Does any gun control make sense?

[stephen426]

First off, I am a concealed weapons holder and have been shooting for the last 20 years. I own multiple firearms and am a member of the NRA. With that out of the way, is there any facets of gun control that make sense to you?

I know that many people believe the anti-gun folks take an extreme position, so any concessions is a movement in the wrong direction. I believe that taking an extreme position is not only unreasonable, but counter productive (much like partisan politics). So what types of "controls" would you, my fellow TFL members, feel is reasonable and would prevent some of the senseless tragedies that have been occurring way too frequently? I know that law abiding citizens are the only ones who will abide by gun laws and that they are not the ones perpetrating these crimes.

I would like to see a strengthening of NICS to allow doctors to report patients they feel are mentally unstable. Of course I would expect an appeals process to be part of that program. This could have prevented Cho in the VA Tech shootings as well as Holmes in the Aurora, CO theater. There has also been a strong link between these seemingly unexpected attacks and the use of anti-depressant medications. While this may prevent people from seeking treatment for mental health issues, I feel responsible gun owners, need to offer reasonable solutions. There are warning labels on prescription meds that advise people not to drive or operate heavy machinery. Those who fail to heed the warnings and cause accidents are held liable, and I believe rightfully so.

I believe that all gun owners should be required to take some sort of gun safety class. This just seems like common sense to me. This class should also go over the legal issues including safe storage of guns and the legal use of deadly force. In Florida, you can get a concealed weapons permit without proving any sort of competency at all. The courses are very inconsistent and practically useless. Should I be allowed to carry a gun in public without proving I can hit the broad side of a barn (from the inside) or demonstrate safe weapons handling? I personally don't believe so. While drivers licenses allow for automatic renewals, I believe that carry licenses should require a re-certification period of maybe 5 years.

I know that gun registration is a highly volatile topic, but how can the police prove that a gun is stolen if it isn't registered? My house was broken into about 12 years ago and I had 2 firearms stolen. I obviously reported the break-in and I had the serial numbers of the guns that were stolen. While many may see any sort of registration as an potential gun grab, it is also a form of accountability. After all, we are required to register our cars and boats.

Open carry is another hot topic. While some feel that open carry should be allowed and even promoted, I personally prefer concealed carry. There are groups that make gun owners look like a bunch of crazy yahoos when they get together for open carry rallies.

Please add your thoughts, but KEEP IT CIVIL!!! We need to be part of the solution and not a part of the problem. Heaven forbid that one of our loved ones gets killed in these mass shootings. Furthermore, I believe that offering practical, well-thought-out solutions will strengthen our rights and prevent useless anti-gun legislation.

 

[Venom1956]

Enforcing what we have already would be more useful then new stuff.

The saying give an itch take a mile comes to mind about it also. We go sure sure that sounds reasonable... but they are not reasonable. They are irrational and want all firearms banned that is their goal not safety.

Allow private doctors to prohibit an individual purchasing a firearm seems to be a horrible idea to me. Easily abused and taken advantage of. "tim argued with a coworker whoa! hes way to unstable to own a gun!" so they send him to some doctor thru HR and poof there goes his rights. No appeals or trial. No thanks.

The burden of freedom is the inherent risk that comes with it. We are allowed things others are not but we must accept that some will abuse this freedom to do others harm.

 

[BigG]

Repeal GCA of 1968

I think there is way more gun control already in place that is unnecessary and harmful to our liberty. I would also say get rid of GCA of 1968.

 

[jeager106]

Wow! I hope you have a thick skin and are not easily offended.

Quote:
"strong link between these seemingly unexpected attacks and the use of anti-depressant medications. "

Really? Well you posted it so I'd expect you to back that up with some kind of evidence. Like where did you get that info or is it one of those "my buddy said" things?
Also re: anti-depressant meds. Would you have doctors or pharmacies report to a gov't agency anyone taking such meds???? Would you?
Are you aware that Cymbalta, an anti-depressant medication, is prescribed for chronic intractable pain instead of the usual narcotic meds???????
Cymbalta being far safer in the long term for pain relief than most narcotic meds.
I don't necessarily disagree with your motives but dfo you see where I am going with this?
A decent, law abiding, citizen suffering awful pain & taking Cymbalta could end up with a very crappy end of a stick!
You painted with a very broad brush my friend.
Again I don't really disagree with what you propose but it is a very slippery slope indeed.
Do you feel post traumatic stress disorder is a mental illness?
Do you feel the gov't would look hard at anyone with p.t.s.d.?
You bet your bippy the gov't would. P.T.S.D. is verrrrrry common & there is hardly a retired copper or combat vet, or even a witness to a horrible scene that hasn't been touched with p.t.s.d.
By the by. P.T.S.D. has been determined to be a mental disorder & an emotional disorder & some classify it as a mental disease, which it is not.
Schizophrenia is a mental disease, as is paranoia, boarderline personality disorder, & a few more that can cause a sick person to become quite violent.
Yet the gov't would happily prohibit a victim of p.t.s.d. from ever owning a sharp stick let alone a firearm.
A very sippery slope indeed.
Looking forward to where you got the info that taking anti-depressants could cause mass, public, murders.
Careful as I am very well versed on these matters.
In closing I DO appreciate very much what your motives are.

 

[jeager106]

...and further more.
I'd take a psych exam, if need be, to keep my right to own firearms.
I'd pass it too.
(I've taken a couple such exams, one lasted an entire day!)
I'd get a gov't I.D. "gun buyer card" if needed also.
I think most of the 1968 G.C.A. was reasonable.
It hasn't caused me to loose any firearms or the right to by more, but it's clear to me that more anti-gun laws won't address the root cause of mass, public, murders.

 

[fuhr52]

If we don't have the will to enforce the current laws on the books, what good are more laws that will do nothing but make liberals feel warm and fuzzy about their good intentions? None of the current proposed laws would have stopped any of the recent shootings.

 

[Davey]

Sure are a lot of words in the first post.

To answer the question though...

No.

 

[born2climb]

Well, seeing as how MURDER has been illegal since the dawn of civilizations, more laws will not hinder those bent on criminal activity, and therefore are only penalizing the law-abiding. And while you may argue that they are not "hurting" anyone, every restriction placed on the law-abiding citizen's right/ability to defend him/herself, is only strengthening the cause of the criminal. If I have to pass a test, buy a permit, study current law(s) to stay legal....ANYTHING I have to do, that the criminal, by default is not going to do...is harming the cause of the law-abiding.

 

[stephen426]

@jaeger,

First of all, thank you for your civility when dealing with this hot topic.

I will post several articles that I read linking violent attacks to "psych drugs"

http://psychiatricfraud.org/2011/04/the-real-lesson-of-columbine-psychiatric-drugs-induce-violence/

http://www.storyleak.com/flashback-virtually-mass-shootings-linked-violence-inducing-psych-drugs/

http://www.wellnessbite.com/mass-shootings-directly-related-to-anti-depressant-drugs/

http://www.globalresearch.ca/dramat...ole-of-prescription-psychiatric-drugs/5358896

I believe the first link I posted is the original article I read on the topic of anti-depressants and links to violence. Different people react differently to medications and many people take these kinds of meds without any incidents at all. The crazy thing is that many anti-depressant medications even come with warnings that side-effects may include suicidal tendencies. I think there needs to be much tighter regulation on these kinds of meds (much like narcotic and habit forming meds). There needs to be more frequent follow up from the doctors and possibly some psych evaluations to ensure that the meds are not adversely affecting them.

In my original post, I did mention that there would be an appeals process on any medical flags posted with the NICS. If a medication is taken for pain rather than a mental disorder, and the patient has shown no psychologically adverse reactions, then any bans should be lifted.

I believe that PTSD is a very real phenomenon and with the recent wars, it is becoming much more prevalent. Do we simply live with the consequences of unchecked access to firearms or do we do something to try and help our soldiers and officers? If you know someone is a substance abuser, do you feel comfortable with them owning a gun?

Again, thanks for you civility and your input!

 

[stephen426]

@Venom 1956,

I too believe in enforcing the laws that we already have. The problem is that some of these laws are unenforceable without seriously violating peoples rights and privacy. For example, it is illegal to leave firearms where minors may gain access to them. How many times have you read about children shooting themselves or others when they find an unsecured gun? How is that law enforceable?

As for having a gun in the commission of a crime, gun crimes are usually prosecuted. Florida has the 10-20-Life law and I am a strong believer in it. The problem is that law is not enforceable until the crime is committed.

I already expected the argument that "give them an inch and they take a foot/mile". Does that mean that we take an unreasonable stance and hope to meet somewhere in the middle? I do have a few liberal friends and debating with them is exasperating. I do try to always remain civil and present sound, and reasonable arguments. I have actually "opened a few eyes" in the process.

I know that we as Americans love our freedom. Does that mean that you would simply accept it and live with it if your loved one was shot and killed in one of these senseless tragedies? We enjoy our liberties, but there needs to be some common sense as well. What about drinking and driving. I might be able to have a few drinks and still drive reasonably well, but the state has to set a threshold where the "average" person becomes impaired. (I don't drink and drive, just an analogy)

Just imagine if the Gun Control Act of 1968 was never enacted. Would you feel comfortable with anyone just walking into a store and buying a full-auto weapon? Can you imagine the death toll in these recent shootings had they been committed with a machine gun?

 

[stephen426]

@born2climb,

I have heard your argument used before. Could requiring some sort of competence deny someone the ability to defend himself or herself. I am required to prove that I know the traffic laws and can safely handle a vehicle before I am allowed to drive (although I really wonder how many Miami drivers got their licenses ).

I believe that I am responsible for each and every round that I fire. Imagine someone with absolutely no knowledge or training with a gun attempting to use that gun to defend himself or herself. I could not get my wife to practice so I bought her a Taser. In a real world situation, a criminal would probably take her gun and use it against her. Would the gun really be able to help her or is it possible that she could possibly endanger others by shooting wildly.

At a minimum, I think a NRA approved safety course should be taken by all first time gun owners. That does not seem unreasonable to me and educating gun owners could have an impact on these tragedies.

 

[jeager106]

I did read that 1st link carefuly & it is pure horsepucky.
Be very careful about info on the net.
I'm not going into saratonin re-uptake inhibitors as it's not part of this discussion & lends no relevance to the points being made.
I doubt you have a Phd. in psychology & I'm not taking a shot at you.
A Phd would be helpful here perhaps?
I have 2 degrees but not in psych but one in Human Resources that included a crap load of psych study plus I have "other" training & over 2 decades experience.
No I'm not an expert but darned well versed.

 

[DT Guy]

Turn off CNN, stop reading the stuff put out by Moms Demand Stuff, and get back to me.


There is no 'need to do' something; violence with guns is at a many-year low, and dropping. Educate yourself, and you'll stop believing there's an epidemic.



Larry

 

[stephen426]

@jaeger106,

I believe that you knowledge of PTSD and probably mental illnesses in general greatly out weighs mine. That is why it is important that YOU get involved in any legislation that would create guidelines for these "illnesses". My intention is not to simply brand people as crazy and strip their second amendment rights. What I would like to see is better follow up and "monitoring" of people taking these kids of meds to ensure they are not reacting to them negatively.

My wife's cousin (adopted), is bi-polar. He decided he was going to stop taking his meds because he claims they messed him up. Crazy thing is, [even without his meds], he managed to get into the University of Florida and also pass the real-estate brokers test.

On a negative note, a friend of mine committed suicide about 18 years ago. She was impacted by a few tragedies in a short time span and somehow felt she was responsible for them (loss of uncle, grandmother, and father in the span of a few years). There were obviously underlying issues that caused these thoughts, but I believe that the anti-depressant meds may have had an impact on her decision to take her life.

Like I said, people are different and medications affect people differently. The only thing we can do is monitor those on psych meds to ensure they do not become violent.

 

[stephen426]

@DT Guy,

Tell the parents that have lost children that gun crime is at a many year low. Have you considered that you are becoming desensitized to all of these shootings and simply accept them as the price we pay for our liberties? I am a gun owner, a concealed weapons holder, and a NRA endowment member. I am NOT some crazy anti-gun that wants to strip anyone's rights.

I point to CNN when people tell me crime does not exist and I don't need a gun, just as I point to CNN when they report the multiple shootings that have occurred recently. As for education, I have 2 undergrad degrees as well as a MBA. I believe that I have been providing reasonable arguments to back up my view points. I have not attempted to suppress anyone else's point of view.

I challenge you to open your mind to the possibilities that there is a way to prevent these tragedies WITHOUT law abiding citizens giving up our rights. My concern is that there IS a massive force building against us. Bloomberg has declared WAR on the NRA. If we simply dig in our heels rather than offering sensible solutions that may actually help, we risk more useless laws getting passed, and possibly even an erosion of our rights. That is my whole purpose of this thread.

 

[44 AMP]

You don't need a phd or even much personal experience, to realize that there is a correlation. BUT that is not proof of causation.

True that nearly every one of the mass shooters since the 80s has been on some kind of meds, and often street drugs as well. No denying that, its fact.

But they also ate bread or a bread product within 30 days of committing the mass shooting as well (or most likely so). That is a correlation, but no one seriously thinks its a cause.

When Prozac became the wonder drug (and it did work wonder for many many people) there was a warning included that while it worked as expected for 90%+ of the people, there was a small percentage where it aggravated paranoia and violent tendencies.

There are a great many drugs that work one way for most people, and another, sometimes almost the exact opposite for other people. I personally know someone who was one of those who reacted exactly the opposite way on Prozac, became violent, where she had not been before. After she got on a different med, she returned to a non violent behavior pattern.

The [truly mentally ill] might be controlled by the meds. Or the meds might make it easier for them to go over the edge. OR the meds could be what sent them over the edge. Or something else might be the cause. We just do not, and cannot know. Each illness, and each ill individual's reactions (to everything) are individual.

The problem with the good sounding idea about tightening up monitoring, encouraging reporting, and closing the loopholes is that it requires govt to be involved, and that will guarantee that it will be as screwed up, inefficient and un fair as humans can make it.

Same problem with mandated safety training. This has been proven, more than once. Get the govt involved and it gets so cumbersome, complex, inconvenient and expensive that any good that happens seems accidental.

Look at the whole mess with armed pilots. Rather than accepting that the trained, psych tested airline pilot, who already holds hundred of lives in his hands daily, could be trusted with a loaded gun as well, they required more batteries of tests, and hours of training, held in a location far from home, and at the pilots personal expense. And if they passed all that, the gun had to be in a "lockbox" who's design proved to be a risk of accidental discharge when opened as they were required to do every time to "check" the gun was still there....SO, rather few pilots were...approved.

Now, I may have some of the minor details wrong, but I still hold to my point that if you require things, and have our govt involved, it will not work as well as we all hope.

Vet health care, anyone?

 

[Tom Servo]

If we don't have the will to enforce the current laws on the books, what good are more laws that will do nothing but make liberals feel warm and fuzzy about their good intentions?

There are two effects. The first is that Mr. Politician can pretend he's doing something about the problem without really doing anything about the problem. It's very important that Mr. Politician looks like he's doing something, even if it's utterly ineffective.

The second effect is to allow prosecutors to grab the low-hanging fruit. Take the AWB logic for example. What if I make some modifications on my rifle, and I unknowingly cross the line into "too many scary features" territory? Great, now I'm facing felony charges.

The prosecutor may choose to go easy on me and ask the judge for probation and time served. That way I'm not going to prison, right?

Of course I'm still pleading to a felony (or at least a serious misdemeanor), and guess what one of the provisions will most likely be? A lifetime ban on owning guns. See? They're doing something about the problem.

 

[raimius]

I agree that violent criminals should have their rights restricted.
I agree that those who are a danger to themselves or others should not have firearms (the sticky questions usually involve who decides and what the appeals process is).
I agree that children should not be able to purchase firearms by themselves.
I am OK with the idea of minimally invasive Shall Issue carry permits (e.g. learn some legal basics for use of force and gun safety so you aren't a danger in public, with VERY minimal costs or delays). While I don't think it is the ideal solution, the world is messed up, and this seems a practical way to prevent some crimes of stupidity without destroying the right for those willing to spend a little time to exercise it.
I think the NICS system should be reworked to be available for every transfer, although I realize it would be tough to create a process that is simple enough and not destroy people's privacy rights. I think it is possible and might prevent a few prohibited persons from easily acquiring firearms from honest sellers.

Side note: DO NOT BELIEVE EVERYTHING ON CNN! They have reported on stories with "assault rifles" when crime scene footage showed a pump-action .22LR. They regularly get facts wrong and focus on irrelevant details. In watching/reading their work, they get a great many facts wrong on gun and crime stories (and are pretty terrible with aviation stories as well).
Also, the GCA of 1968 didn't ban the normal sale of automatic firearms, that was the NFA of 1934 that created the tax stamp system.

 

[stephen426]

@44 AMP,

I agree that the government tends to fudge things up and often complicates things more than necessary. We are forced to live with government (for the most part) and occasionally some good does come of it. I hate politics as much as the next guy, but one of my best friends explained it like this. "You can stay out of politics, but be prepared to live with what OTHER PEOPLE DECIDE FOR YOU" I am trying to push people to action rather than being a stick in the mud. I believe it accomplishes nothing and give the anti-gun crown even more fuel.

The NRA is an excellent resource and has training courses. It would be a HUGE step in the right direction to set up a network of training classes for new gun owners.

Your personal experience with your friend's reaction to Prozac simply reinforces the need for monitoring. Too many doctors are willing to write prescriptions based on reading some literature or at the recommendation of some pharmaceutical rep. There are strict guidelines regarding the prescribing of pain meds since they are often addictive and often abused. Why not require some tightening up of mind-altering drugs?

I understand that the regulations make the armed pilots program undesirable, but look at all the additional procedures that have been implemented to make it a moot point. There is screening for guns, knives, and even toiletries! The government added scanning machines and sniffing machines. What are WE doing to try to curb these shootings other than the same old rhetoric???

 

[Chuck Dye]

...to allow doctors to report...

We are regaled fairly frequently with stories of hotly contended divorce actions in which one parent falsely accuses the other of child abuse. I have no real idea of how frequently such false accusations actually occur, or succeed, but the idea sparks my imagination of horrible scenarios in which false reports wrongly depriving innocent gun owners, who pose no real threat, of their rights, property, and financial resources as they defend themselves. Placing the burden of proof on the accused is a bad idea (of course, I no problem with affirmative defenses, in which the defendant assumes the burden of proof. They suit me just fine.)