The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old November 15, 2012, 10:44 AM   #26
doingMach1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: August 26, 2012
Posts: 11
I don’t post much, and I know this is a long read, but it makes a point I have been trying to make clear for a long time. I have since learned that it doesn’t matter what you tell someone…if they are against it, they will have an unwarranted, un-backed rebuttal. Either way, this is how I see it:

There are two types of laws…pre-emptive laws, and punitive laws (these are opinions…not facts). Pre-emptive laws are to prevent, punitive laws to punish after the fact.

Pre-emptive laws only work on those that follow the law….I will repeat (never enough times it seems), pre-emptive laws are for those that follow the law. They do not work on criminals, in most cases. You might have a borderline criminal, that might decide to go the ‘law abiding’ direction based on what the punitive stance is on a pre-emptive law, but in MOST cases…a criminal will not follow the law.

SO, pre-emptively controlling, banning, regulating guns does NOT work!!!! A criminal does not care what the law says about the type, amount, or capability of legally owned weapons…they are not law abiding….they don’t plan to own it legally! If a criminal is going to break the law, they obviously don’t care about it! Find me one story about a criminal who is planning a home invasion, or bank robbery, who stops and says “Wait, I can’t do this…I don’t have a legally owned weapon to use in the crime.” Pre-emptive laws will not stop the criminals….just the law abiding.

Punitive laws (which is where I think the effort needs to be concentrated) is how to stop criminals. We will NOT stop them from having a gun, no matter how strict the pre-emptive laws are, BUT we can discourage the illegal use of them by enforcing strict punitive laws. Using the above example, something that you do hear about is where the same criminal says “Wait, I can’t do this…I don’t want to end up tied to an electric chair and put out of my misery!”

I won’t drag this out, but I think I made the point. Regulating law abiding citizens will not stop the criminals. Less tolerance on crime can!

Ok…rant over!
doingMach1 is offline  
Old November 15, 2012, 11:02 AM   #27
cannonfire
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 12, 2010
Location: Georgia
Posts: 497
Quote:
Five minutes later, dude comes back
You mean to tell me that you can't eat a 1/2 piece of cake in 5 minutes?



If I learned anything from this past election its 1. Just how libertarian I am and 2. Everything revolves around money and power.

Antis know that gun control doesn't affect crime. They tried it and tried it but it doesn't work. Exactly how is the crime rate in South Central L.A.? Chicago? Oakland? Camden, NJ? It is about power and money.

Also realize that a lot of anti gunners propose tons of new laws. I suspect one reason to be because of the view that guns should not be in the hands of criminals. The more laws you pass, the increased amount of guilty people their will be (saying this in the sense that if there were absolutely ZERO laws, there would be ZERO outlaws/criminals. If there are 10,000 laws, there will be a lot more than zero outlaws/criminals.) The more criminals you have, the less number of people can own guns legally. Thus is another way for gun control. Eventually everyone or enough people will become criminals that there will not be enough support to maintain a firearms industry.

Then who knows, maybe they'll say, "well if you were a criminal, you can't drive because you were exposed to too much stress from your arrest and court trial." Look at that! Cutting down on emissions now! Way to go environmentalists!!

This whole thing is a crock. By trying to limit what law abiding citizens can purchase and expecting a different group of people (law breaking citizens) to follow is silly, even to an elementary school kid.

And look at this murder in Belize with that McAfee on the run. The victim was shot in the head with a flare gun. Should their be an outlaw on flare guns even though the majority of thugs and criminals do not own boats, or go adventuring into the woods?

These anti people are trying to dummy/child proof the everyday life of people to make it that perfect world where there is no danger, but at the same time they want to do so that they can flex their muscle and say "We did this" when something goes right and say "We need more regulation" when something does not go their way. It is about them gaining power over people to instill their views over everyone.... NOT very Democratic.

Gun control activists are like people throwing gasoline on a fire. The more they through the gasoline on the fire, the more it gets worse and the more they feel the need that more gasoline would put the fire out. Doesn't quite make sense does it?
__________________
Segui il tuo corso e lascia dir le genti - Dante

Blaming guns for crime is like blaming the planes for 9/11
cannonfire is offline  
Old November 15, 2012, 12:30 PM   #28
pax
Staff
 
Join Date: May 16, 2000
Location: Washington state
Posts: 6,981
Spats ~

Bingo! Thank you. I'd been looking for it for awhile.

KJ
__________________
Kathy Jackson
My personal website: Cornered Cat
pax is offline  
Old November 15, 2012, 12:53 PM   #29
2damnold4this
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 12, 2009
Location: Athens, Georgia
Posts: 1,376
Quote:
There are two types of laws…pre-emptive laws, and punitive laws (these are opinions…not facts). Pre-emptive laws are to prevent, punitive laws to punish after the fact.
That's a good point. Gun owners support laws that punish the misuse of firearms such as murder or armed robbery.




Malum in se offenses such as murder are vastly different than malum prohibitum offenses such as possessing a firearm in Illinois without a FOID card.
2damnold4this is offline  
Old November 15, 2012, 02:32 PM   #30
ronl
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 2007
Posts: 790
Gun control is indeed about control and power, as stated; governmental control. Let us cut to the chase. If one looks at the original intent of the Founders, an armed populace was to insure freedom; externally from opposing powers, and internally from any government which seeks to limit the freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution. There are indeed those in our government who fear us; freedom loving gun owners. They do indeed seek to, ultimately, seperate us from our weapons, and have incrementally succeeded. Historically, once a population is disarmed, tyranny follows close upon its heels. I hope and pray that we do not have to relearn this lesson,for it will be very painful. We live in a country deeply divided, and we could be thrown into chaos by any one of a number of things. I am certain of one thing; if we lose the right to our weapons, this country is gone, if not forever, for a very long time. The light of true freedom will be extinguished and we will be responsible for its death.
ronl is offline  
Old November 15, 2012, 07:12 PM   #31
mhuxtable
Junior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2012
Posts: 8
While I'm mostly against arbitrary gun restriction (type of gun, mag capacity) there was one thing I found out recently about a local gun advocacy group that bothered me.

They successfully helped kill a bill in NC that would have required a mental health check for those buying guns (not sure if it was only handguns or any gun) if they don't have a concealed carry permit.

I'm actually FOR a mental health check....rarely are people suffering from mental illness aware of it, and I don't think someone who is clinically depressed/bi-polar/etc should be handling a firearm.

Is there a reason why that viewpoint is out of line or anti-gun? I think any right-minded adult should have a gun...but we are having a serious problem with massacres in this country with firearms by mentally ill people that I think could be prevented if those people are identified.
mhuxtable is offline  
Old November 15, 2012, 07:30 PM   #32
SPEMack618
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 21, 2010
Location: Central Georgia
Posts: 1,480
Because as a veteran who was "pinged" for being at risk of suffering from PTSD, in all likelihood, I would be precluded from buying a gun.


The problem isn't allowing the mentally ill to shoot or purchase guns, the problem, as I see it, is "who" gets to decide what constitutes mental illness.

The BATFE? The DOJ? Local or state government?
__________________
NRA Life Member
Big Sister: "You should be sponsored by Allen"
Me: "If you can't shoot good, at least look good walking to the firing line."
Big Sister: "Can you not afford a Pelican? Then buy an Allen gun bag."
SPEMack618 is offline  
Old November 15, 2012, 07:34 PM   #33
2damnold4this
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 12, 2009
Location: Athens, Georgia
Posts: 1,376
I object to requiring some sort of mental health test before someone can purchase a firearm. I don't mind folks who have been adjudicated as mentally unfit being barred from firearm purchases.
2damnold4this is offline  
Old November 15, 2012, 07:36 PM   #34
BarryLee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 2,771
Quote:
Is there a reason why that viewpoint is out of line
Well, to me it just seems like that much more unnecessary bureaucracy that at the end of the day probably won’t do any good. I always think about the specifics of these things. For instance how many folks are we talking about? Who does the check? What’s involved? Can a brief mental health evaluation even uncover potential problems? Would it require multiple visits?

At the end of the day this just adds to the cost and makes buying a firearm much more difficult which I suspect is part of the motivation. I also doubt that any of these routine mental health reviews would even do any good.

The trick is to determine how to handle people that have been identified as actually exhibiting behavior that is of concern. Many of the people involved in recent high profile incidents had previous run-ins with the mental health system, but nothing was done to prevent them from buying a gun. Now, how to balance the rights of these individuals against the concern for what they “might” do is an entirely different subject all together…
__________________
A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
- Milton Friedman
BarryLee is offline  
Old November 15, 2012, 08:17 PM   #35
Sparks1957
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 4, 2011
Location: Vermont
Posts: 1,473
Quote:
I object to requiring some sort of mental health test before someone can purchase a firearm. I don't mind folks who have been adjudicated as mentally unfit being barred from firearm purchases
I must say I am very much against a mental-health check prior to firearms purchases. First, who decides whether one is "healthy" or not? Probably the majority of people have an episode of "mental illness" at some point in their lives. Some folks probably think I'm a bit nuts on any given day. Now, if the courts have adjudicated a decision, that's a different matter.

Also, once someone acquires a "label", it tends to follow them forever, whether the mental illness is gone or not. I'm a recovering alcoholic, for instance. I imagine I would have been labeled as totally insane back in my drinking days, and rightfully so. Now that I'm 20+ years sober, would I be allowed to purchase guns because of that label I acquired back there? Who knows...
Sparks1957 is offline  
Old November 15, 2012, 08:33 PM   #36
K_Mac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 15, 2010
Posts: 471
mhuxtable you ask a reasonable question, and your conclusion that mentally ill folks should not have weapons is one that is used all the time by those who would restrict the ownership of guns by imposing some sort of means testing. I think we can all agree that criminals (insane or not) are a threat to society. Rather than deal with that reality it is far easier to blame guns.
__________________
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Benjamin Franklin

"If you let "need" be a requirement and Government be the arbiter of that "need", then Liberty is as dead as King Tut." Jimbob86
K_Mac is offline  
Old November 15, 2012, 08:34 PM   #37
Ronbert
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 23, 2009
Location: Ft. Collins, CO.
Posts: 398
I'd go along with the mental health check if it also applied to voting. (disqualified from voting on advice from mental health community)

What are the chances THAT would fly?
Ronbert is offline  
Old November 15, 2012, 09:46 PM   #38
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhuxtable
. . . .I'm actually FOR a mental health check....rarely are people suffering from mental illness aware of it, and I don't think someone who is clinically depressed/bi-polar/etc should be handling a firearm.

Is there a reason why that viewpoint is out of line or anti-gun? I think any right-minded adult should have a gun...but we are having a serious problem with massacres in this country with firearms by mentally ill people that I think could be prevented if those people are identified.
Two problems:
1) Using mental illness "clinically depressed/bi-polar/etc.: as the standard by which to deny someone a fundamental, individual constitutional right is a slippery slope. Who, exactly, will make that determination? What, exactly are to be the standards? As a general matter, it becomes fairly easy to designate a politically unpopular group as "mentally ill," and begin stripping them of their rights. E.g., "Communists? Why, only the mentally ill could believe such a system could work." Next step, disarm the communists.

2) Mass murders using guns make big news in the mainstream media. However, never forget that there are something like 65 MILLION gun owners in this country who didn't kill anyone today. Run the numbers on how many total gun owners there are in this country, and compare that to the number of them who actually go on shooting sprees, and then consider whether it constitutes a "serious problem."
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old November 15, 2012, 09:54 PM   #39
ohen cepel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 1999
Location: Where they send me
Posts: 1,013
There are some restrictions I would support:
Ban on stupid people
Ban on laws aimed at law abiding citizens
Ban on judges which don't enforce the laws already on the books
__________________
He who dares wins.

NRA Life Benefactor Member
ohen cepel is offline  
Old November 15, 2012, 10:21 PM   #40
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,519
Quote:
Is there a reason why that viewpoint is out of line or anti-gun?
No, it's a valid question, but you're not going to like the answer.

Many of the very people you're hoping to filter out are the most adept at acing those sorts of tests. I've met a sociopath. They do a great job of appearing normal, happy, and friendly. He'd get a gun.

Meanwhile, a guy who listens to Nick Drake, reads Rod McKuen, and gets in a bit of a funk sometimes gets denied for borderline depression or whatever. Despite being an empathetic, moral person, he doesn't get a gun.

Then there's the question of who defines the criteria and limits. What exactly defines "too depressed" to pass? Is there an appeal for denials?

It simply won't do what's intended, and it will deny guns to folks from whom we've got nothing to fear.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old November 16, 2012, 01:27 AM   #41
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 11,738
As pointed out, a "mental health check" is not just a slippery slope, its the Highway to HELL.

Not much more than 50 years ago, homosexuality was a recognised mental illness. It was listed in the medical texts as such. While it seems implausible, it is not impossible that should enough like minded doctors and "mental health professionals" get together, gun ownership (or the desire to own a gun) could be listed as a mental illness.

A lot of people in the old Soviet Union were tried for "crimes against the state" and when not outright convicted, found to be "mentally ill", and sent to "treatment" in re-eduication camps.

Along the the all too real possibility of individuals making the "mental health" determination having personal agendas of their own, there is an ever present problem with any evaluation of mental health.

And that is two fold, firstly, it must rely entirely on the answers given by the interviewee. And second, (and possibly even more importantly) it can all too easily become a "when did you stop beating your wife" situation.

If you don't answer all the questions the "right"way, you are found mentally ill. AND if you DO answer all the questions the "right" way, you are gaming the test, and found to be mentally ill. The real potental for it to all too easily become a lose/lose situation makes any (supposedly) "objective" mental evaluation test for firearms ownership a very, very risky thing.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old November 16, 2012, 07:05 AM   #42
2damnold4this
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 12, 2009
Location: Athens, Georgia
Posts: 1,376
Firearm ownership is a right. If we require a pre-test, it isn't a right. Someone can loose their right through the court system. They can be convicted as a felon or adjudicated as mentally unfit but we don't need people's rights taken away without courts being involved.
2damnold4this is offline  
Old November 16, 2012, 08:14 AM   #43
cannonfire
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 12, 2010
Location: Georgia
Posts: 497
What about people you use shooting sports as theropy for depression? I was diagnosed with PTSD years ago and found shooting and firearms to be a great theropy. If we had a mental check, I'd most likely never be able to buy a gun and get into shooting
__________________
Segui il tuo corso e lascia dir le genti - Dante

Blaming guns for crime is like blaming the planes for 9/11
cannonfire is offline  
Old November 16, 2012, 08:25 AM   #44
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 1,655
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhuxtable
I'm actually FOR a mental health check....rarely are people suffering from mental illness aware of it, and I don't think someone who is clinically depressed/bi-polar/etc should be handling a firearm.

Is there a reason why that viewpoint is out of line or anti-gun?
Yes. Mental illness isn't a legal term, so you shouldn't use it to alot a legal right. If someone is adjudicated incompetent, cannot drive or vote, I can see a rationale for denying other rights as well.

A doc wants me to take a pill for anxiety? That's a mental health issue, not a legal one.
zukiphile is offline  
Old November 16, 2012, 10:12 AM   #45
Wyoredman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 6, 2011
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 1,265
Sometimes I think we try and explain away pure evil by using mental incompetence as an excuse.

Therefore, we label those who are just plain evil as mentally ill. It helps us rationalize to ourselves how someone could commit horrendous crimes.

Should we simply have a "firearms means test" that determines if one is evil rather than mentaly ill?

Slippery, very slippery.
__________________
Go Pokes!
Go Rams!
Wyoredman is offline  
Old November 16, 2012, 11:54 AM   #46
Dead
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 5, 2000
Location: AoW Land, USA
Posts: 1,934
I would suppose restrictions that keep the prices of guns and ammo lower... Not much else however.
__________________
Dead [Black Ops]
www.therallypoint.org
Dead is offline  
Old November 16, 2012, 12:56 PM   #47
pax
Staff
 
Join Date: May 16, 2000
Location: Washington state
Posts: 6,981
Quote:
Sometimes I think we try and explain away pure evil by using mental incompetence as an excuse.

Therefore, we label those who are just plain evil as mentally ill. It helps us rationalize to ourselves how someone could commit horrendous crimes.
This.

Also - most people diagnosed with a mental illness do recover. Should someone who was briefly depressed ten years ago, but who recovered after a short round of treatment, be prohibited from owning guns for the rest of his life?

Also - laws or regulations that discourage mentally ill people from seeking treatment are a Bad Thing in and of themselves. If someone's feeling a bit crazy, I want them to race over to the doc's office and get treatment before they snap -- which they will not do if there's a law saying we'll take your guns away if you need treatment. I don't want them to hide their symptoms. I want them to fix what's wrong before they decide to take a samurai sword to the local school and chop the heads off all the kindergartners, or before they decide to nail the doors shut at a popular nightclub and set the place on fire. I want these guys seeking treatment, not hiding the crazy until someone's dead of it.

Also - Just as mentally ill people do usually recover with treatment, healthy people sometimes come down with a case of the crazies. How often would you want to check that all existing gun owners are still sane, and how many of their basic human rights are you willing to trample to make that happen?

pax
__________________
Kathy Jackson
My personal website: Cornered Cat
pax is offline  
Old November 16, 2012, 01:49 PM   #48
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 2,121
i don't believe a large number of gunowners want the mythical "gunshow loophole" "fixed". All my gunowning friends prefer selling their legally owned property without government interference.

All the anti-gunners jump on the "gunshow loophole". Most of the mass murderers bought their guns from licensed gun dealers. i can't think of one who bought his gun from a private individual.

Quote:
Closing this absurd loophole would not be political suicide for politicians who fear losing the support of gun owners. A recent survey found that more than 80% of gun owners and 74% of NRA members want this loophole fixed. It seems likely that Giffords and Kelly, both gun owners, would be among this large majority favoring this reform.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/14/opinio...html?hpt=hp_c3

IMO: This modern day Daniel Webster is absurd to the extreme. This explains it all:

Quote:
Editor's note: Daniel W. Webster is professor and director of the Center for Gun Policy and Research at Johns Hopkins School of Public Health.
thallub is offline  
Old November 16, 2012, 01:59 PM   #49
Strafer Gott
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 12, 2011
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,135
I think articles like the above sell as many "AR's" as the gun magazines, much as the Clintons motivated me to buy my EBR back in the day. I don't mind having to behave myself, but this domestic violence thing is a factor, and has made me modify my behaviors. People who CC understand how important it is to conduct yourself. The fact that misconduct can separate us from our rkba is no laughing matter. A lifetime ban for an infraction (misdemeanor) as trivial as raising your voice is one of the unlooked for consequences of a law that had good intentions. Then there's that road to hell paved with good intentions.
Can we get some freedom from good intentions?
Strafer Gott is offline  
Old November 16, 2012, 02:05 PM   #50
Salmoneye
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 31, 2011
Location: Vermont
Posts: 1,385
Quote:
While I'm mostly against arbitrary gun restriction (type of gun, mag capacity) there was one thing I found out recently about a local gun advocacy group that bothered me.

They successfully helped kill a bill in NC that would have required a mental health check for those buying guns (not sure if it was only handguns or any gun) if they don't have a concealed carry permit.

I'm actually FOR a mental health check....rarely are people suffering from mental illness aware of it, and I don't think someone who is clinically depressed/bi-polar/etc should be handling a firearm.

Is there a reason why that viewpoint is out of line or anti-gun? I think any right-minded adult should have a gun...but we are having a serious problem with massacres in this country with firearms by mentally ill people that I think could be prevented if those people are identified.
It is my considered opinion that the emboldened statement precludes you from owning firearms due to mental incapacity...

See how easy it it would be to abuse such a 'law'?
Salmoneye is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13840 seconds with 9 queries