What the hell, gun people!?!

[chrono]

Sadly, I see no solution to this at all. From what has been discussed prior, this is the conclusion I came to:

1. There is no law across the US that requires paperwork, background checks, etc before buying a firearm and no enforcement.
2. There is no way of knowing if a weapon is registered, no way of verifying and requiring that the owners are trained in its use and safe storage.

Until the above 2 points become reality, mass killing and accidental deaths will continue. Because guns are so accessible to everyone, it feels as though the only way to keep one's family safe is to outgun the criminal.

 

[nkarma]

I repeat that this thread has given me a much better perspective of what it's like to be an owner. You feel safe with one and enjoy using them for sport.

Because of the following, a) Guns are here to stay b) Hundreds of thousands of people are dying at the hands of gun through homicide, suicide, mass shootings, and accidental shootings and finally c) Regulation of gun ownership will lessen b; I propose there are new laws set forward about gun ownership.

We could establish something equivalent to the DMV. To drive a car or small truck, one has to and this varies by state: by 15 years of age to get a learner's permit. Then must drive a certain number of hours with a certified driving instructor & even more hours with a licensed driver. Then they must pass a written and an actual driving test to get a license to drive. Every 4 years people have to come into the DMV for an eye exam (results put on their DL), because if your vision is impaired, you have a much higher likelihood of harming people and property.

Then once you are licensed to drive, there are hundreds of laws that one cannot break or else they will lose their license. Yes of course many people get away with breaking these laws on a daily basis and thousands of accidents happen, but the point of them is to prevent much more accidents from happening.

Can we do this with guns? Can we have a regulating body where people who own them legally are licensed, must undergo required safety courses, waiting times, etc... I am sure lots of research can be done about how to limit gun violence through the licensing process.

Then once they own them can there be laws for operation and storage. Maybe it would be illegal to carry a concealed gun loosely in your purse, so if a police officer witnessed, that you could be fined or arrested? Maybe there will be laws about how to store guns when children reside in the home? The gist is that there will be laws for ages, criminal, health record, etc..then about how you can carry it, store it, etc.. Maybe like drinking and driving, you can't drink and carry? That would save thousands of lives there!

And like the DMV, you can call into this regulating body and say my mother in law has a license to drive a car and she can't see out of one eye? But this would be, my mother in law has a license to own a pistol and she stores it in the freezer?

And of course there will be thousands of people who own guns illegally! And thousands of people who break the law and never get caught. But maybe thousands of lives can be saved. There are accidental shootings, suicides, homicides, etc with legally owned guns or ones stolen from improperly stored owners.

Short response: I agree with Too patient that more education is needed. How do we make this MANDATORY for all gun owners? If we want to go farther, what are ways that can prevent large numbers of deaths that have a common feature from happening? Legal ways to carry or store your gun? Who can own a gun (go further than the current laws), when they can discharge them, etc..?

Or will also this restrict people's second amendment in order to save their first (the right to life)?

 

[TooPatient]

Sadly, I see no solution to this at all. From what has been discussed prior, this is the conclusion I came to:

1. There is no law across the US that requires paperwork, background checks, etc before buying a firearm and no enforcement.
2. There is no way of knowing if a weapon is registered, no way of verifying and requiring that the owners are trained in its use and safe storage.

Until the above 2 points become reality, mass killing and accidental deaths will continue. Because guns are so accessible to everyone, it feels as though the only way to keep one's family safe is to outgun the criminal.

I'd like to somewhat disagree.

I think you are correct that as long as there are guns in existence, there will be the occasional incident. BUT that doesn't have to continue at the current statists posted. Education can go a LONG way to reducing that sort of thing. It may not eliminate the problem but, honestly, I don't think there is a way to eliminate the problem because criminals will always find a way around the law. That doesn't mean we shouldn't work to reduce the number of deaths.

I would LOVE to see more education opportunities around. An all day (or multi-day) safety class actually handling guns is awesome. You can't beat that when it comes to safe handling, knowing the laws and how to handle anything that goes wrong with a gun (mis-feeds and the such). BUT there are people who are not comfortable with guns who could benefit from a short (1-2 hour) informational safety class that just demonstrates the basic safe handling techniques. This sort of thing would also be wonderful for people to have access to BEFORE purchasing a gun. With it short and only informational, it could be inexpensive (well under $100!) and might help ensure that people who like the idea of a gun but turn out to be uncomfortable when faced with them in reality don't actually go through with a purchase -- they are the sort to store things unsafely or carry tossed in a purse.

 

[TooPatient]

Short response: I agree with Too patient that more education is needed. How do we make this MANDATORY for all gun owners? If we want to go farther, what are ways that can prevent large numbers of deaths that have a common feature from happening? Legal ways to carry or store your gun? Who can own a gun (go further than the current laws), when they can discharge them, etc..?

Or will also this restrict people's second amendment in order to save their first (the right to life)?

Before this can be made mandatory, there would have to be some assurance that the government would not control the classes and make it unaffordable for the average person. There are places where safety classes are required and the government of the area just refuses to allow any classes -- essentially making it impossible to own guns in the area.

Classes around here are expensive. Which is to say that they are routinely $300+ per person -- and since DH and I both feel strongly that we BOTH need to be current on safe handling, that means that all classes are $600+ and a lot are closer to $2,000. This is not affordable to the average person who goes out and buys a $60 rifle.
We were able to find classes (actually better classes!) a 3 hour drive from here for substantially less but most of those are multi-day classes (class runs 8+ hours) and you've got to either drive 3 hours each way for multiple days running (3-5) or get a hotel room closer by (and the added expense of boarding cats/dogs and all that).


I do agree that something needs to be done. I think a lot can be done with strictly education (leaving regulations out of it) and I think more can be done with very careful regulation. Well thought out regulations that are actually reasonable and realistic will have the support of a lot (I'd say probably most) gun owners.

 

[Karl_K]

While I agree that everyone who owns a gun needs training the government has already proven on several levels that they can not be trusted with it being a requirement to buy.
The just refuse to license any schools and it becomes a gun ban.

I supported the insta-check system for purchases but it has been abused. It is written right into the law that created it that the data can not be kept. They got caught red handed keeping the data creating a gun owner registry. History has shown that governments can not be trusted with such data.
There are also a lot of junk records in it making law abiding jump through hoops to prove they have a clean record.

IL has a f.o.i.d card system that is frankly unconstitutional in my opinion that says you need to the card to buy guns or ammo. It takes a few weeks to get the card creating a defacto 2-3 week waiting period for first time buyers. A relative of mine would be dead if they had waited the 3 weeks to get armed.
Cook county and Chicago cops have been proven to be abusing the data and paid out millions in lawsuit costs.
The state police who run the program have been proven to be intentionally slowing down the process to make people wait longer.
They can not be trusted.
The gang-bangers just ignore it and keep on shooting people. It does not help at all.

There is a 11% tax on guns and ammo that is supposed to be used to pay for wildlife education, conservation and wildlife management only.
It was passed and supported by sportsman in the early 1900s.
The money has been very badly misused and now it just goes into the general fund instead of what it is sposed to be used for. 70+% of the funds that are actually for what was intended goes up in smoke in "administration costs"
They can not be trusted.

The government has abused every system that gun owners have agreed to put in place that is why its time to say no more and roll back as much as possible.

 

[House Cat]

While I agree that everyone who owns a gun needs training the government has already proven on several levels that they can not be trusted with it being a requirement to buy.
The just refuse to license any schools and it becomes a gun ban.

I supported the insta-check system for purchases but it has been abused. It is written right into the law that created it that the data can not be kept. They got caught red handed keeping the data creating a gun owner registry. History has shown that governments can not be trusted with such data.
There are also a lot of junk records in it making law abiding jump through hoops to prove they have a clean record.

IL has a f.o.i.d card system that is frankly unconstitutional in my opinion that says you need to the card to buy guns or ammo. It takes a few weeks to get the card creating a defacto 2-3 week waiting period for first time buyers. A relative of mine would be dead if they had waited the 3 weeks to get armed.
Cook county and Chicago cops have been proven to be abusing the data and paid out millions in lawsuit costs.
The state police who run the program have been proven to be intentionally slowing down the process to make people wait longer.
They can not be trusted.
The gang-bangers just ignore it and keep on shooting people. It does not help at all.

There is a 11% tax on guns and ammo that is supposed to be used to pay for wildlife education, conservation and wildlife management only.
It was passed and supported by sportsman in the early 1900s.
The money has been very badly misused and now it just goes into the general fund instead of what it is sposed to be used for. 70+% of the funds that are actually for what was intended goes up in smoke in "administration costs"
They can not be trusted.

The government has abused every system that gun owners have agreed to put in place that is why its time to say no more and roll back as much as possible.

Respectfully...

Over the past year it has come to our attention that the government is keeping records on our communication. This leads me to believe that they are keeping many more tabs on us than we would ever like to believe. I think that the idea of anonymity in this country is naive at this point. Karl, with eyes wide open, knowing that our government is doing what it is doing to watch its citizens, wouldn't it be better to keep these databases to protect our population and keep guns out of the previously convicted and mentally ill?

There is a part of me that wonders if they don't already know who has guns anyway.

 

[Karl_K]

Karl, with eyes wide open, knowing that our government is doing what it is doing to watch its citizens, wouldn't it be better to keep these databases to protect our population and keep guns out of the previously convicted and mentally ill?

There is a part of me that wonders if they don't already know who has guns anyway.

A database of people not allowed to purchase firearms I don't have a huge problem with as long as there are clear guidelines on who is on it and why and the records are accurate.
A database of gun owners is another story.
To much room for abuse and history has clearly shown it will be abused.

 

[House Cat]

There is 100% proof that a working mental health system would have prevented the Sandy Hook shooting.
His family was trying to get him help and the system failed and failed badly.
I know many families who have went through the same nightmare trying to get help for loved ones.
No, it didn't turn into a mass shooting but it did end in suicide.
Sometimes it turns outwards and you get mass killings.
In almost all the other mass shootings there was a a good chance a working mental health system would have helped prevent them also.

Anyone heard about the school shooting in ND?
Nope? Didn't think so. Cant even find the details online anymore.
Man in the middle of divorce with a history of mental health issues showed up at a school pulled out a stolen gun and yelled he was going to kill. BANG! Shooter dead from one shot from a rifle fired by a parent picking up their child.

Karl,

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the mother of the Sandy Hook shooter take him shooting and had a firearm readily available to him? This is at a time when she was trying to have him deemed mentally incompetent? Where is the sense in this?

When we know a loved one with mental illness is in an acute state, is manic, depressed, etc, it behooves us to lock up the knives, the razors, all of the medications, any means for harming themselves and others. This is just common sense.

More than this, what would a "working mental health system" look like for people such as the Sandy Hook shooter or any of these others? I always hear about this working mental health system, but I never hear of any real idea of what it would look like from the inside. Would these people be locked up for good before they ever committed a crime? Wouldn't that be infringing upon THEIR rights as a citizen of this country? What is the solution?

There were instances in the past (pre-Reagan), when the rights of people with mental illness weren't clearly defined, where many people were wrongfully locked up for life and overly medicated because a family member or neighbor said they were acting "strange." A cheating husband might want to get rid of his wife who might suffer from depression, so he calls up the authorities and tells them she's been acting crazy. A neighbor has a dispute with another and makes the call. These are very real instances that happened again and again because the rights of people with mental illness weren't protected. We realized that so many people were wrongfully committed, treated, and died in mental hospitals. This is why it is so difficult to have someone committed against their will today.

Please don't get me wrong, I am the first person to say we need something to help our loved ones when they are in crisis. We have a real life example on this board right now where two people really need help and medication, where children's mental health and safety are at stake. I wish there was more that could be done. BUT, there is a very fine line that we walk when it comes to mental competence and allowing another human being to make medical decisions for themselves.

What also concerns me is that when laws like these are passed, they are usually blanket type laws. If a family member can make decision in regards to my mental health, who is to say in time they won't try to make decisions for my physical health at some point? I remember when the laws were passed for children over the age of 12 that said that they were old enough to make ALL medical decisions for themselves without parental consent. This came about because a girl under the age of 16 wanted to have an abortion without her parents knowing. The impact of this law was monumental. Parents who knew best for their children were rendered utterly powerless when it came to their children's medical well being. I have a couple of chronically ill children and I am grateful that they always wanted treatment, but I often thought of how horrifying it would be if they didn't.

So the question really becomes, do we want our family members making medical decisions for us even when we are competent enough to do the job for ourselves, just because they disagree with our decisions? Because this is what it will eventually boil down to. This is what the law is trying to avoid by staying out of this issue of committing loved ones without their consent. This is why they make it so difficult and require so much proof before they make the judgement that a person isn't well enough to make decisions for themselves.

 

[House Cat]

Karl, with eyes wide open, knowing that our government is doing what it is doing to watch its citizens, wouldn't it be better to keep these databases to protect our population and keep guns out of the previously convicted and mentally ill?

There is a part of me that wonders if they don't already know who has guns anyway.

A database of people not allowed to purchase firearms I don't have a huge problem with as long as there are clear guidelines on who is on it and why and the records are accurate.
A database of gun owners is another story.
To much room for abuse and history has clearly shown it will be abused.

I see, two different things.

I totally agree. It wouldn't be too difficult to put together a database of all of those who can't purchase a firearm.

When you go to purchase a gun in California, there is a waiting period and a background check. This is the long list of reasons for denials:
http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/pdfs/firearms/forms/prohibcatmisd.pdf?
None of these reasons seem unreasonable to me.

I am not sure how they would know the medical side/drug addiction side of the background check? Maybe California already has a database of those who are not allowed to purchase a gun. Although no one has spoken of it.

 

[Karl_K]

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the mother of the Sandy Hook shooter take him shooting and had a firearm readily available to him? This is at a time when she was trying to have him deemed mentally incompetent? Where is the sense in this?

When we know a loved one with mental illness is in an acute state, is manic, depressed, etc, it behooves us to lock up the knives, the razors, all of the medications, any means for harming themselves and others. This is just common sense.

It is my understanding that they went shooting together before he displayed the mental health issues.
It is not clear to me but is sounded like she had some kind of gun cabinet with a lock but he found the key.

Honestly she should have got the guns out of the house. There is a very good chance he would have got one anyway and still did the shooting so its not really a stop point but it might have helped.
Him getting the help he needed is the most sure stop point and it did not happen.

 

[Karl_K]

More than this, what would a "working mental health system" look like for people such as the Sandy Hook shooter or any of these others? I always hear about this working mental health system, but I never hear of any real idea of what it would look like from the inside. Would these people be locked up for good before they ever committed a crime? Wouldn't that be infringing upon THEIR rights as a citizen of this country? What is the solution?

I don't have all the answers to that one and my ideas are too long for this thread and the time I have today.
Maybe another thread another day.

Some hard choices will have to be made about how it will work to balance the rights of the patient and prevent the abuses of the past while protecting the patient and society..
'

 

[blackprophet]

JG, part of the point of all this is that the history of the US is very different than that of AU.
we overthrew the Brits and the Brits learned from that.
they never did allow firearms into the population in AU in the same way they were allowed in the American colonies.
early English settlers here were not part of a penal system and thus firearms were not denied them.
the Brits did not want another uprising and successful revolution in AU and they played their hand a bit differently which they could because for the most part the original settlers there were not freemen. they could establish control much more easily. and they did.

you misconstrue: I am not afraid. I am not afraid because I know that I have the means with which to defend myself and my family.

AU is seeing a rise in meth related problems and I know the Perth area has a problem in some areas already with gun incidents. the criminal element is alive and well and growing.

it is our history and our US Constitution which you do not have in AU which will never allow us to let go of our guns. we hunt. we defend. and we honor the service of those that fought to preserve our way of life.....which includes gun ownership. do not mistake this as a fear based reaction. fear is only a part of a bigger picture which being in AU is not understood because the history is just not the same. AU did not take up arms to remove itself from colonization. admittedly, despite being a penal colony [especially the east coast] there were some free men and women as well as some military. but the access to guns and who was allowed to have them and what they did with them is a very different history.

Man I read this thread with great interest. As another person who does not live in the states, it is immensely interesting to me how passionately people will argue for gun ownership (even one person referring to the women as terrorists!). I actually really like nkarma's Idea about having a gun licensing system, with the appropriate training and such. It would solve the training price problem, becaue more company's would be doing it which would create more competition, and theoretically drive prices down. And this comes from someone who thinks gun ownership is ludicrous, at any level.

But I think the issue (problem?) is eloquently stated by MZ in the above post. It is written into the very fabric of the country to own guns. It is an integral part of your history and constitution to own guns. And to do things by force. And that is not going to change easily or lightly.

This is another facet in my mind to the 'libertarian' struggle currently going on in the US. Similar to the Obamacare thing (which no surprise elicited a similar length thread). The "regulation" vs. "free choice" argument. More rules and restrictions (even when well meaning) seem to be met with large opposition, until something REALLY bad happens. And even then, people still resist the changes. A lot of the sentiments Karl raised (the US becoming a police state, Government not being able to handle data bases, no wanting to allow perceived violations of personal liberties) seems to be fears shared throughout the us.

Someone told a story about their MIL's ex-boyfriend and what would have happened if the renter didn't have a gun. I would ask, where did the exboyfriend steal the gun from? If guns were extremely hard to get and restricted, he wouldn't have had a place to steal the gun from. Gun availability is so common to most people in this thread, I'm sure no one even thought of that angle. I would have no idea how to get a gun in my city. Kinda sad people are saying better mental health care is the answer. If a mentally disturbed person had no access to guns, they wouldn't shoot anyone. I have to agree with what JG said. If less people had them Legally, less people would have them illegaly. Definately not saying that there would be no guns, but there would be much less. And much less "civilian" (mass shootings, kids accidentally shooting people) shootings as well.

All that being said, I acknowledge that no/very restricted access to guns will probably never happen in the US in the next 100 years, and that other solutions such as nkarma's are needed.

 

[aljdewey]

JG, I'm confused. You began by saying that your reasoning behind performing home searches for registered gun owners was to verify that guns were safely stored. Your next post, though, says that you'd be personally happy to submit to such searches if it meant tens of thousands of illegal weapons would be seized before they could be used in crimes.

Would the purpose of the searches be to confirm proper storage so lawful guns couldn't be taken to commit crimes, or would it be to confirm that there are no illegal guns present? If it's the latter, I'm not sure that makes good sense to me because you're going to law-abiding citizens (registered gun owners) looking for illegal guns (non-law abiding behavior). Seems low percentage to me.

I thought the point was to make sure legal guns were secured properly so they couldn't be stolen to commit crimes? Illegal guns are incredibly less likely to be residing in homes of people who register guns lawfully; that's not where you'll find them, so unless you're prepared to search all homes, you're probably not stopping the illegal guns.

 

[aljdewey]

I think what I am lamenting is the fact that you need be worried about 'outarming' a criminal. If guns hadn't supersaturated the US, you wouldn't have to fight fire with fire. In Australia, yes, a baseball bat is sufficient protection because common criminals do NOT have guns. You have to get into the depths of the drug world to start to see that element, the general public just isn't involved or at risk.

Perhaps the landlocked position of the US will never allow for a gun scale back. Direct land contact with drug cartels who are running guns and all that.

I really do think that's the crux of it. Australia's lack of vast common land borders make it incredibly easier to impose national law without risking erosing from neighboring countries. Our massive shared border with a country who's main industry is the drug trade changes the game for us. I'd go so far as to say that I believe even if we totally abolished all gun ownership here, it wouldn't affect the relatively easy access to illegal guns obtained through black market channels.

Something else I'd note about the potential for verify safe gun storage by registered owners: if there was data to show that a majority of legal guns used in crimes were obtained due to irresponsible storage, I could see where proposing storage verification might be a logical solution to propose. I don't have any data, but somehow I suspect that's not how most legal firearms fall into hands of criminals. I don't really believe they're lying around unsecured for the taking during burglaries. It's far more likely to me that they are taken when criminals confront legal owners and are able to overpower them and strip the weapon from them, OR that criminal confronts legal owner with deadly force and forces legal owner to open gun safe. Neither of those instances would be caught through storage safety checks.

 

[TooPatient]

I think what I am lamenting is the fact that you need be worried about 'outarming' a criminal. If guns hadn't supersaturated the US, you wouldn't have to fight fire with fire. In Australia, yes, a baseball bat is sufficient protection because common criminals do NOT have guns. You have to get into the depths of the drug world to start to see that element, the general public just isn't involved or at risk.

Perhaps the landlocked position of the US will never allow for a gun scale back. Direct land contact with drug cartels who are running guns and all that.

I really do think that's the crux of it. Australia's lack of vast common land borders make it incredibly easier to impose national law without risking erosing from neighboring countries. Our massive shared border with a country who's main industry is the drug trade changes the game for us. I'd go so far as to say that I believe even if we totally abolished all gun ownership here, it wouldn't affect the relatively easy access to illegal guns obtained through black market channels.

Something else I'd note about the potential for verify safe gun storage by registered owners: if there was data to show that a majority of legal guns used in crimes were obtained due to irresponsible storage, I could see where proposing storage verification might be a logical solution to propose. I don't have any data, but somehow I suspect that's not how most legal firearms fall into hands of criminals. I don't really believe they're lying around unsecured for the taking during burglaries. It's far more likely to me that they are taken when criminals confront legal owners and are able to overpower them and strip the weapon from them, OR that criminal confronts legal owner with deadly force and forces legal owner to open gun safe. Neither of those instances would be caught through storage safety checks.

Also an issue -- A lot of gun safes are able to be removed from your home using simple tools and they can open it later. Even large safes can be moved if a person has enough time and motivation. There are things you can do to reduce this issue, but it means a lot of installation work.

 

[aljdewey]

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the mother of the Sandy Hook shooter take him shooting and had a firearm readily available to him? This is at a time when she was trying to have him deemed mentally incompetent? Where is the sense in this?

When we know a loved one with mental illness is in an acute state, is manic, depressed, etc, it behooves us to lock up the knives, the razors, all of the medications, any means for harming themselves and others. This is just common sense.

It is my understanding that they went shooting together before he displayed the mental health issues.
It is not clear to me but is sounded like she had some kind of gun cabinet with a lock but he found the key.

Honestly she should have got the guns out of the house. There is a very good chance he would have got one anyway and still did the shooting so its not really a stop point but it might have helped.
Him getting the help he needed is the most sure stop point and it did not happen.

My recollection is similar to Karl's: I think she taught him to shoot prior to his issues.

No matter what is proposed, there are always going to be corner cases that slip through the cracks, and I think we have to acknowledge that and be realistic as a whole. But there are some things I think could help to reduce the bulk of them.

1. There are constitutional rights in this country that are age-dependent to ensure the best chance for sound judgment/fitness, such as the right to vote. It's a constitutional right, but you don't get it until you're 18. I could easily see similar restrictions for handling and owning guns. The minds of young kids aren't yet developed, nor is their judgment - especially under duress. This would also give more time for potential mentally disturbed behaviors to surface and be observed prior to introducing access to guns.

2. Stiffer consequences for registered owners if careless storage results in crimes committed with their weapons, including legal and monetary liability for those hurt or killed with your gun.

3. Some of it could be incentive-based too. For example, potential consequences would be lesser for registered owners who install some kind of surveillance camera trained on their gun safe that could be provided to law enforcement rapidly if you reported a stolen firearm. This would give law enforcement real data with which to hopefully intercept the gun before it can be used for crime.

I see HC's point about the danger of power to commit people without their consent, but I do think that there could be a much easier way to limit that to gun ownership. Perhaps you cannot commit them, but any report of troubling behavior (hearing voices, severe depression, suicidal tendencies, mania, etc) could at least flag someone in the system in a way that would prevent them from purchasing guns or patronizing facilities like gun ranges, gun shows, etc. (I'm thinking along the lines of the potential no-fly list; it doesn't mean you have to arrest them, but just make sure they don't have a way to get on the plane.)

 

[aljdewey]

Someone told a story about their MIL's ex-boyfriend and what would have happened if the renter didn't have a gun. I would ask, where did the exboyfriend steal the gun from? If guns were extremely hard to get and restricted, he wouldn't have had a place to steal the gun from. Gun availability is so common to most people in this thread, I'm sure no one even thought of that angle. I would have no idea how to get a gun in my city. Kinda sad people are saying better mental health care is the answer. If a mentally disturbed person had no access to guns, they wouldn't shoot anyone. I have to agree with what JG said. If less people had them Legally, less people would have them illegaly. Definately not saying that there would be no guns, but there would be much less. And much less "civilian" (mass shootings, kids accidentally shooting people) shootings as well.

All that being said, I acknowledge that no/very restricted access to guns will probably never happen in the US in the next 100 years, and that other solutions such as nkarma's are needed.

BP, re the first bolded point: If only it would work this way. There was a point in this country when alcohol wasn't legal anywhere in the country.....and it was still widely accessible through underground means such as private stills and speakeasies.

For what's it's worth, I personally have no idea where to source a gun through illegal means any more than you do.....but I'm sure those who are motivated to know find it easy.

Regarding the second bolded - I fully agree that if mentally disturbed people had no access to guns, they wouldn't shoot anyone. We just disagree about how to make that happen. I think the more effective way to prevent their access lies in making people who give them access culpable for the outcome and in being able to flag them in an electronic system that denies them access to gun ownership or access to facilities with them. In that way, I think you could restrict access on a targeted basis instead of denying ownership to those who are not part of the problem.

 

[packrat]

I think what I am lamenting is the fact that you need be worried about 'outarming' a criminal. If guns hadn't supersaturated the US, you wouldn't have to fight fire with fire. In Australia, yes, a baseball bat is sufficient protection because common criminals do NOT have guns. You have to get into the depths of the drug world to start to see that element, the general public just isn't involved or at risk.

Perhaps the landlocked position of the US will never allow for a gun scale back. Direct land contact with drug cartels who are running guns and all that.

I really do think that's the crux of it. Australia's lack of vast common land borders make it incredibly easier to impose national law without risking erosing from neighboring countries. Our massive shared border with a country who's main industry is the drug trade changes the game for us. I'd go so far as to say that I believe even if we totally abolished all gun ownership here, it wouldn't affect the relatively easy access to illegal guns obtained through black market channels.

Something else I'd note about the potential for verify safe gun storage by registered owners: if there was data to show that a majority of legal guns used in crimes were obtained due to irresponsible storage, I could see where proposing storage verification might be a logical solution to propose. I don't have any data, but somehow I suspect that's not how most legal firearms fall into hands of criminals. I don't really believe they're lying around unsecured for the taking during burglaries. It's far more likely to me that they are taken when criminals confront legal owners and are able to overpower them and strip the weapon from them, OR that criminal confronts legal owner with deadly force and forces legal owner to open gun safe. Neither of those instances would be caught through storage safety checks.

Also an issue -- A lot of gun safes are able to be removed from your home using simple tools and they can open it later. Even large safes can be moved if a person has enough time and motivation. There are things you can do to reduce this issue, but it means a lot of installation work.

Ahem, TP, I believe I addressed this earlier..remember? 3 ft of concrete in a pool of great whites? Laser beams and the elaborate lever and pulley system?

 

[TooPatient]

I think what I am lamenting is the fact that you need be worried about 'outarming' a criminal. If guns hadn't supersaturated the US, you wouldn't have to fight fire with fire. In Australia, yes, a baseball bat is sufficient protection because common criminals do NOT have guns. You have to get into the depths of the drug world to start to see that element, the general public just isn't involved or at risk.

Perhaps the landlocked position of the US will never allow for a gun scale back. Direct land contact with drug cartels who are running guns and all that.

I really do think that's the crux of it. Australia's lack of vast common land borders make it incredibly easier to impose national law without risking erosing from neighboring countries. Our massive shared border with a country who's main industry is the drug trade changes the game for us. I'd go so far as to say that I believe even if we totally abolished all gun ownership here, it wouldn't affect the relatively easy access to illegal guns obtained through black market channels.

Something else I'd note about the potential for verify safe gun storage by registered owners: if there was data to show that a majority of legal guns used in crimes were obtained due to irresponsible storage, I could see where proposing storage verification might be a logical solution to propose. I don't have any data, but somehow I suspect that's not how most legal firearms fall into hands of criminals. I don't really believe they're lying around unsecured for the taking during burglaries. It's far more likely to me that they are taken when criminals confront legal owners and are able to overpower them and strip the weapon from them, OR that criminal confronts legal owner with deadly force and forces legal owner to open gun safe. Neither of those instances would be caught through storage safety checks.

Also an issue -- A lot of gun safes are able to be removed from your home using simple tools and they can open it later. Even large safes can be moved if a person has enough time and motivation. There are things you can do to reduce this issue, but it means a lot of installation work.

Ahem, TP, I believe I addressed this earlier..remember? 3 ft of concrete in a pool of great whites? Laser beams and the elaborate lever and pulley system?

Sorry! Foggy brain!

You did address this earlier and I dumped in dolphins armed with machine guns for some added protection


My gun club has this discussion routinely and the discussions always end in lasers on sharks. Getting there, you go through massive solid steel safes flush mounted in the structure of your home and reinforced by steel plates on all sides and.... Yeah...


I think people should have REASONABLE safe storage for their guns. It is NOT reasonable to demand tens of thousands of dollars in home renovations.

 

[Loves Vintage]

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the mother of the Sandy Hook shooter take him shooting and had a firearm readily available to him? This is at a time when she was trying to have him deemed mentally incompetent? Where is the sense in this?

When we know a loved one with mental illness is in an acute state, is manic, depressed, etc, it behooves us to lock up the knives, the razors, all of the medications, any means for harming themselves and others. This is just common sense.

It is my understanding that they went shooting together before he displayed the mental health issues.
It is not clear to me but is sounded like she had some kind of gun cabinet with a lock but he found the key.

Honestly she should have got the guns out of the house. There is a very good chance he would have got one anyway and still did the shooting so its not really a stop point but it might have helped.
Him getting the help he needed is the most sure stop point and it did not happen.

My recollection is similar to Karl's: I think she taught him to shoot prior to his issues.

Released search warrants from the case indicate that a gun safe was found in the gunman's bedroom. http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/national/newtown-conn-school-shooting-search-warrants/84/ See p. 25. I suspect he had access to at least that safe. I do not know if there were more safes in the house.

Also gathered into evidence was a holiday card with a check from gunman's mother to gunman for the purchase of a C183 (believed to be CZ83, a handgun made in the Czech Republic). See p. 85. While I do not know that she was actively taking him shooting at that time, she was still buying him guns.

I do not believe any evidence has been released yet as to whether the gunman suffered from a mental illness. But, I know, it is unfathomable to consider that he did not.

 

[Loves Vintage]

There is 100% proof that a working mental health system would have prevented the Sandy Hook shooting.
His family was trying to get him help and the system failed and failed badly.
I know many families who have went through the same nightmare trying to get help for loved ones.
No, it didn't turn into a mass shooting but it did end in suicide.
Sometimes it turns outwards and you get mass killings.
In almost all the other mass shootings there was a a good chance a working mental health system would have helped prevent them also.

Can you provide a link with factual evidence?

 

[Loves Vintage]

And, this was the porch. http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/prosecutors-mull-charges-detroit-porch-shooting-20876268 I assumed after reading the above comment, that the victim was inside of a screened porch?? There was no screened porch. She was outside his house when he shot her. He, the homeowner, appears to have been a law-abiding citizen before this. But, of course, we don't need to worry about law-abiding citizens, and it was Detroit after all, so of course it's reasonable to shoot first and ask questions later!

And, I still don't understand how this supports the proposition that we cannot be 100% sure what will happen in the future and many people have AK47s and feel much better because of it. I know this was not your point, ALJ, but just trying to understand the original post that introduced this unfortunate event and misuse of a firearm, by an otherwise presumably law-abiding citizen.

First a quick disclaimer - again, this discussion seems to have mushroomed from "mass killings" to now widely include any instance of killing with any kind of weapon. That's really a whole other discussion.

Answering the specifics above, I'm not sure I understand why you're pointing out the porch being open or closed. (When I read the story, I presumed it was an open porch). Does it being an open porch make it more safe or make it harder for a potential intruder to breach the entrance? Open on closed, the porch is also on his property, which someone unknown is now on in the middle of the night.

Detroit isn't just any city; it leads the nation as the top-ranked city for *violent* crime for four consecutive years. This occurred at 3:30 a.m. It's clear from your sarcastic tone above that you think these factors shouldn't be relevant, but I can only say they would be to me.

I'm not making assumptions as to whether or not his actions were reasonable; I'm saying I can understand why he felt fearful.

Here's what he did know in that moment: 1) it's the middle of the night, 2) I live in a city that leads the nation in violent crime, 3) There is a stranger banging on my door, and 4) I feel in danger. (I'm guessing he'd also be thinking "I don't know what's going to happen if I answer it, and I don't know what's going to happen if I don't.)

Here's what he didn't know in that moment: he did not know she was 19. He did not know she had been in a car accident. He did not know she was seeking assistance.

This is a tragic event by all accounts, but is this honestly the foundation for gun reform? There are tens of millions of gun owners, and stories like this one are in the handfuls. Is that really the problem gun reform is trying to solve? I don't think it is. This type of event is needle in the haystack; it's not the core problem that gun reform is trying to resolve such as Newtown, the Navy Yard, Aurora, etc.

I'm glad you at least acknowledged that it was not my expressed viewpoint that owning AK-47s somehow make people feel better.

I really can't state this enough: I agree there is a call to action, and that some kind of reform is needed. I remain wholly unconvinced that the proposed actions will actually resolve the stated problem.

I referenced the porch because it is my understanding that in some states, you are protected by self-defense laws if you should an intruder IN YOUR HOME. A person in a enclosed porch attached to a home is arguably IN THE HOME. I do not know what the law is in Michigan.

Of course the homeowner was fearful. If I had someone in my yard at 3:30 in the morning, I would still be fearful, but I also wouldn't shoot him or her in the head.

I disagree entirely that gun reform is intended to reduce mass shootings only. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_..._death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html "Using the most recent CDC estimates for yearly deaths by guns in the United States, it is likely that as of . . . 11/16/2013, roughly 30,575 people have died from guns in the U.S. since the Newtown shootings. Compare that number to the number of deaths reported in the news in our interactive [10,555], and you can see how undertold the story of gun violence in America actually is."

 

[Karl_K]

There is 100% proof that a working mental health system would have prevented the Sandy Hook shooting.
His family was trying to get him help and the system failed and failed badly.
I know many families who have went through the same nightmare trying to get help for loved ones.
No, it didn't turn into a mass shooting but it did end in suicide.
Sometimes it turns outwards and you get mass killings.
In almost all the other mass shootings there was a a good chance a working mental health system would have helped prevent them also.

Can you provide a link with factual evidence?

"Nancy Lanza, the mother of the Sandy Hook shooter, was in the process of having her son committed to a psychiatric facility when he went on the mass shooting spree, a lifelong family acquaintance told Fox News."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/19/adam-lanza-motive_n_2329508.html

 

[Karl_K]

Also gathered into evidence was a holiday card with a check from gunman's mother to gunman for the purchase of a C183 (believed to be CZ83, a handgun made in the Czech Republic). See p. 85. While I do not know that she was actively taking him shooting at that time, she was still buying him guns.

A c183 is a digital camera which makes more sense than a cz83 since he was not old enough to purchase one.

 

[Karl_K]

Compare that number to the number of deaths reported in the news in our interactive [10,555], and you can see how undertold the story of gun violence in America actually is."

Only if you include suicides and there is 0 evidence gun laws will make a bit of difference when someone wants to kill themselves.
They will and do find other ways to do it.

 

[movie zombie]

I am going to suggest that if training is mandatory for gun owners that it be mandatory for all US citizens.
if the fear is that someone is going to shoot a gun other than the gun owner then all persons need to know safety rules and be familiar with operation of guns.

the correlation to driving has been made in this thread.
at one time drivers' education was a class in high school.
school is supposed to educate us to be responsible adults.
being an adult includes gun safety.
forget the politics. make it simple: how a gun functions, how it is a tool, and how to use it safely.

the idea that only gun owners need to take a class is naïve.

 

[momhappy]

JG, part of the point of all this is that the history of the US is very different than that of AU.
we overthrew the Brits and the Brits learned from that.
they never did allow firearms into the population in AU in the same way they were allowed in the American colonies.
early English settlers here were not part of a penal system and thus firearms were not denied them.
the Brits did not want another uprising and successful revolution in AU and they played their hand a bit differently which they could because for the most part the original settlers there were not freemen. they could establish control much more easily. and they did.

you misconstrue: I am not afraid. I am not afraid because I know that I have the means with which to defend myself and my family.

AU is seeing a rise in meth related problems and I know the Perth area has a problem in some areas already with gun incidents. the criminal element is alive and well and growing.

it is our history and our US Constitution which you do not have in AU which will never allow us to let go of our guns. we hunt. we defend. and we honor the service of those that fought to preserve our way of life.....which includes gun ownership. do not mistake this as a fear based reaction. fear is only a part of a bigger picture which being in AU is not understood because the history is just not the same. AU did not take up arms to remove itself from colonization. admittedly, despite being a penal colony [especially the east coast] there were some free men and women as well as some military. but the access to guns and who was allowed to have them and what they did with them is a very different history.

Man I read this thread with great interest. As another person who does not live in the states, it is immensely interesting to me how passionately people will argue for gun ownership (even one person referring to the women as terrorists!). I actually really like nkarma's Idea about having a gun licensing system, with the appropriate training and such. It would solve the training price problem, becaue more company's would be doing it which would create more competition, and theoretically drive prices down. And this comes from someone who thinks gun ownership is ludicrous, at any level.

But I think the issue (problem?) is eloquently stated by MZ in the above post. It is written into the very fabric of the country to own guns. It is an integral part of your history and constitution to own guns. And to do things by force. And that is not going to change easily or lightly.

This is another facet in my mind to the 'libertarian' struggle currently going on in the US. Similar to the Obamacare thing (which no surprise elicited a similar length thread). The "regulation" vs. "free choice" argument. More rules and restrictions (even when well meaning) seem to be met with large opposition, until something REALLY bad happens. And even then, people still resist the changes. A lot of the sentiments Karl raised (the US becoming a police state, Government not being able to handle data bases, no wanting to allow perceived violations of personal liberties) seems to be fears shared throughout the us.

Someone told a story about their MIL's ex-boyfriend and what would have happened if the renter didn't have a gun. I would ask, where did the exboyfriend steal the gun from? If guns were extremely hard to get and restricted, he wouldn't have had a place to steal the gun from. Gun availability is so common to most people in this thread, I'm sure no one even thought of that angle. I would have no idea how to get a gun in my city. Kinda sad people are saying better mental health care is the answer. If a mentally disturbed person had no access to guns, they wouldn't shoot anyone. I have to agree with what JG said. If less people had them Legally, less people would have them illegaly. Definately not saying that there would be no guns, but there would be much less. And much less "civilian" (mass shootings, kids accidentally shooting people) shootings as well.

All that being said, I acknowledge that no/very restricted access to guns will probably never happen in the US in the next 100 years, and that other solutions such as nkarma's are needed.

Kinda sad? What's sad about it?
And who has said that better mental health care is the answer to it all? What many of us have discussed, is that mental health is seemingly overlooked and the system is terribly flawed. Acknowledging that the mental health care system is flawed is not the same as saying that if it was fixed, all random-acts-of-violence would simply go away. Most of us are just acknowledging that the problem is complex and that there are lots of variables that need to be addressed (mental health care being one of them).

 

[smitcompton]

Hi,

In an interview with Maya Angeleo she was asked if she lived alone. She answered yes. The interviewer asked if she was afraid living all alone. She shook her head and answered no. She told the following story.

She was sound asleep in her upstairs bedroom and was awakened by some sound. She listened carefully and determined that someone had broken into her home. She reached over into a drawer in her nightstand and took out her gun. She continued listening for noises to tell her what the burglar was doing. She heard him begin to come up the stairs. She called out to him, and told him that she had a gun, and if he stepped into her bedroom she would shoot him. She told him she didn't want this to happen, so if he would just turn around and leave all would be good. It was quiet for a few moments, and then she heard the burglar go back down the stairs and leave her home. Of course she was relieved.

Our Poet Laureate thinks is good to have a gun to protect you. But she called out to the burglar because she was loathe to shoot him. Thank goodness he was smart enough to leave.


Annette

 

[kenny]

Murderers vary.
Some are mentally ill, others not.

Pro-gun people saying the problem is not guns but rather that mentally ill people don't get help is a strawman.

 

[Amber St. Clare]

There is 100% proof that a working mental health system would have prevented the Sandy Hook shooting.
His family was trying to get him help and the system failed and failed badly.
I know many families who have went through the same nightmare trying to get help for loved ones.
No, it didn't turn into a mass shooting but it did end in suicide.
Sometimes it turns outwards and you get mass killings.
In almost all the other mass shootings there was a a good chance a working mental health system would have helped prevent them also.

Can you provide a link with factual evidence?

"Nancy Lanza, the mother of the Sandy Hook shooter, was in the process of having her son committed to a psychiatric facility when he went on the mass shooting spree, a lifelong family acquaintance told Fox News."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/19/adam-lanza-motive_n_2329508.html

So, she knows she has a deeply troubled son, makes plans to have him committed THEN GOES ON A THREE DAY SPA TRIP, leaving an unbalanced, paranoid young man ALONE TO SEW AND WORRY ABOUT it with an arsenal in the house. Brilliant.

I'm gonna lose any friends I may have on this board, but I hope ths b!tch is rotting in hell.