Welcome to 'Murica

[VINYLONE]

But guns are so prevalent today and the right to buy and own them is so entrenched that any measures that are allowable to remove guns, like buy back programs, will not reduce the number of guns enough.

There's a saying that goes, guns are forever. For the most part it's true. There are firearms in households around this country that were made in the early 1800's that still fire with ease and semi-precision. You should look to see how many guns there are in Australia even after the buy back. I think you'd be surprised.

 

[The Midnight]

Judge Judy is a legalistic simpleton.

The problems I see right off the top of my head:

Who pays for this? If the answer is the gun owner, than you've just added another "tax" to the ownership of a firearm which is regressive as it affects the poor and minorities more than it does the wealthy and non-minorities. I don't think I have to explain that the poor and minorities are MORE likely to live in crime ridden areas than the wealthy and non-minorities.

What's the baseline? Meaning, what condition bars you from owning a firearm? Who decides that baseline? Do you have to have a current condition or what if you had depression a decade ago, does that bar you? There are so many problems with this idea it's laughable.

How long will the test take? Who'll administer it? What's the waiting time?

Are you going to tell this woman that she does NOT have a right to defend herself because she's hasn't taken a psych test?

https://www.wafb.com/story/30207162/sheriff-woman-pulls-gun-on-ex-boyfriend-to-defend-herself

Will you tell all of these folks that they don't have a right to stop violence because they haven't taken a test yet?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...er-stop-mass-shootings/?tid=pm_opinions_pop_b

Or will you tell this woman and her kids that they should have just dealt with their situation because Mr. Ragakus had not been tested?

Every single day, there are people defending themselves. And like in the last instance, many times, not a single shot has to be fired. Deterrence is very much a factor.

I don't think it's as bad an idea as you are making it out to be.


Everybody has a right to drive cars but they still need to pass a driving test before they are allowed on the road, right? Why not psychiatric test or at least a background check to determine if you're fit to own guns? For sure there are administrative costs involved but what doesn't? A driving test costs money too but people rich or poor still take them.


It's just another idea to consider I just don't like shooting down ideas before they're properly discussed or put in the 'too hard basket'.

 

[VINYLONE]

Until the 2nd amendment is struck down (wont happen short of civil war and new constitution imo) than these discussions are all theoretical and cannot be applied.

Most folks that are anti-gun don't realize that if you wanted to confiscate, you would need guns, to get the guns.

 

[VINYLONE]

I was just waiting for your unsubstantiated, pessimistic, throw-your-hands-up post of the morning. Yick. Links?

Los Angeles's gun buyback programs, which are very lightly funded, leave plenty of room for optimism. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/07/la-gun-buyback-2013_n_3229435.html

this also happened in the REAL WORLD.

I'm glad that you posted this link.

There are a lot of gun enthusiasts that go to these buybacks to see what is being turned in. They then offer more than what will be offered by the LE agency if the firearm is worthy of purchase. Every now and again, friends will find something that is wroth purchase. Most of the time, the firearms being turned in are poorly made junk.

Those 1,100 that were turned in didn't even make a dent.

https://www.dailynews.com/general-news/20130213/los-angeles-residents-buying-200-guns-a-day

Los Angeles residents apply to buy 200 guns a day, an alarming number making it difficult to get weapons off the street, City Attorney Carmen Trutanich said in a preliminary report on gun purchases in Los Angeles.

 

[VINYLONE]

Regulation is a difficult task. I'd personally be fine with banning all private ownership of guns (with certain exceptions made for historic and sport usage) but I think that is an unreasonable goal from where we are today. The time to ban guns was about 230 years ago, but the genie is out of the bottle now.

Then again, Australia did it...

What world do you live in?

Who are YOU to tell this man, he doesn't have a right to defend himself and his customers?

https://www.jconline.com/story/news...e-clerk-fires-2-shots-after-battery/73771014/

 

[VINYLONE]

We already know allot of these reasons and already try to prevent them.
Depression, poverty, child abuse, neglect, temper issues, drugs and alcohol to name a few.

We already have psychiatrists and zanax and other medications.
We have alcoholics anonymous and narcotics anonymous.
We have welfare, and food stamps.
We have family counseling available and laws against child molesting
Anger management classes.

To name a few

I think you're missing one of the most important things. The over-medication of the population as well as the closing of most mental institutions across the US. And this is not mentioning the stigma that is associated with having mental issues which then stops folks from getting the help they need.

Take a look at this:

https://www.tiki-toki.com/timeline/...-United-States/#vars!date=1909-01-24_01:19:45!

 

[VINYLONE]

look

Whites have many more guns than blacks. They are much more likely to report(for polls) that they have a gun in their home. They are also much much much much less likely to either be murdered or commit murder. Why? Is it because they have so many guns? or Is it because it sucks a lot less to be white in America? In fact try adjusting the US homicide rate by race. When you remove poor blacks from the equation America ceases to be an outlier in terms of homicide rates. If you again adjust for income inequality low and behold America's homicide rates get even closer to Europe's. Finally adjust for median age. Low and behold there is no difference.

Solving violence isn't easy. It takes much more than you think. Starting with equalizing educational opportunities for blacks.

Sounds like you're describing the city of Chicago.

 

[VINYLONE]

Ignore the click-baityness of the headline, here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...-40-percent-after-connecticut-passed-this-law

I think you need to look at the statistical abstracts of the US as well as the FBI crime statistics. Crime was already on decline in the US. We are safer now in the US than we have been in over 4 decades.

 

[VINYLONE]

It's a possible piece of a possible pie. If another possible piece is the cessation of gun manufacturing, and we entertain that as something that could succeed, then the only other way to apply a lot of your sentiments is to say that "bootleg" style gun manufactory will still flourish to a significant degree, and that the buyback market would work as a support. You might be right, but a flow of unmarked guns of unknown manufactory could certainly lead to investigations or the alteration of the gun buyback policies. Or something else. Maybe it's a bad idea. On the scale I'm imagining, we only have hypotheses.

Naos, GBB is just another "feel good" program. Nothing more, nothing less. You seem to be an intelligent dude, I just don't get why you don't see this.

 

[VINYLONE]

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. There is not a shred of evidence that any mass shooters have made their choice of location because of the lack of armed citizens, and, in fact, most of the mass shootings have NOT taken place in gun-free zones.

https://www.armedwithreason.com/the...ip-between-gun-free-zones-and-mass-shootings/

And, just out of curiosity, how is the fact that the shooter obtained his guns legally supposed to make us feel? Like the laws should be LOOSENED? Really?

As far as I recall (and I'm not doing any research on this right now because it's late), most of the mass shootings recently have been done with guns that were purchased legally, either directly by the shooter or by someone close to them.

Sir, I think if we wanted to we could post links that support our views back and forth.

https://www.breitbart.com/big-gover...ootings-since-2009-occured-in-gun-free-zones/

That's a waste of time, though.

I think definitions matter, especially when talking about these types of issues. Meaning, what is a mass shooting? How do you define it?

Furthermore, since the last two "mass shootings" that come to mind are the most recent one in Oregon and the one at the military base in Tennessee, I think we can use both of those as typical scenarios. If we're being intellectually honest, we'd agree to look at the schools student code of conduct, as that tells us what is and what is NOT allowed on campus.

For the Umpqua CC, you'll find #19 pertinent:

https://www.umpqua.edu/resources-and-services/academic/student-code-of-conduct?showall=&start=4

For the military base in Tennessee, I believe no bases allow the carrying of firearms, believe it or not, that's why after the most recent shooting, Congress decided to make some changes? Why, because usually the only way to stop a person with a gun is with another person who has a gun. That's why we call the police.

https://www.stripes.com/congress-pushes-to-allow-troops-to-be-armed-on-military-bases-1.358555

As far as the shooter obtaining his gun legally, it should tell you that gun laws don't matter to the mass shooter. Once a person has decided to commit a capital crime, no other laws matter as they can only be tried once.

 

[VINYLONE]

And every single day, hundreds of people are killed with guns. Over 11000 by homicide in 2010 (I think the year was on the stats I pulled earlier) and 21000 by suicide. That is nearly 1000 a day combined. Until you can provide evidence that more people are saved by private firearms, all you're doing is telling us that those people's lives are the cost of you being able to hold your gun wherever and whenever you want.

I wish there was no violence. I really do. I wish there was no need to have a firearm but, unfortunately, there is violence in the world. But thankfully the world is a safer place today than it has been at any time in it's history.

I'll take you for your word on those stats and it's horrible that any of those people died but at the end of the day I can only worry about my life and my family and friends lives. Maybe violence hasn't touched your home or maybe the expectation of crime hasn't been something you have had to deal with and if that's the case, I'm thankful. And in regards to suicide, I have a close friend who committed suicide with a firearm many years ago. It was a horrible situation for both himself and his family but, again, at the end of the day his death has nothing to do with my life.

You might not want anything to do with firearms, you might not want to ever be in the vicinity of a firearm and I respect your right to live that way but the idea that you KNOW what is good for me and my family is NOT something I can ever agree to. Does that make sense?

 

[VINYLONE]

Would this little girl still be alive if the boy hadn't had a gun? Or do you then advocate for HER walking around strapped?

https://www.cnn.com/2015/10/07/us/tennessee-girl-killed-puppy/

Trust me, you don't want to make this a war of anecdotes. Also, if you stop trying to brand guns as "force multiplier/equalizers," I won't start calling them "portable death machines," which is just as valid a description.

There are myriad instances where guns are misused daily in both self-inflicted wounds, accidents and homicide but those scenarios should have no bearing on the concept of defending oneself. In respect to firearm monikers, you can call them whatever you want, that's fine with me. They're just another inanimate object that needs man to give them purpose.

 

[VINYLONE]

I've never claimed that the media played ZERO role in the problem. It's definitely down the list a ways, though.

Yeah, I'd probably agree with that.

 

[RandyForRubio]

I'm not sure what this means. Guns DO NOT fire themselves. What you're really trying to say is that you don't trust yourself. Firearm discipline is paramount when owning a firearm and if you have it and follow the four rules of firearm safety, well, I'll let you draw the conclusions from there.

What I'm saying is that it's far too easy for something bad to happen in comparison to a bolt or lever action. There's a reason the majority of people who shoot outside of a rifle range are using bolts or levers. Obviously if you follow all the rules, you're not going to have a problem (usually), but it is easier to make costly mistakes with a semi-auto.

 

[VINYLONE]

Sorry viny, this is a pretty meaningless post - - what the heck do you mean by SSRI's? There are plenty of other types of medication that are prescribed for various mental health disorders, why are singling out SSRI'S? And are you saying that only those who were captured alive might have been taking any of these medications, but anyone killed in any fashion was medication free? Usually you make at least some sense, but not this time.

At any rate, it seems you're trying to portray the problem as primarily a mental health issue, and that's an intellectually dishonest thing to do.

Ok, I'll give you some context. SSRI's are singled out because of their, in some cases, drastic side effects.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...wn-shootings-caution-about-violence-and-ssris

Excerpt:

The reason for the note of caution is that when a typical young person is diagnosed with depression and/or a host of anti-social conditions, the standard treatment offered is SSRI’s [Selective Serotonin Uptake Inhibitors] also known as Prozac-like drugs. There has recently been a great deal of debate about the effectiveness of such medications.

But more relevant to the discussion, is that these very drugs we hope can treat mental illness are at the same time drugs that cause violent behavior including suicide and aggression toward others. In fact, SSRI’s are the leading drugs in a recent list compiled of the Top Ten Drugs that cause violent behavior.

Here's a paper from 2003. Page 45:

https://www.breggin.com/31-49.pdf

Fourth, as an expert in criminal and civil cases, I have studied the lives of many individuals who –
under the influence of psychoactive drugs, such as SSRIs, NSRIs, and benzodiazepines – have committed
acts of aggression that were wholly alien to their character and antithetical to their prior behavior. It is,
of course, well-known that the illegal use of stimulant drugs, such as methamphetamine and cocaine,
can be associated with paranoid reactions and violence. As Preda et al. [66] suggest, the SSRIs and
hallucinogens such as lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) may cause psychosis through similar effects on
serotonin receptors.

Here's a more recent paper

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4318286/

Lady Moe, if you look at the paperwork for these medications, they list the adverse side effects that happen to a very, very small percentage of folks on these meds. Do these small percentages fit when compared to the small percentage in comparison to the population as a whole that commit these acts? I think it's something that needs to be looked at.

Your last sentence is perplexing to me. Do you think that these mass shootings are done by folks that are about their wits? Meaning, they were mentally well?

 

[VINYLONE]

But if the gun lobby is unwilling to make big changes, then maybe we consider a gun tax for manufacturers fund mental health programs and efforts. These costs would passed on to the consumer, making guns more expensive and more difficult to get legally. Basically, you could buy your way out of the restrictions is you choose to lay gun violence at the feet of the mentally ill.

Based on what? Most of these regulations are state mandated so blaming the gun lobby does not really make sense. Here in California, it's ridiculous that amount of hoops I have to jump through and the fees I have to pay in order to get a firearm. And don't get me started on the gun roster and what it does to prices on firearms that are going to fall off the roster.

 

[VINYLONE]

Please show me ONCE where I ascribed human characteristics to guns. Also, hoplophobia is not a recognized phobia and has no medical legitimacy. It's a made up term to ascribe a pejorative to people who don't jerk off while playing with their guns. (See, I can be offensive, too!)



I notice you don't deny that he, himself, is a part of the problem.



At the manufacturer level. Have you heard of seat belts?



Boy, you never use scare tactics yourself, do you? And, by the way, how long does it take to see that the "loaded" indicator is up?



Do you think a trigger lock might have let this 3 year old live? (I've said it before, you don't want to get into an anecdote war. You will lose.)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...c511c6-36a1-11e5-b673-1df005a0fb28_story.html



So what's your problem with extending those same reasonable measures nationally?



Statistics show that using a firearm to commit suicide is the most popular method in this country, as well as the most successful method by far (something over 80% success rate, vs <5% with pills). Also, something in excess of 90% of people who survive one suicide attempt never try again. I kind of value human life, and would like to take common sense simple measures to protect people from a rash decision. If someone REALLY wants to kill themselves, they will, but for those who are just having a bad time, or whose girlfriend just left them, making guns a little more difficult to obtain could very easily make the difference.

Yeah, I am not a fan of the NRA and there are many gun owners, like myself, that aren't as well. In respect to the loaded indicator, ALL GUNS ARE LOADED ALL OF THE TIME. Anecdote war? That's not my intent. My point is to show that people are saving their lives on a personal basis every day of every month of every year. There is nothing I can do from my home to help someone with suicidal ideation. I can, however, protect myself and my loved ones if the need arises.

 

[VINYLONE]

Agreed. For example, "hoplophobe," a term you seem to like to spew, doesn't mean a thing.

Fun fact: Charles Whitman visited a single psychiatrist before he climbed the clock tower in '66 and killed 14 people. He had a brain tumor which has been theorized (but can neither be proven nor disproven, of course) to have influenced his actions.

Spew? I use it often to ascribe it to folks that have problems with firearms in ALL instances. I did not know that about Whitman but then again I don't know much about him other than what he is infamous for.

 

[VINYLONE]

Yeah, and if they shoot a kid, well, that kid obviously deserved it for getting in the way. RIGHT?

Safety measures aren't perfect, but that's no reason not to try.

Deserved? No one deserves to die. Well, no innocent person. You're right no measure is perfect. Some firearms come with safety measures, some don't. I think it's up to the firearm owner to purchase whatever firearm he or she feels comfortable with.

Fun fact: I am against the death penalty in all instances.

 

[VINYLONE]

I don't think it's as bad an idea as you are making it out to be.


Everybody has a right to drive cars but they still need to pass a driving test before they are allowed on the road, right? Why not psychiatric test or at least a background check to determine if you're fit to own guns? For sure there are administrative costs involved but what doesn't? A driving test costs money too but people rich or poor still take them.


It's just another idea to consider I just don't like shooting down ideas before they're properly discussed or put in the 'too hard basket'.

Wrong. Driving a vehicle is a privilege afforded to you by the state. The right to defend yourself is a right afforded to you in the US Constitution. Those are two different things. I would also argue that since the right to life is inalienable, the state can't give you that right since they never had it to begin with. Once you were born, you had that right to your life and that right to defend it by whatever means necessary.