Great Article on CNN

[johnelmore]

This might be my first post to this section of the website. I saw this great article on CNN this morning which makes some great points which I will re-hash here without plagiarizing so to speak:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/17/opinio...html?hpt=hp_t4

- Gun control advocates put together all shootings into one conversation mixing together seemingly unrelated incidents into one blender trying to make a good argument for gun control. However, the mixture of different situations confuses the issues and distorts their position.

- Despite outright bans and strict gun control measures in cities like Chicago there still is violence related to firearms.

- Trying to rid the entire country of firearms is both a hopeless and un-Constitutional mission.

- Its time to talk about budget cuts to mental health services.

- Public debates with the NRA is not at all effective in solving the issue of gun violence.

- Gun control advocates need to abandon the practice of using mass shootings to turn law abiding citizens into crazed killers and figure something else which will work.

[Davey]

This coming from LZ Granderson is surprising.

[johnelmore]

To be sure LZ is a liberal Democrat type, but not all Democrats are on board with strict gun control. A lot of folks from both sides of the aisle want to see real solutions and not some scheme to ban all guns like they do in Britain.

[SamNavy]

- Public debates with the NRA is not at all effective in solving the issue of gun violence.

I have yet to see anyone in the anti-gun circles have an open debate with the NRA or any other gun-rights organization. By open debate, I mean the kind of debate that presidential candidates have prior to an election... something independently moderated (or not)... lets say that Sarah Brady and Alan Gura sit down over a few beers with a camera rolling.

The closest I've seen is when Lapierre went on Piers Morgan, but even that was kind of a trainwreck due the emotions involved on both sides. In other words, I don't see a "discussion"... I do see the anti-gun side having independent news conferences with carefully selected people speaking on carefully selected talking points, and the gun-rights side attempting to respond during through various outlets.

The problem here is that the liberal MSM would never agree to the be the stage for a true and open debate/discussion because the know any halfway informed gun-rights advocate should have no problem dismantling every single piece of anti-gun propaganda that is used to confuse and mislead Americans. And no self-respecting anti-gun advocate would allow themselves to be featured on conservative MSM show because they know they'd get crushed.

In the end, the only real weapon that anti-gun types have is the fear they cause in the uninformed masses through carefully scripted propaganda.

[BarryLee]

not all Democrats are on board with strict gun control.

Yes, we need to remember this and try our best not to make the Second Amendment a partisan issue. When this happens a lot of folks simply support or oppose an issue based on a party platform and not the actual facts.

We need to oppose the individuals that are attacking our freedoms and support the individuals that are defending them, but let’s do so without splitting it down party lines.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The best legit pro and con arguments are in a book by David Kopel, McClurg and Dennig - a good scholarly back and forth.

Never see it on pop TV though. Maybe C-span.

[andhen2003]

Yup, I'm a Democrat...from NJ no less and have been very involved at high levels in politics for my entire career. And I am a gun owner and NRA member. The partisan bashing is totally unproductive and gives people with reasonable views on the issue a reason to stay away from our camp. There are plenty of Democrats who are opposed to gun control or who at least are open minded on the issue. I've actually evolved a lot on the issue and came to the conclusion over time that gun control laws are totally ineffective at stemming violence and simply give a false sense of security and hope. I've changed a few minds as well by taking some of my colleagues out shooting!

[ClydeFrog]

Doctor Drew Pensky who I have issues with on a few topics sounded rational when he stated in the days after Sandy Hook 2012 that a major problem is the mental health professionals who are in a bind because they want to report dangerous or unstable people but due to HIPPA laws & civil actions, they are swayed away.

ClydeFrog

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Mental health pros are also concerned that strict reporting rules will discourage folks from coming in and getting help for impulse control.

This is esp. true for law enforcement. They are reluctant to see professionals for fear this will hurt their job.

Next, the reporting is an ethical attack on confidentiality.

But don't worry, the NSA is clocking all those phone calls to your mental health professional and can cross check them with all kinds of indicators of gun ownership. Don't think it couldn't be done.

[Tom Servo]

Mental health pros are also concerned that strict reporting rules will discourage folks from coming in and getting help for impulse control.

That's the paradox. We still have a 19th-century mentality about mental illness. It's something to be mocked and/or punished.

I seem to remember the President telling us we'd have a national conversation on our mental health system after Sandy Hook. It's amazing how quickly that was swept under the rug in favor of AWB II.

[johnelmore]

I am all for the right to bear arms, but we have to face the fact that not all people are qualified to bear them. If someone has mental health issues then they shouldnt bear them. How do we determine what constitutes a mental health issue is beyond my pay grade.

I guess if I had to decide I would leave it to a jury or a group of reasonable educated people. If 12 people come to the conclusion you have mental health issues...well you probably have issues.

[ClydeFrog]

In my view, more sworn LE agencies should take a page from the NYPD's elite ESU(emergency services) which has officers & crisis negotiators who get extended training in dealing with EDPs(emotional disturbed persons).
The goal is to reduce the threat & to mitigate the risks(shooting, use of force, etc). It does not always work but it's a + step to dealing with these types of incidents.

I've had events in the past with EDPs. 2 involved suicidal males who were extremely volatile.
Not everyone can be Dr Drew or Dr Phil Magraw but it's important to know how to address these subjects if they come up.

Clyde

[johnelmore]

Many, if not all, of the mass shootings have been caused by an individual with documented aggressive behavior caused by mental illness.

IMHO there should be a registry of these individuals and those on the list shouldnt have weapons. I would say any aggressive behavior documented by law enforcement or a medical doctor will earn your way onto the list. Only a judge or a jury can take you off. You get placed on the list for 5 years.

If the police have been called to your household a few times as a result of aggressive behavior you earn your way on the list. If a medical doctor is treating you for anger management then you shouldnt be handling firearms.

[BarryLee]

I would say any aggressive behavior documented by law enforcement or a medical doctor will earn your way onto the list. Only a judge or a jury can take you off. You get placed on the list for 5 years.

While I agree we need to do a better job of flagging people who should not buy guns, but this should be handled by a Court. While Medical Professionals and Law Enforcement have an obvious role it should be the Judiciary that actual takes away your rights.

[ClydeFrog]

The recent incident where Chris Kyle, a highly decorated US Navy SEAL who was murdered by a combat veteran with mental health issues shows that loaded firearms & anger/rage can be a volatile mix.

I, myself, think there should be a few factors that DQ a citizen from obtaining a hunting license or concealed carry permit(firearm license). Everyone has a "story" & few people can say they are a "Ivory Snow Baby" but if you have a history of violent or anti-social behavior, drug/alcohol problems, are a veteran with a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge, or have restraining orders/PFAs/trespass notices filed against you, then you shouldn't be allowed to carry a concealed firearm or hunt.

ClydeFrog

[K_Mac]

I, myself, think there should be a few factors that DQ a citizen from obtaining a hunting license or concealed carry permit(firearm license). Everyone has a "story" & few people can say they are a "Ivory Snow Baby" but if you have a history of violent or anti-social behavior, drug/alcohol problems, are a veteran with a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge, or have restraining orders/PFAs/trespass notices filed against you, then you shouldn't be allowed to carry a concealed firearm or hunt.

ClydeFrog

I completely understand the need to protect society from unstable people. I would even agree that some mental illness should prevent one from carrying a gun. That someone once drank too much, was treated for depression that made them "anti-social", had an ex who had a restraining order issued out of spite, or countless other subjective "disorders" that may or may not be real and could be determined by others with no understanding of mental health to disqualify them from gun ownership is frightening at best. Many who have the mindset that guns are the cause of violent crimes and should be tightly controlled by government could, and would, use these issues to violate constitutional rights.

The reality is that much has to be done to reduce violent crime and improve our health care system. These are complex issues that will not be solved by attacking the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

[iraiam]

Mental health pros are also concerned that strict reporting rules will discourage folks from coming in and getting help for impulse control.

But we are already there IMO, with government actively sticking it's dirty fingers in our health care system, I am reluctant to seek treatment on a wide variety of issues. Not that I need or have sought treatment for anything, but it comes down to not being able to trust your own family doctor because government has mandated electronic records and they either have or want full access to them.

[johnelmore]

My experience is that law enforcement usually has a good idea and an accurate picture of the aggressive individuals in their communities. In fact some of these shooters had a couple run ins with the law prior to the event. I would trust the local police have a more accurate picture of the people with mental issues in their locality then the health professiinals.

I do see how a registery can be abused, but at the same time I know these issues stem from mental health and aggressive behavior. On the other hand there are some people who do not enjoy all Constitutional rights in a free society which are usually criminals and the insane. So if someone has issues then they wont be enjoying the same rights as us anyway.

[pax]

Glenn,

Can you point me to some online or offline sources of mental health professionals expressing that concern?

Had a talk with some liberal friends last night. They had literally never heard the idea that some people might avoid treatment "just because someone worries about their guns!?" -- and flat out didn't believe me when I said it was a common discussion and point of concern among gun owners. One of them, who has a master's degree in a mental health field, told me a suicidal person who would let concern about losing gun rights stop them from seeking treatment couldn't "really" be depressed after all. The other told me that the number of gun owners or would-be gun owners who would worry about such a thing must be "minuscule," not worth considering when setting a national policy.

I would love to hand them some reading material on the issue.

Thanks!

pax

[Pilot]

I agree that not all Democrats are anti (legal) gun ownership. However, the party platform is certainly anti gun and MOST Democrat politicians follow the DNC platform in order to get their support in elections. Sadly, there are very few Democrat politicians on the national stage that are pro 2A, at least publicly.

[andhen2003]

@pilot - I agree, but I just wanted to make the point that there are in fact many Dems who are gun owners and are opposed to gun control measures. The petty partisan attacks will do nothing but alienate them. I'm not saying that elected officials shouldn't be held accountable for supporting gun control measures, but it can be done in a way that is civil and respectful.

On the mental health issue, I'm glad to see some very thoughtful and balanced comments here. I volunteer on the board of a non-profit that helps families of people with mental illness. The vast majority of people with mental illness are not violent and are much more frequently victims than perpetrators of violence. There is a huge difference between someone who has had issues with mental illness and someone who is psychotic and/or anti-social.

About a quarter of the population has had some problems with mental illness, so restricting access to a civil right to the mentally ill needs to be done in a careful way, with the court system involved, and only for people who professionals deem potentially dangerous to themselves or others. I'm not sure how to make that work honestly; it's a damn difficult issue. A registry worries me as something that has the potential to be abused. I find it ironic that anyone that is opposed to a national gun owners registry would find it acceptable to have a registry of people with a certain type of illness.

[johnelmore]

When I say "mental health issues" I only mean those issues which are a threat to the public and where previous aggressive behavior can be articulated.

Civil rights are not extended to all citizens. Criminals cant vote for example. None of the rights in the Bill of Rights or Constitution was made to be absolute. Each one has some fine print behind it.

Rights are oftentimes taken away from people who are a threat to society. If I were to knock someone out in the middle of town my expectation is to be arrested and have some rights taken away.

My view of the right to bear arms is that it was only meant for responsible reasonable individuals who were not a threat to the public. Im certain if you asked the founding fathers of the United States they would only want certain individuals to bear arms.

So all that said I dont think it should be a big judicial process to limit ones right to bear arms if they demonstrate obviously aggressive or sociopathic behavior. All of the individuals in these mass shootings had records of mental illness and run ins with the law. If their behavior was identified earlier then the shootings would not have happened.

Of course there should always be a way to appeal the decision but if you go up to an officer and start demonstrating an odd sociopathic aggressive behavior then you should wind up on a list taking away that right to bear arms asap. If you want the right back then take it to court and demonstrate the government was wrong.

[ClydeFrog]

I disagree with the forum members who say domestic issues or problems related to inter-personal relationships shouldn't conflict with a weapon permit/CCW license.
I filled out a new state form yesterday for a new concealed license where the topics were subject to disqualification.
Im fully aware of the factors involved in family court & divorce/separation issues but if a judge or district justice issues a restraining order(called a PFA or Protection From Abuse in my area) & there is documentation to support it: medical records, sworn statements, LE reports, etc then the person should not own or carry firearms(to include target or hunting type firearms).
A few years ago, when I lived in VA, I read a 2A/pro-gun booklet about waiting periods which use the example of a young woman who was in a abusive relationship(domestic violence). She applied for a concealed permit & purchased a handgun. Her ex attacked her 2 days later & she used lethal force to protect herself. If the state mandated waiting period was in effect she may have been killed.
Mental health workers, judges & doctors are not mind-readers or have super-powers but they can help ID people with serious problems who shouldn't have firearms/ammunition.

Clyde

[NJgunowner]

The problem is there are a lot of doctors and judges who are more activist than professional. They let their personal beliefs interfere with their decisions.

[pax]

Im fully aware of the factors involved in family court & divorce/separation issues but if a judge or district justice issues a restraining order(called a PFA or Protection From Abuse in my area) & there is documentation to support it: medical records, sworn statements, LE reports, etc then the person should not own or carry firearms(to include target or hunting type firearms).

I admire the depth of your naivete, and hope you never find anyone you care about in similar straits.

pax