades already out in society, though.

12/14/2012 9:15:37 PM

Exactly.

12/14/2012 9:22:49 PM

serious questions: how many assault rifle murders happened when the assault weapons ban was in effect? how many massacres happened using assault rifles?

12/14/2012 9:40:14 PM

this semi-automatic rifle chambered for .223 Remington was legal during the AWB:


this semi-automatic rifle chambered for .223 Remington was not legal during the AWB (unless it was manufactured before 1994):


do you see why the Federal Assault Weapons Ban made gun owners a little angry?

[Edited on December 14, 2012 at 9:54 PM. Reason : it's like those Find the Differences games]

see, they said they want to ban these "assault rifles", but then they found out that they operate just like hunting rifles, so they had to base the rules purely on cosmetic features.

everyone who wishes to discuss the AWB should watch this video. it is old, but nothing has really changed other than the AR-15 has become even more popular.



[Edited on December 14, 2012 at 10:00 PM. Reason : fads]

12/14/2012 9:53:37 PM

^^ For whatever reason, you didn't see lots of random, massive shooting sprees back then. Some sort of social shift has occured.

the AWB didn't ban anything except new production of guns with certain features that didn't make them any less lethal than the pre-ban guns. By the very nature of its design, there is no way that the AWB had any effect on gun violence.

12/14/2012 9:58:06 PM

they still happened, just at different places. for example, in the 80's to the early 90's the trend was for food places, cafeterias and restaurants etc

12/14/2012 10:17:08 PM

Do you think they happened with the frequency and scale that we see nowadays?

12/14/2012 10:35:16 PM

it was comparable, yeah

12/14/2012 10:39:47 PM

Criminals use guns for business; to assert their will and kill other criminals. Criminals don't use guns to randomly shoot up schools, malls and theaters. We need to take guns away from everyday street cops, make gun licenses much more difficult to obtain and update (should it be easier than drivers license?) and you should have to go to development for 40 hours per year to continue owning a gun. This will weed out most of the people who own guns for reasons other than livelihood. This will lower the amount of guns on the street. Less guns means less accidents and less 2nd degree gun murders and more thought required to carry out a 1st degree mass shooting. Adding an extra step to the process may just provide the person with enough time to back out of the shooting.

Ideally, we would have 0 guns on the street so the less the better. If organized crime and swat are the only people with guns, there would be a lot more smuggling of drugs but a lot less people would die.

12/14/2012 11:16:27 PM

haha, regarding grenades, check out this little tidbit from the TSA website right now:

TSA Week In Review
Find of the Week:
41 Firearms, 40 Stun Guns, 4 Grenades, 1 Rocket Launcher. No Partridge in a Pear Tree…

http://blog.tsa.gov/2012/12/tsa-week-in-review-41-firearms-40-stun.html

12/14/2012 11:26:07 PM

Quote :

"If a person wants to own a firearm, they should have to pass the following: *Background check (not just criminal records but also health history) *Vision test *Written test *Shooting test *Mental health test conducted by a licensed professional"

I guess "shall not be infringed" just doesn't mean a damned thing to you. Similar requirements were once used to keep some people from voting... just saying...

Quote :

"Wouldn't the way we handle mental health issues go MUCH farther to prevent things like this more than looking for ways to ban guns?"

Bingo. Almost all of these mass shootings are the result of mentally unstable people that were basically know to be unstable before the event, yet they received zero treatment. Fix that, and you fix the problem.

Quote :

"I mean, the Second Amendment only allows for the ownership of weapons. It doesn't say anything about financial ability to buy them."

ummm, really? you do understand that putting a massive burden on the exercise of a right is the same as restricting that right, correct? that's why things like poll taxes are illegal.

Quote :

"None of our other basic American rights have the potential to directly kill people."

and? is it, or is it not a basic right? are you ok with shitting on some rights, so long as it makes you feel safe and cozy inside? which rights do you think are important to protect, and which ones can we throw away? Are you arguing that we should repeal the 2nd amendment?

Quote :

"I mentioned "predilection for violence" in a previous post. If a doctor determines that you have a certain likelihood of using your gun to intentionally harm people for anything but self-defense, they won't give you the certificate or license."

Just like doctors in medical marijuana states would never just write random-assed prescriptions for whatever joeblow shows up complaining of a headache.

Quote :

"Not every American. Just those looking to purchase guns."

ahhhh, just those looking to exercise their rights. that means there is nothing wrong with a poll tax, either. it doesn't affect every American, just those who want to vote.




^ hahahahaha. dude really thinks that "having a little more time" will make a mentally unstable person "back out of the shooting." because all the guy who can't think straight needs is more time to talk to the purple tigerelephant

12/14/2012 11:30:02 PM

you're a simpleton if you think some magical "treating mental health" is the solution that will end this shit. i am not shocked at who is coming across as such in this thread

and before you jump on my shit, realize that I was an ordnance officer and anti-terrorism officer who has probably fired more rounds of ammo in just 5 years of my life than anyone short of an infantryman

[Edited on December 14, 2012 at 11:40 PM. Reason : .]

12/14/2012 11:37:02 PM

you're a simpleton if you think some magical "make guns illegal" is the solution that will end this shit. i am not shocked at who is coming across as such in this thread

12/14/2012 11:39:32 PM

where did I say that? just because I call out your ignorance doesn't mean that I believe the 180 of it

you response pretty much sums up your myopia

[Edited on December 14, 2012 at 11:42 PM. Reason : .]

12/14/2012 11:40:34 PM

I'm just trying to figure out how you don't think that addressing mental health issues will help put a stop to mass killings perpetuated almost exclusively by mentally unstable people

12/14/2012 11:42:02 PM

^

12/14/2012 11:43:28 PM

why should I engage you in serious discourse when you've already exposed your inability to view this as anything other than your way or the exact opposite?

12/14/2012 11:44:44 PM

says the guy who first remark was to call me a simpleton... doesn't really sound like you were ever interested in serious discourse.

12/14/2012 11:45:39 PM

just because you're a simpleton doesn't mean I won't address more rational people in discourse.

your response to my post only proved my assumption was right. you're incapable of rational thought on the subject

[Edited on December 14, 2012 at 11:48 PM. Reason : .]

12/14/2012 11:47:29 PM

aaronburro, while we might be on the same side of this issue in general, the supreme court has upheld as recently as heller v district of columbia that some restrictions are constitutional, so your "shall not be infringed" argument doesn't really work in the way you want it to. they do require that they be reasonable restrictions and they stayed away from ruling on the restrictions directly, but its definitely okay to infringe some and be constitutional.

so what you need to point out is that those things are "capricious and arbitrary" to be inline with Supreme Court decisions and orbiter dictum

[Edited on December 14, 2012 at 11:48 PM. Reason : .]

12/14/2012 11:48:01 PM

ahhhh. so you make an insulting remark to someone as your opening attempt at "rational discourse," and then you are shocked when the person you insulted doesn't respond to your insult with rational discourse. i know I'm a bit of a jackass sometimes (all the time), but just stop and think about your approach there

Quote :

" they do require that they be reasonable restrictions and they stayed away from ruling on the restrictions directly, but its definitely okay to infringe some and be constitutional. "

which is why they are full of shit. it says "shall not be infringed," yet they then came out and said "it's OK to infringe," per your words. I look at it as any restriction is, by definition, an infringement.

12/14/2012 11:49:55 PM

^^

12/14/2012 11:51:54 PM

my approach was to call a spade a spade, and then you acted like said spade. you want me to treat you with a respect you, by your own assertion, have not earned

12/14/2012 11:52:22 PM

your approach was your first action towards me, and it was to insult me, yet you then lament the lack of civil and rational discourse. again. stop and think about it

12/14/2012 11:54:59 PM

when you are taking a more hardline position than even Justice Scalia, that's a good sign your position is wrong

[Edited on December 14, 2012 at 11:57 PM. Reason : read the decision, its okay to have reasonable restrictions]

12/14/2012 11:57:16 PM

Separate but equal is perfectly fine, as long as it's equal.
Infringement is fine, as long as it's only a little infringement. Because a little infringement isn't really infringement, in the same way that "just the tip" isn't really sex. (yeah, I'm being snarky again)

12/14/2012 11:59:14 PM