Limiting access to firearms seems to be the way things are moving. I think this is difficult. People are talking about banning people with mental disorders from purchasing firearms. How can this be done without violating someones privacy. Lets say someone sees a shrink because of depression, this person is more likely to use the gun on their own person than shoot up a night club. Do we ban everyone with a history of mental health issues from legally purchasing a firearm? Or do we only ban people with certain disorders from purchasing a weapon? James Holmes had a history of issues and was seeing a psychiatrist. Do we ban people with psychotic disorders from legally purchasing firearms? How would that be done? If someone comes into to see a shrink would they have a legal obligation to put that persons name in a database which with disqualify them from purchasing a weapon? The Sandy Hook guy had a well known struggle with psychotic disorders, I forget how he got his weapons. I do think its unreasonable to say people who have a history of psychotic issues should be banned from legally purchasing any firearm, but that would be difficult to work out. Opponents will say slippery slope but I don't think anyone will argue a paranoid schizophrenic should be able to legally purchase a weapon. This last guy, he was on the FBI's radar. Should anyone who's been investigated by the FBI be prevented from legally purchasing a firearm? As far as I know he didn't have a history of psychotic disorders but I'm not sure. That could easily lead to the government oppression that many people fear. It seems like some people unreasonably fear that the nice guy from the West will have his firearms taken away. I think with reasonable screening procedures and policies this won't happen. There are rules to driving a car. A car can easily be a dangerous. People with certain health issues aren't allowed to drive, I don't think this violates their rights. Similarly I don't think screening people for psychotic disorders violates their rights. Some will argue this will make people more hesitant to seek help and will drive them deeper underground and make them more likely to commit acts. I don't buy that. I think there needs to be a societal shift with this. I think the community needs to embrace those with mental health challenges and ensure community resources are in place to help them Most people with mental health issues don't enjoy their disorder, they want relief. I think having more community centers where they can walk in and get that help along with preventing those with psychotic disorders from legally purchasing firearms won't stop these mass shootings, but I do think it can go a long way to helping communities across the country. I think this issues needs to be more about local communities and how to improve those local communities. Helping the mentally ill, and keeping people more safe will do that.
Start by overturning the ban they just extended last year barring the CDC from doing any research at all related to gun violence that the NRA basically strong-armed them into passing. Explain to me how researching an already known, documented issue is still somehow infringing on the rights of gun owners who have never shot anyone?
Australia keeps getting thrown around as an example. Something like that ideally is needed, but will never happen. N-E-V-E-R. We can all stand here and know in our hearts the country would be better off with less guns. I cannot fathom a scenario were Americans would line up at their local police or armory and surrender their firearms to be destroyed. My other thought is to pinch off sales of guns and more importantly ammunition. Chris Rock's joke that no one would get shot accidentally if bullets cost $5000 has truth to it. Again, enacting that law would create a black market for guns the way we presently have a black market for drugs. It would also be nice if a politician stood up and said something like, "Guys, the Constitution was not issued from the mount carved in stone. It is not an infallible document. Its authors could never envision the modern world we live in. We don't have a god-given right to own any gun we want."
Yup, totally agree with you here. It is a very tricky proposition to try to ban some people, but not others, from owning firearms. I think we all agree that felons and juveniles shouldn't be able to purchase them, but beyond that, you're dead right, it's hard to say. And Hinckley is a great example, by the way, because again, we can't know what someone will do before they do it, and legislation to that end rarely works. This is my concern with this line of thinking as well. You'll have a chilling effect on people just trying to access health care and get well. Plus, I'm not sure how much of an impact it will have. Ultimately, not sure how you split that hair. I couldn't agree more. Instead of allowing politics to skew the results, let's get some real research on what's going on. Who knows, maybe gun violence isn't that bad. I'm not being facetious, but due to the politicalization of this issue I view any research from either side with a very jaundiced eye. And finally, agreed. The only serious way to impact this issue is to amend the Constitution. We've done it 17 times already, but ultimately, I agree with you, we're hypocrites. We love our guns to death.
As I remember it the person that headed the push for studies within the CDC was a know gun control supporter and had made comments or supported the idea of tackling gun control through the CDC. To use it as a political means to an end.
Yes, of course the cops did (and I certainly would advocate for cops having weapons, even if there was a ban for everyone else, for the foreseeable future), but that was after 49 people were dead. Given your hypothetical, I'd rather be cowering in the bathroom while a guy was outside with a bat, or a knife, instead of a gun. The problem with that hypothetical is it always presumes that the bad guy has a gun. How about where bad guys and good guys don't have any? That's my point. Once the 'good guys' have guns, the 'bad guys' end up getting access to them as well. Except the 'good guys' never seem to be around in time to prevent getting shot by the 'bad guy.' Look, ultimately, I don't really care about the final result - as strange as that seems. My point is solely my annoyance over the hypocrisy - on both sides - in the dialogue. Let's be honest, let's get the facts, and let's be willing to actually say 'hey, freedom costs blood - always - but you don't get to choose whose blood.' That is my point.
How likely do you think it is that person could accidentally shoot an innocent person who was running to the bathroom looking to hide but was mistaken for a gunmen? We aren't allowed guns on planes, we're at the mercy of TSA, government groups and air marshalls. Should we be allowed guns on planes? What if the worst case scenario happens and the plane is hijacked, wouldn't you rather have a weapon instead of relying on sheer luck and other people to save you?
So because one guy had an agenda, nobody else in the country should allowed to even look into the subject? And the reason it was banned in the first place? Because the research that was done initially back in the '90's showed an increased likelihood in homicide and suicide in homes that had a gun in them, which the NRA then "persuaded" pro-gun members of congress to enact the ban on all firearm research. So how isn't that also a political means to an end?
The problem with prohibition of any kind is that it will create a black market for it. Shit, you can even make guns and ammo from the comfort of your own bunker in Idaho, if you wanted. However, I do think that HIPAA needs to change to allow a list to be created to prevent the legitimate sale of guns to the mentally ill. I think that anybody that has been voluntarily or involuntarily committed, has been prescribed specific antipsychotic medications, is a juvenile, is undocumented, or has a criminal record gets added to that list. Anybody that's on that list can request that they be reviewed depending on the severity of the illness. If you sell a gun to someone that's on that list, you're responsible for any illegal activity that they commit with it. In the case of a private sale, I would assume that if you had a gun registered in your name, you wouldn't want it registered to you if you sold it simply because you'd be hassled if someone did something illegal with it. With that in mind, when you report the sale, having a copy of the purchaser's ID can allow law enforcement to check if that name/SSN is on that list or not. If it is, they'd get the gun back to the seller and absolve the seller of responsibility if the purchaser did something illegal. I think it would force gun sellers to think twice about selling to anybody that has the money. No, this isn't perfect but not doing anything is worse than this.
The CDC is supposed to be impartial as a government agency and scientific institution. The NRA is not.
And so is the SCOTUS from a legal perspective, but by your logic because they oftentimes rule in a manner consistent with their political ideologies, they should just be abolished from making any rulings related to gun? Or to make another current analogy, how about what's currently happening with congressmen currently trying to strip the FCC of their powers to enforce Net Neutrality guidelines? You have a major group of monopolistic corporations trying to "persuade" congress to strip the FCC of their ability to levy fines, make guidelines and other things when it comes to internet regulations. The current chairman, Tom Wheeler has been very publicly vocal about his opposition to the current IP model, so does that mean the FCC shouldn't be given any rights?
Let's take this back to the realm of common sense. No reasonable person could look at the scene and say, "Gosh, wouldn't it have been great if civilians were armed! Then people would be SAVED!" To answer your question, in a situation where you're cowering in a closet and a bad guy is peppering the room with gunfire, the police and/or military are your best hope, yes. We've all been to a nightclub. It'd dark. It's crowded. You can't hear anything well over the music and the yelling. Lights are flashing and odds are the room is hazy from cigarettes (if bylaws allow), or dry ice as an effect. No one there had a moment's thought of danger. You have to go from clueless and safe to running for your life in under, say, ten seconds. If an armed civilian was in that crowd, what does he do? He has no way of knowing how many shooters there are. He can't see anything clearly. There's mass panic and people running in every direction. His weapon is concealed, so he has to draw it clearly and not get it hung up on clothing. Even if he can identify one shooter, only people with huge amounts of training can steady their aim and fire accurately at a moving target under duress. And in the best case scenario, where a civilian has correctly identified a bad guy and can draw a bead on him, when the actual police kick in the door and start to take over, how do you let them know you're a good guy? How are you not just a part of the plot, at that stage of the game? Frontline did a show four years ago. They got together a group of college students. Some had no gun training at all; two claimed to be heavily experienced with firearms. Over the course of the day, they simulated a lecture in a theatre where a bad guy suddenly kicked open the door and fired into the room. In each go round, a different student was armed with a (fake) concealed weapon. I want to say they repeated the exercise with ten people. Knowing that this was a test, knowing that at some point the door would open and knowing that they WERE going to attempt to take down an assailant, not one single person managed to draw clean and fire accurate. Some got the gun stuck in their clothes. Others got shot by the assailant because they weren't running for cover (instead they were trying to pull a weapon). Still others shot their classmates by accident. And this with PRIOR KNOWLEDGE that an attack would happen. It's exceedingly rare that an armed civilian is effective in a chaotic attack. They're far more likely to make the problem worse. Oh, and owning the gun makes your household way more likely (statistically) for someone to accidentally shoot someone; someone to shoot during a domestic dispute and someone to commit suicide. So the whole "personal protection" thing is a bit of a stretch, IMO.
Not viewable in Canada, but here's the Daily Show sending a correspondent to an introductory gun course then seeing if he can be useful in a crisis: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/12/11/9891664/daily-show-mass-shootings
Re: gun owners stepping up in heat - See: TJ Antell. Owner of a CrossFit gym back home, helluva nice guy, Marine veteran, CHL carrier. Stepped into a domestic disturbance where the male shot the female in the leg. TJ tried to detain the shooter until police arrived, drawing his own personal firearm. Shooter slapped the weapon out of TJ's hand and shot him in the face. It doesn't always work in real life like it does in our heads.
I'd say the days of cowering and hoping the police can get to you in time have long since passed. I've always thought in these mass shootings we are going to have to have a 9/11 Flight 93 change in thought on how we deal with situations as they are occurring (Ben Carson was eviscerated for suggesting this and Adam Carolla fans will recognize the argument). You wait you are going to die. As far as civilians firing back. I do not believe for a second it is a cure all as some suggest. It is risky, even police have pathetically low hit rates. Id still want someone anyone with a gun firing back. Delaying a shooter for mere seconds could help save lives. You risk innocent deaths or injuries in the face of certain death or injuries to innocents.
First of all, aside from some psycho militia types, not many gun owners are buying firearms for the off-chance that they may end up in a gun battle with a mass shooter. As a gun owner, thats pretty retarded. They buy them for home protection or personal protection in the home. Not every place in the US is an urban or suburban area where a well funded police department is right around the corner. I grew up in a town where there was 1 resident state trooper and he was at least 15 minutes away. And if you think nothing happens, my neighbor murdered his wife with a hammer and burned the house down. There are countless examples where someone has stopped a home invasion or a robbery or worse because they were armed, it just rarely makes national news. In even more rural areas, having a firearm is a way of life. Why do you think Bernie Sanders barely touched upon guys during any of his campaigning? Vermonters would crucify him. For a group that generally distrusts police authority, its surprising how many people are willing to give them 100% of the power.
I can only speak for myself. It's not that I love guns -- I have a healthy respect for them and under some circumstances and in the certain hands I do fear them. I simply only trust myself. I don't trust the police to protect me. I certainly don't trust the government. Sad, but it's true. Actually I'm typing this while eating lunch in my car, and there is a .380 within arm's reach. I hope to never use it. But if I have to use it, I have the training to use it effectively, safely (except for the attacker) and only under the proper circumstances. I'm not so sure I can say the same about the police.
To continue with this point, how do other legal gun owners know you're a good guy? It's dark, loud music, you hear shots fired, pull your concealed weapon out and another legal gun owner sees you holding a gun. How do you know he's not going think you're another shooter? Conversely, could you make that call with people running around screaming and adrenaline turned to 11?
This is the scariest proposal I've read in this whole discussion. Why do the cops need guns if no one else is allowed to have them? It seems like I may have read a couple stories about incidents that started violence and riots when cops used a gun and "shouldn't" have. I think that would happen more often with the idea that "well, you KNOW they weren't armed, because only cops can have guns." Or, is this scenario only cops and criminals have guns? That doesn't seem safer to me. I think there are many, many times more gun owners who use their weapon responsibly (or don't use at all) than there are wack jobs that shoot up a crowd, so to think there is a law or laws that can fix the outlier problem is silly. Finding a way that actually limits access to guns by the wack job will limit them to everyone, unnecessarily imo. And, eliminating their access to guns just means they will use a bomb or car or whatever to do their perversion instead.
"It is almost always a crime to possess a firearm while under the influence of alcohol or any controlled substance. Many states also prohibit people from carrying a firearm into establishments that serve liquor (such as bars and nightclubs), even with a concealed carry permit, and even if you are not drinking." http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/is-it-illegal-possess-a-firearm-while-under-influence