What the hell, gun people!?!

[aljdewey]

I'm all for you gun people having your second amendment rights as long as my children have their rights to safety. At this time, that is not occurring. I believe it is up to the gun advocates to come up with a solution to this problem if they want to continue to carry their firearms. Otherwise, they need to revoke their "rights" so that our children can stop being slaughtered in places where they should remain safe.

It is time we get real about our safety, our children's safety, and our attitude about the lives of the people in this country. We are not disposable.

You mean like driving down the highway and getting wiped out by another teen texting on the phone? You mean like preventing the kids in school dealing drugs in the bathroom? Are our children "safe" from those forms of slaughter? Are the kids any less dead when they die from those? As a matter of statistics, kids die much, *much* more frequently from drugs and texting than they do from mass shootings, and those (drugs and texting while driving) already *are* illegal. Hasn't seemed to stop the problem at all from where I sit.

This is that same rhetoric that I was speaking of in my original post on this thread.

Please, don't downplay school shootings by comparing it to texting and driving. What you are doing is crass and insensitive and it won't work to derail the discussion at hand. While I realize that the children might be equally dead, we are speaking about our flawed gun laws and the terror that the children in our society are facing in the wake of gun violence. My child might choke on a tootsie roll too, but I truly pity the individual who believes that is a valid argument to bring up in order to discount the seriousness of gun violence in this country!

.

PS: still waiting for someone to tell me how the (hypothetical) loaded gun on my proverbial porch is going to shoot itself.

More of the same rhetoric.

Why don't you take responsibility for your beliefs and tell me how you will keep a person who is completely set on shooting up a school full of innocent children from doing so? This is a more respectable discussion rather than some hocus pocus about a gun shooting itself. Gun advocates love to use this argument and it is simple smoke and mirrors in order to derail the discussion. Why don't we have an intelligent conversation about keeping human beings safe in our society, instead of being silly and talking about inanimate objects coming to life.

The fact of the matter is there is a veritable slaughter going on in this nation and gun activists want to turn a blind eye to it without providing any feasible solutions to the actual very real problems that the guns are creating in our nation.

We can speak of how our country is failing the mentally ill, but there is another facet that no one is bringing up and that is the fact that the medical field is still in the dark ages when it comes to treating mental illness. I have first hand experience with medical professionals guessing at which diagnosis I had and guessing what meds would be right for me. Then, when those meds actually caused psychosis and mania, oh, then they realized I had yet another diagnosis! Then it was two solid years of trying one medication after another and a roller coaster ride of emotions and events leaving me psychotic, suicidal, depressed, manic, all to try and find the correct medications! And I wanted to get well!!! I don't envy these psychiatrists. They have to guess until they get lucky with these meds. My story isn't unique, it is common.

I have been in contact with countless families of people with mentally ill loved ones. I know more stories that I can count of psychotic family members and people trying to get them help. It is extremely difficult to get them involuntarily committed. Having someone deemed incompetent is very serious. Once again, we get into that territory of it being an infringement upon their rights.

Here is the thing, many people who are psychotic come into mental health facilities paranoid and spouting off wild accusations or ideas and there are a few common themes: I am God, I know God, the government is after me, I am being watched, I have super powers, I am psychic, etc. These common themes do not mean the person is dangerous because usually, once the person is properly medicated, these delusions disappear. One other thing really needs to be mentioned in defense of the family members of these people, usually psychosis comes on slowly. In other words, a person doesn't usually wake up one morning totally fine and the next morning hallucinating. Gradually, the symptoms come on. First a person might seem a little elevated in mood. They might start visiting the library more and checking out a ton of books, reading one or two per day. They might start staying up late at night. They might start arguing a bit more or be a bit more confrontational with the public. A few weeks or months might go by with this behavior. The person might hear voices and not say a thing, especially if this is the first time they have experienced this. The family will think the person is just acting like a jerk, especially if this is the first time they have seen this behavior in their loved one. Eventually, after months and months of *sort of* strange or semi-violent behavior, a stressful event usually causes the person to crack. The stressful event could be something as small as a big test or as big as a loved one dying. Remember that some of the family members DID try to get these people help, but the shooters were not in the throes of full psychosis, they were most likely on their way there and the mental health professionals didn't see anything alarming at the time that they saw them.

We must also know that a lot of these shooters HAD been "treated" for mental illness. Some of the teen shooters had been put on antidepressants, which have a black box warning for teens and shouldn't be prescribed because it puts them at risk for suicidal behavior. Other shooters had been treated for schizophrenia or psychosis, but I know that these meds are horrific to take and they do not work all of the time. The newer antipsychotics are so flipping expensive at $15 per pill and if someone isn't insured, they can't afford them.

What I am trying to say is that this is a very tricky, slippery issue. Focusing on the mental health issue isn't an exact science. There are so many factors at play. Should everyone who ever experiences psychosis just be locked up then, because we have guns available in our society? Pre-Reagan, we DID lock up most people with mental illness. Should we do that again? I do believe we could be doing a lot more for those that we suspect might be a danger to society. That doesn't mean that we should keep guns readily available to anyone who could snap at any moment. It doesn't take a mentally ill individual to shoot another person out of murderous rage.

There's more in this than I can reasonably respond to without just retreading over ground we've already covered, and I'm certain that repeating the same points is not productive. It's unfortunate that you find my viewpoints crass, but you're certainly entitled to that opinion. I'm sure it's easier for your position to pretend the other things are not equally threatening to our kids, but I really believe they are.

If you truly and seriously only want to focus on 'slaughter' going on in our nation, I will ask the question again: Where are all the stories about responsible, lawful, mentally stable gun owners committing mass slaughter with their firearms (semi-automatic or otherwise)? I do not see them.

For every person you can point to who has committed mass slaughter, I can point to (at least) hundreds of thousands of responsible, lawful, mentally stable gun owners who've never harmed a soul, much less killed one.

For every slaughter event you'll point to, I'll be able to find plenty of backstory to support that they are either criminally inclined or mentally unstable. Neither of these two groups is going to be affected by changing gun laws that really only impact non-criminal, mentally stable gun owners.

To change the slaughter, laws do have to be amended - but it's not about restricting types of weapons It's about empower the law to restrict unfit people from having access to them. I'd be compelled to support legislation that makes the qualification (and requalification) process more rigorous, for example.

 

[TooPatient]

I'm all for you gun people having your second amendment rights as long as my children have their rights to safety. At this time, that is not occurring. I believe it is up to the gun advocates to come up with a solution to this problem if they want to continue to carry their firearms. Otherwise, they need to revoke their "rights" so that our children can stop being slaughtered in places where they should remain safe.

It is time we get real about our safety, our children's safety, and our attitude about the lives of the people in this country. We are not disposable.

You mean like driving down the highway and getting wiped out by another teen texting on the phone? You mean like preventing the kids in school dealing drugs in the bathroom? Are our children "safe" from those forms of slaughter? Are the kids any less dead when they die from those? As a matter of statistics, kids die much, *much* more frequently from drugs and texting than they do from mass shootings, and those (drugs and texting while driving) already *are* illegal. Hasn't seemed to stop the problem at all from where I sit.

This is that same rhetoric that I was speaking of in my original post on this thread.

Please, don't downplay school shootings by comparing it to texting and driving. What you are doing is crass and insensitive and it won't work to derail the discussion at hand. While I realize that the children might be equally dead, we are speaking about our flawed gun laws and the terror that the children in our society are facing in the wake of gun violence. My child might choke on a tootsie roll too, but I truly pity the individual who believes that is a valid argument to bring up in order to discount the seriousness of gun violence in this country!

.

PS: still waiting for someone to tell me how the (hypothetical) loaded gun on my proverbial porch is going to shoot itself.

More of the same rhetoric.

Why don't you take responsibility for your beliefs and tell me how you will keep a person who is completely set on shooting up a school full of innocent children from doing so? This is a more respectable discussion rather than some hocus pocus about a gun shooting itself. Gun advocates love to use this argument and it is simple smoke and mirrors in order to derail the discussion. Why don't we have an intelligent conversation about keeping human beings safe in our society, instead of being silly and talking about inanimate objects coming to life.

The fact of the matter is there is a veritable slaughter going on in this nation and gun activists want to turn a blind eye to it without providing any feasible solutions to the actual very real problems that the guns are creating in our nation.

We can speak of how our country is failing the mentally ill, but there is another facet that no one is bringing up and that is the fact that the medical field is still in the dark ages when it comes to treating mental illness. I have first hand experience with medical professionals guessing at which diagnosis I had and guessing what meds would be right for me. Then, when those meds actually caused psychosis and mania, oh, then they realized I had yet another diagnosis! Then it was two solid years of trying one medication after another and a roller coaster ride of emotions and events leaving me psychotic, suicidal, depressed, manic, all to try and find the correct medications! And I wanted to get well!!! I don't envy these psychiatrists. They have to guess until they get lucky with these meds. My story isn't unique, it is common.

I have been in contact with countless families of people with mentally ill loved ones. I know more stories that I can count of psychotic family members and people trying to get them help. It is extremely difficult to get them involuntarily committed. Having someone deemed incompetent is very serious. Once again, we get into that territory of it being an infringement upon their rights.

Here is the thing, many people who are psychotic come into mental health facilities paranoid and spouting off wild accusations or ideas and there are a few common themes: I am God, I know God, the government is after me, I am being watched, I have super powers, I am psychic, etc. These common themes do not mean the person is dangerous because usually, once the person is properly medicated, these delusions disappear. One other thing really needs to be mentioned in defense of the family members of these people, usually psychosis comes on slowly. In other words, a person doesn't usually wake up one morning totally fine and the next morning hallucinating. Gradually, the symptoms come on. First a person might seem a little elevated in mood. They might start visiting the library more and checking out a ton of books, reading one or two per day. They might start staying up late at night. They might start arguing a bit more or be a bit more confrontational with the public. A few weeks or months might go by with this behavior. The person might hear voices and not say a thing, especially if this is the first time they have experienced this. The family will think the person is just acting like a jerk, especially if this is the first time they have seen this behavior in their loved one. Eventually, after months and months of *sort of* strange or semi-violent behavior, a stressful event usually causes the person to crack. The stressful event could be something as small as a big test or as big as a loved one dying. Remember that some of the family members DID try to get these people help, but the shooters were not in the throes of full psychosis, they were most likely on their way there and the mental health professionals didn't see anything alarming at the time that they saw them.

We must also know that a lot of these shooters HAD been "treated" for mental illness. Some of the teen shooters had been put on antidepressants, which have a black box warning for teens and shouldn't be prescribed because it puts them at risk for suicidal behavior. Other shooters had been treated for schizophrenia or psychosis, but I know that these meds are horrific to take and they do not work all of the time. The newer antipsychotics are so flipping expensive at $15 per pill and if someone isn't insured, they can't afford them.

What I am trying to say is that this is a very tricky, slippery issue. Focusing on the mental health issue isn't an exact science. There are so many factors at play. Should everyone who ever experiences psychosis just be locked up then, because we have guns available in our society? Pre-Reagan, we DID lock up most people with mental illness. Should we do that again? I do believe we could be doing a lot more for those that we suspect might be a danger to society. That doesn't mean that we should keep guns readily available to anyone who could snap at any moment. It doesn't take a mentally ill individual to shoot another person out of murderous rage.

There's more in this than I can reasonably respond to without just retreading over ground we've already covered, and I'm certain that repeating the same points is not productive. It's unfortunate that you find my viewpoints crass, but you're certainly entitled to that opinion. I'm sure it's easier for your position to pretend the other things are not equally threatening to our kids, but I really believe they are.

If you truly and seriously only want to focus on 'slaughter' going on in our nation, I will ask the question again: Where are all the stories about responsible, lawful, mentally stable gun owners committing mass slaughter with their firearms (semi-automatic or otherwise)? I do not see them.

For every person you can point to who has committed mass slaughter, I can point to (at least) hundreds of thousands of responsible, lawful, mentally stable gun owners who've never harmed a soul, much less killed one.

For every slaughter event you'll point to, I'll be able to find plenty of backstory to support that they are either criminally inclined or mentally unstable. Neither of these two groups is going to be affected by changing gun laws that really only impact non-criminal, mentally stable gun owners.

To change the slaughter, laws do have to be amended - but it's not about restricting types of weapons It's about empower the law to restrict unfit people from having access to them. I'd be compelled to support legislation that makes the qualification (and requalification) process more rigorous, for example.

Qualification was simple -- okay.... I have a completely spotless background so I would hope it wouldn't be too hard! Bunches of paperwork but that was it. And getting the guy to sell me a gun -- not a small task! This guy wanted to make sure I could handle it safely before he'd order it in to the store and then again before I could take it home! (no biggie! I was already signed up for a safety class!)

Re-qualification -- My concealed carry simply requires me to go online to renew. They'll mail me out a new one.


I am NOT in favor of qualifying based on family members who don't live with you. (I think most of us wouldn't qualify then)
I can see the benefit to having a required extra step if you have family living with you who have issues. (such as required storage inspection or some such to make sure the person can't gain access)

I am in favor of requiring every adult member of the household to take a basic safety class (which includes actually handling and shooting) -- NOT government run or these could get too expensive for the average person.
I might even be in favor of requiring refresher courses every so many years.

I am NOT in favor of restricting types of weapons. FWIW, one of my 100 year old bolt actions can do substantially more damage than one of my "assault" rifles (I've got video of a physics project with a wooden pendulum...)

I am in favor of more education regarding safe storage.
I am NOT in favor of some safety enforcement person showing up to my house unannounced (or even announced) and demanding to see my storage.

I am in favor of SEVERE penalties for any person who allows a gun to be accessed by someone who shouldn't have access. (I'm thinking of kids who get to guns and injure themselves/others or get found before doing harm)

I am in favor of SEVERE penalties for someone who exercises their right to carry and has an "accident".

 

[House Cat]

Here is a document prepared by a group called "Mayors Against Illegal Guns." The information from this document comes from the FBI.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/S...s/US-news-PDFs/Analysis_of_Mass_Shootings.pdf

And here is the Mass Killings Database:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/09/16/mass-killings-data-map/2820423/

I'm going to go ahead and allow the facts to speak for themselves when it comes to the idea that mentally ill people are responsible for a majority of these kinds of killings.

There is a statistic in the document about people who weren't allowed by law to have firearms and had them anyway, convicts, domestic abusers, mentally ill, etc. But I don't understand how that works for states that don't do background checks. Do they use the honor system?


If I have to live in a society where people are toting around firearms, it isn't the law abiding citizens that I am worried about. It is the criminals and the people lacking empathy in a way that makes them think that people are their property (the ones I suspect thought they had a right to shoot their families time and again.) It is so very rare that an armed citizen stops any crime, let alone a mass killing.

Dragonfly, I have thought about your situation again and again. I must say that I don't have a solution that doesn't involve what already happened. I am so sorry for you and your family.

 

[MedMan]

That picture was taken at an off angle to portray them as being hostile, while the people there were actually posing for a picture. I had to steal the pic from a FB page...

 

[dragonfly411]

I'm all for you gun people having your second amendment rights as long as my children have their rights to safety. At this time, that is not occurring. I believe it is up to the gun advocates to come up with a solution to this problem if they want to continue to carry their firearms. Otherwise, they need to revoke their "rights" so that our children can stop being slaughtered in places where they should remain safe.

It is time we get real about our safety, our children's safety, and our attitude about the lives of the people in this country. We are not disposable.

You mean like driving down the highway and getting wiped out by another teen texting on the phone? You mean like preventing the kids in school dealing drugs in the bathroom? Are our children "safe" from those forms of slaughter? Are the kids any less dead when they die from those? As a matter of statistics, kids die much, *much* more frequently from drugs and texting than they do from mass shootings, and those (drugs and texting while driving) already *are* illegal. Hasn't seemed to stop the problem at all from where I sit.

This is that same rhetoric that I was speaking of in my original post on this thread.

Please, don't downplay school shootings by comparing it to texting and driving. What you are doing is crass and insensitive and it won't work to derail the discussion at hand. While I realize that the children might be equally dead, we are speaking about our flawed gun laws and the terror that the children in our society are facing in the wake of gun violence. My child might choke on a tootsie roll too, but I truly pity the individual who believes that is a valid argument to bring up in order to discount the seriousness of gun violence in this country!

.

PS: still waiting for someone to tell me how the (hypothetical) loaded gun on my proverbial porch is going to shoot itself.

More of the same rhetoric.

Why don't you take responsibility for your beliefs and tell me how you will keep a person who is completely set on shooting up a school full of innocent children from doing so? This is a more respectable discussion rather than some hocus pocus about a gun shooting itself. Gun advocates love to use this argument and it is simple smoke and mirrors in order to derail the discussion. Why don't we have an intelligent conversation about keeping human beings safe in our society, instead of being silly and talking about inanimate objects coming to life.

The fact of the matter is there is a veritable slaughter going on in this nation and gun activists want to turn a blind eye to it without providing any feasible solutions to the actual very real problems that the guns are creating in our nation.

We can speak of how our country is failing the mentally ill, but there is another facet that no one is bringing up and that is the fact that the medical field is still in the dark ages when it comes to treating mental illness. I have first hand experience with medical professionals guessing at which diagnosis I had and guessing what meds would be right for me. Then, when those meds actually caused psychosis and mania, oh, then they realized I had yet another diagnosis! Then it was two solid years of trying one medication after another and a roller coaster ride of emotions and events leaving me psychotic, suicidal, depressed, manic, all to try and find the correct medications! And I wanted to get well!!! I don't envy these psychiatrists. They have to guess until they get lucky with these meds. My story isn't unique, it is common.

I have been in contact with countless families of people with mentally ill loved ones. I know more stories that I can count of psychotic family members and people trying to get them help. It is extremely difficult to get them involuntarily committed. Having someone deemed incompetent is very serious. Once again, we get into that territory of it being an infringement upon their rights.

Here is the thing, many people who are psychotic come into mental health facilities paranoid and spouting off wild accusations or ideas and there are a few common themes: I am God, I know God, the government is after me, I am being watched, I have super powers, I am psychic, etc. These common themes do not mean the person is dangerous because usually, once the person is properly medicated, these delusions disappear. One other thing really needs to be mentioned in defense of the family members of these people, usually psychosis comes on slowly. In other words, a person doesn't usually wake up one morning totally fine and the next morning hallucinating. Gradually, the symptoms come on. First a person might seem a little elevated in mood. They might start visiting the library more and checking out a ton of books, reading one or two per day. They might start staying up late at night. They might start arguing a bit more or be a bit more confrontational with the public. A few weeks or months might go by with this behavior. The person might hear voices and not say a thing, especially if this is the first time they have experienced this. The family will think the person is just acting like a jerk, especially if this is the first time they have seen this behavior in their loved one. Eventually, after months and months of *sort of* strange or semi-violent behavior, a stressful event usually causes the person to crack. The stressful event could be something as small as a big test or as big as a loved one dying. Remember that some of the family members DID try to get these people help, but the shooters were not in the throes of full psychosis, they were most likely on their way there and the mental health professionals didn't see anything alarming at the time that they saw them.

We must also know that a lot of these shooters HAD been "treated" for mental illness. Some of the teen shooters had been put on antidepressants, which have a black box warning for teens and shouldn't be prescribed because it puts them at risk for suicidal behavior. Other shooters had been treated for schizophrenia or psychosis, but I know that these meds are horrific to take and they do not work all of the time. The newer antipsychotics are so flipping expensive at $15 per pill and if someone isn't insured, they can't afford them.

What I am trying to say is that this is a very tricky, slippery issue. Focusing on the mental health issue isn't an exact science. There are so many factors at play. Should everyone who ever experiences psychosis just be locked up then, because we have guns available in our society? Pre-Reagan, we DID lock up most people with mental illness. Should we do that again? I do believe we could be doing a lot more for those that we suspect might be a danger to society. That doesn't mean that we should keep guns readily available to anyone who could snap at any moment. It doesn't take a mentally ill individual to shoot another person out of murderous rage.

There's more in this than I can reasonably respond to without just retreading over ground we've already covered, and I'm certain that repeating the same points is not productive. It's unfortunate that you find my viewpoints crass, but you're certainly entitled to that opinion. I'm sure it's easier for your position to pretend the other things are not equally threatening to our kids, but I really believe they are.

If you truly and seriously only want to focus on 'slaughter' going on in our nation, I will ask the question again: Where are all the stories about responsible, lawful, mentally stable gun owners committing mass slaughter with their firearms (semi-automatic or otherwise)? I do not see them.

For every person you can point to who has committed mass slaughter, I can point to (at least) hundreds of thousands of responsible, lawful, mentally stable gun owners who've never harmed a soul, much less killed one.

For every slaughter event you'll point to, I'll be able to find plenty of backstory to support that they are either criminally inclined or mentally unstable. Neither of these two groups is going to be affected by changing gun laws that really only impact non-criminal, mentally stable gun owners.

To change the slaughter, laws do have to be amended - but it's not about restricting types of weapons It's about empower the law to restrict unfit people from having access to them. I'd be compelled to support legislation that makes the qualification (and requalification) process more rigorous, for example.

Qualification was simple -- okay.... I have a completely spotless background so I would hope it wouldn't be too hard! Bunches of paperwork but that was it. And getting the guy to sell me a gun -- not a small task! This guy wanted to make sure I could handle it safely before he'd order it in to the store and then again before I could take it home! (no biggie! I was already signed up for a safety class!)

Re-qualification -- My concealed carry simply requires me to go online to renew. They'll mail me out a new one.


I am NOT in favor of qualifying based on family members who don't live with you. (I think most of us wouldn't qualify then)
I can see the benefit to having a required extra step if you have family living with you who have issues. (such as required storage inspection or some such to make sure the person can't gain access)

I am in favor of requiring every adult member of the household to take a basic safety class (which includes actually handling and shooting) -- NOT government run or these could get too expensive for the average person.
I might even be in favor of requiring refresher courses every so many years.

I am NOT in favor of restricting types of weapons. FWIW, one of my 100 year old bolt actions can do substantially more damage than one of my "assault" rifles (I've got video of a physics project with a wooden pendulum...)

I am in favor of more education regarding safe storage.
I am NOT in favor of some safety enforcement person showing up to my house unannounced (or even announced) and demanding to see my storage.

I am in favor of SEVERE penalties for any person who allows a gun to be accessed by someone who shouldn't have access. (I'm thinking of kids who get to guns and injure themselves/others or get found before doing harm)

I am in favor of SEVERE penalties for someone who exercises their right to carry and has an "accident".

This Entirely.



Also, I do not think we should ever look at anything as being racial. Sure, mass school murders are often committed by white men. Fine. But on a day to day basis, just as many murders with guns are committed by non white males. You cannot look at just one statistic.

 

[Karl_K]

Here is a document prepared by a group called "Mayors Against Illegal Guns."

Wow sounds like a real unbiased source of information. No agenda there. eh?

 

[Karl_K]

Pistol permit applications in Newtown soar after Sandy Hook shooting
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/11/13/pistol-permits-applications-in-newtown-soar-after-sandy-hook-shooting/?intcmp=latestnews

Now to just get rid of the unconstitutional pistol permits so people don't have to jump through hoops to defend themselves.

 

[chrono]

No one has addressed my questions directly so I will ask again. Note that I am not up to date with gun laws and regulations and am too lazy to look it up myself.

1. I keep reading that there's background checks, paperwork, etc yet why and how are mentally ill people still able to purchase guns?
2. Is gun handling and such classes not currently a requirement when purchasing a gun?
3. How easy / difficult is it to acquire a gun illegally?

 

[liaerfbv]

Also, I do not think we should ever look at anything as being racial. Sure, mass school murders are often committed by white men. Fine. But on a day to day basis, just as many murders with guns are committed by non white males. You cannot look at just one statistic.

Again, I think you're missing the point here. I don't think race should be a factor to buy a gun, obviously. I don't think anyone is saying, oh white men kill more people with guns so let's ban white males from buying them. And honestly, I'm not even talking about gun control here. Race and gender play into every facet of our society. But collectively, sure, we should look at the rate that white men are using guns in violent crime and ask why. We should look at why more white teen males are committing mass murders. Why do more black men end up in jail than white men? Why do women make less on the dollar than men do? That's not racial or gender bias to ask these questions - they are statistical fact. Race and gender are not causation, but they are FACTORS -- how can we ignore that?

 

[Karl_K]

No one has addressed my questions directly so I will ask again. Note that I am not up to date with gun laws and regulations and am too lazy to look it up myself.

1. I keep reading that there's background checks, paperwork, etc yet why and how are mentally ill people still able to purchase guns?

The states are not submitting the information to the instant check database. Some are 10 years behind in submissions and the data is not complete nor accurate. Bob Smith was admitted on jan 19th is not enough information. Face to face sales in many states between 2 residents doesn't require paperwork but I know of no documented case where a shooter got guns that way.
I like the idea of an instant check system but inspite of the law requiring the government to destroy data they are using it to create a list of gun owners which is clearly against the law as written.


2. Is gun handling and such classes not currently a requirement when purchasing a gun?

No they are not in all but a few areas (NY city), and while it sounds good requiring them they have are being abused where the state refuses to certify courses and instructors keeping them out of the reach of those that need protection the most. You have to be rich just to afford the process.

3. How easy is it to acquire a gun illegally?

very easy

 

[liaerfbv]

No one has addressed my questions directly so I will ask again. Note that I am not up to date with gun laws and regulations and am too lazy to look it up myself.

1. I keep reading that there's background checks, paperwork, etc yet why and how are mentally ill people still able to purchase guns?
2. Is gun handling and such classes not currently a requirement when purchasing a gun?
3. How easy / difficult is it to acquire a gun illegally?

Chrono, I don't think there's one answer to these questions because laws vary state to state. I think the issue with mentally ill people purchasing guns is that often time there's no "record" of mental illness so they run a clean background check. Where I live, some types of guns purchased at gun shows do not require background checks or a waiting period. So they literally show up, hand over some money and leave with a gun. I know other places are not like this, though. It's also very easy to get a gun illegally.

 

[chrono]

Thanks for your responses. It appears that gun control (limiting access to those who should not have access to them) is very lax and unregulated in the US and from the looks of it, this isn't going to improve any time soon.

 

[smitcompton]

Hi,

Ksingers point about the changes in the types of buyers who go to gun shows is just another interest group protecting itself against its fear, which seems to be the Gov't. mainly. I used to think of those people as the crazies, but now that we know that our gov't has surveillance on all of us, perhaps they are justified. I see America as such a changing society today, where no one can agree on much.
For a democracy to stand it needs consensus on most issues or at the very least a set of rules one plays by. I really think it is crumbling, and with so much disagreement in the society, many look to protect themselves the best way they can think of. Guns are it for many. I think this is a bad thing, but I myself am looking to feel protected, both from the criminals and the gov't. So I have decided on an Uzi, or an AK47. Its on my Christmas list. Then I will feel safe. I am willing to take a safety course.


Annette

 

[ksinger]

Hi,

Ksingers point about the changes in the types of buyers who go to gun shows is just another interest group protecting itself against its fear, which seems to be the Gov't. mainly. I used to think of those people as the crazies, but now that we know that our gov't has surveillance on all of us, perhaps they are justified. I see America as such a changing society today, where no one can agree on much.
For a democracy to stand it needs consensus on most issues or at the very least a set of rules one plays by. I really think it is crumbling, and with so much disagreement in the society, many look to protect themselves the best way they can think of. Guns are it for many. I think this is a bad thing, but I myself am looking to feel protected, both from the criminals and the gov't. So I have decided on an Uzi, or an AK47. Its on my Christmas list. Then I will feel safe. I am willing to take a safety course.
Annette

I ask in seriousness, seriously?

 

[dragonfly411]

No one has addressed my questions directly so I will ask again. Note that I am not up to date with gun laws and regulations and am too lazy to look it up myself.

1. I keep reading that there's background checks, paperwork, etc yet why and how are mentally ill people still able to purchase guns?
2. Is gun handling and such classes not currently a requirement when purchasing a gun?
3. How easy / difficult is it to acquire a gun illegally?

1) Not all locations have these checks, and not all places enforce them. Also, many guns are purchased on a personal basis, thus no background checks.
2) No. They are mostly required a) for concealed permits and b) for hunting purposes
3)Correct me if I'm wrong: There is no such thing as acquiring a gun illegally in the US, technically. I think there are some guns that HAVE to be registered or that aren't sold to the general public. That being said as far as I know there is no law that says a gun has to be registered in your name, there is no law that says you have to purchase a gun from specific locations or under specific conditions. Both of my guns were from a personal purchase and I later took them to have them registered, and mostly did so because they are collector's items. They are both antique guns. Now this could vary from my state, so again please correct me if I am wrong! In FL we are not required to register shot guns or rifles or even most pistols, and many guns are purchased used from people.

 

[soxfan]

Hi,

Ksingers point about the changes in the types of buyers who go to gun shows is just another interest group protecting itself against its fear, which seems to be the Gov't. mainly. I used to think of those people as the crazies, but now that we know that our gov't has surveillance on all of us, perhaps they are justified. I see America as such a changing society today, where no one can agree on much.
For a democracy to stand it needs consensus on most issues or at the very least a set of rules one plays by. I really think it is crumbling, and with so much disagreement in the society, many look to protect themselves the best way they can think of. Guns are it for many. I think this is a bad thing, but I myself am looking to feel protected, both from the criminals and the gov't. So I have decided on an Uzi, or an AK47. Its on my Christmas list. Then I will feel safe. I am willing to take a safety course.


Annette

You need an Uzi to protect yourself from the government? What do you see them doing to you that you would have to shoot off multiple rounds of bullets?

 

[Karl_K]

You need an Uzi to protect yourself from the government? What do you see them doing to you that you would have to shoot off multiple rounds of bullets?

tongue in cheek answer: rats travel in packs
but:
Why do cops need semi-auto handguns, grenades and full auto m16 rifles and full auto mp5 carbines?

 

[dragonfly411]

Hi,

Ksingers point about the changes in the types of buyers who go to gun shows is just another interest group protecting itself against its fear, which seems to be the Gov't. mainly. I used to think of those people as the crazies, but now that we know that our gov't has surveillance on all of us, perhaps they are justified. I see America as such a changing society today, where no one can agree on much.
For a democracy to stand it needs consensus on most issues or at the very least a set of rules one plays by. I really think it is crumbling, and with so much disagreement in the society, many look to protect themselves the best way they can think of. Guns are it for many. I think this is a bad thing, but I myself am looking to feel protected, both from the criminals and the gov't. So I have decided on an Uzi, or an AK47. Its on my Christmas list. Then I will feel safe. I am willing to take a safety course.


Annette

You need an Uzi to protect yourself from the government? What do you see them doing to you that you would have to shoot off multiple rounds of bullets?

I dunno about an Uzi, but I know many people who have AK47s and feel much better because of it. And can we be 100% sure of what will happen in the future? I just read an article about a young girl who was "accidentally" shot to death for seeking help at a private home. She was unarmed.

 

[ksinger]

You need an Uzi to protect yourself from the government? What do you see them doing to you that you would have to shoot off multiple rounds of bullets?

tongue in cheek answer: rats travel in packs
but:
Why do cops need semi-auto handguns, grenades and full auto m16 rifles and full auto mp5 carbines?

Short answer: in some instances, simply because they can, so they do. Much like an individual arms to the teeth simply because guns are fun and make them feel powerful and they like jumping on the bandwagon.

Longer answer: Because they have bought into the culture of fear like everyone else, because it's also part and parcel of the increasing militarization of society brought on by the now-endless "war on terror", and because (the police would rationalize) the criminals (after 10+ years of war abroad) are now fully trained by the US military and use military tactics and are armed with military style weapons.

(And NO, that is not a dig at veterans, that is acknowledgement that gangs, during the high points of our wars, have made it policy to send their members into the military for "training".)

 

[TooPatient]

Hi,

Ksingers point about the changes in the types of buyers who go to gun shows is just another interest group protecting itself against its fear, which seems to be the Gov't. mainly. I used to think of those people as the crazies, but now that we know that our gov't has surveillance on all of us, perhaps they are justified. I see America as such a changing society today, where no one can agree on much.
For a democracy to stand it needs consensus on most issues or at the very least a set of rules one plays by. I really think it is crumbling, and with so much disagreement in the society, many look to protect themselves the best way they can think of. Guns are it for many. I think this is a bad thing, but I myself am looking to feel protected, both from the criminals and the gov't. So I have decided on an Uzi, or an AK47. Its on my Christmas list. Then I will feel safe. I am willing to take a safety course.


Annette

They are fun to shoot! Despite what all the AR owners at the range tried to tell me, you CAN have an AK that is as accurate as an AR -- plus they tend to cost less and are much less finicky about maintenance.

Read lots of reviews if you order online. There is a big company that sells these for less than some others but they ship you stuff that tends to not work (I've NEVER had an order show up from them correctly...) even after several returns for service.

Also, take a look at the other AK models out there. You may decide that you really like a 74 (from a good source) as it takes a couple of the common 47 complaints and improves on the design. (Of course the traditional 47 is awesome too!)



(Please note that I am not commenting on the current, past, or any specific government. Just noting why we were given this right originally.)
Interesting you should mention the fear of the government. DH and I were just speaking about this discussion and a couple of other news stories we've seen. He pointed out that one of the BIG reasons this right is guaranteed in the Constitution and was put in there by those who founded our country is because a government needs to know that the citizens of the country can stand against them if they get too corrupt.

 

[TooPatient]

No one has addressed my questions directly so I will ask again. Note that I am not up to date with gun laws and regulations and am too lazy to look it up myself.

1. I keep reading that there's background checks, paperwork, etc yet why and how are mentally ill people still able to purchase guns?
2. Is gun handling and such classes not currently a requirement when purchasing a gun?
3. How easy / difficult is it to acquire a gun illegally?

1 -- I would guess that there is a delay in the system and also that most mental health issues are not tracked. I suspect a lot of them steal guns from people (often family).

2 -- In Washington state, no classes are required to purchase a gun. No classes are required for concealed carry. This varies by state. (every gun shop I've been in STRONGLY encourages safety classes)
My concealed carry license allows me to carry ONLY in Washington state and states with reciprocity. If I want to go into another state (like Oregon), I would have to get another license for that state and meet their requirements.

3 -- I've never tried, but the only way to "illegally" acquire a gun is to steal one or to be a person who can't legally own (as in convicted felon) and purchases in a private transaction.


I am able to sell any gun to any person through a private transaction. I don't have to do anything but sell it just like any other thing I own. BUT if I were to ever sell a gun, I would be likely to either consign it through a licensed gun shop (or just out and out sell it to them) or at the very least go through what is called a transfer. I have purchased through individuals in past and each of them required that I go through the transfer process with an FFL.

 

[Karl_K]

You need an Uzi to protect yourself from the government? What do you see them doing to you that you would have to shoot off multiple rounds of bullets?

tongue in cheek answer: rats travel in packs
but:
Why do cops need semi-auto handguns, grenades and full auto m16 rifles and full auto mp5 carbines?

Short answer: in some instances, simply because they can, so they do. Much like an individual arms to the teeth simply because guns are fun and make them feel powerful and they like jumping on the bandwagon.

Longer answer: Because they have bought into the culture of fear like everyone else, because it's also part and parcel of the increasing militarization of society brought on by the now-endless "war on terror", and because (the police would rationalize) the criminals (after 10+ years of war abroad) are now fully trained by the US military and use military tactics and are armed with military style weapons.

(And NO, that is not a dig at veterans, that is acknowledgement that gangs, during the high points of our wars, have made it policy to send their members into the military for "training".)

good answer, cant say I disagree.
Plus they are rolling in money for gear from unconstitutional civil forfeits from the war on drugs.
Some departments are so addicted to the gravy train that they are doing raids on innocent people just to get the property. Then there are are the dhs grants for lenco bearcats.
Anyone who thinks the US is not becoming a police state look at the pics from after the Boston bombing.
Cops all over the place in armored bearcats all geared up in military gear holding people hostage in their homes locking down an entire city.
.

 

[purplesparklies]

Interestingly, oftentimes shootings are committed by persons who own guns illegally and who carefully plan to commit these acts in gun free zones. Chicago is a gun free zone. Hmmmm..... That doesn't seem to be working out so well.

Also, the movie theater shooting that occurred in Colorado was very carefully planned to take place in the one movie theater that had posted signs declaring it gun free. There were multiple movie theaters closer to the shooter's home. There were larger theaters in the area. Why not choose one of these theaters? Reason: the theater in which the shooting take place was the one theater in the area that clearly posted a policy declaring it gun free.

Criminals do not respect the laws of the land.

 

[liaerfbv]

OT- Karl, how do you think the bombing aftermath in Boston should have been handled? I'm not saying locking down the city was the answer, but in all honesty what do you think would have worked more effectively? The city was dealing with an unprecedented situation.

 

[soxfan]

You need an Uzi to protect yourself from the government? What do you see them doing to you that you would have to shoot off multiple rounds of bullets?

tongue in cheek answer: rats travel in packs
but:
Why do cops need semi-auto handguns, grenades and full auto m16 rifles and full auto mp5 carbines?

Short answer: in some instances, simply because they can, so they do. Much like an individual arms to the teeth simply because guns are fun and make them feel powerful and they like jumping on the bandwagon.

Longer answer: Because they have bought into the culture of fear like everyone else, because it's also part and parcel of the increasing militarization of society brought on by the now-endless "war on terror", and because (the police would rationalize) the criminals (after 10+ years of war abroad) are now fully trained by the US military and use military tactics and are armed with military style weapons.

(And NO, that is not a dig at veterans, that is acknowledgement that gangs, during the high points of our wars, have made it policy to send their members into the military for "training".)

good answer, cant say I disagree.
Plus they are rolling in money for gear from unconstitutional civil forfeits from the war on drugs.
Some departments are so addicted to the gravy train that they are doing raids on innocent people just to get the property. Then there are are the dhs grants for lenco bearcats.
Anyone who thinks the US is not becoming a police state look at the pics from after the Boston bombing.
Cops all over the place in armored bearcats all geared up in military gear holding people hostage in their homes locking down an entire city.
.

I thought it was awesome. I used to live in Watertown. And I have friends who live there now who were really scared and glad the city was on lockdown. I also saw pictures of police officers bringing milk to a household with a small child during the lockdown. They were dealing with a VERY dangerous terrorist. They had NO idea if he had more weapons. I think they did the right thing. And they got him!

“Boston is probably the only major city that if you f*** with them, they will shut down the whole city, stop everything and find you.”- Adam Sandler

 

[justginger]

Woke up this morning to another public/school shooting in the States. It's become so routine, no one on a thread about guns has posted about it, nor was it the subject of any of the news/updates on my FB feed. What a mess things have become.

 

[packrat]

As the wife of a police officer-ya don't bring a knife to a gun fight. If the criminals have high weaponry, and he's got a BB gun (or ooooo would ya'll be so kind as to allow him a .22), is my husband coming home? They're armed to the teeth now b/c the criminals are armed to the teeth. Not b/c Jane Smith wrote a bad check at the grocery store. But **** whatever dudes, let the cops go out and fight the ****ing fight and risk their goddamned lives to try and keep YOU safe, feck em. After a bombing in a city, do YOU know what's coming next? i'm kinda betting the answer is gonna be um...NO. If YOUR job were to try and keep people safe, and possibly have to deal w/more bombs, death, destruction, would YOU want to be running around in your undies or would you like to be in full gear and have weapons at the ready to protect the citizens? Would your spouse and kids maybe want you to be protected or no?

Ask me how many times my HUSBAND and father of our two kids has had to pull his gun, and how many times he has been FIRED AT and THEN you ****ing tell me that bullshit.

Nobody can fricken win can they? Seriously. Mass chaos after a ****ing BOMB goes off, and we're PISSED b/c law enforcement is taking measures to keep others SAFE?

**** a goddamned duck. Would it be better if they'd stood back and said woooooahhh dudes, YOU figure it out. If you think the streets are safe (when they weren't just a second ago after yanno that fing BOMB just went off) then continue your run, by all means...would that have been better?

How did they know it wasn't another 9-11 and MORE bombs in MORE cities weren't going to go off?

And just for good measure, **** **** ****ity ****.



And, ETA, JD said AK47's and Uzi's are not used anywhere in the United States Law Enforcement AT ALL. The Uzi is an Israeli army weapon. We use AR15's.

And, his final answer is WE CAN'T PROTECT THE PUBLIC IF WE'RE DEAD. WE DON'T HAVE THE OPTION OF RUNNING AWAY FROM GUNFIRE, WE RUN TOWARD IT.

 

[Karl_K]

I thought it was awesome. I used to live in Watertown. And I have friends who live there now who were really scared and glad the city was on lockdown. I also saw pictures of police officers bringing milk to a household with a small child during the lockdown. They were dealing with a VERY dangerous terrorist. They had NO idea if he had more weapons. I think they did the right thing. And they got him!

“Boston is probably the only major city that if you f*** with them, they will shut down the whole city, stop everything and find you.”- Adam Sandler

The bomber was found by a civilian after the lock down was lifted.
Lot of good the lock down did other than a show of force.

 

[soxfan]

I thought it was awesome. I used to live in Watertown. And I have friends who live there now who were really scared and glad the city was on lockdown. I also saw pictures of police officers bringing milk to a household with a small child during the lockdown. They were dealing with a VERY dangerous terrorist. They had NO idea if he had more weapons. I think they did the right thing. And they got him!

“Boston is probably the only major city that if you f*** with them, they will shut down the whole city, stop everything and find you.”- Adam Sandler

The bomber was found by a civilian after the lock down was lifted.
Lot of good the lock down did other than a show of force.

He wasn't going anywhere, right? Because he couldn't escape. Because they were on LOCKDOWN. They did what they had to do. And it was the right call. If everyone was coming and going, some innocent person could have been mistaken for the bomber, lots of things could have happened….

 

[Karl_K]

As the wife of a police officer-ya don't bring a knife to a gun fight. If the criminals have high weaponry, and he's got a BB gun (or ooooo would ya'll be so kind as to allow him a .22), is my husband coming home? They're armed to the teeth now b/c the criminals are armed to the teeth. Not b/c Jane Smith wrote a bad check at the grocery store. But [censored] whatever dudes, let the cops go out and fight the ****ing fight and risk their goddamned lives to try and keep YOU safe, feck em. After a bombing in a city, do YOU know what's coming next? i'm kinda betting the answer is gonna be um...NO. If YOUR job were to try and keep people safe, and possibly have to deal w/more bombs, death, destruction, would YOU want to be running around in your undies or would you like to be in full gear and have weapons at the ready to protect the citizens? Would your spouse and kids maybe want you to be protected or no?
It is my job to protect my family not the state.(the supreme court has so ruled that the cops have no legal obligation to protect anyone they have not explicitly given a promise of protection(witness protection program ect.) I want an m16 mp5 and a bearcat

Ask me how many times my HUSBAND and father of our two kids has had to pull his gun, and how many times he has been FIRED AT and THEN you ****ing tell me that bullshit.
Thank your husband for his service for me.

Sorry if I upset you but I never thought I would see the day where militarized police shut down a city.
This is America not a cocoa republic.