The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old June 20, 2016, 10:59 PM   #1
Kimio
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2011
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,128
Conversation with a fence sitting friend on gun control

This was rather interesting for me, and admittedly is a first for me. I'm so used to running into those who are staunchly against more guns or heavily lean towards more restrictions.

I'm curious as to how some of the members here think I handled the response to her post.

A friend of mine posted this on my FB page a short while ago, accompanied by a picture essentially flaming senators for shooting down the latest gun control bills being pushed by the anti's.

"Before anyone starts, let me say. I want you to keep your gun. I do not want to ban guns. What I do want are those people who have a fire arm to invest the time and money to properly learn how to handle their gun. (Which as far as I know everyone I'm friends with do). I want people suspected of terrorism to not be able to legally purchase a fire arm. But mostly, I want people who have been diagnosed or who have a history of mental illness to not be able to purchase a gun.

I understand, criminals don't care and people will find a way, but that doesn't mean we have to keep it easy for them. To me, the idea is like birth control; It may not be 100% effective, but it's stopped alot more than feel styling."


My response

"Under the current system, does suspicion of committing a crime automatically make you guilty? Does suspicion to commit a crime automatically allow the powers that be to completely bypass the right of due process guaranteed by the 5th amendment and deprive someone of their second amendment rights?

Please keep in mind, I'm not arguing for or against more scrutiny on those who are suspected for holding allegiance with Terrorist organizations, but I am worried about what precedence we would be setting if what I stated above is to be seen as acceptable.

Under the current system, the world of mental health is extremely shaky and we must tread carefully here.

It is already illegal for someone who had been diagnosed as mentally defunct to own or come in contact with a firearm. That federal law was passed with the Gun Control Act of 1968, signed by Lyndon B Johnson.

My question is, what do we determine as being destructive or dangerous when it comes to mental illness, who does this information get reported to, and will the doctors be required to report such behavior if said patient is merely suspected to have such tendencies but has yet to actually act on any of them or has not been officially adjudicated to a mental health facility? Does admission to said facility include voluntary or must it be mandated by a court or doctors order?

It's a slippery slope I feel, with no easy answer.

"It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person—
(1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
(2) is a fugitive from justice;
(3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
(4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution"

You may read more here (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922)

Here (https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regula...un-control-act)

And here (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968)"
Kimio is offline  
Old June 21, 2016, 10:38 AM   #2
TailGator
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 8, 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 2,665
You did pretty well. Two other things that come to my mind:

I don't want a disincentive for people to seek help for mental illness. That doesn't mean that people with dangerous mental illnesses should be allowed free access to firearms, but we have to be cautious that our rules restricting their access to firearms don't come into play in such a way that we encourage mildly ill people delay treatment and become more severely ill.

Secondly, I worry that these provisions for both mental illness and for being on a terrorist watch list set precedents for other rights. IOW, if we are willing to take away someone's 2A rights without trial, are we also just as willing to suspend such rights as free speech, freedom of association, prompt fair trials, and habeas corpus? All on the basis of an accusation? Do we really have any freedoms, then, if a government institution can remove them on just their own say so?
TailGator is offline  
Old June 21, 2016, 10:40 AM   #3
gvaldeg1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2015
Posts: 5
Very well put! A reflective and reasonable post. Kudos to Kimio.
gvaldeg1 is offline  
Old June 21, 2016, 11:06 AM   #4
g.willikers
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 28, 2008
Posts: 8,524
Ask her if she minds if the First Amendment is treated the same way as those proposals for the Second Amendment.
And remind her how the Soviets treated those who disagreed with them, especially in public.
They were declared mentally ill and treated accordingly.
__________________
Lock the doors, they're coming in the windows.
g.willikers is offline  
Old June 21, 2016, 02:03 PM   #5
boatdoc173
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 2, 2015
Location: southern Ct
Posts: 185
talking points (for me at least)

it is NOT like birth control-- BC is voluntary and works well if used. GC is forced upon legal gun owners --99% of whom NEVER commit crimes

IF GC worked to stop crimes or keep criminals and the mentally ill and terrorists from getting guns, then the Background checks would work--they do not!! also street gun dealers do not follow GC laws--EPIC FAIL-- anyone can get street g uns

The logic being used to ban guns and hurt legal gun owned is insane. WE do not ban cell phones, cars ,buses or trains and thousands die each years due to distracted or drunk or drugged drivers, sleepy bus drivers and train operators right? so why ban guns?

THe real way to reduce gun violence is to imprison career violent thugs, profile and deport those prone to be islamic radicals, lock up those whose mental illness make them prone to violence(get them help)

of course if we could control people and read minds--problem solved!!!

IF you let the government get rid of the 2nd amendment, then the 1st,4th and 5th will soon follow, which rights is she concerned about keeping?

Isn't she suspicious about a government that is sworn to defend a constitution and continually tries to get rid of it?


the final point(but I doubt you can use it in a normal conversation)= if STUPID could fly, anti gunners would be JETS!
boatdoc173 is offline  
Old June 21, 2016, 06:48 PM   #6
kilimanjaro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 23, 2009
Posts: 3,746
Ask your friend to explain on his Facebook page why the Democrats voted down the two GOP bills this weekend, the ones that stood a chance of passing.

One could almost believe the Democrats wanted a campaign issue through November rather than get something through the Senate in June.

I guess the last 50 years of rhetoric about 'making a statement' and 'if it saves just one life' were flat-out lies, seeing as how when they had a chance to actually engage in bi-partisan legislation they refused to do so and instead chose to continue to demagogue the issue in an election year.
kilimanjaro is offline  
Old June 21, 2016, 07:42 PM   #7
Art Eatman
Staff Lead
 
Join Date: November 13, 1998
Location: Terlingua, TX; Thomasville, GA
Posts: 23,491
After four or five years of observing the effects of the GCA 1968, I began asking, "What gun control law has ever affected the rate of violent crime with firearms?" Now, over forty years later, I have yet to receive an answer.
__________________
You're from BATFE? Come right in! I use all your fine products!
Art Eatman is offline  
Old June 21, 2016, 07:57 PM   #8
Rangerrich99
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 20, 2014
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 259
A buddy of mine just sent this video to me today, and I thought it might be helpful for your friend to start here:

https://www.facebook.com/UncleSamsCh...0994432429894/

For some reason I couldn't figure out how to just put up a link to the video, so you have to wait about ten seconds while it goes through some kind of 'home page' thing before the video starts. I found it thought-provoking, and I know a couple of my 'on-the-fence' friends are going to get a link to it before the end of the day.
Rangerrich99 is online now  
Old June 22, 2016, 02:32 AM   #9
kmw1954
Member
 
Join Date: June 11, 2016
Location: SE Wisconsin
Posts: 18
I keep seeing the stance that we should emulate the model that they've done in Europe or Australia.

I say let's emulate what our neighbors to the south have done. Seems to work and the citizens still get to keep their guns.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Mexico




Then when it's said and done only the government, military, police and cartels will be the only ones walking around armed. Seems to be working very well for them!
kmw1954 is offline  
Old June 22, 2016, 09:36 AM   #10
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 14,982
Quote:
Seems to work and the citizens still get to keep their guns.
Yes, they get to keep some guns, in some calibers, inside their homes, ONLY.

FWIW, sarcasm works better if you use the smilie or state that it is sarcasm. Otherwise, some just won't get it.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old June 22, 2016, 09:39 AM   #11
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 6,139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimio
. . . . It is already illegal for someone who had been diagnosed as mentally defunct to own or come in contact with a firearm. That federal law was passed with the Gun Control Act of 1968, signed by Lyndon B Johnson. . . .
Overall, a good response.

One little quibble, though: The test for the prohibition on possession of firearms isn't diagnosis of mental illness, it's adjudication.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some.
Spats McGee is offline  
Old June 22, 2016, 10:10 AM   #12
kmw1954
Member
 
Join Date: June 11, 2016
Location: SE Wisconsin
Posts: 18
44 AMP, Point well noted and taken.
Still trying to learn the quote thing. On all other Vbulletin sites that I use there is a quote button.

I do wonder though just how many people here in the states understand the gun laws and how they effect the citizens. We talk of gun violence in this country as if it's the worst on the planet. Those people that cry gun control should just look to see what's happening down there on a daily basis. Could it happen here????
kmw1954 is offline  
Old June 22, 2016, 10:47 AM   #13
ATN082268
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 2013
Posts: 342
Quote:
Originally Posted by Art Eastman
After four or five years of observing the effects of the GCA 1968, I began asking, "What gun control law has ever affected the rate of violent crime with firearms?" Now, over forty years later, I have yet to receive an answer.

I saw a recent article that touches on this:

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell062116.php3


Too often the gun control debate operates from the position of putting people in the position to justify that they "need" this type, number, etc. firearm. The burden of proof should, instead and rightfully, be on those looking to limit freedoms, that these restrictions on firearms are Constitutional, effective, absolutely necessary with no better alternatives. Don't justify your position for owning firearms. Have the gun control crowd justify their own restrictions, if they can and be ready to shoot down their usual cherry picked "data" or "facts."
ATN082268 is offline  
Old June 22, 2016, 01:09 PM   #14
RickB
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 1, 2000
Location: Western WA
Posts: 6,635
Quote:
Secondly, I worry that these provisions for both mental illness and for being on a terrorist watch list set precedents for other rights.
[The anti-gun people] would very much like to consider anybody who wants a gun to be "mentally ill", so be careful about how much power government has over determining who's ill, and what government has the power to do about it.
__________________
Runs off at the mouth about anything 1911 related on this site and half the time is flat out wrong.

Last edited by Evan Thomas; June 22, 2016 at 02:11 PM. Reason: let's not make this a left-right issue.
RickB is offline  
Old June 22, 2016, 02:25 PM   #15
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 8,059
Good response and, most importantly a good tone. I think it's useful to consider in these types of discussions that we don't want, and it's unrealistic to hope for, a "one shot stop". i. e., an argument or insight that will turn someone around instantly. When/if we try something like that, we're likely to alienate our audience and provoke him/her to shut down.

We want people to listen and hear us. We're not trying to change a mind as much as we are trying to open it.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old June 25, 2016, 12:43 AM   #16
kozak6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2005
Location: AZ
Posts: 2,532
Terrorism watch lists are a little sticky. They are secret lists upon one is placed bureacratically, with no due process of law. No one will be able to tell if you are on the list, why you are on the list, nor how to get off the list.

I don't know (and can't know) what it takes to get put on such a list, but if it's anything like the no fly list, it's troublesome. All it takes is having a common name. The no fly list is full of false positives including senators, air marshalls, children, and infants. It took Senator Ted Kennedy a month to get off the list, and he was a US senator! Additionally, it seems likely that many people were added to the no fly list for blackmail, political, personal, and other reasons.

The terror watch list likely isn't any better, except it's extra secret. Also, an audit by the Office of Inspector General found that 38% of a 105 record sample contained inaccuracies.

It's not that we want everyone, terrorist or not, to have guns. The problem is that hinging firearms purchases upon secret (and error riddled!) government lists, and especially without a trial, violates multiple explicit Constitional rights.

Mental illness is similarly tricky. Which mental illnesses should prohibit one from gun ownership? Paranoid schizophrenia? Sure. Psychopothy? Sure. What if you want to say, make it as hard as possible to own a gun? Then you can expand the list to say, anxiety, ADD/ADHD, depression, etc. Or does simply desiring to own a gun constitute mental illness? How is the list assembled? How will one get placed on the list? Can you have a hearing to get off the list?

I don't want psychos to have guns either, but things are more complicated than they seem.
kozak6 is offline  
Old June 25, 2016, 08:13 AM   #17
Gunplummer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 11, 2010
Location: South East Pa.
Posts: 2,627
All of you are missing the point. There is a Gunshop in the next town over that has had 4 people arrested in the past 5 months (Maybe 5 people) for trying to buy a gun on a failed background check. The dealer I go to hits the shows and has called the cops on a couple in the last few years. The background check does work, BUT, because of HIPPA, there can be no background check on people treated for mental illness. You can be turned down for a gun purchase for no reason at all. What is the big deal about checking mental patients. I have seen some really unstable people who own and buy guns that were under treatment at the time. How can you argue for that? If you are on medication for mental problems, you should be on the background check.
Gunplummer is offline  
Old June 25, 2016, 08:13 AM   #18
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 11,910
Quote:
I began asking, "What gun control law has ever affected the rate of violent crime with firearms?" Now, over forty years later, I have yet to receive an answer.
The answer is, "we just need one more law, then." When that law has no measurable effect (despite "studies" sponsored by their side), we just need one more.

The only way to make gun control work is to make it total. I know that. They know that. But they know they have to wait.

Quote:
There is a Gunshop in the next town over that has had 4 people arrested in the past 5 months (Maybe 5 people) for trying to buy a gun on a failed background check.
Really? That doesn't jibe with my experience at all. In fact, I personally contacted law enforcement on several occasions when I was in the business, and they rarely responded at all.

Quote:
If you are on medication for mental problems, you should be on the background check.
You do understand that "mental problems" covers an incredibly wide swath of conditions, right? There's a difference between a drooling, homicidal sociopath and a guy with mild PTSD who takes meds to sleep soundly.

When we make broad proclamations about the "mentally ill," we get overbroad, burdensome legislation. We also stigmatize many people who pose no threat whatsoever to society.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old June 25, 2016, 09:57 AM   #19
buck460XVR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 28, 2006
Posts: 2,988
Your friend is expressing the same opinion that the majority of Americans now have since Orlando. They do not want to take any guns away from law abiding responsible gun owners, only want to keep them out of the hands of mental cases and possible terrorists. Folks are grasping for straws as more and more innocent people are murdered while being soft targets. Insisting to folks that doing nuttin' at all is the answer, is not working anymore.
buck460XVR is offline  
Old June 25, 2016, 11:06 AM   #20
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 14,982
Quote:
If you are on medication for mental problems, you should be on the background check.
If what is meant is that someone on medication for mental problems should have that information on file for a background check to find, (and therefore USE that information to deny a firearms purchase) there are a couple of issues with that.

First one is, its not legal.

Second one is, its not ethical.

Third one is, that there are a LOT of drugs that are not "medication for mental problems" that can CAUSE mental problems.

High blood pressure meds can do it. Listen to those TV ads for drugs ranging from hair loss to indigestion issues, sleep aids and cholesterol limiters, listen to how many of them, in the rapidly spoken side effects warnings mention risk of depression, suicidal thoughts, etc. Lots of things can cause problems, AND compounding that is the fact that different people can, and do have widely differing reactions to the same drug.

There is a legal standard to determine mental competence for firearms purchase. Being on this or that medication DOES NOT MEET THAT LEGAL STANDARD.

And, the standard is only applied (correctly) on a case by case basis.

If you are going to have medical records be something significant in a background check, then you better have ALL medical records included, for EVERYONE in the nation.

And, if you're going to go that far, better include credit history and VOTING RECORD too.

Background checks only "catch" people who HAVE something to be checked. AND, even then, they don't have any way of actually, reliably predicting FUTURE behavior.

people buying stocks are urged to do "background checks" on the stock (past performance", and are openly and frequently warned that "past performance is no guarantee of future performance". They have no problem with that. They realize that at best, its a likely predictor, NOT a guarantee.

Why do people seem to think that a background check on something as changeable as personal behavior is some kind of guarantee that they will, or will not do something evil in the future???

In the eyes of the anti gunners, every one of us (themselves included, I assume) is a ticking time bomb, every one of us is a potential mass killer, so NONE of us should have any access to weapons, at all, ever!

UNLESS you wear a uniform and or a badge, and get a paycheck for carrying a gun, then you're "ok" and "safe" to have a gun. Until you want one outside of official duties, then you're back to being a potential killer.

The Orlando shooter was a licensed security guard. No doubt in my mind, he was sane and stable, every time he was tested, he passed.

Until he wasn't.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old June 25, 2016, 12:25 PM   #21
kmw1954
Member
 
Join Date: June 11, 2016
Location: SE Wisconsin
Posts: 18
I personally do not have an answer to this daunting question and neither do many others. There are just too many facets to this question.

How to keep the public safe and secure, even if only safe in their own minds, while not infringing on their rights or the rights of others?

Arbitrary laws or lists is not going to do it. Removing firearms is not going to do it. It may make some people feel better but it will not solve the problem.

With all the social unrest we see daily I can see how many people feel uneasy on a wide variety of issues. I believe the fringes of both sides only exacerbate the tensions and alienate those they are disagreeing with. That they feel that if they make enough noise then all others will give up and they can win the point, be it right or wrong. That they refuse to look at all sides of the issue.

Sometimes I believe they confuse individuals rights with groups rights or that the group has greater rights than any individual.

I'm still trying to understand that if we are a free society and all have equal rights then why do we feel a need for any protected class of people.

I think many people fail to see that this is not just a gun ownership issue.
kmw1954 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2016 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.11893 seconds with 9 queries