Gun control in US

I know you say "i want it for my self defense", but if the thief or the aggressor does not have guns, maybe a baseball bat would be enough for self defense at home.

I don't understand what you are trying to say. What if the thief or aggressor does have a gun?

I've read through the suggestions, but how do we draw the line on mental illness when a large percentage of guys coming home from the war are handed a PTSD diagnosis along with some flavor of depression?

I didnt know that! Thanks.

The mentality of "If someone wants to harm me,my way of defending myself shouldnt be beyond his means of harming me" bothers me.

If someone is attacking me with a baseball bat or knife or kitchen spatula or whatever it is..I really dont want to be evenly matched.

 

I completely agree, if someone is weighing the odds of success and profit breaking into my home, I want it in the back of their mind that their last breath might be taken on my kitchen floor.

 

This leads into a totally different discussion, one I would only discuss in a private forum, but what sort of steps do we all have in place for home security?

 

Alarm triggered interior and exterior lights? Deadbolt locked and solid core bedroom doors? DVR surveillance inside and outside the house?

I've read through the suggestions, but how do we draw the line on mental illness when a large percentage of guys coming home from the war are handed a PTSD diagnosis along with some flavor of depression?

 

You adjudicate someone as mentally ill, which is what we already do. It's CURRENTLY illegal to buy or possess a firearm if you've been deemed by society, through the assumed objectivity of a court, as a nutcase.

 

But what about all those people who haven't been adjudicated mentally ill because nobody knows they're crazy? NO, SOMEONE knows they're crazy...I refuse to believe this shooter completely fooled everyone into thinking he was all there. His brother's reaction was "it wasn't me" and "he was autistic" NOT "HE DID WHAT!? NOT MY BROTHER!" -- he wasn't surprised.

 

So what is missing is a reporting mechanism for concerned friends or family members to tip off authorities and have it mean something. It should be fair, it should be balanced, it should have checks and balances, but it should exist. If you call the police and say "my classmate has easy access to firearms and is kind of creepy" they'll say "sorry, we can't do anything because they've committed no crime" and that, for many reasons, is the RIGHT response. We can't lock up innocent people. That's as bad or worse as the current system. But maybe there is some mechanism to match enforcement and prevention with a report of concern.

 

Here's the problem though -- nobody is really reporting these concerns. Look back to VA Tech. Lots of people were quoted after the massacre as saying that [shooter's name redacted to prevent martyrdom] was off-balance, emotional, weird, quiet, scary, etc. But nobody was really acting on these concerns. It's the old "if you see something, say something" line. You really do need to at least try. Listen to your kids. If they're mentioning someone at school is weird or acting up, don't let it slip past you. Maybe there is a problem. If YOU have a kid who is triggering your "little voice" in your mind as being a bit too intense or depressed or whatever, get them help and make damn sure your guns are SECURE. Just because they're "your little angel" doesn't mean they're not capable of something you'd rather believe they aren't.

 

We have a long way to go and I'm afraid we're going to get mired down in the (unproductive) gun control debate and meanwhile someone else will want to join the growing list of shooters on the news.

It's the old "if you see something, say something" line.

I agree with your post. A big issue is who do you "say something" to? I sure as hell wouldn't know who to approach if I had concerns.

I agree with your post. A big issue is who do you "say something" to? I sure as hell wouldn't know who to approach if I had concerns.

 

Agreed, that isn't clear to me either. That's what is missing in my opinion. A procedure that respects privacy but also seeks to make sure a powder keg isn't about to explode.

I've read through the suggestions, but how do we draw the line on mental illness when a large percentage of guys coming home from the war are handed a PTSD diagnosis along with some flavor of depression?

Again. It wouldnt be an ABSOLUTE ban. It would trigger a "lets have a chat". The secret service get thousands of threats against the Potus a year. They go and visit them for a chat. They dont arrest any of them. They dont even watch most of them. They profile them and find out who poses a threat and who is just spouting off. And their success rate is awesome.

 

If a guy has a case of PTSD and its mild, no biggie. If its severe he wont be able to hide it. And he shouldnt have a gun.

 

 

 

Lanza tried to buy a rifle last week. Was denied purchase. Andwer seems simple. Cross check denials against registered guns(his moms at the same address) . Take THOSE.

I completely agree, if someone is weighing the odds of success and profit breaking into my home, I want it in the back of their mind that their last breath might be taken on my kitchen floor.

Criminals are scum... but killing someone because they steal something? Would you really take a life to protect a few valuable possessions? What if the perpetrator was a 15 year old kid with a bad start to life?

 

The crime rate in the US is so high I can't see that the current gun laws have any affect. Would it be better or worse with stricter gun control? Hard to tell, but if you look at most of the western/civilized countries where guns are only allowed for hunting, or outlawed all together, the crime and homicide rate is a fraction of that in the US.

 

On the subject of people going on a mass murder rampage though, some will always find a way no matter how much gun control you have.

Criminals are scum... but killing someone because they steal something? Would you really take a life to protect a few valuable possessions? What if the perpetrator was a 15 year old kid with a bad start to life?

You do realize that when criminals break into someone's home and the owner is there, they will either flee immediately or try to kill the homeowner? Are you saying you should not be able to protect yourself in your own home?

Criminals are scum... but killing someone because they steal something? Would you really take a life to protect a few valuable possessions? What if the perpetrator was a 15 year old kid with a bad start to life?

 

The way I see it, it's like this: If a burglar/criminal would want to break into my home and steal my stuff, it would be pretty easy for him to know when I'm at home and when I'm not. They're criminals, it's what they do... they try to get away with crimes. It makes no sense to me for a burglar to break into my home while I'm there. It's too big a risk. It's common sense.

 

Now if someone does break into my home when I'm around, I absolutely have to assume the worst, that is if he knows I'm there and still decides to break in, odds are he is prepared to kill me or severely hurt me or my family. And yes over that I will shoot someone. I don't think it's right to shoot someone over a few replaceable possessions, but between dying or seeing my family hurt and living with the guilt, I'll take living with the guilt of shooting someone over a few possessions. He should have known better, and he should have known there are risks when breaking into a home. It's a risk the burglar takes not me. It is my absolute duty to protect my family and loved ones and I would never risk their lives over a 15 year old with a bad start in life. I know it sounds callous but if you think about it, it's right. I probably would not shoot him right away, and I would warn him hopefully to scare him off, but I wouldn't hesitate if it comes to shooting him.

I don't understand what you are trying to say. What if the thief or aggressor does have a gun?

What if he doesnt and is just a really good fighter? Ive never been in a fight and doubt me with a baseball bat could even take on a good fighter or someone hopped up on Meth or LSD or name your substance. I want to have the best chance I can to survive.

 

Then people say there is no need for an assault riffle. Well thats not true. They are good for hunting, but thats another topic. Guns evolve. Just like the first amendment, when it was written the internet wasnt around. Lets ban that too.

Now if someone does break into my home when I'm around, I absolutely have to assume the worst, that is if he knows I'm there and still decides to break in, odds are he is prepared to kill me or severely hurt me or my family. And yes over that I will shoot someone.

You do realize that when criminals break into someone's home and the owner is there, they will either flee immediately or try to kill the homeowner? Are you saying you should not be able to protect yourself in your own home?

Indeed you should, but then you are acting in self defense, which makes it a different case all together. Most criminals will flee if they hear the homeowner, and not confront them. Especially if they don't have a gun, which usually is the case in countries with gun control.

Just playing the devils advocate here but who are we to tell those who have mentally challenged/psychotic children that they can't have a gun to protect themselves? Surely this would make them one of the easiest targets to attack, wouldn't they?

Indeed you should, but then you are acting in self defense, which makes it a different case all together. Most criminals will flee if they hear the homeowner, and not confront them. Especially if they don't have a gun, which usually is the case in countries with gun control.

I wouldn't be so sure about that, remember they're criminals, they don't care about laws. Chances are he is armed. In this day and age it's very easy to get a hold of illegal weapons. Also they don't necessarily flee if the victim is a woman or defenseless old man. More often than not they might attempt to assault their victim, you never know. Gun control has never managed to keep guns out of criminals' hands, at least not in my experience.

Its been proven pretty solidly that ultimate gun control just doesn't work. Sighting Romans previous post on Washington DC over the past 10 years. Or even Mexico with gun laws so strict only the military/police, oh and thousands upon thousands of murdering organized crime thugs backed by billions of dollars, have guns. Criminals generally don't care about laws, if they did, they wouldn't be very proficient criminals. If someone is ass over teakettle set on a mission they will find the guns, or substitute any number of other weapons, explosives, or fcuking chainsaws and fire axes.

 

Guns are pretty much banned over here, and our homicide rate is nearly a quarter (per capita) that of the United States'. Albert brought up Italian road rage a few posts up, their murder rate is even lower. Nima brought up Canada and Japan on a previous page, look up the latter and you might experience a compulsion to move there immediately.

 

Ultimate gun control does work (to a degree - thugs and lunatics find other weapons to kill with if they're determined and gangsters can import guns into even the strictest legislated countries), but gun culture is so deeply entrenched in the States that it's a probably insurmountable social issue. Fairly unique situation as far as I know, and it's difficult for an outsider to empathise with.

Criminals are scum... but killing someone because they steal something? Would you really take a life to protect a few valuable possessions? What if the perpetrator was a 15 year old kid with a bad start to life?

If he breaks into my home, he's going to have a bad end to life as well.... I'm not taking a demographics survey at 2 am in the morning. If he's in my home, he's a threat to me and my family. And he picked the wrong fcuking home to break into. I'll deal with the hours of soul searching that I killed a 15 year old shitbag who had a bad start to life AFTER he no longer poses a threat to my family.

Just playing the devils advocate here but who are we to tell those who have mentally challenged/psychotic children that they can't have a gun to protect themselves? Surely this would make them one of the easiest targets to attack, wouldn't they?

 

I don't think anyone has advocated that we confiscate guns from parents of mentally ill kids. I think we're arguing that if you're in that position, you need to take SEVERAL extra steps to secure your weapons. If not because of a special law, then because it is common sense and the right thing to do.

Guns are pretty much banned over here, and our homicide rate is nearly a quarter (per capita) that of the United States'. Albert brought up Italian road rage a few posts up, their murder rate is even lower. Nima brought up Canada and Japan on a previous page, look up the latter and you might experience a compulsion to move there immediately.

 

Ultimate gun control does work (to a degree - thugs and lunatics find other weapons to kill with if they're determined and gangsters can import guns into even the strictest legislated countries), but gun culture is so deeply entrenched in the States that it's a probably insurmountable social issue. Fairly unique situation as far as I know, and it's difficult for an outsider to empathise with.

Switzerland has half the UK murder rate and they're armed to the teeth. I don't think gun control has much to do with it.

I wouldn't be so sure about that, remember they're criminals, they don't care about laws. Chances are he is armed. In this day and age it's very easy to get a hold of illegal weapons. Also they don't necessarily flee if the victim is a woman or defenseless old man. More often than not they might attempt to assault their victim, you never know. Gun control has never managed to keep guns out of criminals' hands, at least not in my experience.

In the US chances are he is armed yes. That is not the case in gun controlled countries. A criminal does not equal a murderer.

 

Look at this and tell me gun control doesn't work:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_...s-with-firearms

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...ated_death_rate

 

Switzerland has half the UK murder rate and they're armed to the teeth. I don't think gun control has much to do with it.

Take a look at the wiki link above...

This has been a good thread so far, nice work by the known hot-heads for keeping themselves in check so far...

 

As a gun enthusiast who owns multiple firearms and tries to get to the range as frequently as possible I look at the issue in two ways:

 

1. The moral/ethical/constitutional "freedom" emotional perspective.

 

2. The pragmatic/practical "how would you actually implement and pay for a ban in 2012" perspective.

 

For the first one, I'm not going to address it because it seems obvious to me that the constitution's second amendment is woefully outdated when it comes to this entire issue, and there is no legitimate justification for the "right to bear arms" this far along into our Union.

 

Bring the Founding Fathers back today and they would absolutely be shocked at us for having kept that provision alive this long in an era where the thought of an armed militia rising up against a nuclear-armed government or similarly-armed foreign invader is as implausable as it is impractical. Laughable even.

 

So that seems like an easy one to me, again, coming from someone who owns and enjoys the hell out of his guns.

 

For the second one above, taking all emotion or personal philosophy regarding modernizing the constitution a bit, the problem is one of practical implementation. How we would go about enforcing a total ban basically.

 

Like the drug war, if we want to outlaw firearms for private citizens we're going to have to hire/employ/pay for a tremendous amount of government employees/police officers/etc to enforce the new laws.

 

We would also have to expand our already overcrowded and underfunded prison network dramatically to encarcerate these new felons, to effectively punish those who break the law via encarceration.

 

Both of those scenarios are literally impossible at this point, mainly due to individual states simply not having the money to pour into incredibly expensive prison construction, along with finding the annual revenue to pay to house all of those new convicts(inmates are a nearly six-figure-per year expense EACH in the US for those not in the know...).

 

The bottom line is that the cost, the actual net dollar amount, needed to collect the 300M+ individual weapons in private posession out there currently combined with the expense to both house and punish the million+ citizens that would skirt the law out of personal beliefs ("my cold dead hand" and all that other macho nonsense) is simply not feasible.

 

Total gun control is a pure fantasy wet dream for liberals, and an impossibly unrealistic 'ginned-up-by-the-NRA' fear for conservatives that has no chance of actually happening.

 

For me personally, if I were a God and could snap my fingers and make every single firearm currently in the US disappear from private ownership, (including my own) at the same time, with no crazy prohibition-like transision period of extreme violence and law-breaking...I absolutely would.

 

I'd give up that fun hobby personally because I'm not oblivious to the clear impact they have on our society. The amount of gun-related deaths each year (both deserved and undeserved) is really staggering, and yes of course SOME of these numbers would still happen "with a knife", I know.

 

But the overall murder/death figure would fall dramatically, I have little doubt about that, regardless of what NRA-based biased stats are trotted out in the defense of ownership.

 

As a rule I try to resist the impluse of falling for "fake fear" lately, particularly that which is propogated by the NRA or the gun manufacturers themselves, or anyone else seeking to manipulate me using base instincts (protect my family/protect my country/etc), as I find that most of those groups have an interest in making money from my fear.

 

But again, even with taking my personal opinions out of it, I just don't see how we would implement a total ban even if 100% of our citizens were for it from a practical "money" stand point. How would we be able to pay for and enforce it? And the drug war's failure is proof to me that prohibition of something that people passionately enjoy or feel they deserve is a fool's errand over the long term in the US.

 

Bottom line: We're just going to have to deal with it the way it is, and perhaps implement some of the legislation that Eric is wisely describing to try and keep them out of the hands of those who shouldn't have access.

Please remember USA has over 350 million people over all gun violence is low. I live in Chicago land area which has had a handgun ban for years. Chicago has the highest shooting rates in the world. More than Mexico City , the ban did nothing and kept the good guys with no guns. It just got overturned and we will have concealed carry.

Please remember USA has over 350 million people over all gun violence is low. I live in Chicago land area which has had a handgun ban for years. Chicago has the highest shooting rates in the world. More than Mexico City , the ban did nothing and kept the good guys with no guns. It just got overturned and we will have concealed carry.

 

I would say that thanks to education, we have a responsible gun-ownership mentality in the US that does bear out your first sentence. We're smarter about them than we may seem to our overseas cousins for sure...

 

Otherwise you'd be getting Sandy Brook incidents daily, no question.

 

But the second half of your post is a good example of my thought that unless you had god-like powers to zap all guns away instantly there's no real way to prohibit and enforce a gun ban slowly, without a decade or two (at least) of actually higher violence occurring. It gets far worse before it gets better essentially, and that "worse" period could last for god knows how long.

 

If you're a society like say Taiwan, where the country was established with total gun control and never had them in large numbers to begin with, hey, no shit your gun-related-deaths stats are low. Obviously. But to take something out that is not only widespread (350M+ as christian noted), but also loved by those that own them, is literally impossible...and potentially violent on its own.

 

Just too hard to get something out (drugs, guns, alocholo, etc) that is already saturated within a population perhaps. Hasn't ever seemed to work previously.

2. Yes. If you are Diagnosed with any form significant mental illness by a mental health professional (Schizophrenia, Depression, Psychosis, OCD, NPD, Etc.) or are prescribed any medication commonly used to treat the above, there should be a website where the mental health professional HAS to report you (or an automatic red flag system for the pharmacist) that will prevent you, or anybody else at your address from buying a gun. When someone attempts to do so, the instant background check should simply give out a code that says "no gun for you today". At that point an ATF agent should go to the address and interview the person to find out whats up... Are they mildly depressed because mom died? Or are they barking fcuking mad? We have all these fcuking ATF agents... Instead of having them crawl up FFLs asses looking for picayune paperwork mistakes, get them out in the field talking to the very few potential gun owners who might be a problem... Use some police skills... Is this a guy who is OK to have a gun? Is this a guy who isnt OK to have a gun? Or is this a guy who should have his own fcuking cop watching his every move for a few weeks?

 

It sounds to me like you're suggesting the elimination of doctor-patient confidentiality. I can't imagine that this would actually improve anything. People are already reluctant enough to seek treatment for mental health problems because of the stigma attached to them. Putting the name of every patient on a publicly accessible list will have no effect other than preventing people from seeking treatment. Considering that a large number of people with mental disorders already avoid treatment, the only way for an idea like this to be even remotely effective would be to require a psychological analysis of everyone who wants to buy a gun. I suspect you are not in favor of that the sort of invasive gun control.

Heres an odd thing.... And nobody take offense at this, Im not trying to be a dick.... But everytime we have a gun control in the U.S. thread, with a few exceptions, the arguments usually boil down to a bunch of Americans who say "Nope..." and a bunch of NON Americans who push for it (although lately they seem to be saying "America should have it, but it wouldnt work"). Why is it these threads bring out the Canadian and European members MORE THAN ALMOST ANY OTHER??? The only other threads that come close involve tits and ass...

 

Why do you care what laws we have in America? Really, its an honest question... And don't just give me your first answer... Think about it a while and get back to me...

 

 

If we had a thread "Should (Insert name of country I dont live in) ban (insert hot button noun)" and there was a "I DONT GIVE A SHIT" Button, I would hit that every time.... I probably wouldn't waste my time reading the first post in the thread because I CARE SO LITTLE...

 

Why is it the rest of the world always gives a shit about our internal policies?

I would say that thanks to education, we have a responsible gun-ownership mentality in the US that does bear out your first sentence. We're smarter about them than we may seem to our overseas cousins for sure...

I'm not too fond of throwing in statistics here and there (like I've already did) because they can be misleading and lackluster. But according my links above the gun violence in the US is anything but low...

 

But like you very well said in your previous post, there is no quick fix for reducing the amount of guns in US homes. And with the mentality of criminals there it probably wouldn't be a good idea.

 

I wonder though, does it happen a lot that people successfully use a gun for self protection?