Americans Speak on Gun Control

[jon1856]

Americans Speak on Gun Control

Will college shootings change minds on either side of the debate?

By Melissa Segrest
When madmen go on killing sprees in America, they use guns. Inevitably, in the aftermath, the arguments about gun control begin. But a poll conducted in the days after the Virginia Tech massacre found that the majority of Americans don't fully align themselves with either the pro- or anti-gun arguments.
The MSN-Zogby poll found that 59 percent of Americans do not believe stricter gun control policies would have prevented Cho Seung-Hui from killing 32 people and then himself in the worst mass murder in America's history. The poll found that only 36 percent of those polled believe stronger gun control could have prevented the shootings.
http://men.msn.com/articlepollgc.asp...32850&gt1=9311

[AGDee]

There has been debate for some time in Michigan regarding whether a psychiatric history and not just a criminal background check should be considered. The privacy laws surrounding mental health histories are so strict, yet, many people with mental health histories probably should not be able to get a gun.

I'm one of those people who don't align myself completely with either stance. I see no reason to have automatic or semi-automatic weapons available to civillians. I can understand wanting a gun for protection in some circumstances and I understand wanting hunting rifles. I think the existing laws are so numerous and complex AND unenforced that they need an overhaul. So, that's a pretty grey position I guess.

If my ex-father-in-law hadn't had a gun when a guy broke into his house for the second time, he may have been severely injured or killed because the guy had injured him the first time he broke in. But, I also know someone who almost killed his brother because he heard someone coming in the house in the middle of the night and didn't know it was his brother at first. There are too many people who allow children access to the guns which leads to accidental shootings of other children. It's such a complex issue.

[Kevin]

Psychiatric history being available?

That's really scary. I can guarantee you, if that were to become the case, a lot of sick people would not go looking for help due to fear of ending up on someone's 'list.'

I personally cannot connect with how when one in 300 million people goes haywire and does something completely insane that we have to look at the system. Can we just not accept that there are truly evil people in the world capable of evil things and that there's not a thing we can do to stop them?

[honeychile]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Psychiatric history being available?

That's really scary. I can guarantee you, if that were to become the case, a lot of sick people would not go looking for help due to fear of ending up on someone's 'list.'

I personally cannot connect with how when one in 300 million people goes haywire and does something completely insane that we have to look at the system. Can we just not accept that there are truly evil people in the world capable of evil things and that there's not a thing we can do to stop them?

Exactly. This nutjob had this planned to incredible detail, including filing off the serial numbers on the weapons - the weapons which he had to purchase a month apart, by Virginia laws. I've heard on more than one news station that he's planned this since Columbine!

[highflyerlaura]

I think that both sides in this situation are going to have their good points, however I think that the easiest way to solve this confrontation would be to offer a compromise.

Over here in Australia we have a Firearms Registry/Permit system that performs a criminal records search (for firearms offences), while also performing a psychiatric and general firearms safety test. What happens is that a person who wants to aquire a firearm for either recreational or commercial reasons apllies via the police for a Firearms Use and Safety Course, which is run by the Firearms Registery. The Registry then informs the applicant of the Certified Weapons Instructors for their regions, providing contact details for these individuals. The Weapon Instructor will then at an agreed date and time provide a detailed firearms safety course over the period of a few hours if it is an individual, or 2 days if it is a group. This normally occurs at a certified Gun Range and goes through all aspects relating to every different class of firearms, from disabled collectables to handguns, rifles, semi- and auto-matic weapons etc.

At the end of the course the Weapons Officer will issue a written test with questions relating to firearms safety, firearms use and psychiatry being present. All applicants have to then fill out an application for their license and the reasons why they are requesting a specific class-permit in front of the Weapons Instructor, while supplying 3 different sources of Identification (with one photo ID being compulsory). The Weapons Instructor then processes the tests and applications, then sends them off to the Firearms Registry where they are analysed, marked and a decision made on the suitability of the application. As soon as the application is made, a criminal records check is done in conjunction with checking the ID. If either the ID confirmation, Criminal Records check or Psychiatric/Weapons Testing aren't of a specific standard or higher, the Firearms License will not be issued. The presentation of the licence is then compulsory when purchasing ammunition, firearms and some related equipment. The entire process from start to finish when acquiring a license for the first time normally takes about 3 to 4 months due to the processing of the criminal records.

I know that this would make a lot more paperwork for you Americans, though that system works fine over here and is in use with all classes of firearms. Theres talk over here though of eventually phasing in a swipe-card system to reduce the official red-tape, however that is still being debated on. Due to the changes implemented nation-wide back around 1997 after the Port Aurthur Massacre in 1996, we've actually seen a reduction in gun related crimes and deaths. While still taking into the constitutional right of Americans to bear arms, a system such as this would ensure that it is harder for psychiatrically-disturbed people to aquire a firearm, not to meantion making it harder for people to purchase firearms illegally. This system would be even safer if it was a requirement for retesting (though not neccessarily the course) to be conducted every 5 years or so, just like it is here.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by highflyerlaura

I think that both sides in this situation are going to have their good points, however I think that the easiest way to solve this confrontation would be to offer a compromise.

Over here in Australia we have a Firearms Registry/Permit system that performs a criminal records search (for firearms offences), while also performing a psychiatric and general firearms safety test. What happens is that a person who wants to aquire a firearm for either recreational or commercial reasons apllies via the police for a Firearms Use and Safety Course, which is run by the Firearms Registery. The Registry then informs the applicant of the Certified Weapons Instructors for their regions, providing contact details for these individuals. The Weapon Instructor will then at an agreed date and time provide a detailed firearms safety course over the period of a few hours if it is an individual, or 2 days if it is a group. This normally occurs at a certified Gun Range and goes through all aspects relating to every different class of firearms, from disabled collectables to handguns, rifles, semi- and auto-matic weapons etc.

At the end of the course the Weapons Officer will issue a written test with questions relating to firearms safety, firearms use and psychiatry being present. All applicants have to then fill out an application for their license and the reasons why they are requesting a specific class-permit in front of the Weapons Instructor, while supplying 3 different sources of Identification (with one photo ID being compulsory). The Weapons Instructor then processes the tests and applications, then sends them off to the Firearms Registry where they are analysed, marked and a decision made on the suitability of the application. As soon as the application is made, a criminal records check is done in conjunction with checking the ID. If either the ID confirmation, Criminal Records check or Psychiatric/Weapons Testing aren't of a specific standard or higher, the Firearms License will not be issued. The presentation of the licence is then compulsory when purchasing ammunition, firearms and some related equipment. The entire process from start to finish when acquiring a license for the first time normally takes about 3 to 4 months due to the processing of the criminal records.

I know that this would make a lot more paperwork for you Americans, though that system works fine over here and is in use with all classes of firearms. Theres talk over here though of eventually phasing in a swipe-card system to reduce the official red-tape, however that is still being debated on. Due to the changes implemented nation-wide back around 1997 after the Port Aurthur Massacre in 1996, we've actually seen a reduction in gun related crimes and deaths. While still taking into the constitutional right of Americans to bear arms, a system such as this would ensure that it is harder for psychiatrically-disturbed people to aquire a firearm, not to meantion making it harder for people to purchase firearms illegally. This system would be even safer if it was a requirement for retesting (though not neccessarily the course) to be conducted every 5 years or so, just like it is here.

Such a system would do little more than chill new firearms sales in the U.S.

That would probably have little (if any) impact in a country where there are far more firearms than there are citizens. 3:1, I think.

In America, if a crazy person wants a gun, he'll get a gun. Inconveniencing a lot of perfectly normal/ok people is not going to help matters one bit.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Psychiatric history being available?

That's really scary. I can guarantee you, if that were to become the case, a lot of sick people would not go looking for help due to fear of ending up on someone's 'list.'

I personally cannot connect with how when one in 300 million people goes haywire and does something completely insane that we have to look at the system. Can we just not accept that there are truly evil people in the world capable of evil things and that there's not a thing we can do to stop them?

Well said. We're an advanced society, but we're never going to solve every problem. If we try to, we're going to end up even more miserable.

[RU OX Alum]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Well said. We're an advanced society, but we're never going to solve every problem. If we try to, we're going to end up even more miserable.

exactly

and that's all i can say about any of this right now [i was there on friday night, still don't if everyone....]

[1908Revelations]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Psychiatric history being available?

That's really scary. I can guarantee you, if that were to become the case, a lot of sick people would not go looking for help due to fear of ending up on someone's 'list.'

I personally cannot connect with how when one in 300 million people goes haywire and does something completely insane that we have to look at the system. Can we just not accept that there are truly evil people in the world capable of evil things and that there's not a thing we can do to stop them?

True!!

Plus if I hear another person blaming the school for not 'locking him away' a long time ago. SOme people go nuts with out any warning....maybe it's just me.

[CutiePie2000]

Originally Posted by 1908Revelations

Plus if I hear another person blaming the school for not 'locking him away' a long time ago.

I so agree with you, and people/the society/police cannot arrest someone for something that they "might" do in the future. (Civil liberties, etc.).

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by CutiePie2000

I so agree with you, and people/the society/police cannot arrest someone for something that they "might" do in the future. (Civil liberties, etc.).

Well, there is civil commitment.

The Supreme Court just upheld civil commitment for certain child molesters, so yeah, people in some cases can be locked up for things they "might" do.

Probably not someone like Cho though. If we start locking up people for acting nutty and taking anti-depressants, we'll have to lockup a lot of people.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Psychiatric history being available?

That seems a bit much to me as well. I cringe whenever anyone talks about making any medical history available.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by Kevin

On the other hand, it's perfect for squirrel hunting.

<blink> Squirrel hunting?????????? I never!!!!!!!!!!!! <faint>

Originally Posted by KSigkid

That seems a bit much to me as well. I cringe whenever anyone talks about making any medical history available.

I understand the concerns about that, and, this is why I have such a hard time with this, because there are too many times that people who have a documented history of paranoid, obsessive, psychotic or delusional behaviors manage to get a gun and use it to harm someone. As I had said, it's an issue where there is a lot of gray area, where I can see both sides.

I definitely don't think someone who just had a PPO issued against them should be able to walk into a K-Mart where his ex-wife works, buy a rifle, and wait in the parking lot until she gets off work and shoot her as she walks to her car. It just seems like we shouldn't be making it that easy, but this stuff happens.

[JonoBN41]

That guy probably already has a gun and has thought about killing her for a long time.

But now she's the one who needs immediate protection. How long should she be made to wait? A week? A month? She may not make it that long.

It works both ways.

[JonoBN41]

Tom, I won't even ask about your hunting for food, much less for people.

Originally Posted by AGDee

I see no reason to have automatic or semi-automatic weapons available to civillians. I can understand wanting a gun for protection in some circumstances and I understand wanting hunting rifles. It's such a complex issue.

If I may, I'd like to address the difference between automatic and semi-automatic rifles. Automatics have been severely restricted since the 1930s (due to Al Capone's Tommy guns). They are almost impossible to obtain legally, and fire as long as the trigger is held back.

Semi-automatics fire once for each time the trigger is pulled and released. A double-action revolver works the same way.

A Glock 9mm pistol is called an "automatic", even though it's really semi-automatic in operation. Each pull of the trigger fires one cartidge.

The alternative to a semi-automatic rifle is a bolt action - only marginally slower than semi-automatic (as was evidenced in the JFK assasination).

I like a semi-auto rifle, the M-1 carbine to be exact, for home protection because the magazine can be kept separate from the gun and inserted very quickly when needed, otherwise the gun is safe. The round is enough to stop an intruder, but not so powerful as to penetrate walls and injure anyone beyond them. Finally, the bayonette should deter any bad guy from trying to grab it away from me. For home protection, it's the safest and most practical option.

The reason I'm mentioning this is because the media loves to show videos of a fully autoimatic rifles being fired - brrrrrrrr - as they're talking about an "assault weapons ban", meaning semi-automatics. A true assault weapon is indeed fully automatic, but like I said they were already banned way back in the 1930s.

A semi-automatic rifle or pistol can fire no faster than a revolver. The subject will no doubt be resurfacing, so be armed with at least the proper information.