Shootings at UCSB

[redwood66]

There is nothing more I can say that will get the point across. The lack of respect for human life and no moral values coupled with rampant drug use and mental instability will be the problem until people take responsibility for their actions or are imprisoned.

That is it.

From an objective point of view, I see two possibilities.

First is the possibility that the ease of obtaining a firearm in the US, through legal means or stealing/'borrowing' from someone who did obtain it legally, has significantly contributed to the shameful violent crime statistics.

And second, there is now something inherently wrong with Americans, on a large scale. They are more mentally ill, less moral, angrier people than anyone else in the developed world.

I prefer to think it is a case of easy access versus national mental instability. It seems you would explain the alarmingly high violent crime rates on the second possible cause?

As I stated previously you cannot compare the US to another country. And it seems that foreigners think you cannot walk down a street without being shot at or robbed raped etc. There is nothing I can tell you that will change your mind that we are crazy lunatic gun lovers and I am tired of trying. Thanks.

I will continue to be my happy gun, bling, family loving self and enjoy my life in the US.

You do realise I am American, right? I experienced the fear of gun culture in the Midwest firsthand. Like the boy who sat next to me in 10th grade French who shot a convenience store woman in the face, or my coworkers' ex who showed up at her front door with a shotgun, or the violent home invasion of one of my uni friends, and so on and so forth. You don't need to convince me what life in the States was like because I lived it.

I am not sure how I could know where you are from based on this thread. It appears you live in Australia. I went to high school with the guy who killed several pizza place workers one night and then several 7-11 workers the next night. A friend of mine committed suicide by cops. A coworker was shot and killed by teens outside a 7-11 after stopping their robbery. Home invasions seem to be rampant in Australia by other's posts. I am not trying to convince you of anything but I do have just as much right to post my opinion as you do. By the same token you will not convince me your view is correct. Maybe my posting here in Hangout was a mistake because I appear to be quite the minority in my views - at least of those who actually post.

 

[redwood66]

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.

 

[Maria D]

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.

To be clear, in the Clackamas mall incident of December 2012 a mass-shooting was likely halted due to the fact that a nearby 22 year-old had a concealed weapon BUT that young man never shot his gun. During a break in gunfire, while the shooter was working his rifle, the guy with the concealed gun kept his eye on the shooter but DID NOT SHOOT because he saw someone behind the perpetrator move and knew if he fired and missed he could hit them. He is quoted as saying, "I'm not beating myself up 'cause I didn't shoot him. I know after he saw me, I think the last shot he fired was the one he used on himself." We can all be thankful that this 22 year-old kid (I'm old enough to call him that!) had cool-headedness and bravery along with his concealed weapon. 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.

In answer to your question of how often legal gun ownership prevents tragedy, the Violence Policy Center analyzed national crime data to answer this question. You can read their study here: http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable.pdf

The conclusion to the study states this:

"The devastation guns inflict on our nation each and every year is clear: nearly 32,000 dead, more than 73,000 wounded, and an untold number of lives and communities shattered. Unexamined claims of the efficacy and frequency of the self-defense use of firearms are the default rationale offered by the gun lobby and gun industry for this unceasing, bloody toll. The idea that firearms are frequently used in self-defense is the primary argument that the gun lobby and firearms industry use to expand the carrying of firearms into an ever-increasing number of public spaces and even to prevent the regulation of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons and high- capacity ammunition magazines. Yet this argument is hollow and the assertions false. When analyzing the most reliable data available, what is most striking is that in a nation of more than 300 million guns, how rarely firearms are used in self-defense."

 

[redwood66]

Thank you for digging up all that information. :wavy:

But you failed to add that the 22 year drew his weapon and the assailant saw he had it. Just because it was not used does not mean that it and he did not stop further carnage. The 22 year old followed one of the main rules of gun safety - Be aware of your target and what is behind it. Good on him.

 

[redwood66]

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.

 

[aljdewey]

We could end the war on drugs, legalise marijuana, make illicit drug use safer, and put drug addicts into treatment instead of prison.

Oh, is that all we have to do? Seems so simple! Why didn't we all think of this sooner?

I'm all ears in hearing exactly how you propose for this to happen. Who will enforce it? Who will fund it?

Oh, and make sure you also outline the plan of how we're going to get our lawless, drug-running focused neighboring country to also abide by all this too.

Very good questions, I'm glad you are all ears.

legalising weed in Colorado and Washington seems to have been a roaring success. the war on drugs? dismal failure by everyone's account. But we didn't think of it sooner until we were faced with the dismal failure.

When we legalised medical marijuana in a lot of states now, so was domestic cultivation. One, we are supplying some of our own, increasing competition and increasing the supply, which has resulted in dropping the wholesale price like a rock. This makes it less lucrative for Mexican cartels. Two, domestic quality is much higher quality than what is grown in Mexico. The result of all these market forces? Consumers of course want the good stuff, which is now more readily available and the price is cheaper after legalisation. Mexican pot farmers are planting less. Now, the cartels will change their tack and look to other drugs that are still profitable, ie, illegal.

Who will enforce it? It takes a lot more enforcement to run a war on drugs than to.... not.

Who will fund it? Seeing as how the US literally locks up more of its citizens than any other country IN THE WORLD, (and yet far from the safest country,) there seems to be plenty of funding. Interesting Australia comparison: 743/100,00 vs 133/100,000 incarceration rate, almost 6 times. Nonviolent drug offenders could be released into treatment instead of being locked up, and maybe if they get well, they could get a job, and pay taxes. Multiplier effect of good things could happen if we change imprisonment in this country.

*That is your answer?* Legalize marijuana? Beyond the fact that marijuana is far from the only drug feeding drug cartels, I must have missed the statistics that show a measured declined in the Mexican drug trade and the resulting decline of weapon ownership since the legalization of marijuana in Colorado - can you point me to stats that support this contention? Can you point me to evidence that Mexican cartels have taken any kind of serious financial hit? What evidence exists to show that Mexico's drug trade is even remotely impacted at all by legalization? I'd doubt it.

Nice try, but it's incredibly naive to think the path to banning guns lies in legalizing drugs. No way, no how it's gonna work.

I am amused that people continue to think comparing a country with only 33 million people and no bordering countries to a country with 317 million people and two neighboring countries is even remotely relevant.

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.

 

[aljdewey]

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.

And my (unanswered) question continues to be: how many people have been killed with a gun by sane people?

The problem is not guns; the problem is guns in the hands of those they should not be in.

 

[aljdewey]

We cannot argue this with anecdotal evidence. But mine is as strong as yours.

Deb, my point is that everyone has anecdotal evidence, but none of them (mine or yours) should be upheld as being representative of the norm in the United States. It's not a wide enough sampling to represent the whole.

It's almost pointless to continue on this, because all we're doing is retreading past discussions.

I disagree that gun ownership in the proper hands is a problem. I wholeheartedly agree that guns in the wrong hands are a problem. Half of all gun-related deaths are suicide (mental health). All the random mass shootings I can recall have been perpetrated by mentally unstable people.

There is a very persistent and common theme, and trying to ignore it doesn't change it.

Those of you who really want to impact meaningful change could do so much more effectively by focusing your energies on the source of the problem. Right now, the efforts appear to be centered on restrictions or limitations that apply to all people, regardless of merit. Continuing down that path is pretty much a guarantee that you'll continue to spend your time mired in opposition with sane, lawful, compliant gun owners.....while the root problem continues.

A smarter and more tactical approach would be to focus on restricting gun ownership for mentally unstable people. I'd imagine responsible gun owners would become willing allies, since they have skin in the game. Their time (responsible, law-abiding gun owners) is much better spent helping keep guns away from unstable people since it's likely to help preserve their own ownership rights. It would seem everybody wins then?

 

[JulieN]

Nice try, but it's incredibly naive to think the path to banning guns lies in legalizing drugs. No way, no how it's gonna work.

I am amused that people continue to think comparing a country with only 33 million people and no bordering countries to a country with 317 million people and two neighboring countries is even remotely relevant.

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.

Your problem is that you think I want to ban guns. I want nothing of the sort. In not one of my posts did I even suggest more gun control is the answer.

Reading comprehension. The only time I mentioned guns at all was to say that you are 159 times more likely to die by a gun in the US than in Aus. I made no remarks and passed no judgements on that fact.

 

[aljdewey]

I've lived in NY for 8 years and personally know a few people who were injured by guns.

I understand that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, but there must be better ways to restrict gun use and ownership in this country. It is way too easy to buy guns. You can buy one from a seller without background check.

In my state, it's not legal to sell a handgun to someone who isn't licensed, and licensed individuals have already gone through an extensive background check as a precursor to obtaining that license.

 

[ksinger]

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.

 

[redwood66]

In my state you must have a background check to purchase a weapon. If you have your concealed carry license you are fingerprinted and background check is done every five years. We are a shall issue state.


ksinger - The point of concealed carry is that you should never know they have it. So why would you feel fear? And the point of why to carry to daily functions - I already said it. You don't get to pick when anything happens. It just happens. I would rather carry every day of my life and no one ever know or need to use it, than to pick the wrong day to leave it at home.

 

[movie zombie]

I am in California.
I must fill out a form and then a background check is done each time I buy a gun.
I also took a test to obtain a license in order to buy in the first place.
I must take a test every 5 years to renew it.
even intra family transfers are limited.
there is a 10-day wait period while the background check is being done.
there is also a limit on how many guns I can buy in a 30-day period.
there is way too much incorrect information stated as fact not only in this forum but in the media.

 

[aljdewey]

Nice try, but it's incredibly naive to think the path to banning guns lies in legalizing drugs. No way, no how it's gonna work.

I am amused that people continue to think comparing a country with only 33 million people and no bordering countries to a country with 317 million people and two neighboring countries is even remotely relevant.

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.

Your problem is that you think I want to ban guns. I want nothing of the sort. In not one of my posts did I even suggest more gun control is the answer.

Reading comprehension. The only time I mentioned guns at all was to say that you are 159 times more likely to die by a gun in the US than in Aus. I made no remarks and passed no judgements on that fact.

How silly of me to think that someone engaged in a discussion about guns wasn't talking about guns. You're right - my bad. I guess you had no point.

As for me, I don't actually have a problem, Julie. I'm merely participating in a discussion - which to me isn't a problem.

I do like your phrasing though - to die "by a gun", as though the gun does that by itself. It's worth noting again that more than half of those who 'died by a gun' had their own hands on those guns and shot themselves purposefully - suicide. You can keep ignoring that fact all you want, but ignoring it doesn't make it any less true.

That certainly does inflate the figures nicely for all the chest-beasters who like the portray the U.S. as 'ooooooooooooooooooooo dangerous', I know, and if that's what folks want to continue to believe, have at it. Surely, it's much easier to focus energies on that than it is to actually apply them to solutions that would help those people in distress who are holding the very guns to their own selves.

 

[aljdewey]

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.

Then you're either skipping some posts or not reading carefully enough, because I've repeatedly suggested the answer lies in the middle.

I do not think the answer is to take guns away from everyone (which would include sane, responsible and law-abiding citizens), but I have agreed that there needs to be a way to restrict guns from falling into the hands of mentally unstable or unlawful individuals. The unlawful group is tougher to deal with because passing laws isn't really going to mean much to the already non-abiding sector, but we could make a huge dent by making it harder for mentally unwell people to put their hands on guns. That alone has the potential to diminish gun fatalities by more than half (suicide) as well as impede the type of mass even that prompted this thread.

That young man's parents knew he was in distress and tried to get help from authorities. The authorities weren't empowered to look beyond their initial wellness check when they didn't see any preliminary signs of something amiss, despite parents pointing to evidence to the contrary. That's where I think we could make the most signficant impact.

Since gun ownership is a privilege and not a right, I could imagine some kind of audit requirement as a condition of gun ownership to ensure owners are properly storing their firearms to increase accident prevention.

There are probably tons of other things that could be proposed, but I wholly agree with you those things won't come to fruition as long as the unsuccessful "take all guns away from everyone" effort continues.

 

[redwood66]

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.

 

[movie zombie]

......

Since gun ownership is a privilege and not a right, I could imagine some kind of audit requirement as a condition of gun ownership to ensure owners are properly storing their firearms to increase accident prevention......

untrue: 2A is a right, not about privilege. it is called Bill of Rights for a reason......

also, LE failed badly imo. they could have checked the data base but didn't. more here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...-a86b-362fd5443d19_story.html?wpisrc=nl_hdtop

"The sheriff’s department Thursday updated its timeline of events, disclosing that deputies had been informed of disturbing videos Roger had posted on YouTube, but did not view them before or after leaving his apartment. They did ask him about the videos.

“When questioned by the deputies about reported disturbing videos he had posted on-line, Rodger told them he was having trouble fitting in socially in Isla Vista and the videos were merely a way of expressing himself,” the sheriff’s department said on its Facebook page. “Based upon the information available to them at the time, Sheriff’s deputies concluded that Rodger was not an immediate threat to himself or others, and that they did not have cause to place him on an involuntary mental health hold, or to enter or search his residence. Therefore, they did not view the videos or conduct a weapons check on Rodger.”

"Escalante, the Capitola police chief, said that viewing the videos before going to the apartment might have given deputies more leverage to secure a search warrant.

As for checking the DROS database, it is easy, taking a matter of minutes if law enforcement officials have a person’s legal name and date of birth, as they did with Rodger.

The database is housed inside the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System, which is essentially a warehouse of databases. CLETS also contains separate gun licensing information, which is recorded at the time of the gun purchase. But this database does not provide officers with any information beyond that contained in DROS and often has fewer details.

Gun rights groups said the Santa Barbara episode shows that existing laws are not used by law enforcement and that more gun-control regulations are not needed.

“The state knew he had firearms. What is the point of registration if they are not going to make use of that information with someone who is clearly mentally unstable?” said Brandon Combs, president of the California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees, which lobbies on behalf of gun dealers and collectors on gun policy. “I think the shooting in Santa Barbara is about the failure to enforce existing law.” "

 

[packrat]

some of the magazines JD gets, or used to get, have articles from all over about people who have used their own conceal carry weapon to stop or contain other violence. It's not news. It doesn't get people riled up and force them to the streets w/their pitchforks and torches to read "Local man uses concealed weapon-kills gunman who shot 4 people in mall" If nothing else, people would be furious that the guy didn't get him *before* those 4 people. No, what gets people riled up is reading "CRAZED GUNMAN GOES ON SHOOTING RAMPAGE AND MURDERS FOUR PEOPLE INCLUDING A CHILD".

 

[MollyMalone]

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.

I've spent virtually all of my professional life in criminal law, from 3 different vantage points: as a NYC prosecutor (most of my career), in the court system, and doing legislative-policy analysis. Guns in the hands of the mentally unstable account for the multiple murders that make national headlines and around the globe, but those mass murder (4 or more victims) sprees account for only about 1% of all homicides with firearms. And the mentally unstable certainly do not account for the overwhelming majority of crimes in this country. Even the NRA's Waye LaPierre does not contend that the vastly larger "criminal class" is made up of the mentally unstable. There has never been. for example, a turf war between a gang of paranoid schizophrenics & another cadre of schizoaffectives.

That's not to say that mental illness is absent from the criminal law landscape. It's not. Mental health research and treatment is something we as a nation should be doing more with, for it affects us as a society (to say nothing of those afflicted and their families) in more ways than one. But to pooh-pooh anything other than "keep guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable" is itself a form of self-delusion.

I've lived in NY for 8 years and personally know a few people who were injured by guns.

I understand that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, but there must be better ways to restrict gun use and ownership in this country. It is way too easy to buy guns. You can buy one from a seller without background check.

In my state, it's not legal to sell a handgun to someone who isn't licensed, and licensed individuals have already gone through an extensive background check as a precursor to obtaining that license.

I'm guessing Sakuracherry is thinking of rifles & shotguns; you don't need a permit/license to purchase one of those in NY (outside of NYC) so long as the barrel(s) are more than 16-18" long. Gun show purchases & private sales/transfers of handguns require an additional background check before the firearm is handed over.

 

[redwood66]

MollyMalone - then you would agree with my comment that it is the complete disregard and disrespect for human life?

 

[aljdewey]

......

Since gun ownership is a privilege and not a right, I could imagine some kind of audit requirement as a condition of gun ownership to ensure owners are properly storing their firearms to increase accident prevention......

untrue: 2A is a right, not about privilege. it is called Bill of Rights for a reason......

also, LE failed badly imo. they could have checked the data base but didn't. more here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...-a86b-362fd5443d19_story.html?wpisrc=nl_hdtop

"The sheriff’s department Thursday updated its timeline of events, disclosing that deputies had been informed of disturbing videos Roger had posted on YouTube, but did not view them before or after leaving his apartment. They did ask him about the videos.

“When questioned by the deputies about reported disturbing videos he had posted on-line, Rodger told them he was having trouble fitting in socially in Isla Vista and the videos were merely a way of expressing himself,” the sheriff’s department said on its Facebook page. “Based upon the information available to them at the time, Sheriff’s deputies concluded that Rodger was not an immediate threat to himself or others, and that they did not have cause to place him on an involuntary mental health hold, or to enter or search his residence. Therefore, they did not view the videos or conduct a weapons check on Rodger.”

"Escalante, the Capitola police chief, said that viewing the videos before going to the apartment might have given deputies more leverage to secure a search warrant.

As for checking the DROS database, it is easy, taking a matter of minutes if law enforcement officials have a person’s legal name and date of birth, as they did with Rodger.

The database is housed inside the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System, which is essentially a warehouse of databases. CLETS also contains separate gun licensing information, which is recorded at the time of the gun purchase. But this database does not provide officers with any information beyond that contained in DROS and often has fewer details.

Gun rights groups said the Santa Barbara episode shows that existing laws are not used by law enforcement and that more gun-control regulations are not needed.

“The state knew he had firearms. What is the point of registration if they are not going to make use of that information with someone who is clearly mentally unstable?” said Brandon Combs, president of the California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees, which lobbies on behalf of gun dealers and collectors on gun policy. “I think the shooting in Santa Barbara is about the failure to enforce existing law.” "

MZ, I do realize it's called a right, and I suspect it was truly considered a right at the time that document was drafted. Subsequent fitness requirements and the ability to deny someone a license to own guns seems to make it more of a privilege than a right, regardless of what we term it.

As to the bolded, it's easy to say in hindsight that he was clearly mentally unstable, but he did not appear so in the moment the officers questioned him. I'm not aware of how much training officers may or may not receive to ascertain a subject's mental fitness (or lack thereof).

I can't fathom why it isn't protocol to search a registration database for gun ownership for wellness check calls, but it would make sense to me to see more effort in that area. Thinking back to Sandy Hook, I think it would make sense to check gun registration for all occupants of a residence where a wellness check was asked for.

 

[MollyMalone]

MollyMalone - then you would agree with my comment that it is the complete disregard and disrespect for human life?

Sure, I'll agree that a person in full possession of their faculties who kills someone (by whatever means) -- or contracts for murder -- has demonstrated an utter disregard for human life. But that and $2.50 gets us on the subway. I'm not seeing how even 100% agreement on that (I don't know of anyone who would disagree) "gets us" anywhere.

That comment isn't meant to be snarky, truly. And l've certainly done my own share of hand-wringing, but it's never proven productive for me, KWIM?

 

[redwood66]

MollyMalone - then you would agree with my comment that it is the complete disregard and disrespect for human life?

Sure, I'll agree that a person in full possession of their faculties who kills someone (by whatever means) -- or contracts for murder -- has demonstrated an utter disregard for human life. But that and $2.50 gets us on the subway. I'm not seeing how even 100% agreement on that (I don't know of anyone who would disagree) "gets us" anywhere.

That comment isn't meant to be snarky, truly. And l've certainly done my own share of hand-wringing, but it's never proven productive for me, KWIM?

Well you mentioned gangs so that goes to my point. They are the preponderance of people incarcerated in California that I had the "pleasure" of spending 8-16 hours a day with for most of my adult life. I am not trying to "get" anywhere because if I had all the answers someone before me in a position to do something surely would have by now. But other views than "confiscate all the guns" needs to be represented in this conversation. Thankfully a few here understand that.

 

[ksinger]

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.

 

[redwood66]

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.

 

[aljdewey]

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.

I've spent virtually all of my professional life in criminal law, from 3 different vantage points: as a NYC prosecutor (most of my career), in the court system, and doing legislative-policy analysis. Guns in the hands of the mentally unstable account for the multiple murders that make national headlines and around the globe, but those mass murder (4 or more victims) sprees account for only about 1% of all homicides with firearms. And the mentally unstable certainly do not account for the overwhelming majority of crimes in this country. Even the NRA's Waye LaPierre does not contend that the vastly larger "criminal class" is made up of the mentally unstable. There has never been. for example, a turf war between a gang of paranoid schizophrenics & another cadre of schizoaffectives.

The OP's expressed desire was to discuss gun deaths, which includes suicides (more than half of total gun-deaths) and homicides.

Several themes early in this thread included 1) other countries where gun ownership is banned; 2) suggestions the U.S. should ban all gun ownership, 3) suggestions the U.S. needs to adopt significantly stricter gun controls, 4) assertions of the link between violent crime and gun control, etc. etc. etc.

Because criminals are already quite comfortable operating outside the scope of existing laws, such measures wouldn't be effective in addressing that portion of the equation and must therefore be aimed primarily at addressing the ownership and possession of lawfully obtained firearms.

It is the lawfully obtained portion of the discussion that my comments are aimed at, not at the criminal side. Among lawful gun owners are people who are mentally fit and stable and people who are not mentally fit and stable. I've yet to read a series of stories about lawful owners who are mentally stable killing people with their guns, so it's my position that tighter gun control laws (which would only impact those who are law abiding) should be focused on the subset of mentally unstable owners.

 

[packrat]

Iowa is just a permit to carry weapons. I was under the impression it was conceal carry, but I looked at mine and it's not restricted. JD is an officer. He openly carries on duty. Not any other time. Off duty, nobody would know he's a cop and nobody would know he's carrying. He is a gun advocate. However, he is a HUUUUUUGE proponent of safety. His opinion is open carry is irresponsible, whether it's legal or not, and whether you are a crack shot w/a shit ton of training or no. It makes people nervous. If you're standing in a place and someone is going to shoot, guess who's the first person getting shot? The one w/a noticeable gun. (I would guess, unless you walk into a place and 90% of the people in there are openly carrying ha!)

 

[justginger]

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.

I've spent virtually all of my professional life in criminal law, from 3 different vantage points: as a NYC prosecutor (most of my career), in the court system, and doing legislative-policy analysis. Guns in the hands of the mentally unstable account for the multiple murders that make national headlines and around the globe, but those mass murder (4 or more victims) sprees account for only about 1% of all homicides with firearms. And the mentally unstable certainly do not account for the overwhelming majority of crimes in this country. Even the NRA's Waye LaPierre does not contend that the vastly larger "criminal class" is made up of the mentally unstable. There has never been. for example, a turf war between a gang of paranoid schizophrenics & another cadre of schizoaffectives.

The OP's expressed desire was to discuss gun deaths, which includes suicides (more than half of total gun-deaths) and homicides.

Several themes early in this thread included 1) other countries where gun ownership is banned; 2) suggestions the U.S. should ban all gun ownership, 3) suggestions the U.S. needs to adopt significantly stricter gun controls, 4) assertions of the link between violent crime and gun control, etc. etc. etc.

Because criminals are already quite comfortable operating outside the scope of existing laws, such measures wouldn't be effective in addressing that portion of the equation and must therefore be aimed primarily at addressing the ownership and possession of lawfully obtained firearms.

It is the lawfully obtained portion of the discussion that my comments are aimed at, not at the criminal side. Among lawful gun owners are people who are mentally fit and stable and people who are not mentally fit and stable. I've yet to read a series of stories about lawful owners who are mentally stable killing people with their guns, so it's my position that tighter gun control laws (which would only impact those who are law abiding) should be focused on the subset of mentally unstable owners.

I truly don't understand this fixation on mental instability because ALL murderers are mentally unstable. It is a requirement to kill. 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?

And no one has been discussing banning guns, like in other countries - the majority of comparisons have been made to Australia, where you ARE legally allowed to own firearms, after jumping through flaming hoops of character, intent, and safety regulations (as you should, when in possession of something that requires so little effort to cause mass devastation).

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.

 

[MollyMalone]

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:

The US has a very serious problem. Grasping at straws for examples to show that other countries, with vastly lower rates of violet crime, have problems too is an ineffective way of handling the situation. You can always find isolated cases of everything -- but statistics don't lie. 5700% higher murder rates in the States is not balanced out by a couple of deliberately lit bushfires in Australia.

I agree that there is a very serious problem, but pretending others are problem-free is just B.S. It's worth nothing that AUS's rate of assault/mugging far outpaces the U.S. - I guess that's ok as long as people aren't being killed?

More than half of death-by-gun incidents in the U.S. are suicide, so no, I don't walk around feeling unsafe in my country and living in fear. I suspect I'd feel more fearful in countries where there is a greater likelihood that I will be assaulted or mugged (which is rarely if ever a self-inflicted event.)

Moreover, there is positively no proof at all that your suggested remedy will actually resolve the problem. Several countries with tighter gun control have higher per-capita murder rates than the U.S.

What I do wholly know is this: sane people do not go around shooting one another. To me, that is the defining factor here. I'd be an enthusiastic participant in any discussion that addresses how to more effectively treat our mentally ill citizens and how to more effectively prevent them from arming themselves with all manner of weapons.

Until then, the rest is just meaningless n-o-i-s-e for me.

 

[MollyMalone]

MollyMalone - then you would agree with my comment that it is the complete disregard and disrespect for human life?

Sure, I'll agree that a person in full possession of their faculties who kills someone (by whatever means) -- or contracts for murder -- has demonstrated an utter disregard for human life. But that and $2.50 gets us on the subway. I'm not seeing how even 100% agreement on that (I don't know of anyone who would disagree) "gets us" anywhere.

That comment isn't meant to be snarky, truly. And l've certainly done my own share of hand-wringing, but it's never proven productive for me, KWIM?

Well you mentioned gangs so that goes to my point. They are the preponderance of people incarcerated in California that I had the "pleasure" of spending 8-16 hours a day with for most of my adult life. I am not trying to "get" anywhere because if I had all the answers someone before me in a position to do something surely would have by now. But other views than "confiscate all the guns" needs to be represented in this conversation. Thankfully a few here understand that.

Gotcha! Thanks for explaining.

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.