Take it easy! Everything's gonna be fine.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Why are we not discussing and advocating for legislation on the root cause, metal illness.

All of the last 4 perps were known to the system, and no action was taken.
Click to expand...

The problem with mental illness is there is there is extremes, but in between is a large level of discretion to diagnose given to typically far left psychologists/psychiatrists.
Activities or opinions normal in one region may contribute to a diagnoses of a mental disorder in another.

For example a kid that goes hunting small animals may be seen as showing signs of a mental disorder in New York City when they kill a sewer rat or pigeon. While a kid doing the same thing in the country to a squirrel or rabbit seen as normal.
In one place it may be considered cruelty to animals and a possible symptom of a serious disorder, while in the other just a country boy hunting.
It would in large part depend on the interpretation of the action. If there is a psychologist involved with the child for some reason, such as problems at school, it could play a role in a serious diagnosis in one region, while being viewed as just boys being boys in another.

There is tons of similar potential examples where an activity normal in one place is a symptom of mental disorder in another.
However once a diagnosis is made it would then be used to interpret future problems of the individual. This will tie it to the individual even if it was excessive interpretation of symptoms initially (everyone has symptoms of various mental disorders, it is the interpretation of thier severity as to whether it meets a diagnosis of something or not.)
This means even future professionals that may have not originally diagnosed it will explain problems as if they are related to it, having it as a basis for thier treatment of the individual.


Mental health discretion is widely abused. I can recall when any kid with any problems, including a wide range that were nothing alike, was diagnosed with ADD/ADHD. This allowed more resources and drugs to be used, while without a diagnosis there would be fewer tools to school officials or parents.
They have to be diagnosed with something, otherwise drugs couldn't be used, and school officials stretched thin often want the drug option.
They would often put such kids on powerful stimulants. Yet if you gave the same exact stimulants to other kids they too would do better in the short term. In fact if you gave them to adults going to work they too would do better, in the short term. That meth user at work can be very productive and focused at first, more productive than anyone else.
Of course anyone you have on such things over time, or switched on or off such things, is going to start exhibiting other issues as a result. So you may actually create some more issues or disorders.

So you got a system where you can diagnose to create treatment options, and then treat symptoms of the treatment.
The mental health system, just like other professions, also depends on work and income to continue. They typically don't want to fix people, but treat patients for life. The more professionals making a living in the field, the more long term patients are needed for treatment. This can even relax the criteria or discretion in diagnosing new patients to treat.
It is dangerous to pin rights to something so discretionary.
Mental health also works with the court systems some places. I can certainly see something like diagnosis that permanently disarms people that have commited no prohibiting crime being a desireable thing someplace like San Francisco (where they would like to ban guns in general) as a matter of routine through mental health professionals the court refers patients to.




Now Aspergers as the latest guy was said to have can be a serious issue. I didn't say much last time it came up because we had a member with it in the thread that it was in. However these are people that are quite often robotic. With little empathy or connection with others. Thier inability to connect well with people means that they don't exercise that emotional aspect and just like exercising muscles if you don't exercise or develop pathways in the brain they won't develop well.
They tend to be entirely logical, and don't connect much at an emotional level.
While in of itself it does not pose a danger, such people would be unlikely to feel empathy for those they were harming if they had made such decisions.
They have to think of everything at a logical level, knowing consequences for doing this or that, but not simply feeling certain things are wrong.
Some can be very successful in life especially since they focus intently on interests, and they can be well educated and present strong arguments.

But certainly there is something missing when you introduce lethal weapons to someone that feels no empathy with other people. They may be able to enjoy using them and have no problems, they could excel at gun sports in a safe manner, but there is a clear tool of judgement missing that you typically want in those with lethal weapons in society.

However it is quite different from say the illogical ramblings of the shooter of Giffords in Arizona.




Once rights depend on discretionary diagnosis for those who have not commited a crime, those rights depend on the discretion of those who make diagnosis. They become rights held at the discretion of some others.
Pschology/psychiatry also tends to be one of the most left leaning fields that is going to have a large percentage of anti-gun people, so that is something to ponder.








The biggest problem by far is the media making such a big deal of such killers. It has been proven and shown repeatedly that it motivates and plants the seed in the minds of more to do similar things.
They make a celebrity of the bad guy.
It is one of the limitations of our free speech. We can only ask that they don't do it, and they still will.
Making a huge deal of this current issue is sure to be a partial cause or motivator of similar things in the future.
 
. An AWB is not going to pass the US house any time soon.
Click to expand...
Don't bet the farm on it. This isn't 1994,legislators aren't in fear of lossing their jobs by voting for bad laws as evidenced by the Affordable Healthcare law.
 
This isn't 1994,
Click to expand...

Exactly and one important difference between then and now is that you have a republican majority in the house. That fact may be the one thing that keeps a new so called AWB from being put in place. To use your point about health care, do you think that law would have passed a republican majority?

Legislators are always in fear of losing their jobs. They are for the most part single minded seekers of reelection. They do not always calculate correctly, however, and at times they get the reminder that unpopular legislation can lead to sweeping changes in the make up of congress. This was seen in 1994 and again in 2010.

What Republicans in the house do you see voting for an AWB. The republicans have 33 more seats. I can tell you there are almost certainly some Dems who wouldn't touch it, I think of a guy like Jim Matheson who just had a razor thin win in Utah. Barrow won a very close race in Georgia and is ostensibly pro gun. Is he going to support an AWB? Mike Ross from Arkansas led a number of Democrats in publicly denouncing Holders comments in 2009 about the Obama administration's intent to re-institute an AWB. Is he going to flip flop? How many of the 65 Democrats that publicly opposed it in 2009 will get on board and vote for it now. Surely some would flip flop of it if they think it is politically expedient to do so. I still see it as a very uphill battle to pass something through the house. There are a lot of votes that would need to be turned.

Here is the letter from 2009, the signators are listed at the bottom. Some of them such as John Salazar are not in the house anymore. He was replaces with a republican. I have not yet looked to see how many of those 65 are still in office. I know many are.

http://www.downrange.tv/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/awblettertoholder309.pdf
 
It's definitely not 1994. How many of you are honestly taken by surprise by the calls for gun control?

Yes, this is our nightmare scenario, but we've seen it before, and I think we've been ready for it.
 
To use your point about health care, do you think that law would have passed a republican majority?
Click to expand...
My point is that those in congress who voted for this extremely bad legislation did not pay a penalty for doing so! Neither will those who vote for a new AWB. As I said this isn't 1994 anymore when a law maker was actually held accountable for his vote.
.
 
To jimmyraythomason, quite a few Democrats lost their seats in 2010, how do you think we got the majority in the house? Obama's "We took a shellacking" speech?

But yes its not 1994 or even 2010. All bets are off after this CT school shooting.
 
My point is that those in congress who voted for this extremely bad legislation did not pay a penalty for doing so!
Click to expand...

Ummm, you may want to fact check that. The Democrats lost their majority in the house. Republicans had huge win in the 2010 midterm elections. It is true that some members of congress did not get voted out, after all many of their constituents likely supported the bill. On a balance, however, there was a serious political cost.

thinking that legislators fear for their jobs is a non-starter with me.
Click to expand...

What do you think is motivating their actions? While it is true that a huge number of races are not competitive that doesn't mean that even those members of congress do not fear losing their job. Their is always the threat of being beat for the party nomination if not in the general election. These people are probably not much more likely to touch politically toxic issues than those running in close races.

I have worked for and with a number of elected officials. Why do you think they pay to have polls taken? Why do raise and spend so much money campaigning. Why do you think they hold town halls, have press people, etc. Unfortunately IMHO too much of what they do is influenced by a fear of losing their jobs.

If what you are saying is that they do not fear this particular issue affecting their prospects at reelection that is one thing and for some members certainly that is true, in fact it likely would help them. However, if you are saying that politicians do not act/vote certain ways because they fear losing their jobs I think you are sorely mistaken.
 
No AWB can get through this Congress.
Click to expand...

I think that is true given what prevailing opinions on gun control have been. I do not think that these recent tragedies are going to dramatically shift those opinions. I think most folks who opposed gun control measures still realize things like a renewed AWB or other efforts to restrict magazine capacity, etc will do nothing to prevent similar tragedies and are just an encroachment on our liberties with no appreciable offsetting benefit.

If prevailing opinions shifted I then so too could the likelihood of gun control measures passing the house. As it stands, A LOT of members of the house would have to change their positions. I do not see it happening and the more ambitious the anti's efforts the harder it will be to get something through.
 
Some of the fair weather friends are going to part company. Just remember who they were come election time.

I can't believe Obama will endanger his carefully-crafted majority in the swing states by reviving the gun control that killed Gore. He's more likely to let the AWB die its inevitable death and propose something else--probably focused on mental health and serving as an extension to Obamacare.

The AWB's biggest problem is that it didn't work the first time around. No surprise to us, but it's a powerful argument against it.
 
I have worked for and with a number of elected officials. Why do you think they pay to have polls taken? Why do raise and spend so much money campaigning. Why do you think they hold town halls, have press people, etc. Unfortunately IMHO too much of what they do is influenced by a fear of losing their jobs.
Click to expand...
Ummm,I WAS an elected official for 8 years(2 terms) and am kinda familiar with how it works.
 
A slightly different perspective. I don't believe an assault weapons ban will be the end of the world, but it would seriously inconvenience a large number of gun owners. Myself included. Will any bill affect my possession and ownership of an M1A and an M1, and M1 Carbine as well as my Sig 556? Probably so. Should it? No. But in today's emotionally charged environment somethings going to happen and it is going to be about guns, because they are easy to rant about, and frankly are part of the violent equation that headcases impose on us.

We will also see restrictions on the number of rounds a magazine can hold, and very likely we will see a prohibilition on face to face sales without a background check. We will see improvements to the NICS and state systems that catch as many of the mentally ill as can be caught and will flag those on the terrorist watch list. (Security theater, but that is likely to become law).

I don't have a big issue with magazine size, I shoot a Sig 556 that can carry up to 30 rounds, and I really don't need more than ten at a time. Heck, when hunting I am limited to five in the rifle and three in my shotgun. I know that this is not the attitude of many of the readers of this forum, but I just don't think its that big a deal.

Adding to the cost and hassle factor of a face to face sale, by restricting transfers to FFL's will be a pain, but again, it's not a disqualifying factor. Frankly the last time I sold a handgun to a private party in like 2000, I was worried about the person's qualifications to legally own a gun and the likelhood that I might get ripped off.

Finally, we can't simply allow the status quo to continue. 5 police officers have been shot by deranged persons in two states over the last 48 hours. Not counting the Sandy Hook school victims, 3 toddlers have been shot to death by firearms that were unsecured by their parents in the last few days. This is deadly serious business, and needs to be addressed by our law makers and our executive branch. This situation is out of hand, and ought to be the subject of some problem solving by our elected representatives.

I hope I don't start a flame war here, but in my humble opinion, we ought to start thinking about some of these things, rather than rant that there ought not be any restrictions on the accessibility and design of firearms in this country.
 
What we need are armed protectors at all schools (at least one per school), and more stringent protocols for mental illness screenings. I know and so does everyone else that major mental illness issues can be diagnosed by connecting the dots, but a lot of mental illness conditions are easily hidden. I new a guy who managed to hide the fact that he had dual personalities until his better half woke up in a hospital bed. He had gotten into an argument with someone at his house and been shot in the chest by the guy. He overpowered him and beat the gun wielder to death. Lucky for him the bullet missed all his vitals. He didn't have a detailed recollection of what went down. Since he had two previous jail sentences and was out on parole, he went to jail for 20 something years. BTW he was unarmed.
 
Rather than a single root cause, I feel that there is more than one factor to consider to establish an effective solution which would prevent such tragedies.

As with any good problem-solving methodology, factors should not be eliminated nor solutions selected without analysis and evaluation.

Gun control should be on the table for at least 2 reasons:
1. Evaluate current laws as to whether they are effective and, if not, retract them.
2. Ask the questions: "What gun control legislation would have prevented this, would such legislation be consistent with our nation's 2A underpinnings, and would gun control alone be the answer?"
 
Last edited:
I semi-agree with Silent Bob. All bets might be off on AWB after this heinous crime. So many folks feel they have to do *something*, even if it will not change a damn thing. So many folks say we need to do a better job with mental healthcare. The latter would be 100x harder and more expensive to do, the quick chest-thumping move is to pass an AWB...and the political power and will to do so is very, very high.
 
You can read about the 1974 Palestinian attack on Israeli school children. Mostly teens.

They wanted to free militants from Israeli prisons. The Israelis wouldn't bite, so the terrorists started killing kids with grenades and automatic weapons. The Israeli commandos attacked and killed the terrorists.

Israel's response to this attack was to arm the teachers. It hasn't happened since.

Our pols don't have the stones to do this, though. It will never happen in this country.

If one of the teachers or admins was armed, the perpetrator would have been dead before he got started.
 
Israel also allows retired military and police to be at schools and buses. Sort of a well trained, curmudgeon make my day group. Don't seem to be any problems from Hamas since.
Just saying.
 
I don't have a big issue with magazine size, I shoot a Sig 556 that can carry up to 30 rounds, and I really don't need more than ten at a time. Heck, when hunting I am limited to five in the rifle and three in my shotgun. I know that this is not the attitude of many of the readers of this forum, but I just don't think its that big a deal.
Click to expand...

Do you understand that magazines is just where it starts? Right now, full autos are highly regulated, there are federal background checks, rifles and shotguns must be a certain length, etc. Even though all of that exists, all of the anti-gunners are saying that they now just want to have a talk about reasonable restrictions. If you give them magazines now, in 5 years, they will want something else (and the next 5 years something else).

I will agree to reasonable restrictions - that means not seeking the repeal of current laws.

Blonde
 
Do you understand that magazines is just where it starts? Right now, full autos are highly regulated, there are federal background checks, rifles and shotguns must be a certain length, etc. Even though all of that exists, all of the anti-gunners are saying that they now just want to have a talk about reasonable restrictions. If you give them magazines now, in 5 years, they will want something else (and the next 5 years something else).

I will agree to reasonable restrictions - that means not seeking the repeal of current laws.

Blonde
Click to expand...

Well said. We can't lose an inch. Our rights (not just 2A) have been continuously chiseled away. It has to stop somewhere. Why not stop it with the right that protects all others!
 
I feel we are going to lose this time, just a gut feeling. The media will not let this one die, twenty televised funerals. Many parents getting on t.v and ranting about guns. And since they are victims they won't be challenged. Oh I'll fight. I'll call my senators and congresswoman but in the end this one will get us. But God I hope I am wrong.

Tough guy Republicans were just a show to make Obama look weak. Now that he has won look at the capitulation Fiscal cliff, taxes and immigration. Again I hope I am wrong.
 
Given the full spectrum of arms from pea shooters to RPGs to nuclear devices, how should 2A rights be observed ideally? Is it a matter of where to draw the line as to which arms we do or don't have a right to keep and bare?

How would the 2A authors express their original intent in light of current weapons technology compared to that of the 18th century?

Playing devils advocate here so help me with the rebuttal.
 
I mentioned a few weeks ago, "we wake up one day to a presidential mandate", but right now, they are testing the waters, to see who and how, this is affecting the public and legislators.
I see more preassure being put on "mental health" than on guns. Hopefully, there will just be a new set of forms in some states that include something that needs to disclose any prior mental health issues,"and that's it". If indeed they go to assault weapons again, it may just get repealed by the courts. Judges shoot also, and are more in tune to what these guns do than 20 years ago when only die hards had them
Maybe a halt on any Hi-cap mags before they pass the legislation, but how does that affect me, "it dosen't". I have what I need now, and am not going to go spend money I don't need to on 10 extra mags.
That's the worse case scenario as I see it.
Maybe they cut mags in AR's and AK's to 10 also, but it will get repealled when the next election comes along anyway.
That will become a platform for anyone who runs next time, as shooting is getting bigger every day.
The average guy can still keep a mag in the gun as long as it was granfathered in, "maybe not outside of the house", but they can't take away your rifles, mainlly because they don't even know where to start. I sell my entire collection of 3 or 4 weapons every 2 or 3 years, and re evaluate what I need and don't need. I have no High cap guns anymore as they are all carry guns, and FL is hot.
So unless they ban all semi auto weapons period, there is nothing that should affect most of us anyway.Just put in a 7-10 round Mag, and you are good to go.
 
I have been through these since before 1968, when most of it started.

So am I shook up? Not at all. So why not?

Go to the following web sites, and look at the firearms production and sales numbers (as represented by background checks).

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics

http://www.atf.gov/statistics/

Keep in mind that the single largest percentage consists of "tactical firearms."

Sure we are getting beat up by the mainstream media, most of which is urban and leftist.

But any legislation that is proposed will have a long trip, if (and that’s a big “if”) it lands on the president’s desk. Keep in mind that after the 1994 election of Bill Clinton a gun ban was passed, but in 1996 it cost the Democrats control of the House and Senate, and most who looked into it (including Clinton himself) said it was the gun vote that was responsible. Al Gore was never president after a close election when he failed to carry his home state of Tennessee because of the gun vote.

After New Years the folks in Washington will have a lot more on they’re minds then gun control legislation. Right now they are concentrated on the Fiscal Cliff issue, and the media is in a news lull.

Today we are in far better shape then we were in 1994. We have a Supreme Court decision that makes arms possession an individual right, and all-out bans highly questionable. Ownership of tactical firearms is at an all time high, and about to go higher. The one common thread between these gun owners is that they are all old enough to vote, and past elections show that they do.

All we have to fear, is fear itself…
 
I am simply amazed that those legislators pushing for reinstitution of the '94AWB seem to have forgotten that an equally horrific tragedy, Columbine, occurred in spite of the ban's presence.

It seems that those who forget history are forever doomed to repeat it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

P
  • Locked
The Gun Control Debate is over. We won.
2 3 4
Replies
89
Views
5K
Chad
C
E
  • Locked
NRA screwing us again!
2 3 4 5
Replies
109
Views
5K
JohnBT
J
G
  • Locked
Not sure how to take this article
2
Replies
47
Views
2K
Gottahaveone
G
T
  • Locked
Some notes about the NRA.
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
Sam1911
S
P
  • Locked
Obama on Gun Control
Replies
4
Views
576
Larry Ashcraft
Larry Ashcraft
Back
Top