The aftermath - realistic assessments of the situation please

[manta49]

Lets take it further.

Lets say that you are a veteran returning from Afghanistan and you have PTSD or Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. You've served several tours of duty and you are now home and you want to buy a gun.

I don't have the answers. All cases would be accessed individually. The other option is that someone with a history of mental illness and violence can get firearms without any checks. Would you like them living next door to you or next door to the school your children go to. ?

[No1der]

Manta, let me explain. I'm not jumping on you and I'm sorry if it appeared that way. My nerves are a little bit frayed.

I know about those two mass killings in the UK and there are terrible.

They were no less terrible than the shooting in Newtown and I'm struggling with processing this latest massacre.

The fact remains that the USA is not the same as the UK. The Constitution is like the bible here. That's not to say that there aren't safeguards to change the Constitution if the need arises but it is something that almost never happens. At least not in recent times.

Any regulations that are put in place in the United States require the steady hand of a very precise surgeon. It is more about tweaks and mild alterations to preserve, to the best of our ability, the rights of EVERY American.

These "Grand scheme tweaks" are going to seem like monumentus changes to millions of people and it is important to recognize that.

I said what I meant and I am questioning what it is I really believe but questioning oneself is a very positive thing to do always. It means that one still has an open mind.

I believe that some changes have to be made and I believe that SOME changes are coming whether we like it or not. My questioning myself leaves me open to the possibility of having a voice in the changes that will be made rather than sticking my fingers in my ears and yelling "I can't hear you."

[dorc-1]

As I said earlier:

Suggestion to Mental Health Issues:

• Parents/Guardians/Relatives can register with FBI
• Unstable, violent, or mentally ill can be flagged for no firearm purchase
• Individual can only be removed from list by those listed above willing to accept legal prosecution for their actions.

Takes the responsibility away from health professionals who would lose the trust of those individuals needing counseling the most.

[DanWesson357]

Mantra1
It didn't stop other incidents.

Wait, what? My understanding was that gun violence was VERY low in the UK?

[No1der]

I don't have the answers. All cases would be accessed individually. The other option is that someone with a history of mental illness and violence can get firearms without any checks. Would you like them living next door to you or next door to the school your children go to. ?

I know you don't have the answers and neither do I. In theory what you are proposing is quite palatable, the problem is that theory and practice are often two very different things.

It also goes to show how many little details have to be addressed before any law or rule is imposed on anyone.

One "monumentus" change happened in the 20th century when Spirits were outlawed and the United States became a "Dry" country. That was a mistake of epic proportions because it wasn't well thought out and it wasn't addressing any of the very basic underlying issues. It sounded great in theory but in practice it lead to Al Capone and the rise of multitudes of bootleggers and street gangs along with some of our most violent history.

Any change that are made require a very well thought out and delicate touch or we'll make things even worse rather then better.

[manta49]

Manta, let me explain. I'm not jumping on you and I'm sorry if it appeared that way. My nerves are a little bit frayed.

No problem i don't think you are jumping on me.

I know about those two mass killings in the UK and there are terrible.

They were no less terrible than the shooting in Newtown and I'm struggling with processing this latest massacre

I don't think the gun controls in the UK made any difference. My point there are different thinks that can be done that might help without gun control.

[manta49]

Wait, what? My understanding was that gun violence was VERY low in the UK?

It is compared with other countries. If gun control has any thing to do with it i don't know. But i don't think so.

Quote.

The United Kingdom has one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the world with 0.07 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants in 2009 compared to the United States' 3.0 (over 40 times higher) and to Germany's 0.21 (3 times higher.

[DanWesson357]

I would honestly argue that it did. The difference is that in the UK, guns and gun culture were never nearly as prevalent. Thus, less guns overall on the streets and such. In order for a similar gun ban to work in the U.S., it would require some serious overhaul to our gun trafficking and such. And if we couldn't win the War on Drugs or the War on Alcohol, how do we win that? It would have to be very thoroughly planned and executed.

[No1der]

Compared to the United States gun violence in the UK is almost non-existant in relative terms.

I'm not saying that there isn't gun violence in the UK I'm just talking about comparative terms.

What this is and isn't due to is really not something I can answer.

[manta49]

Some of the checks carried out in the UK.

Checks on previous convictions are carried out as are local police checks. Areas such as domestic violence are also taken into account. These checks are always made at the point of application for either a grant or renewal of certificate. Also checks are made on a daily basis of all those persons who are arrested to identify certificate holders whose continued suitability to hold a certificate may be called into question.



There are certain prohibitions from the possession of firearms (including shotguns and air weapons). This means that certain people are not only prohibited from possessing their own guns, but would also be prohibited, for example, to take part in clay pigeon shoots, or possessing guns on a shooting range.

In simple terms, the following applies:

•Any person sentenced to serve between three months and three years is prohibited from possessing any firearm for a period of five years, from the date on which they are released from prison.
•Any person sentenced to serve a prison sentence of three years or more is prohibited as above for life (unless the prohibition is lifted by the Crown Court

[DanWesson357]

If I want to own a firearm in the UK, I have to join a club, yes?

[manta49]

If I want to own a firearm in the UK, I have to join a club, yes?

No rifles shotguns etc can be got for hunting without being in a club. if you want a firearm for target shooting a (M/4 single shot only). for example you need to be in a club. If you want a handgun in N Ireland you need to be in a club unless you have one for personal protection.

[mayosligo]

There certainly does not seem to be enough historians in this group. To agree that something needs to be done about the current laws is to begin admitting that guns are the problem. Once we do this, if history is a measuring stick, we are within a decade of all firearms and firearm ownership being illegal.

[mayosligo]

Also pertaining to the UK. they beefed up security at all schools after the two incidents. This is what deterred more incidents, not the gun ban.

[Dr Big Bird PhD]

Its my understanding that the UK has always had significantly lower gun violence even when their gun laws mirrored america's. Since their effective ban on guns, I've read that their overall gun violence has in fact gone up.

You can't compare the US to the UK for a variety of reasons. You can only compare Pre-ban to Post-ban numbers. I mean the UK had very little to no resistance in the confiscation of their firearms and bans, but if the UK laws were implemented in America, a lot of law-abiding citizens would not act so kindly...

[m&p45acp10+1]

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

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

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

There are those poor misguided people that think changing laws will stop crimes. They seem to forget that criminals do not care about the law. That is why they are criminals. They seem to forget that there is a law against murder, taking a fire arm onto the grounds of a school. Discharging that weapon in public, much less killing people. They seem to think that changing the capacity of the weapon, or weapon types available to them it will somehow translate to them killing a few less people in the short time of the rampage before they use the last round on themselves.

[Tom Servo]

I spoke with one congressman yesterday. He thinks the first step will be a reporting requirement for multiple long-gun purchases. They already have that in a few border states, and there might be a proposal for it to go national. If something has to be offered up, this might be the right thing.

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

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

Now imagine that voluntary admission to a treatment center has the potential to strip folks of their right to bear arms. The only thing that'll do is deter folks from getting help, which could be far worse in the long term.

[motorhead0922]

As far as mental health and NICS reporting, we get on really shaky ground.

Yes, we do. Especially with the American Psychiatric Association in the mix. When the next revision of their DSM is published next year, it is set to include a diagnosis of clinical depression for someone grieving more than 2 weeks over the loss of a loved one, even a spouse or child. What we cannot let happen is to let the APA have a hand in deciding who can possess a gun.

[Shep]

http://people.duke.edu/~gnsmith/articles/myths.htm

Though long and a little dated, this Study sheds some needed light on the situation, in my opinion.

Please read past the first two quotes from the L.A Times and another major paper.

This recent article from the NY Times (generally regarded as a "Liberal" newspaper) is also very useful and interesting.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/us...anted=all&_r=0

[wayneinFL]

I don't have the answers. All cases would be accessed individually. The other option is that someone with a history of mental illness and violence can get firearms without any checks. Would you like them living next door to you or next door to the school your children go to. ?

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

So, I'm not willing to talk about further background checks for selling guns, further reporting requirements on mental illness for NICS checks, or limiting the types of firearms.

[SIGSHR]

I dislike the idea of allowing mental health professionals become the High Priests of a New Order and allowing them to make decisions that impinge on people's rights. Will they have the power to declare people unfit to operate motor vehicle or aircraft? Or to become parents?
I am not now nor have I ever been a mental health care professional nor am I associated with that field. And I don't see the DSM as a Holy Text containing
Truths From On High. IMHO the DSM lost its validity back in 1974 when they yielded to pressure from the homosexual lobby and removed that behavior as a treatable problem.

[No1der]

FIrst and foremost it's putting mental health professionals in an impossible spot. Treating mental illness does not give one a crystal ball into the future of that person or any person for that matter.

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

It's already a stigma to see a Psychiatrist and now to put that Psychiatrist as your judge and jury also, as it pertains to your rights, is really asking for some major nightmares of epic proportions. Nightmares for the people who will feel they have to suffer silently through whatever it is they may be going through for fear of seeing a doctor. A nightmare for the doctor who will feel he is unable to treat and report on every patient or have his malpractice insurance go even higher or losing his license all together. Finally a nightmare for us all because the Doctors and Patients that really should be being brought together won't be and far more people with far more untreated psychosis' end up going on shooting spree's.

[No1der]

I dislike the idea of allowing mental health professionals become the High Priests of a New Order and allowing them to make decisions that impinge on people's rights. Will they have the power to declare people unfit to operate motor vehicle or aircraft? Or to become parents?

I know several and I can assure you that they abhor the idea of being put in that position for all but the most obvious and blatant cases which they are legally bound to report anyway. As it stands now you really have to have had a break from reality and stated in your own words that you were going to kill someone or yourself. Then, and only then can a Psychiatrist contact the authorities and report you as a possible problem. Barring that, as things are today, there is no way that seeing a "Shrink" could work against you in any way.

Imagine being a Psychiatrist and being forced to juggle your patient and your responsibility to that patient, your malpractice insurance, legal liability for "letting one slip through" and possibly reporting people who never were a danger to anyone and even legal liability of prosecution for not catching the one that was dangerous thus not reporting him/her. It is not a position any doctor wants to be in.

[Hal]

When the next revision of their DSM is published next year, it is set to include a diagnosis of clinical depression for someone grieving more than 2 weeks over the loss of a loved one, even a spouse or child. What we cannot let happen is to let the APA have a hand in deciding who can possess a gun.

My daughter passed away four years ago come january.
Their isn't a day,,,sometimes and hour,,,that I don't grieve over the loss.
Those _ _ _ _ _ _ _ can go straight to hell w/their know it all attitude.
Edited to remove offensive language after I simmered down....

[geetarman]

Hal,

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

I hear their voices everyday. I would not want it any other way unless I could be with them in person once again.