The aftermath - realistic assessments of the situation please

Well I saw in the paper today that gun company stocks took a nose dive in price. Hedge Funds were selling off stocks of every gun company that they had invested in. The massive sell offs made stock prices drop greatly.

Also seeing the president is putting the vice president on a investigative team to check into gun violence I am sure that the finding are not going to be nice. They will probably manipulate the numbers greatly.

Without congress all that the president can do is issue an executive order (may be called something else in legal terms.) Like Reagan did over full auto weapons. Only for magazine capacity, and types.

There are those poor misguided people that think changing laws will stop crimes. They seem to forget that criminals do not care about the law. That is why they are criminals. They seem to forget that there is a law against murder, taking a fire arm onto the grounds of a school. Discharging that weapon in public, much less killing people. They seem to think that changing the capacity of the weapon, or weapon types available to them it will somehow translate to them killing a few less people in the short time of the rampage before they use the last round on themselves.
 
I spoke with one congressman yesterday. He thinks the first step will be a reporting requirement for multiple long-gun purchases. They already have that in a few border states, and there might be a proposal for it to go national. If something has to be offered up, this might be the right thing.

Would it have stopped the shooter? No. Will it prevent another such incident? No. But neither will another AWB or magazine capacity limits.

As far as mental health and NICS reporting, we get on really shaky ground. We already have a problem with the way we treat mental illness in this country. We stigmatize it, we dope victims of it up, and if they step out of line, we punish them. It's shameful.

Now imagine that voluntary admission to a treatment center has the potential to strip folks of their right to bear arms. The only thing that'll do is deter folks from getting help, which could be far worse in the long term.
 
As far as mental health and NICS reporting, we get on really shaky ground.
Click to expand...

Yes, we do. Especially with the American Psychiatric Association in the mix. When the next revision of their DSM is published next year, it is set to include a diagnosis of clinical depression for someone grieving more than 2 weeks over the loss of a loved one, even a spouse or child. What we cannot let happen is to let the APA have a hand in deciding who can possess a gun.
 
I don't have the answers. All cases would be accessed individually. The other option is that someone with a history of mental illness and violence can get firearms without any checks. Would you like them living next door to you or next door to the school your children go to. ?
Click to expand...

I haven't had a chance to read the whole thread. If someone has a mental illness that makes him a danger to others, I don't want him next door. I want him to be supervised and have access to treatment. The issue of him owning a firearm is almost irrelevant. If he's a dangerous person, he's a dangerous person. The greatest weapon is the human mind. I don't want him shooting my kids, but I don't want him stabbing them, strangling them, or bombing them either.

So, I'm not willing to talk about further background checks for selling guns, further reporting requirements on mental illness for NICS checks, or limiting the types of firearms.
 
I dislike the idea of allowing mental health professionals become the High Priests of a New Order and allowing them to make decisions that impinge on people's rights. Will they have the power to declare people unfit to operate motor vehicle or aircraft? Or to become parents?
I am not now nor have I ever been a mental health care professional nor am I associated with that field. And I don't see the DSM as a Holy Text containing
Truths From On High. IMHO the DSM lost its validity back in 1974 when they yielded to pressure from the homosexual lobby and removed that behavior as a treatable problem.
 
FIrst and foremost it's putting mental health professionals in an impossible spot. Treating mental illness does not give one a crystal ball into the future of that person or any person for that matter.

Naturally there are extreme cases of folks that should not own weapons and safeguards for those already exist but beyond that the only thing that this can accomplish is to keep people from going to see a Doctor when they really ought to.

It's already a stigma to see a Psychiatrist and now to put that Psychiatrist as your judge and jury also, as it pertains to your rights, is really asking for some major nightmares of epic proportions. Nightmares for the people who will feel they have to suffer silently through whatever it is they may be going through for fear of seeing a doctor. A nightmare for the doctor who will feel he is unable to treat and report on every patient or have his malpractice insurance go even higher or losing his license all together. Finally a nightmare for us all because the Doctors and Patients that really should be being brought together won't be and far more people with far more untreated psychosis' end up going on shooting spree's.
 
I dislike the idea of allowing mental health professionals become the High Priests of a New Order and allowing them to make decisions that impinge on people's rights. Will they have the power to declare people unfit to operate motor vehicle or aircraft? Or to become parents?
Click to expand...
I know several and I can assure you that they abhor the idea of being put in that position for all but the most obvious and blatant cases which they are legally bound to report anyway. As it stands now you really have to have had a break from reality and stated in your own words that you were going to kill someone or yourself. Then, and only then can a Psychiatrist contact the authorities and report you as a possible problem. Barring that, as things are today, there is no way that seeing a "Shrink" could work against you in any way.

Imagine being a Psychiatrist and being forced to juggle your patient and your responsibility to that patient, your malpractice insurance, legal liability for "letting one slip through" and possibly reporting people who never were a danger to anyone and even legal liability of prosecution for not catching the one that was dangerous thus not reporting him/her. It is not a position any doctor wants to be in.
 
When the next revision of their DSM is published next year, it is set to include a diagnosis of clinical depression for someone grieving more than 2 weeks over the loss of a loved one, even a spouse or child. What we cannot let happen is to let the APA have a hand in deciding who can possess a gun.
Click to expand...
My daughter passed away four years ago come january.
Their isn't a day,,,sometimes and hour,,,that I don't grieve over the loss.
Those _ _ _ _ _ _ _ can go straight to hell w/their know it all attitude.
Edited to remove offensive language after I simmered down....
 
Last edited:
Hal,

I am sorry for your loss. My Dad passed away in 1985 and my Mom in 2005.

I hear their voices everyday. I would not want it any other way unless I could be with them in person once again.
 
Geet..
My mom and dad both passed away. So did my father in law (who I was very close to).
I mourn the loss at times, even after a number of years.

Losing a child is far different. It's unexplainable. I'ts unimaginable. It's something only someone that's a member of that horrible fraternity knows.
We grieve our loss and we will grieve our loss our whole lives.

BTW - thank you for the kind words.
 
My biggest worry is that my AR-15's will be banned from civilian ownership and that existing privately owned AR's can not be transferred to anyone, not even from father to son/daughter. I worry that they will be have to be handed over to the local law enforcement for disposal.
 
Last edited:
I spoke with one congressman yesterday. He thinks the first step will be a reporting requirement for multiple long-gun purchases. They already have that in a few border states, and there might be a proposal for it to go national. If something has to be offered up, this might be the right thing.

Would it have stopped the shooter? No. Will it prevent another such incident? No. But neither will another AWB or magazine capacity limits.
Click to expand...

It won't stop there, not by a long shot (pardon the pun). This is the crisis certain interests have been waiting for and they are going all out.
 
Also pertaining to the UK. they beefed up security at all schools after the two incidents. This is what deterred more incidents, not the gun ban.
Click to expand...

There is no security at UK schools anybody can walk in.
 
I was thinking about unintended consequences. After 9/11 many folks stopped flying as they feared another attack. This increased the number of car accidents that produced about 2000 more deaths and many more injuries.

You still would have been safer flying.

So around here all the stores are sold out of ARs. Panic buying. Now, usually buying such a gun is a deliberate and expensive proposition. The buyer probably has given some thought to it. Now we will have thousands or tens of thousands of these guns in the hands of impulse buyers. After a bit of time, if no laws prevent this, they may sell them unwisely. Or they may use them unwisely. Thus, will we have generated more than 26 deaths (which were tragic and horrible). If the guns appreciate in price, will they go for these high prices to less legit hands?

Hopefully, they would stay in safes if they weren't with a competent user.
 
If the guns appreciate in price, will they go for these high prices to less legit hands?
Click to expand...

Very good post Glenn.

But given the history of making items illegal(guns,dope etc.) in this country and others(think Mexico when considering gun prices, think the US when speaking of dope), I don't think it will be a question of 'if' the prices would go up or 'if' some would end up in less legit hands. We know this will happen.

I'm preaching to the choir here but thugs will be thugs ,will have money to support their lifestyle's, have guns and the 'powers to be' will not be able to stop them by making new laws.
Especially when the thugs know our screwed up judicial system, know that the current existing laws and penalties for breaking them are not going to be enforced as written but rather plea bargained to a much lessor charge/sentence.
 
At the rate the media is reporting guns flying off the shelves the threat of a ban has done more to put more AR 15 in citizens hands than anything else.
 
This may not belong on this thread, but I'm avoiding opening a new thread with so many open on the Newtown killings.

What role do you think gun owners will play in passing this upcoming ban on semiautomatic rifles? On firearms forums I mostly see people opposed to a ban. However on other media, like Facebook, I see a lot of gun owners supporting a ban. (Coincidentally, they don't own ARs.)

I've always felt a divide and conquer strategy would be effective on this issue. If they can get hunters and CCWers to hand AR owners over, who will stand behind CCWers when Congress pushes a handgun ban? Who will stand behind hunters or benchrest shooters when they try to ban "sniper rifles"?
 
However on other media, like Facebook, I see a lot of gun owners supporting a ban.
Click to expand...
Are you sure they're gun owners? False flags are far from unknown in this fight.

On the internet, I'm really a cowboy astronaut secret agent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top