Gun Laws

[Mr. Desmond]

I think people do a great job of clouding the issue.

The issue is guns, not drugs, not vehicles, not knives, not alcohol.

When alcohol is a problem, groups step in and pass laws to attempt to limit abuse (MADD, help with rehabilitation, education, jail time, fines, license suspended)

When drugs are a problem, government and special interests establish laws and care to prevent abuse (jail, drug court, rehab programs)

When vehicle safety and drivers are an issue, the government steps in and issues regulations and laws for car and driver safety - tests, licenses, etc.

In other words, laws constantly change to meet new challenges and society makes a decision to amend or reform laws as they learn from experience and study.

Guns - same here - we have a problem. Mentals who seek publicitiy by using Guns to Kill. Society has a choice about guns. Polls show the citizenry would like common sense restrictions and closing of loopholes. Special interests have presently defeated the will of the people. It is the tyranny of the minority. Just because one cannot eliminate the problem does not mean you shrug your shoulders. We do not shrug our shoulders when it comes to drugs or alcohol. Law are passed. Sometimes, and infrequently, laws are passed about restricting guns. 

The issue is how can we attempt to reduce the killing issue without reducing the freedoms of responsible and sane gun owners.

Edited October 6, 2015 by Mr. Desmond

[RandallT]

Sadly, because there is not enough proper care available. I know this from personal experience. Even in Massachusetts, where we have some of the best hospitals in the world including psychiatric hospitals, it is very difficult to get "help" for young people (18 - 25). It actually takes a violent episode to create that opportunity. I won't go into details, but someone I know very well has spent more than two years trying to get an adult child care from a real psychiatrist. 2 years! Because the child has not been violent, they can't even get seen. And these are not people without means either. There is just a lack of psychiatrist for these types of issues. The police have also been extremely helpful. It is very sad.

I can echo this. We have an immediate family member with severe issues, and there have been many a night, all of us have wondered about the safety of people around this person. And we are in Northern VA, likely rivaling Massachusetts for overall health care (I don't know). Our family has the resources to deal with it better than most, but it has horrifically stressful and of course, financially damaging. I can't imagine how many families can cope with this. 

I do not know what laws even could be enacted to limit this person's freedoms. At what point would this person get classified into a "dangerous" category? I might even know this person the best of anyone on the planet- and I cannot honestly see any way a law could be crafted to segregate a person with her condition out for limiting her freedoms. Would a health care provider then be more reluctant to assign that diagnosis? 

At least now, the consequences of a diagnosis are strictly medical, and the adult must deal with it. It is actually fairly difficult for family members of an adult to get visibility into that diagnosis (federal privacy protections), and it differs county-to-county sometimes how to handle committing that person to an institution for the protection of that person (and others). 

Adding gun control to this mix just doesn't seem realistic to me, but that's just my perspective living through this situation. It's vastly complex and difficult to be objective about who should get exactly what rights as a functioning adult.

[newtogolf]

I think people do a great job of clouding the issue.

The issue is guns, not drugs, not vehicles, not knives, not alcohol.

When alcohol is a problem, groups step in and pass laws to attempt to limit abuse (MADD, help with rehabilitation, education, jail time, fines, license suspended)

When drugs are a problem, government and special interests establish laws and care to prevent abuse (jail, drug court, rehab programs)

When vehicle safety and drivers are an issue, the government steps in and issues regulations and laws for car and driver safety - tests, licenses, etc.

 

I disagree, the issue is people with mental illness.  Their current weapon of preference is a gun, but what happens when guns are outlawed and these sick people find alternative weapons to hurt others? 

People drive drunk, we don't ban cars, we make laws to discourage people from driving drunk.  People use guns to commit crimes and kill people, laws need to be passed that make it excessively penal to commit a crime with a gun.  Maybe the penalties need to extend beyond the individual to ensure those who are sick and a danger to society get treatment. 

[Gator Hazard]

Well said.  The other issue with guns  I think is that they are a vehicle to do harm and the people doing these things ultimately want to kill and are going to find a way to do that.  Now, does a gun make it easier?  Sure, but even if you take them all away they will find other avenues.  I think we tend to focus on treating the symptoms and not enough on curing the underlying diseases as @iacas, @boogielicious and others have been mentioning.  

Societal issues, pressures, and drugs, are all part of the problem as well as parents not parenting.  We don't see as many adults past the age of 25 (which is when most psychologists will say we are no longer children and are actually adults) lashing out like this.  It tends to be the kids between 16-23 who are not getting the treatment they need when they need it.  The pubescent brain is a mess full of hormones and chemical changes that make what to us normal rational adults see as irrational behavior seem as justified and reasonable.  Add in all of the other factors such as parents not parenting and being involved in their kids lives and things can snowball quickly.  Social media is another new element where now shame and ridicule can come in massive waves, I don't know that we past the age of 30 can really understand what it is like now to live in that type of a social pressure vacuum.  When we were kids we messed up and the class may know about it, some other school kids may know about it.  Today, something happens and a 1000 people could be pinging that person with all kinds of horrible insults and other things.  

There are a lot of dynamics that go behind the shootings, and we will never be able to handle and untangle all of them correctly all of the time but we do need to start doing something.  

I disagree, the issue is people with mental illness.  Their current weapon of preference is a gun, but what happens when guns are outlawed and these sick people find alternative weapons to hurt others? 

People drive drunk, we don't ban cars, we make laws to discourage people from driving drunk.  People use guns to commit crimes and kill people, laws need to be passed that make it excessively penal to commit a crime with a gun.  Maybe the penalties need to extend beyond the individual to ensure those who are sick and a danger to society get treatment. 

As I have mentioned before, this is good for in general but for the types of mass shootings we are seeing it isn't going to make a bit of difference.  When these disturbed people go to these places intent on killing a bunch of people they are also intent on finishing in one of two ways:  Suicide or death by cop.  Enacting those laws won't stop these types of crimes.  It may help with others however.

[mvmac]

The truth (as I last read it) is that armed citizens help in situations like that - they avoid serious injury and death at a higher rate - and it's not really even a close margin. There are reasons most states allow the use of lethal force on someone who is committing a felony.

Just saw this posted on FB. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/03/do-civilians-with-guns-ever-stop-mass-shootings/

BTW you could probably find some examples from the other side, armed citizens that made the situation worse but the information in the article was something new to me.

Edited October 7, 2015 by mvmac

[Gator Hazard]

Just saw this posted on FB. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/03/do-civilians-with-guns-ever-stop-mass-shootings/

There was a mall shooting not too long ago where CCW holders started to react and the shooter saw them, went into a secluded area and killed himself.  Knew his time was up.  

The Chicago story confuses me because it says he was in Logan Square.  That is in the city limits where possession and or transporting a gun in city limits is still not legal.  He cannot have a CCW for the city of Chicago.  In Illinois you have to have a FOID card (firearm owners identification card) to purchase a gun or ammo.  I had one when I lived in the suburbs of Chicago.  When I moved to Lincoln Park my handgun moved with me even though technically I was in breach of the gun law for the city.  I talked with a lot of people who said that they are lenient on persons who protect their lives in their home with a firearm.  Does anyone know if they have changed the laws in Chicago so that you can possess a firearm in city limits AND get a CCW?

[Mr. Desmond]

I disagree, the issue is people with mental illness.  Their current weapon of preference is a gun, but what happens when guns are outlawed and these sick people find alternative weapons to hurt others? 

People drive drunk, we don't ban cars, we make laws to discourage people from driving drunk.  People use guns to commit crimes and kill people, laws need to be passed that make it excessively penal to commit a crime with a gun.  Maybe the penalties need to extend beyond the individual to ensure those who are sick and a danger to society get treatment. 

I'm a disagreeable person.

I think you are clouding the issue. It's not about drugs, knives, etc.  as I stated in my previous post, and in which you repeat the same old arguments from above that only skirt the issue, almost excuse the issue of guns as a weapon of mass murder.

This is about guns and closing loopholes to people who should not have access to them because they use the gun for sick, self-aggrandizement in mass murders.

Guns are a somewhat impersonal, high volume method of killing. One can do it from long or short range. It does not require you to place your hands on a person or beat them, which is more difficult to do and typically does not result in mass murder.

Because if you use your hands, the people surrounding you will also use their hands and put an end to the contact.

The mentally ill kill people on a daily basis with knives, fists, beatings, etc. Guns do it more efficiently and quickly. Attempt to limit the problem, don't talk around it.

Edited October 6, 2015 by Mr. Desmond

[mmoan2]

Correct. Everyone should read this. This guy is qualified to talk about it and he backs his argument up with statistics. He doesn't speak about things that he doesn't have knowledge of. My opinion: I agree with this article on almost all points. 

I read the whole thing and respect the opinion. I even agree with the premise to a degree. If instructors in a school were armed and trained, they could prevent far more deaths when an armed killer enters the room. I also agree that making it mandatory for every classroom instructor in any school to have a concealed firearm is untenable for several reasons (aside from being wildly expensive and just honestly dumb). I don't see what voluntary arming of teachers will solve, though. I would wager that 95% of college professors wouldn't arm, and 80% of other teachers wouldn't do it. So out of the 15 or so mass shootings in the past 5 years, 1 or 2 may have had fewer casualties.

Mass shootings are not the big problem, though. 273 of gun homicides since 2009 were due to mass shootings. Almost 12,000 gun homicides occurred in 2013 alone. That's nearly 60,000 over a 5-year period. Then there's nearly 19,000 annually from suicide. Another 90k or so in 5 years. Suicides are 5 times more likely to occur when access to a firearm is available. It's much quicker and easier. For every "who cares if you want to kill yourself" you might throw out there, there's a depressed bullied teenager who ends his/her life over something small.

And as to mental health - it's a red herring. Serious mental illness, like bipolar 1 or paranoid schizophrenia with hallucinations, etc. are not as common in these cases as you might think. Social anxiety disorder, depression, etc. are so common among youth that I couldn't see crisis intervention helping much unless the parents buy in.

Anyway, enough said from me. Enjoyed the reads.

[Mr. Desmond]

Interesting from Pew Research Center as to poll numbers regarding restrictions that Americans favor. Does it really hurt to close legal loopholes for online sales, private guns sales and gun shows?

 

While many Americans strongly support the right to bear arms, they also support specific restrictions, such as background checks, assault weapons bans and a federal database to track guns. Here's 2013 data from Pew Research Center.

Edited October 6, 2015 by Mr. Desmond

[Lihu]

Question about this: Aren't you still likely to have a rib broken if you're hit in the chest wearing kevlar from close range? I know kevlar also is very bad at withstanding repeated shots, just because a majority of the protection comes from the tensile strength of the weave that is broken once it's hit by a bullet (it's the reason that vests have to be thrown out if they're shot, because they can't guarantee it will stop another bullet). A center of mass hit means the perpetrator is hurting quite a bit, and likely not as concerned with killing others as he was before he was shot.

Sure, it's very likely to break something if there is enough energy in the bullet on impact.

[newtogolf]

Interesting from Pew Research Center as to poll numbers regarding restrictions that Americans favor. Does it really hurt to close legal loopholes for online sales, private guns sales and gun shows?

 

While many Americans strongly support the right to bear arms, they also support specific restrictions, such as background checks, assault weapons bans and a federal database to track guns. Here's 2013 data from Pew Research Center.

Okay great, you found a poll that says mentally ill people should not own guns so how does the law read? 

Any law would have to be over reaching in order to ensure a mentally ill person could not buy a gun but this still cannot guarantee that they will be prevented from buying one. 

Psycho Johnny is 21, lives at home and has exhibited anti-social tendencies but his over-protective parents have not sought treatment for him out of fear that Johnny would be labeled as mentally ill.  Johnny goes to buy a gun, who and what checks will be performed to ensure Johnny doesn't get a gun?   If he hasn't been treated, then why would he be denied the right to buy a gun?

Does this check get performed on all gun purchases including rifles and shotguns?  Who is legally responsible for issuing the permit, the state or federal government? 

Why is it we hold the driver responsible when they drive drunk rather than pass laws that make it harder for people to buy cars?  Why not make dealerships do background checks on car buyers and make it illegal for DWI / DUI offenders to buy cars? 

Again, the issue isn't guns, the issue is mentally ill people going untreated or off their medications.  This mentality that if they can't legally buy a gun they won't hurt others is as insane as they are. 

[Golfingdad]

This mentality that if they can't legally buy a gun they won't hurt others is as insane as they are. 

I think my browser is having issues because I missed that part of the poll.  It probably just cut off the bottom on my screen. ;)

The takeaway, IMO, from that poll is simply that the majority of Americans seem to be in favor of a variety of different gun control ideas.

Edited October 6, 2015 by Golfingdad

[TN94z]

I'm a disagreeable person.

I think you are clouding the issue. It's not about drugs, knives, etc.  as I stated in my previous post, and in which you repeat the same old arguments from above that only skirt the issue, almost excuse the issue of guns as a weapon of mass murder.

This is about guns and closing loopholes to people who should not have access to them because they use the gun for sick, self-aggrandizement in mass murders.

Guns are a somewhat impersonal, high volume method of killing. One can do it from long or short range. It does not require you to place your hands on a person or beat them, which is more difficult to do and typically does not result in mass murder.

Because if you use your hands, the people surrounding you will also use their hands and put an end to the contact.

The mentally ill kill people on a daily basis with knives, fists, beatings, etc. Guns do it more efficiently and quickly. Attempt to limit the problem, don't talk around it.

I agree that more stringent measures should be taken to keep the guns out of the hands of people who should not have them. But I disagree with guns being the problem. I mean, they do not shoot themselves. It is like saying the fork is the cause for obesity. The gun is just a tool used to commit the crimes that these people would commit with another tool if the guns were not there. Taking guns away from law abiding citizens is only going to leave the law abiding citizens without guns. The criminals are still going to have them.

[newtogolf]

I think my browser is having issues because I missed that part of the poll.  It probably just cut off the bottom on my screen. ;)

The takeaway, IMO, from that poll is simply that the majority of Americans seem to be in favor of a variety of different gun control ideas.

Sure, but the problem is how to write those laws so that mentally stable law-abiding citizens aren't impacted or denied their constitutional rights. 

The background checks required to ensure someone is mentally stable would be time consuming and expensive.  Plus there's no chance that you would flag someone who hasn't sought treatment. 

If a kid took ADD drugs when he was younger is that going to prevent him from owning a gun later in life?  If a kid was depressed in H.S. because he lost a parent are we going to deem them unfit to own a gun because at one point in their life they were on anti-depressants? 

It's a slippery slope that the government can use to limit the number of people who qualify to own a gun. There are countless psycho's out there, yet we've  had 133 mass shootings in 15 years.  We're really going to create all these gun laws and red tape to stop an average of 9 mass shootings per year, that barely covers the shootings on an average Saturday night in Chicago. 

Edited October 6, 2015 by newtogolf

[SavvySwede]

Sure, but the problem is how to write those laws so that mentally stable law-abiding citizens aren't impacted or denied their constitutional rights. 

The background checks required to ensure someone is mentally stable would be time consuming and expensive.  Plus there's no chance that you would flag someone who hasn't sought treatment. 

If a kid took ADD drugs when he was younger is that going to prevent him from owning a gun later in life?  If a kid was depressed in H.S. because he lost a parent are we going to deem them unfit to own a gun because at one point in their life they were on anti-depressants? 

It's a slippery slope that the government can use to limit the number of people who qualify to own a gun. There are countless psycho's out there, yet we've  had 133 mass shootings in 15 years.  We're really going to create all these gun laws and red tape to stop an average of 9 mass shootings per year, that barely covers the shootings on an average Saturday night in Chicago. 

Some would say that is a lot.

[jusanothajoe]

Section 563 of the 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act, Subtitle J, Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate ("Section 563"), Public Law 110–161  (PDF, 614 pages – 1.7 MB), amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002. The amendment requires the Department to "regulate the sale and transfer of ammonium nitrate by an ammonium nitrate facility ... to prevent the misappropriation or use of ammonium nitrate in an act of terrorism."

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in order to implement the Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate Act of 2007.

DHS has established a 120 day comment period which ends on December 1, 2011. This new regulation will require sellers and purchasers of ammonium nitrate to:

1. Acquire a registration number from DHS in order to sell, transfer, and/or purchase ammonium nitrate.

2. Requires applicants who sell, transfer or purchase ammonium nitrate to conduct a background check using the Terrorist Screening Database

3. Requires DHS to issue an ammonium nitrate registration number for each ammonium nitrate seller or purchaser upon completion of an application to DHS

4. Requires ammonium nitrate sellers to verify each potential ammonium nitrate purchaser's identification and registration number prior to selling product

5. Requires all ammonium nitrate facilities to keep records of sales or transfers of ammonium nitrate for at least two years after each transaction

6. Certain ammonium nitrate sellers must report the theft or loss of certain quantities of ammonium nitrate to Federal authorities within 24 hours of discovering the theft or loss

 

Must be a quantity thing. I bought 2 fifty pound bags a month ago and all I had to show was money.

[newtogolf]

Some would say that is a lot.

Not when you consider how many "mentally ill" people there are in the US.  Roughly 25% of the population between 18-23 would be classified as mentally ill, which works out to over 60 million. 

Edited October 6, 2015 by newtogolf

[Golfingdad]

There are countless psycho's out there, yet we've  had 133 mass shootings in 15 years.

That's all???  Well, crap, then why are we even talking about this?  I thought there had been a lot of shootings.

Never mind.