Can we have a rational discussion about guns and why the typical arguments for gun control and its implementation won't work?

[highfigh]

Well there are certain right wingnut politicians trying to pass legislation that would allow cars to be used as weapons against protesters....so you can leave your guns at home and just drive to spread and express your "free dumb".

We're possibly too f*cked already with private gun policies in this country, most people simply have no real justification for owning/"needing" one in the first place (other than they want to and can afford to buy one). Worrying about removing extant guns is one thing, but intelligent sales restrictions, training, use and storage of weapons is another. Have to start somewhere, tho, rather than throw up your hands with and spout "2nd amendment" or "people kill people, not guns". Definitely some people should have guns removed from their possession, tho it will be the old "yeah you can pry them out of my cold dead hands". I guess it's just the continuation of the bloodlust like the genocide and prejudices and dumbass religion that the europeans spread thru the world.....time to read Germs Guns and Steel again perhaps.

Aren't you glad I saved it up for one post?

One problem WRT gun storage is that many who lose guns, whether because they drop them, forget where they are, don't secure them or if they're stolen, don't report the loss. It's also not mandatory, but I think it should be. I'm not a huge fan of the insurance industry because of some of their practices, but I think that if someone loses a gun because of irresponsibility, they need to be restricted and caused to buy insurance. If their gun(s) are used in crimes and weren't secured, they share some responsibility for the crime- not as much as if they were there to hand the gun to the criminal, but some degree of liability exists.

Human nature is a problem. People like to act tough and talk about going full Rambo when it hits the fan, but I think many will look a lot like Don Knotts as Barney Fife, complete with the shaking hand. Over-reaction is a huge sales tool for the gun industry and if the stats are correct, a huge number of new gun owners may go to the range a few times in the year post-purchase, but they don't go often after that. Some have never touched a gun in their life before and have little idea about how to handle it safely (ironic phrase, isn't it?). Obsession with guns coupled with a broken, paranoid mind, is dangerous. Guns in the hands of people who just don't care about human life is more dangerous. Not all of the latter are constantly committing criminal acts, but when they go off the rails, people die.

I can't think of one reason for anyone to commit a drive-by shooting, yet it happens more often than we might think-

National State-by-State Study of Drive-By Shootings Reveals Data on Victims, Time, Location

The Violence Policy Center (VPC) today released the second edition of "Drive-By America," a national analysis of drive-by shootings. The study, the most comprehensive analysis of its type, tallied news stories from the 50 states and the District of Columbia from July through December 2008 to...

www.commondreams.org

 

[TankTop5]

Earlier you dismissed deaths by guns by saying that 2/3 suicide while the rest is mostly by criminals. If people did not have so easy access to guns many of those deaths would have been prevented, and those deaths would mostly not be detected by a mental health test. Quite a few of those suicide are children/teenagers.

USA also has many injured by a gun, and that includes many children/teenagers, much more than in other democratic countries.

Combine the above with no requirement of weapons training to buy and own guns it's clear what that policy leads to.

I find the attitude callous and self-centred.

It’s not callous it’s just the facts. Absent collection or confiscation nothing will change the fact that we have absurd amounts of guns and I doubt confiscation door to door could change it. Suicide is terrible and we need to focus on and spend billions if not trillions to figure it out but that can only be done at the local level, centralized Washington based bureaucracies will simply waste the money on one size fits all programs.

I think Jesus said it be... “...You wash the outside of the cup but leave the inside dirty...”

We focus on roads and beautification programs, social justice and controlling what people say. None of this addresses the hearts and soul of people and addressing these is the only way to bring about change. So go ahead and pass more laws but humans and the most creative creatures on earth when it comes to devising ways to do harm.

 

[highfigh]

Yeah I'm sure you need those guns. I am not looking for a boogeyman, just pointing out there are far too many guns without a particular use. Many of them do cause problems, but saying it's probably too late to do anything because it's already a mess to an extent, gotta start sometime/somewhere.

Nobody needs their own arsenal- it's not as if they're preparing for their own war. That said, it's better for people to be able to defend themselves, than to be completely unable.

Looking at controlling all access to guns is, as I have posted at other times, a case of punishing the good kids for what the bad ones have done. Murders have been committed by people who were awaiting trial for other violent crimes and sometimes, the previous crime was gun-related. Why would a judge allow this? Read the link about Little Yummy- that's effing ridiculous!

11-year-old ‘Yummy’ Sandifer was on the run for killing a teenage girl. Then he was killed by his own gang in a Chicago story that shocked the nation 25 years ago.

There was a moment when it appeared 11-year-old Robert “Yummy” Sandifer might escape with his life. Standing just 4-foot-6 and weighing only 68 pounds, he was an unlikely triggerman for…

www.chicagotribune.com

City-wide sweeps would do a lot to gather a lot of illegal firearms, but what do they do about weapons that are hidden in other places?

 

[highfigh]

This part of your statement is apparently correct:

https://css.ethz.ch/content/dam/ethz/special-interest/gess/cis/center-for-securities-studies/resources/docs/ISPSW_689_Lin.pdf

This part is an unproven theory, more like a rumor someone started.

So, people in the medical field are perpetuating this rumor? That's where I heard it.

 

[highfigh]

Earlier you dismissed deaths by guns by saying that 2/3 suicide while the rest is mostly by criminals. If people did not have so easy access to guns many of those deaths would have been prevented, and those deaths would mostly not be detected by a mental health test. Quite a few of those suicide are children/teenagers.

USA also has many injured by a gun, and that includes many children/teenagers, much more than in other democratic countries.

Combine the above with no requirement of weapons training to buy and own guns it's clear what that policy leads to.

I find the attitude callous and self-centred.

There's a fair amount of coincidence WRT suicide, guns in possession of people who aren't legally allowed and children. Many times, someone leaves a gun in a place that makes it easy for kids to find them and that leads to accidental shooting of the one holding it, friends/family members or someone outside of the house. Sometimes, the gun is found in a car while people are traveling and in a case here, the child shot the driver- that gun was found under the front seat.

I think that training should be part of gun purchases. If someone knows how to be safe, they really shouldn't mind some kind of test. Simply testing their knowledge would be a good start- testing proficiency would also show who needs training, immediately.

 

[highfigh]

I guess we'll find out what caused this but I doubt it will be anything other than tragic-

Sixth-grade girl accused of opening fire at Idaho middle school, wounding 3

All of the alleged victims are expected to survive.

www.cbsnews.com

 

[Irvrobinson]

So, people in the medical field are perpetuating this rumor? That's where I heard it.

Apparently so. There aren’t any facts available at this time to support this rumor.

 

[highfigh]

Apparently so. There aren’t any facts available at this time to support this rumor.

And it doesn't seem that anyone is really trying to find answers. Won't help for this one, but could prevent another.

Maybe they considered its safety in the same way they deal with intellectual property rights.

 

[Irvrobinson]

And it doesn't seem that anyone is really trying to find answers. Won't help for this one, but could prevent another.

This is the WHO report on the origin of SARS-COV-2. It concludes nothing of much interest, except that they think the Huanan market was unlikely to be the origin. I've tried to read the report. It discusses many topics regarding the virus, but if anything they presented evidence that the origin is unlikely to be the result of anything reported by the news media. Read it for yourself.

WHO-convened global study of origins of SARS-CoV-2: China Part

Joint WHO-China study: 14 January - 10 February 2021

www.who.int

 

[Mr._Clark]

And, if by definition, mass murderers are mentally ill, doesn't that give them a "get out of jail free" card?

Not necessarily. It depends somewhat on the jurisdiction, but it is typically very difficult to win a not guilty by reason of insanity defense. Many people who have significant mental problems are still found guilty of crimes (see link below to npr article discussing requirements for an insanity defense).

Also, it is actually more of a "get out of jail free and locked up in a psychiatric institution until it's proven that you are no longer a danger" card. There have been cases in which a person was found not guilty by reason of insanity and ended up spending a longer period of time in a mental hospital than they would have if they had simply pleaded guilty (at least that's what one of my professors said in law school, but I have not tried to find a documented case in which this actually happened)(I mention this an item of interest, it's highly unlikely that a mass murderer would be worse off with a successful insanity defense).

A famous example of an insanity case is John Hinckley. He was released from a psychiatric institution in 2016 after about 35 years (he attempted to assassinate Reagan in 1981). I'm not sure what his total prison time would have been if he had been convicted on all counts (I suspect it would have been longer).

Here's an article about the John Hinckley case and the effect it had on the insanity defense:

>>>Decades later, the chances of winning an insanity defense are punishingly slim, according to lawyers and psychiatrists, especially for crimes like homicide.<<<

After Hinckley, States Tightened Use Of The Insanity Plea

John Hinckley's not-guilty verdict prompted tighter restrictions on the insanity defense. Civil rights advocates say that means seriously ill people are imprisoned without adequate treatment.

www.npr.org

 

[Mikado463]

Yeah I'm sure you need those guns. I am not looking for a boogeyman, just pointing out there are far too many guns without a particular use.

they all have a particular use, trouble is, the hands some of them end up in. I'm a competitive shotgun shooter, I own 8 shotguns, yes I can only shoot one at a time, yet each one has a particular use. Two analogies(one I know you'll understand).......... ask any competent golfer how many drivers and putters they own ! and ask any serious bicyclist how many bikes they own !!

Many of them do cause problems, but saying it's probably too late to do anything because it's already a mess to an extent, gotta start sometime/somewhere.

agreed .........

 

[cpp]

Businesses are having a very hard time filling positions, now that they're able to reopen- a lot of people aren't returning to work by choice, same as after the crash in 2008. Why work when money will come in, anyway? They can find gigs and part-time work that adds up but with the inflation that nobody seems to want to talk about, there's gonna be a very rude awakening for a lot of people. Have you seen the price of lumber? An 8' stud is close to $9- I paid $78 + tax for a sheet of 1/2" MDO plywood, which used to cost a little over $50/sheet.


This has zip to do with guns sales, criminals get guns a lot easier than law abiding people. And yes I know exactly how much lumber cost. I just bought 25 sheets of 3/4' pressure treated 4x8 plywood $65.98 a sheet.

 

[Mikado463]

Businesses are having a very hard time filling positions, now that they're able to reopen- a lot of people aren't returning to work by choice, same as after the crash in 2008. Why work when money will come in, anyway? They can find gigs and part-time work that adds up but with the inflation that nobody seems to want to talk about, there's gonna be a very rude awakening for a lot of people. Have you seen the price of lumber? An 8' stud is close to $9- I paid $78 + tax for a sheet of 1/2" MDO plywood, which used to cost a little over $50/sheet.


This has zip to do with guns sales, criminals get guns a lot easier than law abiding people. And yes I know exactly how much lumber cost. I just bought 25 sheets of 3/4' pressure treated 4x8 plywood $65.98 a sheet.

sad, presure treated lumber isn't worth a rats ass these days .........

 

[Trell]

Businesses are having a very hard time filling positions, now that they're able to reopen- a lot of people aren't returning to work by choice, same as after the crash in 2008. Why work when money will come in, anyway? They can find gigs and part-time work that adds up but with the inflation that nobody seems to want to talk about, there's gonna be a very rude awakening for a lot of people. Have you seen the price of lumber? An 8' stud is close to $9- I paid $78 + tax for a sheet of 1/2" MDO plywood, which used to cost a little over $50/sheet.


This has zip to do with guns sales, criminals get guns a lot easier than law abiding people. And yes I know exactly how much lumber cost. I just bought 25 sheets of 3/4' pressure treated 4x8 plywood $65.98 a sheet.

The businesses that have a very hard time filling positions could increase the salary. Isn't that how supply and demand is supposed to work in a free market?

 

[lovinthehd]

they all have a particular use, trouble is, the hands some of them end up in. I'm a competitive shotgun shooter, I own 8 shotguns, yes I can only shoot one at a time, yet each one has a particular use. Two analogies(one I know you'll understand).......... ask any competent golfer how many drivers and putters they own ! and ask any serious bicyclist how many bikes they own !!



agreed .........

Again, I'm not focusing on you or any other individual in particular, but in general. There are too many guns and they do cause problems. They have been poorly regulated and the background checks and training and safety issues all come into it. People don't generally hunt except for recreation now, so we're down to what uses particularly aside from target shooting? As long as you're qualified, registered, sane, etc. I have no issues with you owning a gun. Personally have never needed one.

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

All countries have the same mental health problems as America

Let’s agree to disagree, US mental health care is notoriously terrible, far behind developed countries

 

[lovinthehd]

What’s the point in more controls? It only affects law abiding citizens and has zero effect on criminals, why in the world would you want to screw with the good guys? The 2nd says we can have guns, it doesn’t mention explosives and friggin lasers, I think your imagination is running wild. You have a personal emotional based opinion that doesn’t rely on facts.

The only thing I support is mental health laws, period!

How do you know that? All I need to do is think back to January 6 and the non-law abiding citizens pulling a bullshit coup? They're good guys? Good grief. The second amendment speaks to militias, i.e. informal armies on a local level still sanctioned by local government, not these nutjobs like the pussy boys or whatever they call themselves. We have to start of course with the manufacture of the weapon and strict controls beginning there....which we just don't have generally. We sell more guns as a nation than anyone. We need a more uniform and informed approach to gun ownership, not dissimilar to cars. You one of these numbnuts who shouts "free dumb" while "hunting" with your assault weapons?

 

[Trell]

Let’s agree to disagree, US mental health care is notoriously terrible, far behind developed countries

While USA has problems, so has other countries as well. News outlets are predominately focused on the mass murder shootings but most guns death and injuries are not caused by them. Of course mental problems are an important factor in gun related deaths and injuries, it's not the only one. Children playing with loaded guns is not due to mental issues, for the most part, for instance.

Mental Health Conditions and Substance Use: Comparing U.S. Needs and Treatment Capacity with Those in Other High-Income Countries

A Commonwealth Fund analysis comparing U.S. mental health care to 10 other high-income countries finds that Americans are among the most likely to report problems accessing or affording mental health treatment. Other countries do a better job of integrating mental health into primary care...

www.commonwealthfund.org

Commonwealth Fund - Bias and Credibility

LEFT-CENTER BIAS These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording

mediabiasfactcheck.com

 

[GO-NAD!]

Not necessarily. It depends somewhat on the jurisdiction, but it is typically very difficult to win a not guilty by reason of insanity defense. Many people who have significant mental problems are still found guilty of crimes (see link below to npr article discussing requirements for an insanity defense).

Also, it is actually more of a "get out of jail free and locked up in a psychiatric institution until it's proven that you are no longer a danger" card. There have been cases in which a person was found not guilty by reason of insanity and ended up spending a longer period of time in a mental hospital than they would have if they had simply pleaded guilty (at least that's what one of my professors said in law school, but I have not tried to find a documented case in which this actually happened)(I mention this an item of interest, it's highly unlikely that a mass murderer would be worse off with a successful insanity defense).

A famous example of an insanity case is John Hinckley. He was released from a psychiatric institution in 2016 after about 35 years (he attempted to assassinate Reagan in 1981). I'm not sure what his total prison time would have been if he had been convicted on all counts (I suspect it would have been longer).

Here's an article about the John Hinckley case and the effect it had on the insanity defense:

>>>Decades later, the chances of winning an insanity defense are punishingly slim, according to lawyers and psychiatrists, especially for crimes like homicide.<<<

After Hinckley, States Tightened Use Of The Insanity Plea

John Hinckley's not-guilty verdict prompted tighter restrictions on the insanity defense. Civil rights advocates say that means seriously ill people are imprisoned without adequate treatment.

www.npr.org

I was being more tongue-in-cheek than serious. I'm well aware that many - if not most - mass shooters who would be considered mentally ill don't meet the not-guilty-by-reason-of-insanity threshold. We would all like to think that mass killers are all insane, because we can't otherwise comprehend how anyone can do such things. However, many such attacks are conducted by perfectly sane people, such as terrorist attacks.

 

[Irvrobinson]

How do you know that? All I need to do is think back to January 6 and the non-law abiding citizens pulling a bullshit coup? They're good guys? Good grief. The second amendment speaks to militias, i.e. informal armies on a local level still sanctioned by local government, not these nutjobs like the pussy boys or whatever they call themselves. We have to start of course with the manufacture of the weapon and strict controls beginning there....which we just don't have generally. We sell more guns as a nation than anyone. We need a more uniform and informed approach to gun ownership, not dissimilar to cars. You one of these numbnuts who shouts "free dumb" while "hunting" with your assault weapons?

Regarding the 2nd Amendment, it says:

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.

A very oddly worded sentence, to say the least, and constructed in the typically negative orientation of the Bill of Rights; focusing on what the federal government can't do. I know that power-hungry, government-control-over-everyone-and-everything so-called "liberals" want to interpret the 2nd Amendment as applying solely to "well-regulated Militia", but, that's not reflective of good English grammar. This sentence, however annoying, is clearly a very carefully constructed statement. Looks like a three-humped camel designed by a committee to me. Personally, if I were constructing that sentence I would have inserted the word "and" after the second comma for clarity, but there's no reasonable way to interpret this sentence as only applying to state militias.