Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Gun control in the US

Posted Jan 20, '13 at 12:01am

Getoffmydangle

Getoffmydangle

148 posts

Such a large portion of gun crimes are criminal on criminal.

Right, so probably illegal guns, so if guns were even slightly harder to buy, maybe one or two hoops to jump through, the trickle down to the illegal gun market would slow down.  Its also very relevant to the extreme violence in the drug cartel wars.  They are buying all of the guns they use from US retailers.  I don't see why is such a bad thing to make getting those guns just a little bit more difficult. 
I think the everyday gun violence that has become commonplace is more important to deal with than the mass shootings that get media coverage.  And the way to do that is a complete holistic approach that treats the root causes of the violence not just the symptoms.  Making guns harder to get is just one way.  It won't solve all the problems but if it denies one person from getting a gun that will kill an innocent person, and causes only minor inconveniences to some people, shouldn't we do it?

How often do intoxicated people buy guns and go on a shooting spree the same night? Is it really an issue worth addressing?

Think about the kind of person who would try to buy a gun while drunk.  Think about the decision making process of a drunk person period.  Drunk people, or people on drugs, have impaired decision-making functioning.  For the same reason they shouldn't operate heavy machinery, drive a car, juggle chain saws, or make important life decisions, they shouldn't be able to decide to buy a gun.  And seriously?  a Spree?  If they shoot one person is that not bad enough?

But, what would testing these people accomplish? Let's say we do test everyone, what do we do with the people who have anger issues? Do we refuse them the right to buy a gun?

I'm not necessarily advocating that, I was just responding to the previous anger comment.  I'm not in favor of making the medical/mental health profession the gatekeepers for gun ownership.

 

Posted Jan 20, '13 at 12:06am

Getoffmydangle

Getoffmydangle

148 posts

Sorry, forgot to add Re: the drunk person issue that I brought up.  The point is not that banning the sale of guns to drunk people would solve all the problems.  I'm definitely not saying that.  But it sure seems like a good, common sense idea.  And the NRA and other gun lobbying interests have so completely gummed up the political process that even things like background checks, which are favored by the majority of NRA members, stand very little chance of even being brought into the debate, even in the wake of an unspeakable tragedy.  Andy why is the NRA continuing to oppose background checks, to the point of ludicrous hyperbole, even when the majority of their own members support the idea?

 

Posted Jan 20, '13 at 10:49am

NoNameC68

NoNameC68

5,069 posts

Knight

Sorry, forgot to add Re: the drunk person issue that I brought up.  The point is not that banning the sale of guns to drunk people would solve all the problems.  I'm definitely not saying that.  But it sure seems like a good, common sense idea.  And the NRA and other gun lobbying interests have so completely gummed up the political process that even things like background checks, which are favored by the majority of NRA members, stand very little chance of even being brought into the debate, even in the wake of an unspeakable tragedy.  Andy why is the NRA continuing to oppose background checks, to the point of ludicrous hyperbole, even when the majority of their own members support the idea?

If you create a law tackling a non-issue, all you do is introduce more room for unintentional consequences.

Background checks are an invasion of privacy. This is why I'm very cautious when it comes to suggesting what information is and is not available.

 

Posted Jan 20, '13 at 1:50pm

Deth666

Deth666

670 posts

then there is something wrong whit the checks.

I'm not sure on that point. I've always thought that unstable people are not able to play sane long enough to go through the process of purchasing a gun. Criminals know they won't pass the background check and it's probably easier for them to buy a gun illegally off the street. I think most people pretty much know if they won't pass the background check and just don't try.

Pretty much where I'm at. Guns aren't harmless toys for anyone to go out and buy. Freedoms or no, if you want to own one, you should acknowledge the danger they pose in the hands of someone who will misuse it and go through the system for the good of the whole. Sure it's annoying, but so is getting a driver's license (which is a whole other thing I'm not going to rant about here).

I recognize your point and I mostly agree. I'm not against making it a little harder to own a gun (within reason), as long as your only disqualifying the people who should already be disqualified under the law.

Was more of thinking risk factors, such as previous suicide attempts and bipolar disorder. Not a stupid question, "are you depressed" or something.

I always assumed it would show up on the background check, as long as it was documented. No one who wants to commit suicide is going to go into a gun shop fill out paper work and then wait three days for their gun to kill themselves. Suicide just doesn't work that way. Some people have attempted suicide in the past and haven't ever done it again. Anti depressants do help people and a lot of those people are stable because of it. They're not all wackos waiting to shoot people.

you asked a few pages ago why doctors would report if someone's family members had guns.
The answer is because when a doctor suspects that someone poses a danger to themselves or others, part of the assessment is to determine 'access to lethal means.'  Obviously, guns in the home represents access to lethal means.  That is why they would have to ask, then doctors become mandated reporters and have to report this information to the authorities.  Thats just the way it is.  Its whats known as 'limits of confidentiality.' 

If a doctor think someone poses a danger to themselves or others, I don't think if they have a gun or not matters. If they're going to hurt someone they don't need a gun. "Access to lethal means" I have access to a dozen screwdrivers, a couple box cutters, 7 kitchen knives, golf clubs and a baseball bat, as well as many other potentially lethal objects. That's without guns. That's dumb, everyone has access to lethal means. A gun can't kill a person more than a screwdriver to the jugular will. Also, its not a chicken or the egg question, if a doctor believes they are a threat, then they're a threat, it doesn't matter if they have a gun or not.

I don't think there are enough people who use drugs that would result in extreme acts of violence to warrant a drug test. Of course, if someone has a criminal record for hard drug abuse (such as meth), then I'm okay with them being refused their right to buy a gun.

The usage of some types of drugs can cause violent behavior, psychosis, and a lot of other really crazy mental problems that would disqualify a person from owning a gun.

 

Posted Jan 25, '13 at 7:54pm

Getoffmydangle

Getoffmydangle

148 posts

”I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense,” he said. ”But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.”

-Ronald Reagan, Jan. 17th, 1989

Sadly I agree with the gipper

 

Posted Jan 26, '13 at 12:35am

Getoffmydangle

Getoffmydangle

148 posts

If a doctor think someone poses a danger to themselves or others, I don't think if they have a gun or not matters. If they're going to hurt someone they don't need a gun. "Access to lethal means" I have access to a dozen screwdrivers, a couple box cutters, 7 kitchen knives, golf clubs and a baseball bat, as well as many other potentially lethal objects. That's without guns. That's dumb, everyone has access to lethal means. A gun can't kill a person more than a screwdriver to the jugular will. Also, its not a chicken or the egg question, if a doctor believes they are a threat, then they're a threat, it doesn't matter if they have a gun or not.

Just to explore this with you a little, what do you think a doctor would do if they came to reasonably suspect that their patient was posing a threat to themselves or someone else?  It doesn't sound like you are fully aware of the step by step practical reality of that kind of situation. 
First you assess ideation, then plan, then intent, then means.  If the doctor has a reasonable suspicion that they are realistically thinking about hurting someone or themselves, access to the means to those intentions is a critically important factor.  For example, If they are living with their parents, you would want to tell the parents to remove any weapons, sharps, medications, and toxins from their reach, by removing them from the house or locking them up.  Most people who think about hurting themselves or someone else are not fully committed to doing so.  So steps to reduce their likelihood are always taken and usually the first line of defense.  Also they are generally not thinking clearly, so they are likely to not resort to McGuyver-esque means. 

Not doing these preventative things leaves doctors, psychiatrists, psychologists, and therapists liable for malpractice lawsuits if somebody ends up getting hurt.  They would lose money, their career, their license and their reputation.

However, As you astutely pointed out, short of physical containment, there is no way to completely stop somebody from hurting themsleves or someone else if they are determined.  Therefore doctors need to take the necessary steps as provided by law, to carry out their duties and protect themselves from lawsuits.  If simply controlling access to means is not going to be sufficient to prevent violence from happening, then the doctor must notify the police (and the intended victim) or have the person hospitalized.

 

Posted Jan 26, '13 at 3:49pm

Getoffmydangle

Getoffmydangle

148 posts

Background checks are an invasion of privacy. This is why I'm very cautious when it comes to suggesting what information is and is not available.

If you want a drivers license you have to jump through hoops and submit to a background check.  If you want many different kinds of jobs, you have to submit to a background check.  If you want a loan or a credit card, they do a background check.  If you buy a house they do a background check.  If you run for office, people do background checks.  If you want to travel internationally...etc.  This is the world we live in and background checks happen all the time.  Why would the line at background checks stop when buying a gun?

If you create a law tackling a non-issue, all you do is introduce more room for unintentional consequences.

There are laws against selling Alcohol to someone who has had too much alcohol!  Why? because its dangerous.  So that drunk person, who can't legally drive a car, get on a plane, go to work, go to school, or even be out in public (yes, being drunk in public is a crime), but that person Can Still Buy a Firearm!!!  If a drunk person buying a gun is less dangerous than those other things, then maybe its me who's crazy.  And to address your point, what exactly are the unintentional consequences of a law banning the sale of guns to drunk people?

 

Posted Jan 26, '13 at 4:50pm

Vongoethe

Vongoethe

27 posts

That you started this thread with the premise "I defy  you to provide a reason to own a gun", leaves me speechless. I live in the hill country, know many people in the mountains.

They don't deliver food here. You grow it, you hunt it, you fish it.

Ever tried hunting with a rock? Traps are dangerous to everything, can't use that. I find this kind of naïve discussion of guns annoying. Surprise, people with degrees retire into the wild to get away from this sort of thing. Yet you still can't leave us alone. Shame on you.

 

Posted Jan 26, '13 at 4:59pm

HahiHa

HahiHa

4,947 posts

Knight

Ah, because now all shootings happen in the hill country? Using guns for hunting is fine, but hunting is not a reason to possess an arsenal to arm a whole village, nor do people in bigger cities necessarily hunt. Don't take it too personally, pal.

 

Posted Jan 29, '13 at 7:07pm

samy

samy

4,336 posts

Yet you still can't leave us alone. Shame on you.

Nah, if gun owners stopped killing people (aka not leaving the rest of society alone) this point might have weight; however, in light of reality, it's not.

I live in the hill country, know many people in the mountains.

That's great, I hope you continue to live there and practice your culture. I do not, though, see a reason as to why you need weapons and accessories that may be banned in the currently proposed legislation. You can hunt with semiautomatic weapons with magazines of 10 bullets or less, you can even hunt with bolt actions weapons. It's not that difficult.

 
Reply to Gun control in the US

You must be logged in to post a reply!