Gun rights
 

Ok, I wanted to ask and start a debate on gun rights. I know a lot has been posted in the Newtown shooting thread, but wanted to focus that debate here.

I just have one question about the debate...how much money would the NRA, and the Gun manufacturers lose IF there were to be another assault weapons ban?

BG

To be honest I don't care about the NRA lol. I don't see a full ban happening in the US any time soon, but I don't see why anyone needs a gun other than for hunting (which I'm not a fan of, but whatever).

^ Self-defense. That's all I'm going to say on that topic.

Personally, I'm not totally against an assault-weapons ban. What really irks me is the way that the media promotes their own agenda and refuses to discuss any other solutions to help end violence other than gun control. Mental illness needs to be discussed as much, if not more, than gun control.

PLEASE, if you're going to start this thread, define your terms.

What do *YOU* mean by "assault weapon"?

Given that so many publicly involved in this debate think a black stock and pistol grip make a .22 rifle into an "assault weapon", it would be useful to start from a common point.

Ok, I'll make it easier. Is the NRA or congress really looking out for our safety or does this whole issue really revolve around the gun manufacturers and the amount of money they would lose if a ban on any weapons were to be enforced....

To me, it seems that the issue is always about money and not much else.....it's all talk on one side or the other.....

And I guess I was referring to "assault" weapons as being defined by the media or congress...

Self-defense against what, though? If it's against other guns, that doesn't alleviate the violence in situations. :/

I agree with this. However I don't think it's fair to say that only the liberal media is promoting their own agenda. The right wing media is just as bad.

Why is this issue always so "right side, left side"? I've read a lot from other countries and they never seem to make such issues so polarized....

I'll play, but only for a moment. I've had this discussion on this forum some time ago, and the level of discourse at this time in most every medium has kept me out.

If Congress or the administration wanted to do something for *safety*, they'd address simultaneously firearms laws, mental health laws, and societal violence. The fact they have not tells me they are using a tragedy to further a political agenda.

The fact they're attempting to ban standard-capacity magazines (which they call "high-capacity" and "clips" and dozens of other terms), semi-automatic rifles (which they call "automatic weapons" and other terms), and cosmetic features of standard rifles means they're playing games.

The fact they're exempting law-enforcement officers (in many cases, to include such "officials" as off-duty states' attorneys, city treasurers, etc.) says they're playing games. Granted, NY forgot to exempt police, but it's coming.

Firearms manufacturers are not the ones who will profit. FOR THE MOST PART, I suspect it will be the middle man, the dealer. As it should be. Supply and demand. I know I got soaked after the 2008 elections for an AK-47; others are doing the same thing now. (Why do I *need* an AK-47? Why did Rosa Parks *need* to sit at the front of the bus? I wanted one, and could afford it.)

Ammo manufacturers cannot keep up with the demand, so prices are going up. When Congress doesn't have the votes to pass bans, the prices will come back down.

The NRA won't lose anything. "The NRA" is being used to refer collectively to gun owners, a significant number of whom are not NRA members. NRA uses this to try to coerce gun owners to send them money; the more anti-freedom our gun laws become, the more money NRA can beg for. In fact, I would not be surprised if the NRA doesn't cave on some of the administration's requests - not because it's the right thing to do, but because they want to have leverage down the road.

On the self-defense issue, which I realize is not part of the original question ... I carry a firearm everywhere I legally can, because I never know where the next robber, rapist, meth head, or psychopath is coming from. I have been raped, and will NEVER let it happen again. In all the years I've carried, I've never used it, thank the gods. Only once have I had my hand on it, prepared (with my other hand on my phone) -- and there was a police officer not 40 feet away pointedly ignoring my assailant. One other time, I believe a bad guy came in to the business I was patronizing, but left when he saw my firearm. That was the sense I got from his demeanor, but since nothing happened, I'll never know if I'm one of the 2.5-million/year defensive handgun uses. I DO know that my area has significantly more handguns than a few miles away, and significantly lower crime rate. But not zero. I don't hunt. While I appreciate people who do, the 2nd Amendment is not about hunting.

Because a complete gun ban would never work. Criminals would obtain guns illegally, and law-abiding citizens would have no way to defend themselves against a psycho breaking down their door in the middle of the night (just as an example).

EDIT: I think I read your question wrong. I thought you were suggesting that no citizens own a gun (maybe you were?), and that was my response.

Yes, self-defense against criminals with guns. DGTess said it much better than I could, so I'll just refer to her response. The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, and police could be several minutes away.

I agree. However, I don't watch Fox News because I think they misinform their viewers, so I guess the liberal media seems louder to me.

Another thing that irks me is although I'm not completely against an assault weapon ban, I think the belief that it will help is ignorant. You can ban assault weapons all you want, but the crazy people will still be crazy. They will either a. Obtain a weapon illegally or b. do something else to murder mass numbers of people (ex. Oklahoma City bombing). As we can see from the fact that we can't take liquids onto planes, a bomb can be made of almost anything. Even without guns, the crazy people will find outlets for their craziness, for lack of a better word. That's why I think turning our focus, as a country, to treating mental illness will have a much better result in preventing violence.

I haven't really taken a side one way or another on this issue.

That being said, I'm tired of arguments and analogies being thrown around that really make no sense. An argument like this - "why get rid of guns if people will just find another way to kill anyway?" - is like arguing that people should be allowed to take liquids through security at the airport because people will find a way to blow up the plane anyway. To say that we shouldn't make something illegal because people will do it anyway.. well again.. I'm sure you can see why this argument falls flat without my having to explain it.

Another thing that I keep reading/hearing all over the place is, "Maybe we should ban cars, and knives, and alcohol.. because all of those things kill people, too!" Yes, that's true. But they're not specifically made to kill. A person drives a car and they get in an ACCIDENT, and another person is killed. They didn't get in their car so that they could kill someone on their way to work in the morning. Apples and oranges, people.

I will definitely agree, though, that some (or possibly all) of our attention should be on mental health.

Because that's how things are nowadays. It's sad. It's most likely a fact that more Republicans than Democrats believe that this gun ban talk is ludicrous, but any time I see someone argue against the ban, someone starts yelling, "You ignorant, redneck Republican!" and if someone argues for it, it's, "You hippy, big-government-loving Democrat!" There are so many assumptions thrown around peoples' political affiliation based on beliefs which us intelligent people know can cross party lines.

I wasn't saying that we shouldn't discuss gun control or make certain weapons illegal. I was saying that I believe there are other solutions that would be more successful.

Aurora, Newtown, and Va Tech, and OR, these were crimes by individuals who were I assume angry and just wanted to kill people, as many as they could, with weapons which were very easy to get their hands on.

Ok city bombing, I thought was a crime against the government? Stuff I read was that Mcveigh planned this attack not to just kill as many as he could, but as a terrorist attack towards the "establishment". Those being killed in the blast was just collateral damage....or am I wrong? (And I mean no disrespect to anyone whose lives were lost or ruined by these attacks, I'm trying to determine the mindset of WHY these crimes were committed).

EVERY political issue is this way. It's not unique to the gun control thing.

/hating the two-party system
/gets off soapbox

The things that Obama proposed do include improvements in the mental health system:

From the New York Times:
Proposed Congressional Actions
Requiring criminal background checks for all gun sales, including those by private sellers that currently are exempt.
Reinstating and strengthening the ban on assault weapons that was in place from 1994 to 2004.
Limiting ammunition magazines to 10 rounds.
Banning the possession of armor-piercing bullets by anyone other than members of the military and law enforcement.
Increasing criminal penalties for "straw purchasers," people who pass the required background check to buy a gun on behalf of someone else.
Acting on a $4 billion administration proposal to help keep 15,000 police officers on the street.
Confirming President Obama's nominee for director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
Eliminating a restriction that requires the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to allow the importation of weapons that are more than 50 years old.
Financing programs to train more police officers, first responders and school officials on how to respond to active armed attacks.
Provide additional $20 million to help expand the a system that tracks violent deaths across the nation from 18 states to 50 states.
Providing $30 million in grants to states to help schools develop emergency response plans.
Providing financing to expand mental health programs for young people.
Executive actions
Issuing a presidential memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.
Addressing unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.
Improving incentives for states to share information with the background check system.
Directing the attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.
Proposing a rule making to give law enforcement authorities the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.
Publishing a letter from the A.T.F. to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.
Starting a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.
Reviewing safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).
Issuing a presidential memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.
Releasing a report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and making it widely available to law enforcement authorities.
Nominating an A.T.F. director.
Providing law enforcement authorities, first responders and school officials with proper training for armed attacks situations.
Maximizing enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.
Issuing a presidential memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to research gun violence.
Directing the attorney general to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenging the private sector to develop innovative technologies.
Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
Releasing a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.
Providing incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.
Developing model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.
Releasing a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.
Finalizing regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within insurance exchanges.
Committing to finalizing mental health parity regulations.
Starting a national dialogue on mental health led by Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, and Arne Duncan, the secretary of education.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...-proposal.html

I still don't think any of it will make a difference. There are some crazy people out there who will get their hands on weapons and who will shoot large numbers of people. That's just how it is.

As for the car thing... people have killed purposely with a car. People have also committed suicide by semi and by train. The latest thing in NYC is to shove people onto subway tracks.

There is no solution. People want a solution, but there isn't one. But personally, some of the scariest people I know have CCWs and that creeps me out. Personally, I can't weigh in on the assault weapon thing because I don't really understand how that is defined. I will never own a gun. I will never touch one. I know I could never pull that trigger and take a life. I'm not mentally capable. What others want to do is up to them. It's anecdotal, but most people I know who own guns (other than for just hunting) are some of the most hot headed people I've ever encountered.

I don't particularly like the concept of executive orders. Not a fan.

What is your objection to them?

I just don't like how they surpass Congress. I know our Congress right now is fairly split and has a habit of not getting much done. But, the point of the three different branches of government is so that one branch doesn't get out of control. I know executive orders are necessary, they just rub me the wrong way sometimes.

Executive Orders exist because as the President he can give orders. It's part of the three branch system. It's the executive branch.

Anyway, too much is made of the mental health angle. Just because someone shoots a lot of people does NOT mean they are mentally ill. SOME shooters are mentally ill, but they are more likely to be completely competent. Jared Loughner was schizophrenic and may have benefitted from mental health services, but there is no proof that the Newtown shooter had any history of mental illness whatsoever. Not only is it problematic for people to even recognize that people are mentally ill, once they have been identified, practitioners have a TERRIBLE track record of determining whether a mentally ill patient is prone to violence. If the patient doesn't specifically come out and say, "I'm going to hurt myself or kill others," it's a crapshoot. The act of shooting people is not a mental illness in and of itself, as much as people would like to think it is. Owning a gun is a more likely indicator of gun violence than mental illness. Saying a discussion of mental illness is more important than a discussion of guns is ridiculous.

Going on a shooting rampage isn't normal. There was someone wrong with Adam Lanza - whether it would be characterized as mental illness, I'm not sure - and he was not right in the head.

That does not mean he had a treatable, definable mental illness that any legislation would do anything about. Criminals do a lot of mean, hateful things. We don't chalk that up to mental illness. People do awful things because they do things at the spur of the moment without thinking about the consequences or because they are selfish and don't care about others. They may lack empathy. That's still not mental illness. It's not because they are schizophrenic or some other diagnosis of mental illness. There is no pill to give them or talk therapy to keep them from doing what they do. You don't have to be "crazy" to kill.

I never said that cars can't be used to kill people. The point is, cars weren't built to kill people. That's not their purpose. A gun's purpose is to kill (or severely injure). Again, apples and oranges.

Hell, if we banned everything that could potentially be used to kill people, there would be no trains, planes, or automobiles, you'd have nothing with which to cut your food, you'd have no medication to cure you when you're sick, and baseball would cease to exist.

That's definitely true.

Another disturbing trend I noticed and several other people I spoke to noted is that in mass shootings, more women and girls tend to be killed than men. :/ The shooter is usually male...make what you will of it :( We know that women are more likely to be the victims of violence in general, but I found this to be equally disturbing.

Also interesting, in a country where gun control is very strict - China - many children were injured in the recent stabbing, but none were killed.

I don't know the solution. I just know that I hate guns and it scares me to know how easily accessible they are to obtain in some states.

There is a big difference between shooting your husband in a spur of the moment fit of rage because you found out he had an affair (just an example), and spending several months, maybe even years, planning a mass massacre.

So it's impossible for someone to go on a rampage at the office (for example) when s/he's lost a job?

I don't think it's as black-and-white as your example is trying to suggest.

After working many years in law enforcement and teaching criminal justice/forensic psychology, my take on it is that it's not so much mental health (i.e. individuals that suffer from mental illness) as it is mental health LAWS.

Take AOII Angel's example saying that unless a person says "I'm going to hurt myself or others...it's a crapshoot". Believe it or not, that doesn't necessarily mean that the system can do anything about it. I have worked so many cases where these individuals DO say things like that and the legal systems hands are tied for one reason or another and cannot make an arrest/prosecute and a crime still occurs. The FBI has come out to say that the majority of mass shooters will tell someone their intentions, nothing is done about it, and thus, the events occur anyway.

The media and proponents of either side of the gun debate tend to muddle the message. It's not that having a mental health issue is a risk factor for violence or that guns in the hands of citizens are a red flag. The focus should be on the laws that protect us should there be a threat of violence in either respect. Even if it is a sane individual that makes a threat.

I am a strong advocate for changing mental health reporting laws, not because all those that suffer from mental illness are an immediate threat, but for the reasons that we need to respond to threats made by those individuals without having to be blocked by laws that protect them versus the overall safety of others.

The kinds of things they use Executive Orders for are not things that typically go through Congress. If you look at those lists, they are different types of tasks. If everything had to go through Congress, nothing would ever get done and government would be even bigger than it is now.

I know those lists are really long, but just to highlight a few:

Reviewing safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).
Issuing a presidential memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.
Releasing a report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and making it widely available to law enforcement authorities.
Nominating an A.T.F. director.
Starting a national dialogue on mental health led by Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, and Arne Duncan, the secretary of education.

Most of them are about obtaining more data and sharing more data with people who can use it. The nomination of an ATF director is the President's job, but Congress has to approve it for it to become official. These are not laws, they are daily work activities.

I agree that the laws should not tie your hands on people that are a threat, but making a law that practitioners have to inform the police every time one of their patients says they are having suicidal or homicidal ideation is too much. The VAST majority of these patients are depressed and working through private issues with their therapists that may stop expressing these thoughts if they know that they will be reported to police. The likelihood that this will stop a future mass shooting is unlikely as well since the vast majority of mass shooters are NOT undergoing treatment for mental illness. The people that do commit mass shooting may tell people, but they tell friends, family, etc. That is different than my example of how a therapist knows when a patient will become violent. You can mandate all you want that family turn in their own, but it won't make a difference.

I hate to Godwin a thread, but it's apt. The genocides in Germany, Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia, Syria were/are all carried out by completely sane, power hungry men. We don't give them a pass for their carnage because of mental illness. I think the amount of gruesome death far surpasses any of the mass shootings we'd discuss on this thread, but every bit was due to what humans term "evil." You can't decide everything is because of mental illness because you can't imagine a sane person doing it. Sane people do HORRIBLE things every single day, like abusing children, raping women, murdering each other, etc. The mentally ill are not the cause of all this anguish.

Great points and general threats are very difficult to much of anything, as well as those that are not already being observed by counselors/therapists. And you're right, most wouldn't be honest if they knew they would be reported. This is why it's a frustrating debate/argument. Do we protect the privacy of those that make threats (and by that, I mean those that name specific victims and have a history of violent behavior, which is VERY common in my experience) or do we protect those we know are in danger?

There was one case I worked on where this individual had already been arrested and convicted several times for assault. He had also been arrested/convicted for stalking harassment of a teacher. While on probation, he told his court mandated therapist that as soon as he got off probation, he was going to get a gun and kill his former teacher. The therapist alerted us out of courtesy, but refused to write a report (which the judge needed). Because of that, I had the unfortunate job of telling the victim that she had been threatened (again), but there was nothing we could do. We couldn't get a probation violation, nor a threat charge, nothing... This happens more than people care to think.

I agree with AOII Angel's comments. Mental illness is so complex. Where do you draw a line? How do you analyze whether someone who has had the thought (or even said!) "I wish you were dead" will take that to the point of murdering that person? What about people with mild anxiety disorder who take Xanax?

Bad things are still going to happen. The mentally ill are not always recognized and do not always seek treatment. Not all who do bad things are mentally ill. Mental illness usually presents itself in the early 20s at the earliest, but may not show until much later.

The vast majority of the mentally ill do not commit heinous acts. The vast majority of gun owners don't either.

I think the biggest issue is that everybody wants something fixed which is not fixable.

I think you nailed it in your last two statements.

That is the exact example of a change that should be made. Unfortunately as I said, many therapists are poorly trained. Most have little to no training in forensic psychology so deciding when someone is at risk for violence is not something they are educated to deal with. The prior history of violence is a red flag and should have been the discriminator to put this patient back. That is one most important things in determining risk...a history of violence. I know you have a very hard job. It must be very frustrating. I know NY means well, but their new law will make it very difficult for mental health practitioners, especially as they are a huge talk therapy area. Can you imagine the sheer number of calls they'll get just on the suicidal ideation threats?

Couldn't agree more :) And yes, past history of violent behavior is the biggest risk factor.

And I actually left the field in order to teach. Too many sleepless nights and stress!

Executive orders can't surpass Congress. Only Congress can pass laws. The executive branch must administer those laws, and one of the ways they do that is by administrative rules and regulations and executive orders that fill in details. This is an expected part of the process -- Congress typically doesn't fill in too much detail, but leaves that to the executive branch and specifically authorizes the executive branch to fill in those details through regulations. Also, executive orders can be issued with regard to matters about which the Constitution gives responsibility to the president rather than Congress.

Executive orders and administrative rules and regulations can be challenged in court, just like statutes passed by Congress can be, on the grounds that the president or executive agency exceeded his or its authority and/or attempted to exercise legislative authority.

I very much appreciated the insights of your post, and I tend to agree with this, with perhaps one caveat: I'm willing to give at least some people the benefit of the doubt that they're acting out of sincere motives. But complex problems typically aren't solved by simplistic solutions.

Or perhaps they really don't understand the differences and nuances -- I'll admit I don't completely, though I'm trying to learn and correct that. That said, one undertaking a push for any kind of legislation has an obligation to understand the subject matter.

I'd agree that the 2nd Amendment isn't about recreational hunting, but I think to the extent that hunting may be necessary for food -- and while it's not any more for most Americans, it still may be for some -- it can have some applicability, I think. But I'd agree it's primarily about community defense (militia) and self-defense.

The Obama administration has murdered many more children than Adam Lanza did. The administration should look into gun control for itself first.

I think banning things is great. I work as an addictions therapist and I so glad that heroin is banned. Good thing for that, otherwise people might some how get their hands on drugs.

Just wondering, what the context of this? To what are you referring to?

Thanks

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert...b_2224627.html

"During my recent trip to Pakistan as part of our upcoming documentary film, Drones Exposed, I was struck most by the stories told to me by children who had experienced a U.S. drone strike firsthand. The impact of America’s drone war in the likes of Pakistan and Yemen will linger on, especially for the loved ones of the 178 children killed in those countries by U.S. drone strikes."

I'm not going to give my guns up in a country where the government has such a penchant for violence. Lets get rid of their weapons first and then we'll talk about mine.