Calif. gun owners must now be fingerprinted to buy ammo!!!

reply to post by TheRedneck

Looks to me like you missed part of my postings...

"The law says nothing about fingerprinting mentally-unstable people. It doesn't need to. Mentally unstable people as a rule do not own guns. They either can't afford them, or they have a criminal record that prevents them from owning a gun already."
I don't believe I was speaking just of the mentally ill, that was situational. In this case I was discussing the post that I added to the statement, again the bit about the wall included. Where did you get the idea that "as a rule" the mentally ill do not own guns, that is irrational, they are no different than you or I. You can't tell them apart from the average person. they're lawyers, doctors, police, politicians, electricians, alarm installers(examples of patients I've treated in the last 3 months.) So either they are too broke or have a record therefore can't acquire a gun? I guess things are diifferent in the states regarding the mentally ill. We don't give them criminal records for being ill, if they do a crime that's related to the illness they go to forensics and are treated and released if and when the illness improves.

A quote from you:
"And remember, where I live, people just automatically assume everyone they meet is armed. Some are, some aren't, but you're right most of the time with that assumption. And everyone gets along just fine. We have very little violent crime, and practically none out where I live (last theft reported was about 25 years ago). "

Seems your information is 25 years out of date though.

'"The Violence Policy Center has released new information linking lax gun laws to high rates of gun-related death, and Alabama has been ranked No. 4 on a national list.

The VPC is a national non-profit educational organization working to reduce firearm-related death and injury.

It has concluded that the states with the highest per capita gun death rates were Louisiana, Mississippi, Alaska, Alabama, and Nevada.

According to the VPC, “Each of these states had a per capita (per person) gun death rate far exceeding the national per capita gun death rate of 10.34 per 100,000 for 2007.”

Its findings also indicate that each of the states ranked in the top five have more relaxed gun laws and higher gun ownership rates."

www.tactical-life.com...

Just saying... read all the information before you pass judgement on what I'm actually thinking on this topic. Thanks for adding to the conversation. Appreciated.

reply to post by PsychNurse

The VPC is a national non-profit educational organization working to reduce firearm-related death and injury.

For every statistic there is a competing statistic. They are only as good as we make them to be. Statistics are often misquoted, taken out of context, or the studies are just poorly done.

New data from the National Center for Health Statistics shows that firearms deaths have fallen to the lowest level since the 1960s.

Even before crime rates started falling in the 1990s, it was clear that the number of guns had no real connection to the homicide rate. From 1973-92, the American gun supply nearly doubled, including the number of handguns. Under the guns-cause-murder theory, a doubling of the gun supply should have sharply increased the murder rate. Instead, homicide was stable at 9.4 deaths per 100,000 population in 1973, compared with 9.3 per 100,000 in 1992.

Although gun accidents with children are a national obsession, the National Center for Health Statistics data show a problem that is much smaller than commonly recognized. During the early 1970s, a typical year included about 500 fatal gun accidents for children aged 14 and under. For 1998, the figure was down to 121. For children aged 4 and under, the figure was 19.

www.davekopel.com...

reply to post by PsychNurse

The fact is that the typical murderer has had a prior criminal history of at least six years with four felony arrests in his record before he finally commits murder.(17) The FBI statistics reveal that 75 percent of all violent crimes for any locality are committed by six percent of hardened criminals and repeat offenders.(18) Less than 2 percent of crimes committed with firearms are carried out by licensed (e.g., concealed carry permit holders) law-abiding citizens.(11)

So more gun control will only affect less than 2% of all crimes committed with firearms. How does further regulating those 2% really help the situation? Shouldn't we focus our attentions on the other 98% to really see an impact?

www.haciendapub.com...

reply to post by getreadyalready


I am in agreement with you getreadyalready. I only made this additional post to address "TheRedNeck" (his name not being disrespectful to you)regarding the mentally ill comment and the conversation about no violent crime in 25 years in Alabama in relation to the availability of firearms. I'm not pushing the matter of regulation.

This isn't a new thing. The Liberal government imposed a registery that the Conservative government is upholding. We have a long gun registery that the Canadian government has been trying to push with the backing of the RCMP. It has costed millions and to date has been a failure and waste of tax payers money. but they are still working on it to improve the acceptance from Canadians. Beating a dead horse but...

P.S.
getreadyalready...I've enjoyed the post that you have contributed. Look forward to future postings. I like how you think. Star for you.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by PsychNurse

 

The fact is that the typical murderer has had a prior criminal history of at least six years with four felony arrests in his record before he finally commits murder.(17) The FBI statistics reveal that 75 percent of all violent crimes for any locality are committed by six percent of hardened criminals and repeat offenders.(18) Less than 2 percent of crimes committed with firearms are carried out by licensed (e.g., concealed carry permit holders) law-abiding citizens.(11)

So more gun control will only affect less than 2% of all crimes committed with firearms. How does further regulating those 2% really help the situation? Shouldn't we focus our attentions on the other 98% to really see an impact?

www.haciendapub.com...

Nice find...

reply to post by PsychNurse

Looks to me like you missed part of my postings...

Entirely possible; if so, please accept my apologies.

Where did you get the idea that "as a rule" the mentally ill do not own guns, that is irrational, they are no different than you or I. You can't tell them apart from the average person. they're lawyers, doctors, police, politicians, electricians, alarm installers(examples of patients I've treated in the last 3 months.)

Perhaps we are talking about different levels of mental illness... and perhaps we should be talking about mentally unstable instead. When you say "mentally ill" I tend to think of those who have serious social problems... definitely not doctors! Mental illness as a term is quickly being re-written in our society to include almost anyone. I remember a thread some time back (can't seem to locate it now) about how adolescent behavior in teens was being considered a 'mental illness'. When otherwise normal behavior is classified as an illness, it makes the definition of the ill a moot point.

The person who, as you put it, decides that their neighbor is an alien and 'aerates' the wall of their house is definitely not mentally stable... and it is my experience that such a person would have an extremely difficult time getting a job as a doctor, or indeed, even holding a regular job of any kind. That same person would typically have a history of violence and thus be labeled a felon and incapable of legally purchasing a firearm.

Some things are obvious if you don't over-think them.

Seems your information is 25 years out of date though.

Actually, no. It is a 25-year ongoing continuous observation and therefore is accurate up to a few seconds ago. I did not stop observing 25 years ago; I started.

The statistics you point out are somewhat skewed. From your source:

The VPC is a national non-profit educational organization working to reduce firearm-related death and injury.

Sorry, but that indicates a bias from the start. But the telling aspect is that Alabama (to continue with the example) is not all rural. We have four major metropolitan areas: Huntsville/Madison, Birmingham metro, Montgomery metro, and Mobile metro. Each of these areas does have a high occurrence of gun-related deaths, quite a few of which are from Law Enforcement actions. Another significant factor is the number of recent gang-related occurrences as this influence has made its way to these areas. While states like New York and California have come to grips with the gang-related activity, Alabama and the other mostly rural states have not. We also have suicides from firearms, as you will see in a moment.

We are making progress, though. From your same source:

Last year, Alabama was ranked No. 2 in states with the highest number of gun deaths, so the state improved its ranking.

However, this is not due to fewer deaths, but rather the increased death rate numbers in other states.

So the ranking has improved. But I left the last sentence in to make another point: where an area is mostly rural, statistics typically ignore the rural areas due to their sparse population. It is no secret that crime in those metropolitan areas I mentioned is out of control.

MedScape Today has done a study on this very phenomenon:

Objectives: We analyzed urban-rural differences in intentional firearm death.
Methods: We analyzed 584629 deaths from 1989 to 1999 assigned to 3141 US counties, using negative binomial regressions and an 11-category urban-rural variable.
Results: The most urban counties had 1.03 (95% confidence interval [CI]=0.87, 1.20) times the adjusted firearm death rate of the most rural counties. The most rural counties experienced 1.54 (95% CI=1.29, 1.83) times the adjusted firearm suicide rate of the most urban. The most urban counties experienced 1.90 (95% CI=1.50, 2.40) times the adjusted firearm homicide rate of the most rural. Similar opposing trends were not found for nonfirearm suicide or homicide.
Conclusions: Firearm suicide in rural counties is as important a public health problem as firearm homicide in urban counties. Policymakers should become aware that intentional firearm deaths affect all types of communities in the United States.

Gee, maybe should we outlaw cities.

I found some more information from this site which had some more exact numbers, based on information from when we were #2 in the nation. Out of 780 deaths in Alabama that year, 400 were deemed suicide. That's right, suicide. In other words, no one shot someone else; someone shot themselves, intentionally. I don't consider that as a 'violent crime', since last time I checked, suicide was not illegal (not that it would do any good if it were. )

Now what does this tell us? It tells us that the death rate for firearm suicide was 9 per 100,000 and the death rate for other firearm-related deaths was 8.55 per 100,000. The study from MedScape Today says that the urban firearm-relate death (excluding suicide) rate would be around 5.6 per 100,000 and for rural areas it would be about 2.95 per 100,000.

2.95 per 100,000, in the state with the 4th highest firearm death rate in the US.

Alabama has a total death rate of 930.7 per 100,000 [source] and according to your statistics a death-by-gun rate of 17.55. That means that gun deaths, even in Alabama, account for 1.9% of all deaths, and non-suicide firearms-related deaths account for more like 0.9%. Is this really that serious a problem to you? Automobile deaths from distracted driving, cancer deaths, probably death form poverty (exposure, malnutrition) far outnumber gun deaths. Would it not be a far better tactic, if the intent were to reduce death rates, to concentrate on better driving skills or finding a cure for cancer or combating poverty?

So, based on my direct observation, statistics published, and a reasonable examination of the area in question, it would appear that not only are gun-related deaths an extreme minority of total deaths, but the only problems with gun ownership are:

• Suicides (is there a study that says suicide rates would drop if guns were illegal?) and
  
• Inner-city criminal activity.

All these statistics only serve to reinforce my beliefs on firearms: get rid of the criminals and there will be no need for restricting the innocent. Instead, we could help them and possibly cut down the number of suicides.

TheRedneck

Yikes:

For purposes of this subdivision, "ammunition" shall include, but not be limited to, any bullet, cartridge, magazine, clip, speed loader, autoloader, or projectile capable of being fired from a firearm with a deadly consequence.

So if you want to buy extra magazines for your handgun, you have to get fingerprinted. WTF?

Another B.S. part of this law is it's going to get paid for by the customers. The law requires:

(4) Commencing February 1, 2011, the records required by this section shall be maintained on the premises of the vendor for a period of not less than five years from the date of the recorded transfer.

So if the vendor is paying to gather and keep all this information, who do you think they will pass the costs on to? You guessed it: the consumer.

)reply to post by TheRedneck


Great post... I guess "getreadyalready" was right when he said "For every statistic there is a competing statistic." I'm not going to challenge you, we all have our beliefs. And I believe yours are well founded.

Oh, and by the way.Totally of the OP topic but within one of ours. The next time you go see a physician remember this. I had a medical physician as a patient a few years back after he ran around one of the main roads in the city I previously live in naked. He was naked for over twenty minutes before the police caught him (resulting in an interesting front page photo ). When he came into my care he was ranting about being Jesus. The gentleman had schizophrenia. Less than 3 months later he was back to work. After a major episode of 6 months or more there needs to be a 2 year symptom free period. Then, back to work. But if the symptoms aren't too bad(according to who?) keeping on working. That's just one example. Anyone can be ill... it's a matter of are they ill enough to get noticed and helped.

Mental health with our youth is not the greatest. Healthcare workers call the behaviours oppositional defiance now as not to label the teens with an illness

reply to post by PsychNurse

Great post...

Thank you kindly.

The next time you go see a physician remember this.

Why am I not shocked at this?

If I go back to another physician, it will probably be because I need an exam for work (required if I go back to driving) or someone brought me in dying. I'm old-fashioned; I smoke heavily, used to drink heavily, love fried food (I am in Alabama ), have had high blood pressure all my life, and the last time my cholesterol was checked it was 361. And yet I'm still here. When I started out-living the doctors who told me I was gonna die, I started questioning the entire health profession.

I have actually survived two heart attacks (not congestive, thankfully; I had that checked when a regular exam later showed the first was indeed a heart attack) without medical assistance.

Mental health with our youth is not the greatest. Healthcare workers call the behaviours oppositional defiance now as not to label the teens with an illness

You see, what you call "oppositional behavior", we used to call "needed his butt whooped". Strangely enough, back then there were few instances of someone who needed continuing mental help. I actually see this as a backup to the ongoing argument to restrict Second Amendment rights. After all, who would argue that someone in need of mental help should be allowed to walk around armed? No one! Now all we need to do is change the definition of who is in need of mental health...

No offense intended to you or your profession; you do apparently help those who do need help, and that makes it a noble cause. I just don't believe that everyone is mentally ill, and I have seen first-hand the effects of prescribing psychotropic drugs to children... devastating!

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck



Firstly, I'm glad that your still tickin' with the described health history. Don't believe everything you hear from a physician, especially when his first suggestion is... take the blue pill 3 times a day.

I can't speak for the rest of the medical field as I'm in addictions and mental health. But just so that you know the actual front line proffessionals view medication as a last resort. I do realize that general practitioners have a tendancy to hand out the mood stabilizers, anti depressants and psychotropics like bon bons and the huge MARKET towards children diagnosed with attention deficeit disorder (as you said, need an ass whoppin' and good parenting). There are pros and cons to health care.

One of the biggest changes in 12 years I've seen in mental health is the "professional patient." We take more information, and learn more about the client from them. After a couple of admissions these clients get a grasp of what works to help them get out of their current state of mind. as they get readmitted we take their cues for reasonable treatment and tweak as needed. The days of sedating the crap out of people, drilling holes into their brain and insulin shock therapy are gone. and with the copious amount of side effects out there, the clients really have to weigh symptoms of illness versus side effects of medication and choose what is best for them.

While I agree with you that mental illenss is overly/improperly diagnosed in many... on the other hand I've seen how much one can suffer untreated living for years with bizarre thoughts and challenges that the rest of us don't have to think about. Thanks again for the stimulating chat... Take care of yourself. Cheers

Idiocy in action.. Whats next ? Fingerprints to purchase pens, pencils, paper, business cards, nails, and hundreds of other everyday items that can be used as weapons...

Originally posted by TheRedneck
I know it's been said many times already, but it can't be said enough....

Two words: Re-Load

Another word: Import

But how long until they go after reloading supples? You need powder and primers. You need bullets. You need the reloading machines and dies. They will go after that too at some point.


"Sorry, Mr Bill but our records show you have bought your limit of ammo for the month. Come back next month, maybe then"

As for importing you can forget doing that unless you know some drug dealers.

I see a big black market in the future. I wonder what they are going to do when so one comes up with a man portable energy weapon. Out law batteries?

"Sorry Mr.Bill but our records show you have bought your limit of ammo for the month. Come back next month and maybe then"

reply to post by fixer1967

Machines and dies rarely wear out, especially the simple vise-press single-load style.

Store-bought lube is great, but there are substitutes.

Primers are cheap, small, and so far readily available... stockpile.

Brass can be reused many times over again, and could even be obtained from shooting ranges, many of which throw them away around here.

Bullets (simple ones anyway) can be re-used by melting and remolding your spent rounds. Or any source of lead, like most fishing sinkers.

The only thing that could really be restricted is the powder... and the only solution I see to that is to stockpile. Make sure to keep it cool and dry and sealed for as long as possible.

TheRedneck

Fingerprinting to buy ammo what a joke.

The state does not have the money to do anything with the fingerprints.
They are so far behind on running other evidence in criminal cases like rape cases and DNA from new criminals in state prison there are criminal still walking the street.

For me its just a 3 hour drive to gun shows in Nevada. plus i can get my cigarettes from the Indian smoke shops at the same time.

reply to post by TheRedneck


Primers have been the limiting factor for the past year. All the ammo shortages have been due to major disruptions in the supply of primers to the factory reloaders. Israel got all of the major primer suppliers into long term contracts and they were buying so many primers that the supply dried up for other buyers. It eased up some at the end of 2009, and it is supposed to ease up even more here at the end of 2010, but for about 2 years Israel was the only one getting primers.

It didn't help matters when the US military decided to stop selling their brass to the factory reloaders either. Luckily, that only lasted a couple of months and they reversed their stance.

But it wont affect you at all. Because no rifle ever fired a .22, .357, .44, .45LC, .38, 9mm, 5.7 and no pistol ever fired a 5.7, .223, ...

F& N makes a 5.7 pistol and there are .44 magnum rifles etc.

reply to post by getreadyalready

I wasn't aware of that. Probably because I haven't had the time lately to do a lot of shooting,

Definitely, then, stockpile primers as much as you can! It should help that there are only four sizes: large and small rifle, and large and small pistol.

TheRedneck