10/2/15 5:19 AM

I know this is a more liberal forum and seems to frequented by smarter than average folk.

Most of you know I am a responsible gun owner and hunter along with being a man who swore my life to uphold the Constitution. I hunt with an AR15 and an AR10. Firearms that are very common hunting guns in the 21st century. They are not "assault rifles" they are magazine fed, self loading long arms that work just like many other arms on the market. They look scary but are just ergonomically designed.

I don't feel more gun control laws need to be written or enacted but our nation's mental health care system needs to be improved.

For example, a local LEO was shot and killed by a thug wielding a stolen gun 3 days ago. All the gun laws in the nation would not have kept the stolen gun out of the perp's hands. He was already a thug, why would any new laws keep him from getting a gun? They won't.

What can be done? Taking the firearms away from people like me is not proper and unconstitutional along with restricting the lawful purchase of firearms and ammunition.

Thoughts from this crowd would be a nice change. Most of the other folks I run with are far right with no answers other than "fuck Obama and the lefties, they ain't takin' my guns" with no real ideas or thoughts of substance.

Last edited by ErikS on 10/3/15 5:13 AM; edited 1 time in total

10/2/15 6:10 AM

With the current situation of approximately one gun for every man, woman and child in the US it will take decades of buy-backs before stolen guns stop being an issue.

The second amendment is a mess; my opinion as a non-lawyer.

quote:

---

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

---

10/2/15 6:46 AM

A couple of thoughts…
First, be careful of pinning gun violence on the mentally ill--most mental illness is not violent, and further stigmatization of already stigmatized conditions can prevent people from seeking help. I agree that mental health services are inadequate.

Your statement that "All the gun laws in the nation would not have kept the stolen gun out of the perp's hands." seems wrong to me. That might be true in the particular case, but as daddy-o points out, it's a numbers game. The sheer volume of guns makes it more likely that guns end up in the wrong hands. Plus, other nations have shown that strict gun laws reduce gun violence.

I can't see our country becoming Norway or Japan (although if I could wave a magic wand…) considering the strong gun culture and reality of our history. Such an attempt would probably cause a second Civil War. I heard an interesting podcast of On Point with Tom Ashbrook that focused on reframing the gun conversation as a public health issue.
http://onpoint.wbur.org/2015/08/31/wdbj-shooting-american-gun-control
Rather than talk of banning guns, work on finding ways to make guns and gun ownership safer. Ideas mentioned were things like trigger locks, gun licensing, required gun training, limits on numbers of guns, required insurance for gun owners.

My question for you, Erik S…are any restrictions on gun ownership like the above acceptable under your interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Does the second amendment allow completely unfettered access to guns, or can guns be treated like another ubiquitous deadly weapon--the automobile!

Thanks for being willing to engage people with differing views in a civil manner!

Cheers,
David

10/2/15 10:14 AM

I have no issue with licenses being required to handle arms just like a car but I do have issue with them costing anything.

Insurance riders? Well I carry one for firearms and our bikes. Once again as long as the costs remain very low. Imposing excessive fees is a way of back door restrictions.

The 2nd is a mess but the common belief is that the founders wanted to ensure an armed population could revolt against an oppressive government like they did. I support this interpretation.

Arms that are owned should never be registered with the government because that could easily lead to confiscation by the gov. This would be contrary to the 2nd as I read it.
I support the NFA that restricts ownership of fully automatic arms but I don't support the portion that restricts suppressor. For my hearing health I would love to be able to put a can on my hunting arms. Wearing earplugs is not viable when deer hunting and even a single shot will ring your ears for days.
Enact better health care for the mentally ill and go back to state and federal funded facilities. People who commit these horrid crimes are ill that is the common thread. There are hundreds of millions of healthy law abiding people who never commit violent acts of any kind.

10/2/15 10:29 AM

I find myself wondering if the 1st person shooter games of post x-gen era play a part. It sure seems reflected by the age of shooters in these events in recent years.

Constitutional interpretations aside, I can say I am sick, and well tired of gun violence being in the news EVERY FOOKIN DAY. Yes, I am a gun owner, and my kids are, we get all that under our roofs.

Something is askew, the mentality of grenade launching and full auto weapons lust in the minds of some youth seems problematic. Is there a state of sensitivity missing to the idea of pointing a weapon at folks and role playing games like Doom, and followers?

I hear the arguments that assault style weapons as not being needed for hunting etc. But is it realistic to expect the 'end user' to not be attracted to tech. Just as cyclists get and embrace Di2 and carbon bikes et al, enthusiasts of other 'sports' [ambiguous use?] embrace what tech has to offer other toys/tools. How does that get regulated legislatively?

Last edited by Sparky on 10/2/15 1:27 PM; edited 1 time in total

10/2/15 11:04 AM

On the one hand, I don't believe small arms (guns) is an effective weapon for revolt against an oppressive government in this day and age. Just look at what happened in middle east. Having access to small arms have no correlation to the success of overthrowing the government!

On the other hand, I subscribe to the idea of people being the problem not guns. There're other countries that has high gun ownership without the same gun violence. There's the potential to have your cake and eat it too.

(although I don't own any guns myself, many of friend do. And I quite enjoy the occasional target practice I got invited to -- I used to be a pretty decent shooter myself, though my eye sight is hindering me these days)

With that said, I also believe the "numbers game" of having far too many guns easily available is a significant contributing factor. So, making gun purchase restrictive is an effective measure.

Basically, I don't think any one-size-fit-all gun ban will be effective at all. Some balance should be maintained so responsible gun owners can enjoy their past time. The problem is NRA decided ANY gun control is too much gun control. So there will never be any discussion of control whatsoever. We can discuss it, but it'll be for our own entertainment only.

Mental health is a separate issue. Solve the gun proliferation, mentally ill will have much less access to do massive damage. It should only be a single line item in a well-crafted comprehensive gun control policy, not a quick fix response to some sensational headline.

10/2/15 12:28 PM

"There are hundreds of millions of healthy law abiding people who never commit violent acts of any kind."

Responsible gun owners like yourself oftens seen to assume that they will always remain mentally healthy. Mental illness like any illness can affect anyone. Mental illness like schizophrenia often has on onset for men in their 20s. People are all healthy and law abiding until they aren't.

David

10/2/15 1:54 PM

@april.

Well actually small arms have proven themselves as VERY effective at overthrowing well armed governments, ours, Lybia, Iraq (current and past) Afghanastan (current and past), Syria is in disarray also. Egypt.

Privately owned small arms have been the downfall of dictators and empire builders like the USSR and USA.

@david

That is when the healthcare providers should step in. BTW the .mil providers do step in and take away the access to all weapons large and small if a pt presents with mental health issues. This includes privately owned arms if the pt resides on the installation.

@sparky I concur. I do think there is a tie to the gamers being desensitized to the violence. My children have all been exposed to hunting and know first hand what it is to take life. I feel this actually has given them greater respect for life. Seeing a sentient life snuffed out by you is sobering. Games don't have that affect.

People murder with knives, hammers, screwdrivers, rope, their hands etc. How do we draw a line?

10/2/15 4:07 PM

"Arms that are owned should never be registered with the government because that could easily lead to confiscation by the gov. This would be contrary to the 2nd as I read it. "

"That is when the healthcare providers should step in. BTW the .mil providers do step in and take away the access to all weapons large and small if a pt presents with mental health issues. This includes privately owned arms if the pt resides on the installation."

I trust you can see for yourself the incompatibility of these two statements.

David

10/2/15 4:15 PM

Mental health care is NOT a replacement of gun control! Even less so as an excuse for NOT to consider gun control. You'll never be able to have 100% success rate in mental healthy care. It just obscures the issue.

In fact, by associating gun violence with ONLY mentally ill, it's pushing mental health care in the wrong direction. Everyone can now blame the health care system for their irresponsible behavior, with or without involving guns.

10/2/15 4:29 PM

As someone on the left I find the talk of guns in the hands of individuals as a hedge against gov't tyranny to be quite unsettling. Think about the way many on the right have reacted to the Obama presidency with overblown rhetoric and paranoia. Consider people like Ben Carson comparing Obamacare with slavery. What will happen if a socialist like Sanders gets elected president. Will that be seen as a just cause to overthrow the gov't. Single payer health care! Tyranny! I'm honestly more afraid of self-styled patriots causing mayhem then our gov't that has remained remarkably stable over a long and tumultuous history.

10/2/15 5:18 PM

I have not in any way advocated overthrow of the .gov. Uh nope, no need at all. I stated that is why the founding fathers included it in constitution. I then pointed out that small arms in the hands of the population has done just that in even the 21st century. Military bases do require home owned firearms to be registered but remember for all intents and purposes when I wore a uniform I knew that I gave up many of the very rights that I swore to protect and uphold. I had very limited freedom of speech, restricted 2nd amendment rights if I lived on the federal property, my home could be searched without a search warrant, and other things that as a civilian I don't have removed or restricted. I can criticize the president, keep my firearms in my home unregistered, and others.

I also would challenge anyone to think that a mass shooter in a school or church or anywhere as not being more than a little mentally ill. That act in itself makes the illness plainly obvious to all of us.

I also don't feel that the provider of a mental pt stating the person is not fit to have access to arms as totally acceptable. If the medical community abuses this to seize small arms on behalf of the .gov for no reason other than oppression, then that is unacceptable.

BTW, just so you know. I support Bernie Sanders and plan on voting for him if he makes it to the ticket. I understand there will be compromises and feel that things should be approached from all angles.

I won't support Clinton because she is a crook and a carpet bagger. I think her husband did a pretty good job as president but not such a good job in other areas of his life. Her, nope, she is just tagging on his coat tails and always has. Trump is a nut, nuff said.

This is a smart crowd, provide some compromise ideas. Face it, you can't get 500 million firearms from their owners. That is not an option.

Last edited by ErikS on 10/3/15 5:17 AM; edited 1 time in total

10/2/15 5:33 PM

Not sure what the solution is. Magazine limits don't help-you can change out 5's plenty fast on an AR to kill lots of folks before the leo arrive. Mental health? Sure, but the killer would need to avail himself, and good luck with that. Given the current state of affairs, its likely insoluble. Not that we shouldn't try, or at least try token reform.

10/2/15 7:37 PM

First, mental health:
The same people who reject Obamacare will never agree to "state and federal funded facilities." The current public-private partnership that replaced the 'warehouse' system was a Reagan era shift. With 21st century medication management the partnership is getting better, IMO.

Impetus of the second amendment:
Yes, absolutely, the 2nd was a product of its time. The population was under imminent threat by the king. It's also vague, which probably helped the framers concentrate on other amendments.

"small arms have proven themselves as VERY effective at overthrowing well armed governments"

I can't think of any examples in the list to support the statement. Iraq? Hectoring with IEDs and small arms sure, but what drew the US away was lack of support at home because OIL/OIF/the occupation/the reconstruction were mismanaged (at best.) Any argument that we were pushed out is easily undermined. If anything the lawyers and politicians in both countries couldn't find the will when no strategic alliance was signed in 2008. Iraq would not agree to immunity for US personnel. How can you fight a war if you are under threat of murder charges? The US essentially would not pay them enough for that immunity. No agreement, we leave.

If the arab spring is the measure, not many people have escaped dictatorship because of their seeming abundance of fully automatic Kalashnikovs.

If ISIL is the measure, small arms were leverage to dislodge heavy weapons. Acquisition of heavy weapons marked the beginning of territorial gains.

I think we can all agree by the time the United States resembles the mid-east, the second amendment will be the least of our concerns.

Accurately to scale:

10/2/15 9:14 PM

"I think we can all agree by the time the United States resembles the mid-east, the second amendment will be the least of our concerns."

Thanks for that. Being how close this last one is to me kind of... Well, something.

This is the world in which we live...

10/3/15 2:10 AM

I agree about the possibility of video games (and movies) playing a role, by embedding imagery in youngster's brains that can be triggered later, when the person is under an "ill" level of stress.

The imagery I am referring to is that of someone blasting away at other people, instantly solving their immediate problem in the process, whether it is a gaming competition or a real/imagined/created confrontation.

All the visual violence imagery stuff is a dangerous indictment of a culture imo, and an invitation to illness, death-is-the-answer fantasies, and depravity.
It's the same sort of domination power trip that leads some drivers to road rage, and all one has to do is imagine that all the people and drivers around them are "the bad guys".
What motivates the persistent purveyors of violent imagery? Money, ok, but makes one wonder "who they work for", ...like as preparation of masses of people for low-level Blackwater/military field jobs?

10/3/15 4:01 AM

"preparation of masses"

Hopefully that's healthy paranoia and I mean that in the best of ways.

They work for the stockholders.

But their SDK can be used by third parties.

10/3/15 5:33 AM

Does anyone know the time period that the .gov quit running mental health systems and turned it over to the "for profit" medical industry? I would also like to know when the FPS games became the game of choice for young white males.

I would like to compare it to the rush of mass killings.

I totally understand that correlation does always not reflect causation.

When health care is "for profit" the care is available to those who have the money or insurance. If a person does not have the means to pay, they are turned to the street even if that is not in the best interest of the population or the individual.

Health care should be a right to everyone. Our nation is amiss to not understand this. Most humans are naturally altruistic and the very concept of medical care being for profit is contrary to that nature. The rest of the world see this, so should we.

10/3/15 7:49 AM

Basic health care should be a right to everyone.

But even the "rest of the world" do encourage for profit health services, whether it's for faster access or more advance technology. Many countries have two-tier public-private health care systems

Money is one of the most powerful driving force for advancement and development of better products. It just shouldn't come at the price of depriving the poor access to even basic care.

10/3/15 9:16 AM

...over the past 50 years, which is the real source of our current problems. When I was a kid, people solved disputes with arguments that perhaps escalated to fist fights. The idea never came into our minds to use weapons; that would have been the last resort. These days, it seems that the first resort for even the most minor disputes is extreme violence, typically involving a weapon.

Why? Good question, but I really have to believe that it's largely been caused by the increasingly violent imagery that we have been bombarded with, both by the "entertainment" industry and also in the news. While it's popular to single out violent video games as the main culprit - and they certainly deserve it - but I think people really underestimate the role of the 24 hour new cycle. When one can literally see the same violent images hundreds of times in a single day, it has to have a damaging effect. That's where the "numbness" comes from.

Additionally, these same news outlets are responsible for plastering the images of murderers all over and making them famous. The comments made online by the Oregon shooter really sum up the mass shooting problem. The more damage you do, the more of a splash you make on the news and the more people will remember you. This like catnip for the alienated, marginalized, bullied and disturbed in our society. I was really pleased that local law enforcement refused to mention the murderer's name on camera. If only that could be duplicated nationwide...

As for gun control laws, they have never worked and never will, simply because anyone willing to commit a serious crime with a firearm doesn't care about the law in general, so a gun law isn't even going to be a consideration. It's also important to understand that gun violence is actually a symptom of a much large problem, not the disease.

It's easy to make guns into the "boogeyman" and politicians are always quick to reach for simple, "feel good" opportunities, as opposed to having to work on real solutions to large and complicated problems. Restricting the rights of law-abiding gun owners is not going to make even a tiny dent in the problem, yet that's pretty much all that has been proposed. Gun hating politicians know that and they don't care, as their agenda is to ban guns, not solve problems. Obama's Justice Department has done nothing to enforce existing gun laws (look at Biden's comments on why more people haven't been charged when caught by background checks, "we don't have time for that") and as the whole "gun walking" scandal revealed, they've actually undermined enforcement in a effort to try to promote an anti-gun agenda. This abuse should deeply disturbing to every American, whether you own guns or not.

It has taken decades for our society to devolve into its current state and there is no quick fix for what ails us. I don't have an answer, but I know that restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens is not it. That is the ultimate slippery slope.

10/3/15 12:55 PM

Everybody is looking for solution that would only limit someone else's right but not their own!

The media defends their right of free speech. The gun lobby defends their right of 2nd amendment. The killing continues.

Everybody defends their right but nobody wants any responsibility that comes with those rights. My right to put my foot down used to stop when it meets your toes. No more.

That's the change. Freedom without responsibility. That's the "new normal".

10/3/15 1:44 PM

and Brian for the win. Swing and hit.

Any ideas for a solution?

I can remember as a teenager going to school late after duck hunting with my shotgun in a gun rack in the window of my truck and parking it like that in the school parking lot. Me and 15 other guys did it often during the season. Never thought the gun was a solution to the issues that teens run in to.

10/3/15 3:57 PM

Saw this on FB, some food for thought about our screwed up political system and priorities.

"How about we treat every young man who wants to buy a gun like every young women who wants an abortion - mandatory 48hr. waiting period, parental permission, a note from his doctor proving he understands what he is about to do, a video he as to watch about the effects of gun violence, an ultrasound up the A _ _ (just because). Then lets close down all but one gun shop in every state and make him travel hundreds of miles, take time off from work and stay overnight in a strange town to get a gun. Make him walk a gauntlet of people holding photo's of loved ones who were shot to death, people who call him a murderer and beg him not to buy a gun.

It makes more sense to do this with young men and guns then with women and health care, Right ?. I mean no women getting an abortion has killed a room full of people in seconds, right ?"

10/3/15 4:58 PM

Of course I support neither.

Texas has really messed up the women's right to chose to say the least.

10/3/15 5:06 PM

Brian, I do find your cultural shift hypothesis to be pretty compelling. I teach in an elementary school and have first grade students with The Walking Dead as their favorite tv show. So, I'm your ally in looking at long term solutions and creating a better, healthier culture. I think many or most of the people who want gun control also decry the excessive violence of popular culture. But, since this is the culture we have, shouldn't gun policy reflect that reality. Shouldn't it be more difficult for irresponsible, angry, marginalized people to get guns. I don't know that I can accept your sweeping statement that gun control has never, and can never work. What is your response to the examples of other industrialized countries that don't have this violence problem. They have violent media, mental illness, and marginalized youth as well. Do you really think there is no way to reduce the numbers of guns that get in the wrong hands. We didn't used to have to take our shoes off at the airport or need a passport to go to Canada, but times have changed and the rules have changed in response. Why not the same for gun laws?