Shootings at UCSB

[aljdewey]

I truly don't understand this fixation on mental instability because ALL murderers are mentally unstable.

Right, but not all legal gun owners are murderers. There are millions of lawful gun owners who've never killed a soul. They aren't the problem. Multitudes of people own guns lawfully and never murder anyone with them, and implementing legislation that affects those people (who are not part of the problem) doesn't make sense to me. I can see that you don't understand it, and if you don't, it's ok. You do not have to agree with my viewpoint, but I will still feel free to express it. If it doesn't make sense to you, please feel free to skip over it.

You cannot base legislation on the current mental health of someone obtaining a gun legally, because these people who kill while mentally imbalanced were once perfectly sane and responsible. People have rip roaring fights with spouses, parents, neighbours, whoever, and then they snap. They grab their very legally obtained gun and take care of the problem at hand. This is the problem with isolating gun violence to mental fitness - mental and emotional stability are fluid. How can we ensure that a responsible community member one day is not a mass public shooter next year?

First of all, let's establish that there is no way to ensure *anything* 100%. People have been killing long before guns existing, and people find ways to kill others in societies where guns are not allowed.

While I know it may seem to make sense to argue about crimes of passion in the same breath as mass shooters, they are very different things to me and don't warrant being lumped together. Someone who has a rip-roaring fight and snaps in a heat of passion as you describe isn't the same to me as someone who plans a massacre event days, weeks or months in advance and legally obtains firearms to carry out those plans or someone who spirals into the despondency that results in suicide.) Because I think these are very different, I personally believe they would require different plans of action to resolve.

My comments were very targeted by design - to address something that I think can have a substantive impact in reducing gun-related deaths perpetrated by people who are mentally unstable. This would potentially greatly reduce more than half of gun-related deaths (by helping those who are suicidal) and those unstable people who plan massacres. Will this eradicate all gun-deaths? No, and I didn't suggest it would. Do I think it would go a long way to reducing gun fatalities that I think are preventable. Yes, I emphatically do. I am not aiming for total utopia; I am aiming for what I think is an achievable way to reduce gun-related fatalities.

I agree that mental and emotional stability is fluid, but I do not believe that it's an on/off switch for most (again, I'm not talking about crimes of passion here - beyond the scope of what I'm addressing.). I don't profess to have any inside insight into the events of Newtown, the Navy Yard, the Isla Vista shooting or others beyond what has been widely published, but in all of those events, people close to the perpetrators observed a decline in their mental or emotional wellness over days/weeks/months. It would seem there is an opportunity there to strengthen the ability of law enforcement to act on those types of tips, check registries for firearms ownership, and revoke firearms permits/confiscate those firearms until mental/emotional fitness can be reestablished. I've not given a ton of thought to how this would work, and I'm equally sure that nothing will work 100% of the time regardless of actions taken, but it would seem an opportunity for improvement and better prevention exists here.

And no one has been discussing banning guns

Yes, some have indeed suggested it; while they may not be part of 'the majority' you're referring to, it has indeed been suggested. But again, that is not my focus. I am focused on how to limit access to firearms to those who aren't fit to have them without imposing undue limitations on those who pose no risk and are fit. To me, that is very much the same as what your 'majority' is proposing - making it harder to get guns and having to demonstrate more fitness to have them. I don't see why you don't see that?

The 'criminals operating outside the law' argument is ever-present. Why do our gangs of bikers beat or stab each other to death; why do they not still have guns? Is it the land link to Central/South America that makes you think they can never be removed from the criminal element? We are surrounded by water here, but still receive illegal items and people via boat from Indonesia constantly - with thousands of miles of unoccupied coast and a tiny Coast Guard, it is nearly the equivalency of a completely unguarded border. And yet the criminals still have no guns.

I've never lived or visited Australia, so I can't offer any insight as to how or why your criminals have what they do or don't.....but I will say I'd find it extremely difficult to believe that no criminals have guns there.

But even if I were to take that as fact at your word (which I don't), accessing your thousands of miles of unguarded shore requires at least a boat, no? And access to a boat? I don't imagine there are many people just swimming up to your unmanned border with guns? It would be much harder to do that than to walk up and scale a fence in the dead of night. The US shares 1,933 miles of border with Mexico (a nation of 120 million people, the overwhelming majority of which lives in very poor conditions), and the rampant undocumented immigrant population in the U.S. is a testament to the challenge of securing that border.

Of course, there's more than just the above ground border for us to worry about here, since drug/gun tunnels can be dug virtually anywhere along those 1,933 miles. I'd imagine submarines are even harder to come by than boats for AUS to worry about undercover breaches.

I'm happy for you that you've found a country that makes you feel safe and aligns with the way you think things should be. For my part, I think there are enough substantive differences between US/AUS to make it considerably less than an apples-to-apples comparision. That's not to say each country doesn't have practices the other could benefit from at all, but I think considerably more is required than having the U.S. (with over 300 million people and vastly different conditions) simply mimic AUS' practices.

 

[aljdewey]

aljdewey, maybe seeing this earlier post of yours will help you see why I thought you put more stock in "getting guns out of the hands of the mentally ill" than I think is warranted:

I'll repeat: It is the lawfully obtained portion of the discussion that my comments are aimed at, not at the criminal side.

 

[redwood66]

P.S. Did you ever have to work SHU? My impression is that NY State's prison system is quite a bit different than in CA. And not just because we no longer have the death penalty (which I think is a good thing -- the abolition, I mean; I've never been in favor of the death penalty, altho' I think for the ~10 years capital prosecutions were in place, NY's approach was about as good as it can be). Maybe sometime we could have a discussion here about correctional systems/departments... and get really depressed.

My final years were spent working in SHU and in particular the psychiatric unit in SHU. Yes depressing is a great word for it. In my younger years I used to be for the death penalty but over time saw that it does not work and is not a deterrent in the least. The cost in $$ is too high to maintain a death row when inmates are allowed innumerable appeals so why have it? I started as a young 23 year old woman and am now an old lady with many stories and a pretty bleak outlook on where society is heading if people don't get a clue what is important as far as life, family, values, etc. I'd imagine any city prosecutor, police officer or sheriff who deals with this on a daily basis feels the same way. The only thing I could do was move away to a quieter place.

 

[Laila619]

The problem is not guns - the problem is guns in the hands of mentally unstable people. When you can tell me how to effectively impact that, you'll have my attention.

You can't. Therein lies the problem. Mentally unstable people will continue to get guns, whether they obtain them legally or they steal a friend's or relative's. And I don't think there is any realistic, feasible way to prevent it.

 

[TooPatient]

And he was white by the way - which is only important because if you're anti-gun like me and hear that a 22 year-old white boy carries a concealed gun at the mall your immediate reaction is disdain.

Frankly this bolded comment offends me deeply. My white sons are 22 and serving our country in the military. They have every right to conceal carry in a mall or wherever else they deem fit within the law.

I would not feel disdain, I would feel like making myself scarce and out of said 22 year-old's presence, because while it might be his "right", I can't tell which 22-year-old gun toting white boy is a military hero worthy of worship (but not trained in law-enforcement), and which one is the angry, entitled paranoid nutter who is preparing to mow me down. I just see a guy with a gun in a public space. I'm sure as hell not waiting around to ASK which is which or to see his permit.

Anyone who feels they need to carry concealed or otherwise to basic daily functions of life like the mall, the bakery, the hair stylist, or the bank teller window, has, IMO, ISSUES. I'm sure sorry people feel that way, but I'm not seeing how it makes me safer or society any more civil or relaxed to be sporting a pistol, or worse, at the local 4-star.

And no, I'm not anti-gun. My husband was in the gun business for 15 years and for 5 of those I was exposed pretty heavily to the mindset of that world. Even back in 1982, when we were still inclined as a single country,to sing kumbaya on occasion, the gun mindset was a bit too fearful/paranoid for my tastes. But things in recent years have gotten truly stupid. On both sides. One thing I've not seen in this thread is any discussion of a middle. One the one hand we have the take them ALL away from everyone crowd - which is never going to happen, and on the other you have the 2nd Amendment fundamentalists who see any regulation at all as encroachment that can only end in a jack-booted totalitarian regime. (Not to mention that you absolutely do not see a single brown person at a gun show, and the John Birch booth is always stacked 3 deep) Both are too extreme for me.

I am not paranoid and I don't have ISSUES as you say. I have seen some of the ugliest people and things that have ever been done by criminals to victims before I retired. Why is it that someone needs to assume that because one owns, carries, shoots weapons they are paranoid?

I agree with everything Aljdewey has said so much more eloquently except gun ownership is a right.

I don't assume that. But when you're out in public proudly sporting your gun, I would say probably I assume "issues" for the same reason that you assume that enough other people are a big enough threat that you need to carry a gun to the bank teller window. (I bring up the bank teller window again for a reason. See below. Pretty entertaining that "The majority of Oklahoma law enforcement officers did not support the open carry legislation, expressing strong concerns that at a crime scene they will not be able to tell the good guys from the bad guys.")
http://okoca.org/media-interviews/oklahoma-bankers-enactment-of-open-carry-legislation-begins-nov-1/

So tell me please, in the threat assessment most of us make when we enter a space, even if it's subconscious, why exactly I should trust YOU as a good guy when the guy over there - also holding a gun - looks virtually identical? Hell, as noted above, the COPS can't even do it, and must assume everyone with a gun is a threat. Why I should assume your intentions are good and noble or your shoot/no shoot training impeccable? Wouldn't I do better to assume as the cops do, at the very least? My husband, as I said, spent 15 years selling guns (oddly enough there was no open OR concealed carry back when he was selling and yet people by and large did not see that as a sign of the apocalypse. How DID we survive without being able to carry a gun with us everywhere, I just don't know.) Needless to say, his comfort level with guns is extremely high and he knows that not everyone who owns guns (ourselves included) is nuts. Yet even HE will not enter a store or public space where someone is sporting open carry - because A) he spent all those years selling guns and understands certain common characteristics of a reasonable portion of that clientele more than a bit, and b) because carrying openly is most often a pretty aggressive political statement and/or an intimidation tactic, NOT because of any particular mandated training or professionalism on the part of the person carrying. And since every plain clothes law enforcement guy he ever met took it as a high mark of their professionalism that their gun not be seen ever unless it was required to be out, the idea of open carry is even more of the mark of an ideologically motivated amateur.

I also know what my gun-lovin' state requires as training for that concealed/open carry license and it is exactly 8 HOURS and that you be a breathing citizen who can pass a background check. I also know what a friend of mine told me about the class that he and his wife took to get said licenses, and he (retired army lt col.) said most of the people in the class were scary as hell and could barely read the test questions. Since their extensive 8 hour training requirement, his wife - who insisted they get licensed because her pastor suggested it (ah, the old Prince of Peace!), is now licensed to carry in public for 5 years, yet has not purchased, picked up, or shot a weapon since. If I saw that woman wearing a gun in public, I'd run screaming, believe me.

So yes, it would seem there is a rather large dearth of trust bustin' out all over.

Well none of your post applies to me because I carry concealed which means you will never know I have it. I never mentioned anything about open carry. It is legal in my state also but hardly anyone does it.

Hi Redwood

I'm right with you on feeling more comfortable with concealed for myself.
Open carry is legal (WITHOUT a permit) in my state (WA) but you rarely see it around here either.

I'm not opposed to open carry --- BTW, open carry requires you have the weapon in a holster (or on a sling if rifle) so it isn't just tucked in your clothing or in your hand. You can get in HUGE trouble if you open carry incorrectly. You also are not allowed to open carry in a vehicle.

You can tell an awful lot about a person based on attitudes and behaviors. Those with their gun in a holster looking comfortable doing whatever are probably just fine. Those who look nervous or aren't carrying like they know what they are doing are the ones who would concern me. I've been in many situations where people were open carry (mainly gun club events but also a couple of random strangers in stores) and NEVER felt uncomfortable or at risk in the slightest.

That said, if you are open carry you open yourself up as the obvious first target if some person shows up to kill people.


As to comments made in the thread about police not knowing who is the bad guy or the good guy, it is absolutely true. Part of my training included what to do in the event something happened and the police were called in. I also discussed this in person with a police officer who works undercover routinely. In a situation like this, MY safety is at risk if I act improperly. That is a risk I am willing to take because I feel the potentially life-saving benefits outweigh this (not trivial!) downside. This is also a risk off-duty officers or undercover officers take too.

 

[TooPatient]

This topic is so important, yet we (as a country) never seem to get anywhere with it. Still, I appreciate all particiapting in the discussion in a constructive manner. (just wanted to say that.)

This particular shooting as hit home for me, as one of the victims lived in our town, and I learned tonight that my daughter was, indeed acquainted with her. (DD has been on a wilderness/camping retreat for the past week and a half.)

The fact that a number of posters have expressed their desire to own guns in the interest of personal safety, has brought a question to mind. My sincere question, because I just don't know, is; in all the US mass shootings of recent years, how many of them were, in part or entirely, halted or seriously slowed by citizens who were carrying legally owned handguns.

The most recent one that comes to mind is the one in a Portland Oregon mall. I am very sorry for your dd's friend.

KaeKae -- I'm sorry your town is going through this.

The answer is that there are MANY times where things that could have become mass shootings didn't thanks to regular citizens legally carrying guns. They don't make the news. It isn't part of the politically correct ideas (and certainly isn't full of drama) if a man (or woman) legally carrying shoots a criminal before he's able to actually kill anyone. The news doesn't cover when the guy misses or just wounds a person and is stopped by a concealed carry person.

One that comes to mind in the last 6 months or so is a guy at a coffee shop who was concealed carry and stopped a man who had begun shooting at customers. (sorry, can't link because I can't find the one little article I had seen on this when it first happened)

I doubt this is a statistic that is tracked, but I'd love to see it if someone could find it.

 

[KaeKae]

This topic is so important, yet we (as a country) never seem to get anywhere with it. Still, I appreciate all particiapting in the discussion in a constructive manner. (just wanted to say that.)

This particular shooting as hit home for me, as one of the victims lived in our town, and I learned tonight that my daughter was, indeed acquainted with her. (DD has been on a wilderness/camping retreat for the past week and a half.)

The fact that a number of posters have expressed their desire to own guns in the interest of personal safety, has brought a question to mind. My sincere question, because I just don't know, is; in all the US mass shootings of recent years, how many of them were, in part or entirely, halted or seriously slowed by citizens who were carrying legally owned handguns.

The most recent one that comes to mind is the one in a Portland Oregon mall. I am very sorry for your dd's friend.

KaeKae -- I'm sorry your town is going through this.

The answer is that there are MANY times where things that could have become mass shootings didn't thanks to regular citizens legally carrying guns. They don't make the news. It isn't part of the politically correct ideas (and certainly isn't full of drama) if a man (or woman) legally carrying shoots a criminal before he's able to actually kill anyone. The news doesn't cover when the guy misses or just wounds a person and is stopped by a concealed carry person.

One that comes to mind in the last 6 months or so is a guy at a coffee shop who was concealed carry and stopped a man who had begun shooting at customers. (sorry, can't link because I can't find the one little article I had seen on this when it first happened)

I doubt this is a statistic that is tracked, but I'd love to see it if someone could find it.

TooPatient, thank you for that information. It seems to me that such information would be vital to the issue. Why it doesn't make at least the local news, is beyond me. Well, I do live near LA, and there is plenty of other terrible things to report, but still, it should be noted, shouldn't it? Thanks, again.