The Gun Conversation

[NaTaS+ 958]

Also wanted to post another article that speaks to the mental health aspect mentioned a few times ITT.

 

SMH

 

 

Michael Schofield thought his young daughter, Janni, was a genius, until he realized her bright mind masked an inner darkness....read more at the link above. Very serious issue and probably should be discussed more than gun control. But why go to the root of the issue when you can mask it by dealing with the tool...

[BwareDWare94 723]

Ya.. I realized after the fact that the whole Morgan Freeman thing was a "hoax" but regardless of who said it... The words strike close to home. Just because it wasn't Morgan Freeman, doesn't mean what was said is any less true (As Thanatos said).

 

-------------------------------

 

And unfortunately you have been very disrespectful Bware. More so than anyone else in this thread, for what it's worth. And it hasn't been to just me. I read the thread before responding and you attitude towards others and those with differing opinions just isn't the way to behave. I had to restrain myself from saying anything regarding how you treated some other members in this thread, but figured it wasn't my place to say. They can defend themselves just fine.

 

You can think they are wrong, you can argue with them, you can discredit their opinions and you won't hear anything from me. I do the same thing and yes, occasionally go over board. But I really feel like I have kept it in check this thread. I knew coming in that it would be pretty evenly divided and made sure to argue your points and opinions, not you as a person.

 

To be quite honest, I am proud of myself for not completely lashing out at you for some of the things you said. The things that went beyond the discussion and onto a personal level.

 

I will not apologize for dismantling your train of thought. Taking your views on the subject of these tragedies and telling you exactly where you went wrong. I will not even admit that it was a "two-way street". I think it's pretty obvious that this was you driving a 16 wheeler the wrong direction down a one way street. Again, we've all been there.. I've done it a ton of times (although, I contend that this was not one of them). So I won't give you a speech or tell you how you should act.

 

But I will tell you how extremely disappointed I am with how you handled your responses and end it there.

 

I really disagree with you on the disrespect part. I've gone back and forth with Ngata, both of us slightly agitated but I don't think any malice was sent either way. I think you agree with him, so you see my slightly agitated posts as more disrespectful.

 

I don't even recall anybody else blatantly disagreeing with me. I'm a little confused as to how I've been that bad. Whatever the cause, it was not intended, but if it was so, apologies abound to those I've been rotten to.

 

You're proud of yourself for not lashing out? I can see that, but I think we've been disagreeing with one another more so than disrespecting each other.

 

You haven't dismantled my train of thought. Neither of our arguments have any statistical backup because we're debating ways to prevent hypothetical situations. As of right now, all we can do is discuss thing we can try. There's no way to know if any of our efforts will be effective in cases like this, so we either have to leave things as they are or try to prevent further tragedies.

 

You're disappointed in me? I think we disagree, and that we're both fairly emotional about the subject because of recent events, so opposing opinions appear more malevolent than they really are. Fair's fair, but you know me as a poster well enough to know that I have no hurtful intentions.

[badgers 380]

• I fully support legislation that makes assault rifles extremely difficult to obtain. If you want a gun to protect yourself, a handgun is sufficient. If you want a gun for hunting, plenty of rifles are available. I don't see the need to own an AK-47 or M16. If anyone does, please speak up because I'd like to hear your opinion.

 

This isn't my personal belief as I have no intent in owning any high-powered rifles of any kind. But if I were to venture a guess it would be as a memorabilia stance. Perhaps war vets would like to keep their rifle and I think they're allowed to do that.

 

Additionally, some gun collectors like to expand their collection to historic rifles such as the AK-47 or even earlier models like the M1 Garand from the mid-20th (my grandpa owns two).

 

Gun control laws are difficult because there are responsible people out there and the responsible ones definitely outnumber the irresponsible. It's just that all we hear about is the irresponsible.

[seanbrock 1,684]

I don't think that trying to control guns will work. People will just get guns illegally. Especially criminals. That and there are many ways to kill somebody. A gun is just a means to an end. I think maybe the answer here would be taking better care of the mentally ill. How you do that, idk but there are somethings that just happen. Nothing can be done to stop it. It just happens.

[seanbrock 1,684]

I've already stated that this thread isn't about banning guns, so your knife point is moot. Great job paying attention.

 

Your theory that all criminals and potential criminals will find ways to attain guns is flawed. Very flawed. They get guns because guns are readily available. You take that availability away and many crimes don't even happen because the potential criminal never becomes enabled. This isn't about banning anything. It's about making these weapons more difficult to get, and there's nothing wrong with that.

 

Yeah, I did this to make my point, right? It's not relevant at all, in today's world, to have this conversation, is it?

 

Aurora

Madison

Portland

Jovan Belcher

Newtown

 

Has it even been half a year and all of these shootings have transpired? Stop ignoring the growing problem, and you should be happy that political agendas are being pushed by certain parties, because at least they aren't ignoring this glaring issue.

 

Your complete dismissal of making guns harder to obtain baffles me. Your freedom isn't being stepped on at all. Your safety is being considered.

This statement here makes it obvious that you're from North Dakota. Guns are easy to get illegally now if they were made illegal there'd be all kinds of guns coming in other countries or just guns being sold/stolen that people already had.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

I'm not interested in getting into a gun control debate and let me reiterate that I'm not necessarily against armed self defense (though I will also admit I'll change my mind if I find evidence that my beliefs are wrong). Like mentioned in this thread already, better access to mental care is just as important in this discussion as is gun control.

 

Now, that being said, this is a good read:

http://www.salon.com/2012/12/18/the_answer_is_not_more_guns/

 

Yes, it's a biased source. I'm posting it for the (numerous) unbiased research studies.

[Shotgun 442]

I'm not sure why people are bringing up better access to mental care after a situation like this. While I agree that sort of care needs to be improved for other reasons I don't honestly think it necessarily applies to the people who've committed these types of crimes. It's not as if the parents of this kid didn't have the money to get him some professional help. They lived in a wealthy neighborhood. And even if they didn't have a whole lot of money there is still access. I've known a couple different low-income families through friends that had to get one of their kids help because they were violent. Typically people who do not get help either don't because no one helps them get help, or the individual refuses to get help. Improving access won't change those situations.

 

I don't think increasing mental health access would even reach the typically suburban people that have been committing these crimes so long as the family members aren't active in their lives and providing them with help. Perhaps limiting access to guns would prevent people like this from going on rampages as I honestly don't think most suburban people even know how to go about buying an illegal weapon from some random guy, but that will most likely cause other crime related issues in a country like this so that's probably not the answer. I really think it's up to the people close to these individuals to step up and do something rather than take a "it's not my problem" or "let's wait and see" approach.

 

And I guarantee you the media providing these sorry excuses for human beings so much attention has done more to cause others to do these acts than either gun control or mental health access. Instead of limiting freedoms maybe we should look at the narcissistic society that's been created and make some changes to ourselves.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

This isn't my personal belief as I have no intent in owning any high-powered rifles of any kind. But if I were to venture a guess it would be as a memorabilia stance. Perhaps war vets would like to keep their rifle and I think they're allowed to do that.

 

Additionally, some gun collectors like to expand their collection to historic rifles such as the AK-47 or even earlier models like the M1 Garand from the mid-20th (my grandpa owns two).

 

Gun control laws are difficult because there are responsible people out there and the responsible ones definitely outnumber the irresponsible. It's just that all we hear about is the irresponsible.

 

This is exactly right. My main stance for allowing assault rifles comes from handling one for many years as well as many friends who all own at least one and many own 2. Those of us that are close (geographically) all go shooting at least once a month and we primarily use our Ar's just to see who has kept up the skills the best.

 

You second point is very true as well. I have every service sniper rifle going back to the 1903 Springfield and think it is a worthwhile hobby to keep all of them in perfect working order.

 

It is also true that those of us who would never walk into a school, theater, or mall and start shooting drastically outnumber those who would. They just get all the press and the media likes to hold on to it for weeks trying to whip people up into a frenzy against guns.

[Thanatos 2,847]

I'm not sure why people are bringing up better access to mental care after a situation like this. While I agree that sort of care needs to be improved for other reasons I don't honestly think it necessarily applies to the people who've committed these types of crimes. It's not as if the parents of this kid didn't have the money to get him some professional help. They lived in a wealthy neighborhood. And even if they didn't have a whole lot of money there is still access. I've known a couple different low-income families through friends that had to get one of their kids help because they were violent. Typically people who do not get help either don't because no one helps them get help, or the individual refuses to get help. Improving access won't change those situations.

 

I don't think increasing mental health access would even reach the typically suburban people that have been committing these crimes so long as the family members aren't active in their lives and providing them with help. Perhaps limiting access to guns would prevent people like this from going on rampages as I honestly don't think most suburban people even know how to go about buying an illegal weapon from some random guy, but that will most likely cause other crime related issues in a country like this so that's probably not the answer. I really think it's up to the people close to these individuals to step up and do something rather than take a "it's not my problem" or "let's wait and see" approach.

 

And I guarantee you the media providing these sorry excuses for human beings so much attention has done more to cause others to do these acts than either gun control or mental health access. Instead of limiting freedoms maybe we should look at the narcissistic society that's been created and make some changes to ourselves.

 

If you read the article that JD posted, you might come to a different conclusion about how easy it is to get appropriate help for a mentally ill 10-year old child.

 

It's not an excuse, it's a hope, almost. We hope that people who do something as terrible as Newtown are mentally ill, because we don't want to believe that a human being in their right mind could do something like that.

[CribbsForTheWin 117]

Some people are ignorant as fuck about this whole thing (not saying any of you, but a Facebook friend). They just had a status saying to go get your AR-15s before the government takes them away. We are talking about assault rifles here. You know, things military personnel use. There is no justifiable reason, IMHO, to own an assault rifle in the first place. I understand a shotgun for hunting or a handgun for protection. But if you are getting an assault rifle, I feel like there are other intentions in mind.

[Maverick 791]

That would be ideal, but not foolproof. And theres no way to say "all guns have to be in a safe."

 

If it's responsibly taken care of, it's foolproof - barring your son or daughter isn't a blacksmith. Contrary to what the media will have you believe at this current time, most gun owners are responsible.

 

Some people are ignorant as fuck about this whole thing (not saying any of you, but a Facebook friend). They just had a status saying to go get your AR-15s before the government takes them away. We are talking about assault rifles here. You know, things military personnel use. There is no justifiable reason, IMHO, to own an assault rifle in the first place. I understand a shotgun for hunting or a handgun for protection. But if you are getting an assault rifle, I feel like there are other intentions in mind.

 

Congratulations, your bold comment is up for the most ignorant comment of the year award. Do you seriously think people that own assault rifles all have a hidden agenda? Please tell me you just got carried away.

 

I didn't want to get too involved in this topic, but the amount of misinformation I heard last night on the radio was ridiculous. This was Mad Dog Radio on Sirius XM. Statements ranging from your average AR15 costs $6k (which is a huge exaggeration) to not being able to inflict the same amount of damage this moron did with a handgun (something that's also false).

 

By the way, it's worth noting that Connecticut's gun laws are among the strictest in our nation.

[BwareDWare94 723]

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2012/12/sandy_hook_and_assault_weapons_is_newtown_a_warning_of_worse_school_shootings.html

 

This is an interesting read.

 

Let's say for a minute that we don't limit the availability of firearms, but what about lessening the amount that magazines and clips can hold? What about controlling the amount of ammunition people can potentially have at one time? (there are already such laws in place, in some places, are there not?). This seems like a simple precaution that we could at least apply temporarily and see if it seems to work.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

Some people are ignorant as fuck about this whole thing (not saying any of you, but a Facebook friend). They just had a status saying to go get your AR-15s before the government takes them away. We are talking about assault rifles here. You know, things military personnel use. There is no justifiable reason, IMHO, to own an assault rifle in the first place. I understand a shotgun for hunting or a handgun for protection. But if you are getting an assault rifle, I feel like there are other intentions in mind.

 

Believe me man, I hate those yokels who think having an AR makes them John fucking Rambo and has no idea what the forward bolt assist does and just think it is for looks. The guys you see who when they shoot it they put it under there arm like it is a fucking street sweeper and missing everything they shoot at.

 

That said that is not all civilians. you have plenty of military personnel who are competent and careful with their weapon system. Then they get out and want to still shoot the same weapon system. They own them for the memories mostly, that is a pretty good reason if you ask me, although I am biased.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2012/12/sandy_hook_and_assault_weapons_is_newtown_a_warning_of_worse_school_shootings.html

 

This is an interesting read.

 

Let's say for a minute that we don't limit the availability of firearms, but what about lessening the amount that magazines and clips can hold? What about controlling the amount of ammunition people can potentially have at one time? (there are already such laws in place, in some places, are there not?). This seems like a simple precaution that we could at least apply temporarily and see if it seems to work.

 

The article is being vague and letting people assume they are talking about assault rifles. Here is the rub. BOTH are semi-automatic. That means they fire as fast as you can pull your finger. With shooters that are of the same skill set they are going to put out the same amount of rounds. And to be truthful almost the entire handgun market is semi-automatic.

 

Now as to the limiting the capacity. Yeah go for it. That said you arent doing any good. You can go from dry with your bolt locked to the rear to loaded and firing in about 1 second and that is without a lot of training. So you are really doing nothing but adding MAYBE a second which is not nearly enough to make a successful defensive move withing 5 feet much less farther back. So I mean if that is all they did I would be fine with it because it really does nothing but it makes it look like it so again, yeah by all means. Just dont expect a major difference.

[BwareDWare94 723]

I guess the primary question is this: in what universe should any citizen be able to have so many rounds at their disposal? In the cases of these volume killers, why was there so much ammunition so readily available?

 

Unnecessary is unnecessary, don't you think?

[Omerta+ 1,206]

 

Just as a reference of how fast you can change a magazine. Whether it be ten or twenty it is incredibly quick.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

I guess the primary question is this: in what universe should any citizen be able to have so many rounds at their disposal? In the cases of these volume killers, why was there so much ammunition so readily available?

 

Unnecessary is unnecessary, don't you think?

 

Then the question becomes how do you monitor that ? I mean lets just say you wanted 700 .223 rounds and you are only allowed 210 rounds a month. A basic combat load for a soldier. That is 7 magazines one in the weapon 6 on your person. Well do you do you have 3 friends ? Do you have 3 months. Do you have two friends and 1 month ? I mean it is entirely to easy to get it in bulk. Know a homeless guy that wants to make a buck ? I mean ammunition is the easiest thing in the world to get. Especially for people who reload. If you are talking about someone who reloads then they can have thousands in weeks and only have to buy a couple hundred. All they need is primer, casings (not hard to come by), the bullets, powder and viola. One day at the range and you can find 2,000 rounds for reloads easy. Powder again not hard. If you outlaw that then you take away black powder hunting which is probably your safest form because those take a millennium to reload.

 

 

There are just too many ways to get ammunition to be able to try and monitor it with any sort of success.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

I guess the primary question is this: in what universe should any citizen be able to have so many rounds at their disposal? In the cases of these volume killers, why was there so much ammunition so readily available?

 

Unnecessary is unnecessary, don't you think?

 

How do you fix that problem, though? You are basing this off the assumption that all the ammo is bought at once, which obviously it can be. But if you limit how much you can buy at once, they will just make several trips.

 

There is really no feasible or logical way to actually count, check, and stop people from buying ammunition.

[Shotgun 442]

If you read the article that JD posted, you might come to a different conclusion about how easy it is to get appropriate help for a mentally ill 10-year old child.

 

It's not an excuse, it's a hope, almost. We hope that people who do something as terrible as Newtown are mentally ill, because we don't want to believe that a human being in their right mind could do something like that.

 

That social worker she talked to was a retard and it's a common problem to get incorrect and unhelpful advice from people like that. She needs to talk to others and look into getting help on her own rather than taking the word of that individual. As I've mentioned I know people who have had children/siblings with mental problems that made them violent, and I've talked all about this with those friends. There are plenty of services available for people including crises intervention programs. The U.S. may spend less percentage wise of their health budget on mental health than other countries, but in terms of per capita we spend a rather large amount on mental health. Is it enough? I don't think so personally. De-institutionalization happened for a reason but caused more problems than it helped.

 

The biggest problem with people not getting mental care is a mix of them thinking they can fix the problem on their own, and misinformation being provided to them as far as the type of help that is available to them. One friend for instance had a child with autism and was told he was so regressed she would have to put him in a mental care facility. She didn't listen, got more advice, was sent to a specialist in California, and her son is now doing quite well considering his disability.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

I don't want to get too personal here, but did your friends child actually show signs of massive aggression? And what I mean by that is threatening to kill people or picking up a weapon and making threats, or showing any signs of thought out and planned aggression (not sure how old the child is).

 

While autistic people do go through bouts of very strong emotional swings that will often times make them very aggressive, it's actually quite rare for them to really act out on that and be extremely forward with said aggression. The people with autism who are actually very dangerous are most usually found out at an early age. And these kind of mental illnesses more times than not are not "simply" autism. You usually have some kind of anti-social disorder of some sort mixed in as well. The combination can be EXTREMELY dangerous. Maybe your friends child falls into this category, I don't want to make assumptions.. But very few really do.

 

A lot of people with autism are getting a terrible rap thanks to some of these mass murders, and it just isn't fair. I believe the Washington Post came up with a stat that less than 6% of our health budget is dedicated to mental health, and of that 6%, most of that is for prescription drugs.

 

While there are outlets out there for mentally ill people, there are a lot more obstacles then saying finding medical care for disease. Some of which you stated. I can't put any numbers to this, but you say a big problem is people thinking they can fix it on their own. I am really not so sure about that. It might be part of it.. but in these dire circumstances, a lot of people just don't know where to turn. Not because they think they can fix it themselves. Plus, if somebody is thinking that.. I believe it would be a fairly short amount of time before they truly realize that it is something out of their control. Especially if they are dealing with the most violent percentage of those with autism -- the ones who have multiple mental illnesses.

 

There are bigger factors in the formula if you will, in my opinion. Part of it is that I really don't think a lot of said facilities are covered by a lot of insurance carriers, making it either very expensive or just flat out impossible for families to get that help. And another is just the... I dunno the word... the.. mindset of going and getting "Mental" help.

 

The American society is screwed up. If you or even one of your children really are struggling mentally, the perception is that going to a Psychiatrist or getting help is some kind of sin. Some kind of voodoo.

[Shotgun 442]

I don't want to get too personal here, but did your friends child actually show signs of massive aggression? And what I mean by that is threatening to kill people or picking up a weapon and making threats, or showing any signs of thought out and planned aggression (not sure how old the child is).

 

The friend that has a kid with autism was not one of the friends with a violent kid, I was just using them as an example as to how people are often given incorrect advice, and how important it is to see other professionals.

 

The American society is screwed up. If you or even one of your children really are struggling mentally, the perception is that going to a Psychiatrist or getting help is some kind of sin. Some kind of voodoo.

 

That's not the only way we're screwed up. Even the people who do get their kids help rely on quick fix medication rather than non-medication therapy. I don't honestly think our mental health care system needs to be expanded, it needs to be altered all together. It's not the funding that's the issue, it's the application. Something like 20% of Americans are on psychiatric medication. The problem with that is it's used as a quick fix to cover up symptoms rather than fix the actual problem, which can be done through non-medicated long term therapy. A lot of kids are put on psychiatric medications for anything from mania & depression, to ADHD, but what they don't tell you is those meds have an uncommon side-effect that can cause violent acts and suicide. In fact there have been many well-known murders and mass-murders (like columbine) where the killer was on psychiatric drugs and many physicians have argued the drugs were a major cause.

Edited December 19, 2012 by Shotgun

[Maverick 791]

 

 

Nazi Germany pictures. Do you think this shit ever escalates to the scale it did - hell, even if you don't want to go that far these simply slayings - if the citizens are armed?

 

Also, another argument to the people making the call for the AWB... If our founding fathers wanted us to bear arms to keep us protected from the government, what good is that going to do if their weapons overpower us with ease? I've heard the argument, "Well yeah but they put that into the Constitution when there were only muskets around." Okay, but that's because that was the only option at the time. There's been advancements in technology. I'm not saying each citizen should have access to a nuclear weapon, but an assault rifle makes it a somewhat-fair fight.

 

I'm sure I'm being looked at as the crazy guy right now. I don't really care. Who's to say that Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, etc, can't happen here? "No, that would never happen don't be stupid." I'm sure the innocent human beings in the above pictures said the same thing.

[blotsfan 2,112]

Nazi Germany pictures. Do you think this shit ever escalates to the scale it did - hell, even if you don't want to go that far these simply slayings - if the citizens are armed?

Yes. The Nazis were democratically elected and the people of Germany supported a lot of the Holocaust.

 

Edit: Also Godwin'd

Edited December 19, 2012 by blotsfan

[Thanatos 2,847]

Also, another argument to the people making the call for the AWB... If our founding fathers wanted us to bear arms to keep us protected from the government, what good is that going to do if their weapons overpower us with ease? I've heard the argument, "Well yeah but they put that into the Constitution when there were only muskets around." Okay, but that's because that was the only option at the time. There's been advancements in technology. I'm not saying each citizen should have access to a nuclear weapon, but an assault rifle makes it a somewhat-fair fight.

 

The original reason for the 2nd amendment is obsolete. Even if every citizen in the US was armed with an assault rifle, if the US military decided to forcibly take control of the country there is zilch they could do. They are far better trained, better equipped, and oh yeah, they have tanks. Something an assault rifle does nothing against.

 

As far as the Nazis happening to the Germans if the citizenry was armed- yes it would have happened. The Nazis were supported by much of the population because they had all-but-brainwashed them. Those pictures you are showing is the Nazis suppression of a minority, who would simply have had the average citizen to worry about as well as the Nazi military, if all German citizens had been armed.

Edited December 19, 2012 by Thanatos19

[Maverick 791]

Yes. The Nazis were democratically elected and the people of Germany supported a lot of the Holocaust.

 

Edit: Also Godwin'd

 

Maybe the Nazi's don't take over Germany and bordering countries if the citizens are armed? And that's only one example, Mr. Technical. You always miss the point by focusing on one aspect. You did it before when Steelersnation posted an article. You were quick to refute the quote claiming Morgan Freeman didn't say it, but ignored the fruit of the message. It happens all the time with you.

 

The original reason for the 2nd amendment is obsolete. Even if every citizen in the US was armed with an assault rifle, if the US military decided to forcibly take control of the country there is zilch they could do. They are far better trained, better equipped, and oh yeah, they have tanks. Something an assault rifle does nothing against.

 

As far as the Nazis happening to the Germans if the citizenry was armed- yes it would have happened. The Nazis were supported by much of the population because they had all-but-brainwashed them. Those pictures you are showing is the Nazis suppression of a minority, who would simply have had the average citizen to worry about as well as the Nazi military, if all German citizens had been armed.

 

Hence the reason I said "somewhat armed." Look at countries such as North Korea or China. The government can do whatever it wants in those countries comfortably without any resistance at all, really. I've also lost some respect for you claiming the reason for an amendment is obsolete.

 

You don't think just the mere fact of citizens having the right to bear arms keeps our government from getting out of control?