The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 2, 2013, 02:48 PM   #26
jimbob86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 7,109
Quote:
I'd prefer not even to use his name. The sooner that he's consigned to the ash-heap of history, the better.
+1.
__________________
TheGolden Rule of Tool Use: "If you don't know what you are doing, DON'T."

http://nefirearm.com/
jimbob86 is offline  
Old January 2, 2013, 03:03 PM   #27
FoghornLeghorn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 2, 2011
Posts: 547
Quote:
he was not a mental health clinician
If you had any idea how fluid and transitory mental health concepts, theories and hypotheses are, you'd realize Mr. Cooper was as reliable as anybody.
__________________
"I say, boy, I say, you're doing a lot of choppin', but no chips are flyin'."
FoghornLeghorn is online now  
Old January 2, 2013, 04:10 PM   #28
ClydeFrog
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 1, 2010
Posts: 5,798
"metrics" to aid firearm purchases or possesion(s)...

To me there are a few ways govt agencies could gauge if a person is competent or stable to buy-carry firearms. Some are already in place others could be added;
If they are under 18 years old(depending on local hunting laws or target use). If a illegal alien or fugitive/pending criminal charges/convictions of violent crime or felonys. Persons with less than honorable discharges or general under honorable conditions should not be allowed to buy or carry guns. Persons with active trespass notices or bar/not allowed on property in the state or jurisdiction where they reside should be allowed to buy guns or ammunition. Persons with PFAs/restraining orders etc filed against them(like the federal Lautenberg Law). Persons who get any documented disability, aid or pension related to a mental health disorder or inability to maintain gainful employment due to a stress/social disorder(PTSD/ADD/clinical depression/suicide attempts/involitary commitment/etc). This includes military/combat veterans or public service employees who retire-separate due to mental health issues. People who can not safely load, unload, operate, or carry a firearm due to injury or medical condition. LE agencies must separate recruits or applicants all the time because they can't safely fire or function with a loaded firearm. It happens often. People or students who apply for state or public education and are declined due to severe mental disorders or unstable conduct(threats, fights, expulsions due to safety related violations, harassment-stalking).
These are a few public laws or policy issues that could come up. These are just examples & are subject to modification due to HIPPA laws, court rulings, etc.

Dr Drew Pensky(Dr Drew) made a great, 2A supporting point a few weeks ago that many unstable & dangerous people buy guns or get weapons only because of the stupid restrictions & legal hassles they put on mental health professionals.
Those loop-holes need more close inspection than gun bans or anti gun laws.

Clyde
ClydeFrog is offline  
Old January 2, 2013, 04:48 PM   #29
nate45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 3,746
Deleted for thread veer.
__________________
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."- Thomas Jefferson
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
(>_<)

Last edited by nate45; January 3, 2013 at 10:31 AM. Reason: off topic
nate45 is offline  
Old January 2, 2013, 05:02 PM   #30
huntinaz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 21, 2010
Location: az
Posts: 1,013
Quote:
Just an observation - in some threads, I see folks throwing around psychological or psychiatric terms that are misused, obsolete or misinterpreted.

If you want to claim someone is phobic - know what that means. If you want to use the term neurotic - that's quite out of style.

If you want to say that all should be tested for mental stability for getting a gun - what does that mean? Do you know anything about the predictive validity of current evaluative instruments?

Folks are emptying themselves into their underpants if someone seems to misuse clip, magazine, assault rife, assault weapon, etc. Thus, the misuse seems to be an argument that the anti's argument is unworthy because of misuse.

But then you argue about a technical field and sound to an expert, equally silly.
Think about it.
+

Good post. This has been bothering me a lot. Folks here and on other popular firearm forums are quick to condemn folks with mental illnesses and the medical care these people receive, without any background knowledge or basic understanding of these illnesses. Take these examples:

Argument 1: "we have these dang hoplophobic schizos with Asperger's syndrome who are crazy, and the dang doctors are overprescribing crazy pills and making them even crazier, and that's making them go shoot up schools..."

Argument 2: "We have these high-powered, military-style assualt-weapons with high-capacity clips that are killing people."

Argument 1 is every bit as ridiculous to someone who has basic knowledge of mental health as argument 2 is to most responsible and knowledgeable firearm owners.

What's the correct answer or response to violence, specifically to these massacres that are gaining publicity? I don't pretend to have it. The assertion that " issues at hand are certainly complex" isn't just a copout... it's the reality of it. But I think the point is that we need to be somewhat informed to have meaningful discussions about these things, instead of just responding emotionally with the first thing that pops into our heads. Uninformed, emotional responses regarding mental health is not too different than saying "well why do you need a gun that shoots as fast as you can pull the trigger, and has a clip that hold 30 rounds? You don't need that for hunting. Only the military and police should have access to..."

To someone who has never participated in firearm ownership and/or payed attention in history class, these may seem to be legitimate questions. However, with a little research... answers can be found. It goes both ways.
__________________
"Once you quit hearing sir and ma'am, the rest is soon to follow." - Cormack McCarthy
"Feed me, or feed me to something. I just want to be part of the food chain." -Al Bundy
huntinaz is offline  
Old January 2, 2013, 05:44 PM   #31
Erno86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 22, 2012
Location: Marriottsville, Maryland
Posts: 595
"Dr. Steinberg is right that some practitioners are insufficiently interested in treating serious disorders. We do need mobile early intervention teams, collaboration among community mental health professionals and police, and less reliance on medications. Our people deserve better access to known best practices, true insurance parity and affordable, accessible services.
A nation can stop rampages, but it is doubtful that a more restrictive, coercive mental health system will help achieve that goal."

Quote from: Kenneth J, Gill, Letters to the editor, The New York Times, Wednesday, January 2, 2013.

'The writer is chairman of the department of psychiatric rehabilitation and counseling professions, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey.'

I tend to agree with Kenneth J. Gill's opinions on this subject, who was responding to an Op-Ed essay by Paul Steinberg in yesterday's {?} NYT's.
Erno86 is offline  
Old January 2, 2013, 06:05 PM   #32
Dwight55
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2004
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 2,566
OK, . . . I'm old fashioned, . . . and maybe a bit on the "old" side with or without the fashion.

BUT, . . . when I was younger, . . . there were folks who just did not have their mental "facilities" together.

The ones who displayed a propensity for violence, a danger to others, etc. were summarily hauled off, . . . and a discussion and dispensation were done later.

My point? The were removed from society when it became apparent that there were flaws within their mental makeup that were dangerous.

Yes, . . . one of my aunts was in the psych hospital in Columbus, Ohio until she died, . . . my grandfather had her committed, . . . and he didn't bother to sit me down and get my input, advice, or ask my take on the situation. Best I know, . . . she never harmed anyone, . . . and the "incarceration" may have been the reason, . . . I cannot tell.

I would have loved to have gotten to know her, . . . didn't happen.

Long and short of it all, . . . head science is not science, . . . it is looking at indicators, . . . making a best guess as to what/why/where/ and what if?, . . . and a lot of hoping it was right.

That added to the fact that no one has ever published an accepted paper on "This is how the brain functions", . . . yet we have litterally tens of thousands of Dr's (????) and other professionals (????) routinely adding this chemical or that chemical, . . . or a full cocktail OF chemicals to the brains of affected individuals, . . . with little if any followup.

This whole thing needs to be addressed, . . . long before we begin the clip, mag, assault rifle, EBR argument/discussions.

May God bless,
Dwight
__________________
www.dwightsgunleather.com
If you can breathe, . . . thank God!
If you can read, . . . thank a teacher!
If you are reading this in English, . . . thank a Veteran!
Dwight55 is offline  
Old January 2, 2013, 06:06 PM   #33
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,911
Quote:
...Mr. Cooper was as reliable as anybody.
That's Col. Cooper.
__________________
"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 January 2, 2013, 07:09 PM   #34
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,684
Quote:
Originally Posted by PawPaw
I'd prefer not even to use his name. The sooner that he's consigned to the ash-heap of history, the better.
I agree.

But I'll go one step beyond: I would like to propose that we immediately stop referring to the Sandy Hook incident as a "shooting." Shootings are carried out with firearms, so allowing the media and the politicians to stress the fact that the incident was a shooting allows them to focus on guns as the evil element. What the incident was, was a "massacre." And if you Google "school massacre" you will find references to the most deadly school massacre in U.S. history. I've mentioned it before. It was Bath Township, Michigan, in 1927. 45 people killed and another 58 people seriously injured. The weapons used were bombs.

"The media" are using words against us. I think we need to use words back at them, to redirect the discussion in more constructive directions. Don't let "them" define the terms. Don't refer to Sandy Hook as a "shooting." Call it what it was: a "massacre." And I don't mean just among ourselves. I mean, especially, when talking to the people who are fence-sitters on the gun control issue.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old January 2, 2013, 07:17 PM   #35
jimbob86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 7,109
I prefer the term "atrocity"- an extremely wicked, cruel, brutal act.

I prefer to refer to the .... individual responsible as the Sandy Hook Nutter.

Folks with all the fancy letters after their name will insist he was "mentally ill". I say he was nuts.
__________________
TheGolden Rule of Tool Use: "If you don't know what you are doing, DON'T."

http://nefirearm.com/
jimbob86 is offline  
Old January 2, 2013, 07:24 PM   #36
dorc-1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 17, 2012
Posts: 106
Since many of these individuals fly under the radar, it's impossible to depend on mental health officials to keep them from purchasing or owning a weapon. Nobody knows the mental health issues of a stealthy individual better than family members. Mental Health Officials cannot rat on an individual unless they have threatened bodily injury to themselves or someone else. Many individuals are aware of these rules and keep their mouths shut while being treated if they are planning to do harm to others or themselves.

Parents, guardians, siblings, nephews/nieces, grandparents should have the right to advise the FBI that these individuals should not be allowed to purchase or own a weapon. If an individual is reported to the FBI by a sibling, that individuals name should only be removed by a relative or guardian willing to accept full responsibility for that individuals criminal actions involving firearms in the future. Can there be abuse of an individuals rights? Sure, you could have a relative that is anti-gun who out of spite fills out the FBi form. But if that is truly the case, you should have no problem getting another relative accept the responsibility of removing you from the list.

The other option is letting Mental Health Officials flag the FBI if they feel you are unstable enough to ever own a gun. Me, I'd rather leave it in the hands of my relatives. In retrospect, I honestly believe someone in one of the families of the recent shooters would have made sure that guns didn't get into their hands.

Last edited by dorc-1; January 2, 2013 at 07:37 PM.
dorc-1 is offline  
Old January 2, 2013, 07:29 PM   #37
Uncle Buck
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 21, 2009
Location: West Central Missouri
Posts: 2,565
I want to thank Glenn for starting this thread. I find it very interesting. I have worked with people who have some form of mental illness (Heck, a lot of people say I do) or mental retardation.

I had one friend who was the same age as me, but with the mind of an eight year old. Some of the best times we had together were target shooting at red balloons. (Blue balloons bothered him and he would not shoot at them.)


I see so many people who want to quickly put a label on others who are different and then either hide them away (A lot of people would be surprised how many people in mental health facilities never get a visit from their relatives!), because out of sight, out of mind I guess.

NOW WHAT I FEAR: Most government agencies need to show an increase in work loads in order to justify increased funding. With the Veterans Administration (VA) trying to diagnose so many people with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), I worry about the anti-gunners finding a way to use this as a back door remedy to gun violence.

What about other agencies? Could this also happen with them, if it comes down to mandatory reporting?
__________________
Inside Every Bright Idea Is The 50% Probability Of A Disaster Waiting To Happen.
Uncle Buck is offline  
Old January 2, 2013, 07:43 PM   #38
Vanya
Staff
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 4,026
Good post, Uncle Buck. I'd add the following, to the effect that the whole mental-illness thing is a very slippery slope...

Dr. Meyer started this thread as a discussion of the terminology of mental illness as applied to debates about gun ownership. However, I think the larger problem is not just a lack of knowledge about mental illness and the most up-to-date ways of talking about it, but a lack of thought about the ways illness and civil rights intersect.

Every time there's a rampage shooting (at least by a non-Muslim), it's commonly assumed that the perpetrator must have been mentally ill; The premise here is that only a mentally ill person would do such a thing. Sometimes the shooter has an actual diagnosis of mental illness, and a history of encounters with the mental health system -- sometimes not.

I'd argue that this assumption is unwarranted, and that it's only possible because mental illness is stigmatized in ways that other illnesses are not.

Most serious mental illnesses have an organic component; the fact that the most obvious symptoms are in the realm of behavior/emotion/thought doesn't, in itself, differentiate "mental" illness from illness in general. Example: someone who says "I'm tired all the time, and I have trouble remembering things" might be suffering from depression -- or from hypothyroidism, anemia, congestive heart failure, etc., etc.

I don't think any of us would see the latter conditions as reasons to deprive people of their rights, including their right to own guns, nor should we be so quick to accept mental illness as a reason to do so. Most mentally ill people aren't violent; taking away their 2nd amendment rights on the basis of a mere diagnosis means accepting a heck of a lot of "false positives" as the price of safety -- or rather, of the illusion of safety.

Remember "due process," that quaint little thing in the Constitution that's meant to ensure that the government can't deprive us of our rights without a darn good reason, as determined (usually) in a court of law?

Illness, whether mental or physical, ought not to be a reason to take away a person's Constitutional rights without some form of due process, i.e. a trip through the legal system.

There's a huge difference between a system which requires a legal hearing in order to determine that someone is mentally incompetent or dangerous, and restricts his rights on that basis, and a system in which a person can lose his rights based on a report from a single mental health professional, especially when potential liability issues mean that the latter is not a disinterested party. (And as to family members -- yikes!!)

And even in a legal setting, such a determination ought to be made on the basis of a person's overt behavior, not merely on the strength of a diagnosis or "professional opinion". The standard should be at least as high as that for civil commitment; if someone has not shown himself by his words or actions to be a danger to others, there's no justification for depriving him of his rights.

This, more or less, is the current standard at the Federal level for deciding if someone is a prohibited person by reason of his mental state; the main reason it works so badly is that few states comply with the reporting requirement, due either to their own privacy laws or to underfunding.

Let's work to fix that, at the state level, as a first step, rather than demonizing the mentally ill as a way of countering the other side's demonization of gun owners.

Last edited by Vanya; January 2, 2013 at 07:48 PM. Reason: too many words.
Vanya is offline  
Old January 2, 2013, 07:51 PM   #39
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,836
Phobia - that's an irrational fear to lay people. The DSM-IV specifics are:

DSM-IV criteria for 300.29 Specific phobias
1.Marked and persistent fear that is excessive or unreasonable, cued by the presence or anticipation of a specific object or situation (e.g. flying, heights, animals, receiving an injection, seeing blood)
2.Exposure to the phobic stimulus almost invariably provokes an immediate anxiety response, which may take the form of a situationally bound or situationally pre disposed panic attack. Note: in children, the anxiety may be expressed by crying, tantrums, freezing or clinging.
3.The person recognises that the fear is excessive and unreasonable. Note: in children this feature may be absent.
4.The phobic situation is avoided or is endured with intense anxiety or distress.
5.The avoidance, anxious anticipation, or distress in the feared situation(s) interferes significantly with a person’s routine, occupational (or academic) functioning, or social activities or relationships or there is a marked distress about having the phobia.
6.In individuals under the age of 18 years the duration is at least 6 months.
7.The anxiety panic attacks or phobic avoidance associated with the specific object or situation are not better accounted for by another mental disorder such as OCD (e.g. fear of dirt in someone with an obsession about contamination), post traumatic stress disorder (e.g. avoidance of school), social phobia, panic disorder with agoraphobia or agoraphobia without history of panic disorder).

- As you can see, it's not simply supporting gun control. Thus the usage may be common in the vernacular but not to the professions. Col. Cooper was just using it incorrectly, if he meant it to more that metaphorical.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old January 2, 2013, 07:57 PM   #40
johnbt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 6, 1999
Location: Richmond, Virginia USA
Posts: 6,004
"Persons who get any documented disability, aid or pension related to a mental health disorder or inability to maintain gainful employment due to a stress/social disorder(PTSD/ADD/clinical depression/suicide "

Any documented disability involving a mental health disorder?

I'm sorry, but you are completly wrong. First you need to go read the entire list of mental health diagnoses. There are more than 400 of them. Here's a link.

www.dr-bob.org/tips/dsm4n.html


You'd ban people with diagnoses such as:

302.71 Hypoactive (low) Sexual Desire Disorder

302.72 Female Sexual Arousal Disorder

302.72 Male Erectile Disorder

302.73 Female Orgasmic Disorder

302.74 Male Orgasmic Disorder

302.75 Premature Ejaculation

302.76 Dyspareunia (Not Due to a General Medical Condition)

302.79 Sexual Aversion Disorder

307.0 Stuttering


These are straight from the DSM.

You'd crack down on women who have painful sexual intercourse (dyspareunia) and and anyone who stutters? For goodness sakes, why???

Read the dang list and think.

John
johnbt is offline  
Old January 2, 2013, 08:05 PM   #41
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,836
One problem of broadly inclusive diagnoses as preventing gun ownership is that it would prevent folks who need help from getting it. Unless a condition is really, really directly predictive - I'd be very cautious about stigmatizing folks.

We found in our PTSD/Cop work that officers who suffered would not seek help or see department psychologists as they felt it would hit their job evaluations - even if said to be confidential.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old January 2, 2013, 08:11 PM   #42
ClydeFrog
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 1, 2010
Posts: 5,798
Social disorders; guns....

By social disorders I mean someone who has a serious documented problem where they may harm themselves or others. It would also mean they can't work or be employed due to unstable behavior or actions(suicide attempts, involentary commitment, threats, etc).
If you have ED or you stutter(speech empediment) you're not actively trying to kill other people or take hostages or are held in a psych ward.
There are SERIOUS levels of mental health or social disorders which should keep someone from owning guns or ammunition.
You're not "crazy" or unstable "sometimes", you have have a medical condition that requires medication and/or treatment.

Clyde
ClydeFrog is offline  
Old January 2, 2013, 08:24 PM   #43
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,836
Aren't those covered by the ajudication provisions of the 4473. Take a look at the ATF site for details.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old January 2, 2013, 09:24 PM   #44
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 2,088
Quote:
302.71 Hypoactive (low) Sexual Desire Disorder

302.72 Female Sexual Arousal Disorder

302.72 Male Erectile Disorder

302.73 Female Orgasmic Disorder

302.74 Male Orgasmic Disorder

302.75 Premature Ejaculation

302.76 Dyspareunia (Not Due to a General Medical Condition)

302.79 Sexual Aversion Disorder

307.0 Stuttering
These are all disorders . Is that the same as illness ?

Most if not all that are quoted are physical disorders and not mental , yes ?

Quote:
"The media" are using words against us. I think we need to use words back at them, to redirect the discussion in more constructive directions. Don't let "them" define the terms. Don't refer to Sandy Hook as a "shooting." Call it what it was: a "massacre." And I don't mean just among ourselves. I mean, especially, when talking to the people who are fence-sitters on the gun control issue
Yea this is not going to happen . At least not by people in this forum . There was a thread started a month or so ago asking if we should stop using the word weapon and just use gun or firearm . Well lets just say most did not think it was an issue and felt it was caving in and letting the antis win . Instead of us all banding together for one common goal it appears we would rather cannibalize our selves rather then standing together with one language and one voice . Thank god for the NRA . At least somebody is organized
__________________
As of this date 8-18-14 at 6:42am I became a proud grandfather I guess I'm officially old
Metal god is offline  
Old January 2, 2013, 09:30 PM   #45
Vanya
Staff
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 4,026
Yep -- here ya go:

http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf

Page 4, Question 11.f. explained...

The key word here is "adjudicated".... i.e. "[determined] by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority..."

Covers it fairly well. If the states would do their bit, it might do some good in terms of prevention.

But the bottom line is that in a country with 300 m. people, and a world with however-many billions, there will always be some who do evil.
...................

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metal god
These are all disorders . Is that the same as illness ?

Most if not all that are quoted are physical disorders and not mental , yes ?
Actually, no. Those are all labels, and code numbers, taken from the DSM-IV, otherwise known as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (my emphasis), which is published by the American Psychiatric Association.

But see what I wrote above about the physical/mental distinction not being all that useful here...
Vanya is offline  
Old January 2, 2013, 09:57 PM   #46
Alabama Shooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Sweet Home
Posts: 886
Quote:
Unless a condition is really, really directly predictive - I'd be very cautious about stigmatizing folks.
I was kind of hoping you would go that way. Something interesting about these (full medical term here) total whacked-out-psycho-bunny shooters is that nearly all of them said that they were planning on shooting people to somebody/ somebodys.

I'd say that is pretty predictive.

And yet the actions of the professionals and others on the balance did not approach anything even close to interventive, even when the shooter made clear threats and demonstrated method and intent.

I'd like to think that there is a whole ward full of crazies that were stopped and locked up and just a couple made it through the cracks but I have no way of knowing that.
__________________
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday.

Last edited by Alabama Shooter; January 2, 2013 at 10:40 PM.
Alabama Shooter is offline  
Old January 2, 2013, 10:36 PM   #47
PawPaw
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 24, 2010
Location: Central Louisiana
Posts: 3,115
So, then we go forth to another layman's question, recently proposed by Tam, over at View From the Porch:

Quote:
Neither mental illness nor magazine-fed firearms are new things in this nation (although gun control largely is.)

What kept disturbed kids in the '50s from wandering into the cafeteria with a mail-order M1 carbine and laying waste?
So, for all the experts here (credentialed and otherwise), what was the difference
__________________
Dennis Dezendorf

http://pawpawshouse.blogspot.com
PawPaw is offline  
Old January 2, 2013, 11:22 PM   #48
Colorado Redneck
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 6, 2008
Location: Northeast Colorado
Posts: 1,134
PawPaw--I grew up in the 50's in the mountains of Northwestern Colorado. We all played cowboys and Indians. We had cap pistols and bb guns and 22 rifles. Hunting deer was a big deal and most of the guys couldn't wait till they were old enough to go big game hunting with dad.

I think the culture was a lot different. We watched Audie Murphy movies and played war for hours on end. We did not have realistic toys (no machine guns or M1 rifles), nor video games that were realistic.

Could M1 rifles be purchased by mail years ago? Just asking--I don't know.

The events of the last decade or so seem to be a snowballing phenomenon. The entertainment industry, toy industry, and media are involved.

And one last thought. When I was much younger, I was having a really tough year, and had been drinking a lot. I got into a brawl with my brothers one evening and a gun came out. There was a lot of stuff I didn't remember about that night. A few days later I made an appointment with a counsler. I saw that guy for a few months, and pretty well got my drinking problem taken care of. In light of some of the stuff that the politicians are bantering about, I might be a person that would not be able to own guns. However this proceeds, it is interesting for me to assess what kind of methodolgy might be used to try and ferret out people that would never be able to own firearms.
Colorado Redneck is offline  
Old January 2, 2013, 11:24 PM   #49
FoghornLeghorn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 2, 2011
Posts: 547
Quote:
So, for all the experts here (credentialed and otherwise), what was the difference
You know the difference. Think back on what America was like, really like, in the 50s, vs today.

In the 50s if some girl got pregnant, it was a disgrace. The precious few girls I knew that got pregnant, went off to live with relatives. I never saw them again in high school or otherwise.

Today, in my old high school, they actually have a day care center for children of students. Most of these students are unwed.

Now, think back at the changes in our culture, all of the changes, that have taken place. Then think of the changes that would be necessary to facilitate such gross immorality.

That's your answer. We threw God out of the schools, public squares, entertainment industry, government, and in many cases, the church.

I remember a true story about a young girl from Chicago from a fine Christian family. She left her family, left the church and left her faith and became a whore. One morning she woke up in an upper story hotel room with a man she didn't know. She got her clothes on, walked to the window, and jumped.

A police officer responded and recognized her, because he was a close friend of the family. He was crying and said he knew her. Somebody asked why she jumped. He said, "Because, when you don't have Jesus Christ all that's left to do is jump."
__________________
"I say, boy, I say, you're doing a lot of choppin', but no chips are flyin'."
FoghornLeghorn is online now  
Old January 2, 2013, 11:55 PM   #50
Come and take it.
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2009
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 999
I would have to agree with foghorn leghorn.

Also why would we want to keep a gun out of a felons hands or a person who due to his condition is a danger to himself or others, but at the same time allow them to drive a car?

If a medieval man at arms was transported to the 21st century and had to chose which was deadlier. A big truck or a machine gun if he wanted to kill as many people in a crowded area as possible in a short time. I bet he would pick the truck.

But since hollywood doesn't particularly glamorize mass homicide with vehicles as often as with guns we do not see this happen as often.

So we blame the guns, the illness, the convicted felon, but when do we blame the media?
Come and take it. 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 11:14 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 0.15368 seconds with 7 queries