Are we ready to do something about guns yet?

[drjim]

It looks like something small might actually get passed, but it's mostly cosmetic.

 

The biggest issue for guns is suicides and domestic violence. I would prefer most of the effort goes there. Not sure the solution, but of course leads to more Onion headlines:

 

http://www.theonion.com/blogpost/shooting-isnt-about-gun-control-we-refuse-pass-its-57095

[Mike Sixel]

 

It looks like something small might actually get passed, but it's mostly cosmetic.

The biggest issue for guns is suicides and domestic violence. I would prefer most of the effort goes there. Not sure the solution, but of course leads to more Onion headlines:

http://www.theonion.com/blogpost/shooting-isnt-about-gun-control-we-refuse-pass-its-57095

 

I understand that suicides are more numerous. And my family has suicide issues, so I don't type this lightly at all. But the person committing suicide is making that decision, and not taking someone else's life. Yes, there are people that suffer because of it, but it is 100% not the same kind of situation, imo. I know not everyone will agree with that.

[drjim]

I understand that suicides are more numerous. And my family has suicide issues, so I don't type this lightly at all. But the person committing suicide is making that decision, and not taking someone else's life. Yes, there are people that suffer because of it, but it is 100% not the same kind of situation, imo. I know not everyone will agree with that.

It will certainly demand a different kind of response, but suicide represents about 60ish% of gun deaths, and it is shown that the presence of guns increases the likelihood of a suicide. It is a public health challenge that calls for a response.

[Mike Sixel]

 

It will certainly demand a different kind of response, but suicide represents about 60ish% of gun deaths, and it is shown that the presence of guns increases the likelihood of a suicide. It is a public health challenge that calls for a response.

 

I agree. Very much. I see it as a different, related, problem....

[Squirrel]

I agree. Very much. I see it as a different, related, problem....

Just what I was going to say. While I get how the two issues ... gun violence prevention and mental health access ... cross paths, and tackling one would have an affect on the other, they are SEPARATE issues and need to be addressed separately. Writing gun laws specific to persons with mental health issues doesn't work on so many levels and I think in some instances have been ruled unconstitutional.

[gunnarthor]

 

Maybe if the authorities released the photos of the victims' bodies, so that everyone can see what these weapons do, .

Actually, I think that's a very good idea as macabre as it is. Pro life advocates got a lot of success by showing pictures of abortions which made everyone queasy. America's support of wars has gone down remarkably after the cameras started showing the body bags. 

[Squirrel]

I also think brining the mental health issue into a conversation about gun violence prevention, and vice versa, is a distraction to both issues.

[drjim]

 

Just what I was going to say. While I get how the two issues ... gun violence prevention and mental health access ... cross paths, and tackling one would have an affect on the other, they are SEPARATE issues and need to be addressed separately. Writing gun laws specific to persons with mental health issues doesn't work on so many levels and I think in some instances have been ruled unconstitutional.

 

It is a massive land mine on many levels, but it would save many, many more lives than cosmetic gun restrictions. It is at least considering how it might be done right.

 

I personally think banning guns (or severely limiting them) from people convicted of domestic violence is a much lower hanging fruit for preventing deaths.

[Squirrel]

 

It is a massive land mine on many levels, but it would save many, many more lives than cosmetic gun restrictions. It is at least considering how it might be done right.

 

I personally think banning guns (or severely limiting them) from people convicted of domestic violence is a much lower hanging fruit for preventing deaths.

Again ... you are mixing the two issues and it's been proven unconstitutional to restrict those with mental health issues from gun access. I mean, who would you restrict and how would you determine their level of healthiness to own or not own a gun? How do you know if these persons don't already own a gun? What about their family members who own a gun; family members that aren't even in the same household. This is just the wrong way about it. Champion health care and access to that care for everyone. And then, separately, work on the issues of gun violence. I'm not disagreeing with you on suicide and gun deaths, but I still think these are two issues, related yes, but two issues that require addressing from two sides. So work on health access to those in need and then work on gun accessibility. There are a number of ways we could try to limit access that we don't even attempt to address, because, well, any conversation we have immediately turns into, thank you NRA, 'YOU'RE TRYING TO TAKE AWAY MY GUNS! DON'T TAKE AWAY MY GUNS!'

 

Craig had a good suggestion ... taxation. You want guns, you pay for it. Same with the taxation on cigarettes or gas, in some states, or a number of things.

 

Work toward licensing, not unlike car licensing and registration. Require licensing to include usage and safety classes and tests. And have yearly registration for every, single, gun you own.

 

Have laws be national laws. Yes, I'm trampling on states rights with this one but this is a NATIONAL issue. Chicago, as you know, has high instances of gun violence. It wasn't too long ago that a study was released that showed a very high percentage of guns involved in Chicago crime came from other states. Chicago itself has fairly good laws, but I can drive 20 minutes and buy a gun in Indiana without much restriction.

 

Background checks and waiting periods.

 

Maybe limit the numbers and types of guns people have ... but then, this gets into the zone where people get crazy. Or limit the amount of ammunition one can have. This is an area I don't know enough about to make a proper suggestion, just throwing out ideas.

 

None of these ideas would hinder anyone's 'right' to own a gun, but yes, access would be a bit more difficult. But none of this gets even discussed because, well, 'YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE MY GUNS! YOU CAN'T TAKE MY GUNS!'

 

 

[drjim]

My solution would be to allow lawsuits against gun vendors. Put the onus on the point of sale, spread the liability.

 

There's a reason the NRA worked so hard to exempt the industry from law suits.

[Doomtints]

The reason the US and A has this issue and other countries do not is fairly simple.

 

Gun manufacturers are HQ'd in the US.

The government wants them to stay here.

There is a well financed trade organization designed to lobby for the manufacturers.

And, as per usual, the GOP is full of profiteers who have become adept at converting tax dollars into corporate profits without the corporation having to sell anything.

 

This is the usual problem we face in this country. It's the same problem for healthcare, for bail, prescription drugs, private prisons, traffic laws, the energy industry, corruption in mass media  ... you name it.

 

I hope with all my heart that Americans as a whole stop being naive when voting.

[jimmer]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/breakingnews/26-killed-in-church-attack-in-texas-worst-mass-shooting/ar-AAutxtq?li=BBnbkly

 

[gunnarthor]

[Badsmerf]

This violence is heart wrenching. I wonder how other countries view us at this point. We would seem like an incredibly dangerous place to live. I don't blame them, for all I know, I could be next.

[ashbury]

Views from overseas likely aren't much changed. I remember a colleague coming over from Germany in 1997 or so expressing concern about concealed carry in Nevada. He of course never had a negative direct encounter with a gun (because we had wide-ranging conversations and I would for sure have heard about it!) during his decade here, but I'd be curious what folks hear from him on the topic of his rootin' tootin' days in the US now that he has moved back to Europe. People's perceptions aren't always completely in line with the actual experience.

[Vanimal46]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/breakingnews/texas-gunman-wore-ballistic-vest-in-laws-attended-church-what-we-know-now/ar-AAuuQeZ?OCID=ansmsnnews11 

 

Of course, Trump believes this is a mental health issue, and not a gun issue. Sigh...... I'm afraid we'll never reach a breaking point on this topic. It's demoralizing. 

[Craig Arko]

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/breakingnews/texas-gunman-wore-ballistic-vest-in-laws-attended-church-what-we-know-now/ar-AAuuQeZ?OCID=ansmsnnews11 

 

Of course, Trump believes this is a mental health issue, and not a gun issue. Sigh...... I'm afraid we'll never reach a breaking point on this topic. It's demoralizing. 

It's the President's mental health issues I worry most about.

[ashbury]

It is astounding to me that the party comfortable to the faction that professes fear of the Deep State is comfortable with the idea that the solution to gun violence is someone determining people's mental health in such a way that their ability to commit mayhem would be constrained in the slightest.

 

Not that I've heard one specific proposal along those lines, mind you. Bringing up the notion is just a stratagem to draw attention from the NRA.

 

This guy was previously accused of domestic violence. Absent the gun violence, the voices now calling it a mental health issue would be disputing whether the domestic accusations were well founded. Women routinely bring false charges, y'know. The solution to gun violence is now giving such claims credence? As if.

[Halsey Hall]

OH ya, the gun shot itself off. 

[Vanimal46]

 

OH ya, the gun shot itself off. 

 

OH ya, I forget that AR 15s and other automatic assault rifles are needed in every household. Not sure how I've survived 27 years without one. 

[ashbury]

OH ya, I forget that AR 15s and other automatic assault rifles are needed in every household. Not sure how I've survived 27 years without one. 

Ah, the National RIFLE Association - to paraphrase Homer Simpson, the cause of, and solution to, all of life’s problems.

[Mr. Brooks]

This guy shouldn't have been allowed to purchase a guy, except that the Air Force failed to finish the paperwork.

[PseudoSABR]

 

OH ya, the gun shot itself off. 

The tank shot itself.

The atomic bomb launched itself.

The house burglarized itself.

Anthrax mailed itself.

The drug administered itself.

The river poisoned itself.

The icecaps melted themselves.

The victim victimized her/himself.

 

Heck, why have laws?  The bad guys gonna do what they gonna do.  And they shouldn't be the only ones with rapey biological atomic tanks.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Call the shooter evil, and call it a day. That seems to be the official response lately. Also, thoughts and prayers. Never forget thoughts and prayers.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Call the shooter evil, and call it a day. That seems to be the official response lately. Also, thoughts and prayers. Never forget thoughts and prayers.

If we started taxing thoughts and prayers, how much less would people give?   It's because T&P are worth nothing that people are willing to give them, and call it a day.

[Champuckett]

If I could get any feedback on this, that would be great.

 

What is the primary purpose behind guns/arms under the 2nd amendment?

 

 

A. Hunting

B. Self defense

C. Ensuring the military has arms

D. Resistance to tyranny

 

 

Based on your answer, could you please elaborate on why this may be the case. All answers are appreciated and my hope is that this can in some small way promote, not discourage discussion on guns and the gun issue that many have strong feelings about.

[glunn]

 

If I could get any feedback on this, that would be great.

What is the primary purpose behind guns/arms under the 2nd amendment?


A. Hunting
B. Self defense
C. Ensuring the military has arms
D. Resistance to tyranny


Based on your answer, could you please elaborate on why this may be the case. All answers are appreciated and my hope is that this can in some small way promote, not discourage discussion on guns and the gun issue that many have strong feelings about.

I believe that the original purposes included all of the above, but the founding fathers were thinking about muskets that held one projectile and took a minute or two to reload.

 

Today, I think that hunting is a valid purpose, but the best guns for hunting are shotguns and rifles, not assault weapons.

 

Self defense also seems valid today, but the preferred guns for that would be shotguns and handguns.

 

Ensuring that the military has arms seems unrelated -- the military could have arms even if the Second Amendment was repealed.

 

Protection against tyranny seems illogical. Even if a group of patriots had assault rifles, they would not stand a chance against tanks or helicopter gunships.

 

I think that we need to move the line on what guns can be owned, and I would start with assault rifles. That said, I agree with those who talk about mental health. As we have seen, a truck can kill a lot of people in a short time, and a bomb can kill more.

 

Humans have evolved as a species where part of our nature is to kill each other. We are to some extent the survivors of tribes who killed off other tribes. Overcoming that is a challenge, both on an individual level and a group level.

[DaveW]

All this debate, and yet the answer is simple.

MORE THOUGHTS AND PRAYERS

[kab21]

I am not sure if anyone realized this but we actually have an example of a good guy with a gun stopping this massacre. Just 26 dead. No doubt the man is a hero but something needs to be done about this issue so that 'good guys with guns' aren't the only option.
 

[biggentleben]

 

That said, I agree with those who talk about mental health. As we have seen, a truck can kill a lot of people in a short time, and a bomb can kill more.

 

I know that you're thoughtful on this issue and not making this statement, glunn, but my biggest issue is that the ONLY conversation, seemingly, about mental health circles around acts just like this, regardless of what is used to commit the act.

 

Mental illness leading to someone committing an act like this is about akin to the 400-pound man who runs a sub-4 hour marathon. It can happen, and it does, but it's not the usual or expected outcome.

 

Mental illness is an area where this country in general is so incredibly mal-informed that it makes the knowledge in areas like nutrition in the country look incredibly informed (and it's not...at all). The overwhelming vast majority of mentally ill will never act out against another human being, and most definitely not against a stranger to them. When they are a threat to themselves or others, it is typically more of an issue of lashing out against loved ones, not against strangers. Acts of aggression against a stranger are incredibly rare within true mental illness.

 

If we want to have a REAL discussion on mental illness and mental health, great, let's do that! I can think of little that is more needed within the American society currently. However, if we are going to continue to placate ideas of mental health funding and/or reform and see any changes simply be a matter of a way to funnel federal money to a prominent donor, then count me out. It's better to have the country stay in the dark than to push that mantra and create an even more damaging social stigma.