An honest unusual discussion about firearms

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Nice. But what does that have to do with showing the stats that I asked for?

You said they should be able to afford it, I am saying we know people that cant afford ground beef so they probably wouldn't be able to afford a pysch eval.

Also based on some of the actions by the VA I am not certain I would trust a pysch eval, the VA has sent federal agents to confiscate guns because a soldier returned from war had their spouse doing all the finances. Something as simple as saying I don't balance the check book the wife does was used as justification for removal of their constitutional right to own a gun.
How do you find people that will truly judge the symptoms and not judge by their personal opinion?

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Might wanna re-read the articles, because it point blank says “illegally obtained” was the question asked of inmates.

As to the reduction thanks to whatever: I don’t have a problem with background checks. I don’t know what you mean by stricter “gun regulations.” I do know I’m not interested in submitting to psych evals every few months because somebody I don’t know did something I wasn’t involved in. The mental health angle isn’t an easy fix, all the more so because almost nobody is willing to be honest about the problems on both sides of the issue.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Bloody Mary's aren't going to drink themselves and I wanted a "Me" day away from work.

'Us' day away from work.

I'm so glad I have a troll account so I don't get a bad reputation with this one.

So the "good" reputation personality is a Mason?

Considering a Mason is a man of outstanding character and virtue, charity and morality... The answer is YES

a reply to: Shamrock6

Umm, the first article says the following: (I don't count Quora answers because they're no different than a thread post on here)

Laws that limit the rights of law-abiding gun owners don’t make sense because most gun crime is committed by those who illegally possess a gun, said Faso, a Republican.

"The vast majority of crime that is gun related is committed by people who illegally are possessing that firearm," Faso said in an interview on C-SPAN.

Is Faso right that the majority of gun crime is committed by those who illegally possess a gun?

Dr. Daniel Webster, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, was part of a team that used the data to estimate how many illegally possessed guns.

After all of those, here's the first mention of illegally obtaining/procuring:

In the other 37 states, including New York state, 60 percent of inmates illegally procured the gun they used, Webster said.

Then it's right back to illegal possession:

Regional studies have found that a higher share of criminals did not legally possess a gun when they committed their crimes.

Then obtaining:

In the 13 states with the fewest restrictions on gun ownership, 40 percent of inmates illegally obtained the gun they used, Webster said.

Then the other point I made about not being qualified to have guns because of other factors:

"Most people who commit assault, robbery, or murder with a gun anywhere in the U.S. are disqualified under federal law from being in possession of a gun due to age, criminal record, addiction status, immigration status or other reason," Cook said.

Perhaps I overlooked it, but where does it "point blank says “illegally obtained” was the question asked of inmates"? The article is mostly talking about illegal possession with several illegally obtained points thrown in for specific places.

But either way, I still conceded that 40-60% of criminals who were caught, convicted, and then asked in this survey had obtained or possessed their guns illegally, depending on the State. Yet that still leaves 40-60% of criminals having legally obtained or legally possessed their guns when committing their crimes, depending on the State. So why are we only supposed to focus on the half of crimes committed with illegally obtained/possessed guns but not the half of crimes committed with legally obtained/possessed guns?

As to the reduction thanks to whatever: I don’t have a problem with background checks. I don’t know what you mean by stricter “gun regulations.”

Yeah, that's my bad for being vague about stricter regulations. Stricter background checks & closing loopholes that allow people on the terrorism watchlist to legally obtain guns are 2 examples that I'd agree with. There also needs to be something that completely prevents rapists, abusers, and the such from being able to buy guns at small gun shows and from private gunowners who legally own their guns, though I'm not an expert on the existing laws there.

My main complaint is with the double standard about mental illness. Mental illness is often used as an excuse and/or a legal defense for someone who commits school shootings, mass shootings, and other murders. People talk about which prescriptions the person is on, the side effects of those drugs, and what can happen if the person is off their meds. And that's fine. Mental illness sucks and it should be treated. However, if I'm supposed to accept that it's so common for people with mental illnesses to commit mass shootings, school shootings, and other murders, then that gives the impression that people with mental illnesses present an extra risk to the public.

If mental health issues don't make a person "more dangerous or unstable" than people without mental health issues, then it shouldn't count for more lenient sentencing and people should stop using it to sympathize with the murderer (since they're apparently no different than the rest of us). But if mental health issues do make a person "more dangerous or unstable" than people without mental health issues, then it should count towards their qualifications to obtain guns. Pretty sound logic, eh?

I do know I’m not interested in submitting to psych evals every few months because somebody I don’t know did something I wasn’t involved in.

I actually agree with you on this, though likely for different reasons. From my perspective, how is this any different than racial profiling, "broken windows", "stop and frisk" policies, and ostracizing all immigrants and Syrian refugees (remember the whole "bowl of skittles with a single poisonous skittle" example?). I hate the way I'm almost always forced to go through extra security checks at airports because my Muslim name catches someone's attention. I hate having the cops called on me for doing nothing illegal, literally having them called on me for mundane things like planting trees in my Mom's backyard, walking with my Mom in a park, and looking for apartments that were closer to my workplace.

But my family & I still have to go through that crap because, as you so eloquently put it, "somebody I don’t know did something I wasn’t involved in." I've mentioned before that my Dad's an Imam. He and his associates have been trying to build a new mosque since at least 2012, yet they keep facing delay after delay and hearing after hearing because the people in his small town don't want it there. Yet they have no problem with new churches and new congregations popping up all over the place. Why should we have to jump through so many extra hurdles just because "somebody we don’t know did something we weren’t involved in."?

I hate discrimination and I'm constantly fighting against it. But I've discovered that there's actually one thing that I hate even more: double standards. When society legally enforces double standards, it creates defacto "classes". So even though I hate to admit this, I've grown to accept that this country will always force different groups to jump through extra hurdles because of perceived security risks. I've had to do it all of my life. And I have a young nephew who's a few years away from puberty, which means that he's about to have to experience it too.

So you can probably understand why the sudden complaints about having to submit to extra security procedures because "somebody I don’t know did something I wasn’t involved in" sound pretty hollow to me. If this country is going to continue to make some groups jump through extra hoops to prove they're not threats to the rest of the public, then gun owners and the mentally ill need to do the same. But if we're finally going to accept that individuals should be judged based strictly on their own actions, then all of our laws need to reflect that.

(I know that sounds slightly insane and definitely like flawed logic. And it likely is. But I've seen this country's blatant double standards as insane and definitely flawed logic this entire time, yet they continue to this day.)

a reply to: enlightenedservant

It is, I'm in the process of cutting out the toxic things in my life and embracing the good and boring... It isn't necessarily boring when you haven't experienced it for a long time, decent things that is.

In the past I was often a person to face situations and make them worse, it genuinely pays to be more kind, to walk away if something isn't positive for you. I've had a few experiences in life where a bit of kindness and humanity could've deescalated a situation bit my actions ultimately made them worse.

Spilt tears we can get over but blood is a damn sight harder, but we live and learn.

I recently got in touch with a woman I had a serious falling out with just over a year ago, I never thought I'd get to talk to her again and it feels good to rekindle old flames, especially now that I'm in a better place and in a better way.

Kinda bewildering in a coincidental way... A ring I was meant to give her a long time ago was in my pocket when I went to watch the sunrise on a beach, a spot I used to visit as a young kid. I basically placed it on a rock and let the sea have it. 2 days later she contacted me. Returned a lot of faith in things I'll never understand.

Sometimes reality is stranger than fiction. Some things we just can't read.

a reply to: Irishhaf

You said they should be able to afford it, I am saying we know people that cant afford ground beef so they probably wouldn't be able to afford a pysch eval.

Ah, ok. How about if the pysch evaluations are added to existing health insurance policies for free or dirt cheap (like many existing yearly health check ups)? Or the costs are determined based on the person's income levels, like so many other programs are? In theory, knowing a person's mental health status could help a person get diagnosed and treated quicker, which in theory could drastically improve that person's quality of life.

I'm just throwing out ideas here. It's not like any of us have the power to make or prevent any of these ideas into public policy yet, muahahahaha!.

Also based on some of the actions by the VA I am not certain I would trust a pysch eval, the VA has sent federal agents to confiscate guns because a soldier returned from war had their spouse doing all the finances. Something as simple as saying I don't balance the check book the wife does was used as justification for removal of their constitutional right to own a gun.

I've never dealt with the VA so I'll just take your word on that. However, wouldn't your example simply mean that the VA needs reform? Isn't that a separate and unrelated issue (unless we're talking about soldiers, ex-soldiers, and their dependents)?

How do you find people that will truly judge the symptoms and not judge by their personal opinion?

Ummm, isn't this question applicable to all doctors though? In fact, aren't law enforcement and judges also allowed leeway to make judgement calls based on their personal opinions (to an extent)?

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Edumakated

Let’s just look at mass shootings for a moment. Mass shootings affect people other than “black thugs”. How many mass shootings does the U.S. have compared to Australia (since Australia banned most guns)?

That is a fair point. However, mass shootings are still a very small number.

Australia felt that even one mass shooting was too much, as it was a mass shooting that prompted such a drastic ban on guns, I believe. America apparently feels a few (several?) mass shootings a year are not such a big deal. Cultural difference in attitudes towards violent deaths maybe?

First, what objective source do you want to use for the number of "mass shootings"? When I think of a mass shooting, I think of a nut job shooting up a place of innocents. We have to be careful, as some shootings classified as mass shootings are not what most people think. For example, a drive by kill four gang members could be classified as a mass shooting but that isn't really what that is...

I’m thinking of the nut job shooting up a place of innocents. Movie theaters, malls, nightclubs, schools, churches, outdoor music venues, sporting events, etc., etc.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

They still exist in Australia. A nut with a gun killing innocents. Even in a place where that kind of thing was supposed to be fixed.

a reply to: Xtrozero

I get that is your assumption. For some reason in your scenario only the bad guys have guns... So maybe in my scenario there are less bad guys to kill because the good guys killed them off and/or the bad guys know the good guys also have guns....

I'm missing your whole point here, they actually had guns back then but didn't need them due to using greater numbers...

Just re-read the posts that I replied to. If you still don't get it after that, then it's on you.

People will kill who want to kill, period. You are taking your argument from banning guns to keeping people who might be mentally ill, dangerous or criminals way from guns, or cars or even freedom. I agree with this point, but to ban guns all you are doing is giving the bad guys who do not follow laws open season on everyone.

Banning guns? Don't try to slip that crap in as if those were my words or intentions. I never once said we should ban guns. In fact, in this post (way back on page 12), I said the following:

The irony here is that I'm actually a supporter of gun rights, particularly for hunting and self defense. I'm just not a fanatic about it, which is why I disagree so much with these people and the NRA. I believe guns should be regulated and that gun owners should prove mental health & have strong background checks before and during ownership. I also believe in a lot of the basics that I was taught years ago, like guns and alcohol don't mix, only point a gun at something you intend to kill, etc.

And then there's the common sense that adding more guns to a gun ridden area is only going to increase the shootings. That's why I brought up earlier in the thread (when I was joking) that we should also send more guns to gang members, cartel members, abusers, ex-cons, sex offenders, etc. Obviously doing that would be stupid because it would clearly increase the number of shootings, not decrease them.

I openly encourage women to learn how to use guns (and to learn other forms of self defense), because society clearly won't protect them. I openly encourage people to safely keep a gun to protect their homes because nobody deserves to have their home broken into (we've had 3 break-ins, with the last one only be thwarted by pulling a gun on the person who was attempting to break in the house). And to be blunt, I don't expect the police or politicians in my deeply Republican state to protect me and my Muslim family; so I'm a clear supporter of guns for our own personal protection.

However, I refuse to believe in the "all or nothing" fanaticism that many of you appear to have. I hate the NRA because the ones where I live have pushed for guns in bars, which is a violation of the "guns and alcohol don't mix" concept. They've pushed for "stand your ground laws", which only escalates situations instead of deescalating them. They've pushed for concealed and/or open carry on college campuses, which I believe will only increase the likelihood of confrontations. From my perspective, they're doing far more harm than good and they don't represent my views on gun rights at all.

And as I've mentioned earlier in this thread, I'd much rather deescalate a situation than turn it into a physical confrontation. In fact, I'd even prefer to run away & look like a chump unless my family was there (as in, if someone's getting hurt, it has to be the "lead" guys like me; it's unforgivable to let the women and kids take the fall).

But in this thread I'm going to take the position of the anti-gun crowd. In this thread I want to ban guns.

So you really believe that people who have issues with current gun laws want them outright banned? Do you realize how far from reality this is? Most proponents of stricter gun controls simply want better vetting of guns, tighter controls around gun shows, perhaps age restrictions, more involvement with those who have had mental instability or anger issues and hoard guns, and so on.

While there are some that possibly want them outright banned, your original premise is flawed, simply because it isn't reality. The group you are trying to represent is a very small group. I think most people (like myself) fully support our 2nd amendment rights, but just want something done, more than absolutely nothing. Which is all that ever happens after a mass shooting.

You really have to Paredo gun deaths in the US and see where the largest data set is for Gun deaths.

For example (not real data, all made up for the example):

Let''s assume this:

100 gun deaths per 100K people breaks down into.

Of the 100 deaths by guns, they break down into these categories

20 Mass Shooting at Cinema
40 Homicides (home, neighbor hood, gang shootings...etc)
15 Accidental (gun or ammo was bad)
12 Suicide (emotional distress)
8 Home defense (someone was breaking in)
5 undetermined cause of the gun death, however, a gun was involved but not reason established

(Don't dig too deeply into my data because I made it all up)

Now if you look at the data, it is saying Homicides are the biggest problem where gun deaths are concerned.

We could take the approach of banning civilian gun ownership and/or limit bullet and gun manufacturing and surely you would see a reduction in Gun Death.

However, you could spikes in death by other causes such as assault and battery, stabbings, stranglings...etc. as Guns are no longer the tool to get the job done. So if Homicides are you no.1 problems for deaths by gun, you would probably still see Homicides be your no. 1 death by another cause. Why? Humans kill Humans for all kinds of reasons.

Removing one instrument of death only makes the next easiest instrument more viable.

For the case of this thread and the OP: I would say limiting bullet manufacturing would probably change gun deaths but would also make the influx of illegal bullets into the country a new cash cow for the black market and after a short time, death by gun would return as a problem. Too many people, too much territory to cover. You won't be able to regulate it in any other way than just SAYING you are regulating it.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Cars or trucks can be used as a weapon of mass destruction (as in intentionally plowing into and running over crowds of people). Therefore...would you advocate yearly psych evaluations for all drivers of motor vehicles?

a reply to: DBCowboy

The best argument for guns, imo.

The Sanctity of Life

a reply to: fleabit

I don't believe you. If that was the case, then the anti-gun crowd would pay attention when the whole, inner city violence issue is raised. The one's committing the crimes aren't the legal owners you are trying to restrict with new laws and provisions, the criminals who have illegal weapons are the issue. It's a shame with all the political clout you all have that you waste it fighting against those who would otherwise support you, if you used your brain for what it was meant for.

originally posted by: Erno86
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Cars or trucks can be used as a weapon of mass destruction (as in intentionally plowing into and running over crowds of people). Therefore...would you advocate yearly psych evaluations for all drivers of motor vehicles?

1. We're not talking about cars, we're talking about guns. Now if everyone (including criminals) trades in all of their guns for cars, then your hypothetical might have some weight.

2. Guns are specifically designed to kill; cars are not. In fact, there are entire subcultures who openly talk about needing their guns in case a "tyrannical govt" tries to do blah blah blah. I'm not a car expert, but I've yet to run across car clubs/militias that exist to fight back against potentially tyrannical governments with their cars.

3. I believe I already mentioned (in this post) that some States already ask about mental health on their driver's license exams. In fact, one of those states is Texas, of all places.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Here in Maryland...they also ask in the gun registration paperwork, whether the applicant has ever been committed to a mental institution --- And I think that should be the standard protocol for gun application police paperwork. But in no way that they ask for recent psych test results for a standard gun registration applicant. Can you imagine the gun registration backlog that would occur, if such a psych test evaluation were required for a standard gun registration applicant. Frankly...I think that there would be riots in the streets, if that scenario were to occur.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: enlightenedservant

1. Most people are living paycheck to paycheck. Deciding for someone else what they can and cannot afford is just wrong. Especially when you've never met them. ETA: i should add that "the average person" is a consideration that is unconstitutional. It may be a standard in use...but it ignores individuals and their rights, average or not.

2. No. If any insurance scam were instituted for gun ownership, i'd not participate. It won't change the gun ownership though. I suspect you'd have enormous push back that escalates into violence on a national level if something like this were tried.

3. The amount of money insurers pay out is not my concern. I can tell you that the overwhelming majority of murders happen in the same areas over and over. It stands to reason that not being in those areas is going to decrease morbidity rates. Thus, it would seem that the dead person had far more responsibility for their safety than me, a complete stranger.

4. The only way to start improving mental health care is to divorce the diagnosis from the degradation of rights. Swooping people up into hospitals with questionable compliance to patients rights, losing freedom of movement, losing access to constitutional freedoms...the social stigma is one thing, but the extra punch in the gut hurts just as much. I have no solutions really...but i do see a huge problem.

I can see a lot of this point of view that points out the problems for the rest of us to try to solve ... and thus this was worth a re-read

Just about everyone I know is discontent with the way the the gov, politics and economy is going. So now you want to take away your one and only defense against tyranny? Go back and look at history and the very reason the 2nd amendment was put into place. Without the 2nd amendment you would have no rights period. Democracy is 2 clicks away from dictatorship. Soon after the 2nd amendment is gone they will take them all away.

There will always be tragic deaths related to guns be it accidents or criminals. Laws are already in place background checks etc. However, there is no guarantee against the human psyche. One day you can be completely sane and the next completely insane. There is a lot more to this problem. It is unrest and the government at the moment is doing a piss poor job of governing. More and more people are stressed, depressed, lost their jobs, lost their homes, lost their lives, but here we got senators making millions upon millions. No one wants to focus on the real issues. The USA sucks right now that's truth and anyone who disbelieves that is in denial. It's turned into a real circus. Leave one war just to get into another one. Back in Occupy Wall Street era in 2012, we were 15 trillion in debt, now here we are headed into the 20's and everything is just peachy. Did everyone just get amnesia or something? History seems to be repeating itself right about now.

I have not logged in to ATS in probably 2 years. Your post made me do so.

First of all, you can't compare gun deaths (a violent crime) in countries that have guns, to gun deaths in countries that have little guns. Of course there will be more gun deaths in the country with more guns.

Same goes for car accidents. How many car accidents are there in North Korea? How many car accidents are there in downtown LA?

What you need to look at is how many deaths by VIOLENT CRIMES there are in a selected country. Are crazy, angry people going to stop killing because they don't have a gun? Or are they going to use a truck, or a knife, or throw acid in someones face? Murderers are going to murder. Take away one tool and they will use something else.

All gun control arguments begin with the logical fallacy that killing people is wrong.

A short analysis of all gun control arguments revolves around two conflicting theories:
1. that violence is not the solution
2. that violence is the solution to #1

The argument is such that it would drive any reasonable AI schizophrenic. We are lucky that the same argument was made with nuclear weapons and shown for what it is - insanity. Mutually Assured Destruction works because sane people recognize the only way to win the game is not to play.

But domestic policies like gun control vs. the universal right of self preservation in a hostile universe fail to acknowledge their own duplicity.

Gun control arguments should always be tested against criminals, police, senators, prime ministers, billionaires, cartels, mafia, and gangs before being applied domestically.

Anyone who is aware of the Sword Hunts of Japan, or the origin of the square tipped butcher knife in Europe, will also be aware that it falls in the same sociological territory as a ban on literacy, or in support of slavery. The anti-egalitarian core of gun control is about the failed perception of power and abuse of the human species' capacity to form hierarchy.

Hierarchy is intended to mobilize groups to problem solve in ways individuals cannot. But hierarchy - the capacity for groups to form then make executive decisions through a refined chain of command - is easily subject to abuse.

Thus the ploy of gun control is not about safety or protecting the people, or protecting people from themselves, or from each other. Rather gun control is an attempt to bolster the structure of hierarchy at the expense of the liberty and social mobility of the lower rungs of society.

Statistically, no one who promotes gun control is anti gun. These people promote armed police, armed soldiers, armed body guards, armed drones, armed tanks, armed choppers, armed jets, and a great many of them also want armed satellites. Some go so far as to make massive purchases of ammunition and arm agents for inherently pacifistic organizations like atmospheric, environmental, and land management departments.

When they talk about disarming the populous, the plan always begins with an ultimatum of financial manipulation leading to confiscation at gun point. Prisons and the justice system are leveraged by using a fiscal threat backed yet again by threat of murder by fire arms wielded by a firing squad, a police officer, or a bailiff. Failing these lesser departments of gun control by guns, they will rally even more heavily armed troops with even bigger guns, like the ATF, National Guard, and Army, and then roll forward with Helicopters, Flame Throwers, and 155mm tank guns.

in the name of gun control the size of guns used knows no limit.
in the name of saving lives from guns the number of homicides by the state are boundless.
in the name of stopping violence, the level of violence by the state approaches democide.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

But if you went back in time and gave each of their members modern guns, would they kill more or fewer people?

Which scenario is likely to produce more deaths?

You asked these questions a number of times and you do not like the real answer it seems. The one you are looking for is they would have killed many more, and so I guess not having guns is a good thing. There is only one way to take guns from criminals and that is to ban and destroy all guns, so your question goes down that path, but I hate to tell you they did have guns, had even full auto guns. They didn't use them much because they had the numbers in gang members and a knife or club was cheap, easy and needed no maintenance and had endless ammo. Why use a gun when 10 men can go into a store with knives and demand protection money.

Guns make people equalizers, back then they ruled whatever they wanted using numbers.

So the answer is they would have killed the same number of people. To get smacked around with a club or stuck in your guts by a knife was basically a death sentence anyways, so shot or stabbed was about the same end result.

There is no safe answer here unless people are willing to give up all their freedoms and choices for that pure safety... Not a world I would like to live in though.