Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Wednesday, Dec. 19, 2012 | 2:02 a.m.
Another view?
View more of the Las Vegas Sun's opinion section:
• Editorials - the Sun's viewpoint.
• Columnists - local and syndicated writers.
• Letters to the editor - readers' views.
Have your own opinion? Write a letter to the editor.
“What it should be, though, is a fight between those who irrationally believe that reasonable regulation will lead to the government confiscation of our guns and those who think that common sense will save innocent children’s lives.”
Is there anyone who disagrees that this quote from Brian Greenspun’s Where I Stand column is a valid starting point? While we may disagree as to what constitutes “reasonable regulation,” is there anyone (other than lobbyists for the gun industry) who truly believes that no regulation is reasonable?
Everybody thinks we should have reasonable regulation
That said it will not stop the mentally ill from killing people.
What is your solution to the real problem of helping the mental ill to prevent them from killing people.
Why is it that Liberals never ever want to hold the deranged killer responsibility.
Why is it Liberals refuse to address mental illness.
Why is it Liberals refuse to address the cultural environment of violence.
Killers will murder even if guns and clips are scarce but Liberal think that more gun control is the panacea of stopping murders.
The scam of Senate Diane Feinstein's bill is the exemption for all the guns and clip already in circulation in America and it exempt buying over 900 named guns restricting only 100 guns
The problem with government regulations are obvious. We have them at the State, Federal and local levels. Oftentimes, they are contradictory and obtuse. They never expire. And they are never reviewed on a regular basis for their continued relevancy. Outside of that, they're perfect.
CarmineD
In reply to Hank Stone; "PeaceLily" posted a commentary yesterday that was absolutely superb. It is a beginning in the process of the issues with mental health patients, their medications, and guns in America. Here are some of her excerpts:
"The goal should be to deal with the problems that make people unable to feel they can live in society without weapons for protection against some unseen threat. Thinking the answer is to own guns and carry them is not the answer. This displays a lack of trust in general. It is the opposite of what should be. The source of the lack of trust must be discovered and counseling should be undertaken. The lack of trust is connected to relationship problems at some time in a persons life, maybe multiple times. That seems compatible with some of the shooters in many of the extremes we have read about. Then, we have those who are living in fear that has progressed to paranoia. They have control issues as well. Certainly, their stability is questionable. This is why comprehensive mental health exams should be required for gun ownership. If denied, they can at least get treatment."
I would only add that these same comprehensive mental health screenings for present gun owners should also become mandatory.
Excellent work "PeaceLily"!!! But, now comes the hard part, all those that will be resistant to a new proposed process such as this. However, this is a "reasonable regulation", that was proposed by "PeaceLily", and most necessary.
Hank, please get real. There are gun "regulations" coming out of our gazoos! To own a gun legally you must undergo a background check, then you need to register it and to carry it concealed, you need to go to a "training" facility. How many criminals do you know that abide by those simple rules? They buy their weapon on the street and conceal it with impunity, that is, until they pull it out and demand your money or take your life. Think more rules and "regulations" will make them change their ways? If so, you're dreaming.
Willie Horton is coming to town.
The kid wasn't a registered gun owner therefore mental health sceenings are a moot point.
Registered gun owners do not commit these crimes.
Re Jerry. Correct as far as it goes. I have an issue with anyone walking into a gun show and walking out with the weapon of their choice, with nothing required but cash on the barrel head (pun intended). Where's the regulation in that instance?
I can understand the need for some regulations on automatic weapons but at the same time do not trust the government for these rules. As Carmine states, the government is obtuse and doesn't keep up with the times.
Protecting our children comes first. We should have armed security, at every school. This will be a major deterent to a possible suspect. Those that still have the need to attack our kids, will do so anyway, so some type of presence is necessary.
And don't think for a second that if a criminal wants a gun that some regulation will stop them.
57 rightly points out the kid did not own the gun
More gun regulations will not solve the problem
We need to address the mentally ill to prevent any deranged action
That does not require more gun control
It requires helping these people to correct their behavior
Re Future: Remove the word "liberal" from the text of your comment, and I would agree entirely. The cultural environment of violence is not being addressed by ANYONE, liberal or conservative. Mentally ill folks purchasing weapons is not being addressed by anyone, liberal or conservative. EVERYONE holds the killer, deranged or not, responsible. I haven't heard any liberal "apologize" for the act this guy committed, or conservative either.
Bottom line: Will the issue be addressed in a meaningful way? Probably not. Will the ban on assault rifles be reinstated? Probably not. These two issues are just the tip of the rhetoric being spoken after each and every incident of this nature.
In time, after all the hyperbole and rhetoric, as in previous incidents, NOTHING will be done. The gun lobby (NRA) who shill for the gun manufacturers, will hold sway, and it will all be same as it ever was. With Grover Norquist sitting on the board of directors of the NRA, I would expect nothing less.
Peacelily wrote "Then, we have those who are living in fear that has progressed to paranoia. They have control issues as well. Certainly, their stability is questionable."
fear is an emotional response that recognizes potential danger. It is a protection mechanism, not a control issue. Questioning someone's stability because of this natural emotional response to a potential threat to an individual's well-being is unfortunate. The age group suffering the most murders(nearly 70%)is between 17 to 39 years old which happens to be at the height of man's physical ability. This is a very aggressive age group. Younger males often view aggressive acts as an exercise in control over others, brought on by a challenge to their self-esteem or integrity. I don't question a woman or an older person choosing safeguards such as always parking in the front of stores(never the sides), be indoors and at home by 10:00pm, carry mace, don't wear flip-flop shoes in large public places with few exits just in case you need to move quickly/run, be aware of anyone following you outside of stores, have your keys in your hand when walking to your car, etc. I realize certain safeguards are basic to avoiding negative outcomes and unwanted physical confrontations. The emotion of "fear" or its close cousin "concern" can lead to better decisions that prolong life. But I agree that we need to do a better job of identifying behavioral/psychological traits of especially teenagers who struggle with being overly aggressive as a means to deal/cope with incidents and environmental factors around them that lead to isolation, despair and bad behavior. Lets reduce or eliminate behavior/communication styles that lead to embarrassment, intimidation, social isolation, misguided guilt tripping, confusion and anger in others. Lets not taboo the human emotions of fear or concern that can produce personal policies aimed at promoting a long term life and well-being.
Pilots are armed in some cases and so are air marshals, have an armed security officer at schools. Many Veterans and others need jobs.
Banning a piece of plastic and a spring (ammo clip) will not work.
Professor Stephen P. Segal's recent study of murder rates and mental-treatment policy, "Civil Commitment Law, Mental Health Services, and U.S. Homicide Rates," examined state-by-state murder rates and mental-health services and found that "less access to psychiatric inpatient-beds and more poorly rated mental health systems were associated with increases in the homicide rates of 1.08 and 0.26 per 100,000, respectively."
There was an even greater difference in the homicide rate between states with different involuntary civil commitment (ICC) laws. "Broader ICC criteria were associated with 1.42 less homicides per 100,000." In short, states where involuntary commitment was easy had roughly a third less murders than states where it was very hard to civilly commit a mentally ill person.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/335...
Chuck333: "automatic weapons" are regulated by the Feds, with a Federal license required by a collector wishing to purchase a fully automatic weapon.
The weapon used by the perp in Connecticut was a SEMI AUTOMATIC rifle. Not that it mattered in the end, but people should not confuse machine guns with semi automatic weapons. Having said that, I'm sure one can find a way to make a semi automatic weapon fully automatic on the internet.
As I said yesterday:
"This moment has nothing to do with conservative vs progressive. It is a moment where you stand up and vow to find a way forward to protect our babies or do you accept the annihilation of various groups of people whenever the next crazy comes out of the basement as the price you are willing to pay so you can keep your AK47 on your armrest. "
I can't help but notice that just one of the gun owners posting here was willing to trade some of their rights for a better system and not one of the rest of you gun cowards had the guts to say what you really think, which is, to the parents of those killed " Too bad for you, but my rights are more important than yours are, and my need to squeeze off 50 rounds in 10 seconds turned your kids brains into splatter, but you'll be Okay, just have another kid. "
Some suggestions :
1. Radically increase and expand parental/roommate significant other accountability laws so if Lanza hadn't whacked his mother first, she would spend 15-20 years in prison for not securing her weapons.
2. Allow people to add names to a " hot list" of people displaying changed behavior so an intervention team of police AND helpful mental health professionals get involved proactively.
3. Registration, lock boxes, mental health testing and serial numbers required to own any gun able to be made semi automatic or faster.
4. Allow gun owners rights to be downgraded based upon behavior changes via petitions by family members and friends.
"save innocent children's lives"
I have not heard any regulation that is being proposed that have prevented what happened in Conn.
All this talk by Democrats is just a pure political attempt to restrict gun ownership with the goal of a future complete or near complete ban on gun ownership.
If you want to own guns or believe in the right to own guns then don't vote for Democrats.
THE MENTAL ILLNESS DILEMMA; WAKE UP AMERICA
PART ONE
Please, every reader just stop and think for a moment if this were you, and if you had fallen victim to a mental illness; whether it be your own fault, or not;
There are developed childhood mental illness, or biological, physical, social, environmental, and or psychological mental illnesses.
More specifically, there are mental illnesses by genetics. This susceptibility is passed on from generation to generation in families through genes.
Certain infections, even some types of influenza have been linked to brain damage and the development of mental illness or the worsening of its symptoms.
Brain defects or injury to certain areas of the brain have also been linked to some mental illnesses.
Prenatal damage strongly suggests that a disruption of early fetal brain development or trauma that occurs in the womb leads to mental illness.
Long-term substance abuse, in particular, has been linked to anxiety, depression, and paranoia.
Remember traumas such as the child I spoke of in an earlier post who was forced to watch his father commit suicide during a domestic dispute with his wife. Think of football players who in later years develop mental illnesses from head traumas sustained on the football field. Other factors, such as, poor nutrition, exposure to toxins, such as lead, play a definite role in the development of mental illness. The list that I have not mentioned is quite long.
Again, think about the possibilities that any of this could happen to you. How would you feel if society would throw you aside as an outcast? How would you feel being thrown in jails and prisons and beat down and thrown into a cage of sorts for being afflicted with a mental illness? Would you feel hurt and abandoned? Would you be angry? You bet each and every one of you would be. Have we reduced ourselves to being a society who only values the elite and seeks to discard all others? People in America can think like this, but remember, the once elite can quickly fall victim to mental illnesses; and this includes the children that you produce.
PART TWO
Jails, prisons and juvenile detention centers play a big part of the mental illness subculture and our free society. Again, remember over 60% of the incarcerated have some form of mental illness. Each one of you had better be concerned what goes on in these institutions, because 98% of those incarcerated are sooner or later released out into our free society. Make the connection people, well over 20% of America's population in our free society suffer from some form of mental illness.
Today's correctional institutions make a huge mistake. Although many of these centers of detention have decent mental health treatment plans, these therapeutic courses end when the incarcerated are released from custody. Do we finally make the connection that abruptly ending mind-altering medications and treatment plans without clinical supervision many times triggers "stages of rage" in mental health patients?
Do we finally understand that in our free society people who are not as lucky or gifted in life many times need mental health assistance and hopefully a life that is productive and hopefully one day free of harassment and condemnation by those who think, "they have it all"? How many mass-slayings in recent times have been related to the killer being "a sociological outcast" who finally snapped and went into a total crazed mode of action? How many childhood suicides have been linked to them having been bullied in school? What does it take to make America wake up!!!
Surely, "PeaceLily's" plan for mental health screening of gun applicants is essential. But, we must also fund appropriate universal mental health care. Sure, it will be quite expensive. Although, probably nowhere near the cost of the Iraq war. Get my point?
Whether in a free society, or incarcerated, the mentally ill in any form are never deserving of being societies "whipping post". If you care about the safety of our children and families in America, then you'll care about universal uninterrupted treatment for the mentally ill.
JefffromVegas has some suggestions that actually would make a difference. Unfortunately, all of them will be fought by interests that disagree. Gun rights advocates will fight the restrictions on guns that he suggests and advocates for the mentally ill will fight his suggestions on handling of mentally ill individuals.
The truth is that, as a society, we must reach a place where we are willing to further restrict an individuals options regarding guns, and even more important, in my opinion, we must be willing to restrict the options that mentally ill people have for remaining completely free, on the streets, in our society with no assistance, no medication, no intervention of any kind.
The price we pay for the level of freedom that we currently afford gun advocates and others and that we afford the mentally ill are the events where the unbalanced get guns and kill innocents.
It can be a slippery slope to restrict access to guns and/or to restrict the ability of the mentally ill to live their lives as they please, but their are consequences for not doing both. Currently, we've chosen, as a society, for more freedom and less restrictions. It is time we revisit that choice, but unless we are willing to make some rather large changes, the changes won't do much good.
Michael
"This is why comprehensive mental health exams should be required for gun ownership. If denied, they can at least get treatment."
The concept sounds logical on the outside, however, as with most evaluations they are opinions. You can always find doctors who would disagree on diagnose. Just look at all the different opinions about this letter. A few issues I see are,
Who would give the evaluations? Where would the funding come from, obviously your insurance wouldn't cover it. Maybe OB care will? How is the process going to be regulated? Where are the records kept? If someone fails, can they have a reevaluation? Is it a one time evacuation, or is it every time you want to purchase a gun? How are the evaluations going to provide enough information to determine, that later on, that the person would not snap? Would the same evaluations be used for all applicants? If so, how can you keep people from cheating the exam? If not, would the exam be equal in the evacuation?
I'll be the first to admit my not an expert in this field, unlike others who are, but as a layperson those are just a few questions I would have.
On most issues, with gun control being just one of many, the GOP is on the wrong side of the American people. That's why in the not too distant future the Party of No will be history.
It wasn't always that way. Before the party became radicalized by the likes of Grover Norquist, Limbauh hate radio, and perhaps most importantly, Fox News' hate TV, it was a party that was more or less moderate and rational rather than kooky and extreme.
Nevada had an up-close encounter at a republican party gone crazy when its teabag wing hijacked the primary election in 2010 and nominated the loonist of loons, Sharron Angle, to run against a very beatable Harry Reid. Angle used her campaign to talk about '2nd amendment remedies' and other bizarre ideas, scaring voters to death and sealing Sen. Reid's reelection.
a society that can't even protect little children- perhaps you bible toting dimwits are right-this is the end time.
One point I forgot is, the shooter in Connecticut wasn't the gun owner! Now if you want to own a gun you need an entire family evacuation? How far back do you go? Grandparents , great grandparents, what if one of the members doesn't want to have one?
The population of the U.S.is about 310 million people.Between 70-80 million Americans own guns.The total amount of guns owned by U.S. citizens are 270 million.About 4.5 million
of the 8 million guns manfactured worldwide are purchased in the U.S.
With this many guns available in our country some in the hands of deranged or mental people, we are bound to have things like what happened in the Connecticut school.
Anyone who thinks assault rifile should not be banned,or that we need some sort of better gun control,better think twice.
"a society that can't even protect little children"
You are right.
This society OK's about over 1 million abortions a year attributed to mainly the need for women to have post-sex birth control (not rape, not incest not to save the life of the mother).
Yes, children are a precious item in US society.
Michael said:
"The truth is that, as a society, we must reach a place where we are willing to further restrict an individuals options regarding guns, and even more important, in my opinion, we must be willing to restrict the options that mentally ill people have for remaining completely free, on the streets, in our society with no assistance, no medication, no intervention of any kind."
I say:
I am almost in agreement with you about this, I think it is more of a political divide than mental health, but that aside, I think what we were/are saying, me in my more acerbic way, you in your more measured tones is that it is time for us to grow up as a country a lotta bit, and sooner is better than later.
Rocky said:
"This society OK's about over 1 million abortions a year attributed to mainly the need for women to have post-sex birth control (not rape, not incest not to save the life of the mother).
Yes, children are a precious item in US society."
I say:
I am glad you feel so strongly about the life of all children. Are you on the wrong thread? I read it again, no talk about abortions except for yours.
Maybe if we called what the shooter did to those 20 kids a "post birth abortion" instead of a cold blooded murder you would develop an opinion about the subject at hand?
The are 60 million that take 300 million prescriptions for psychotropic meds a year. We lead the world in terms of mental illness. Millions of these folks are armed to the gills. The big cities have become battle zones and the price of treating the wounded astronomical.
Many of our biggest hospitals on the brink of collapse.
2011 Deaths
Automobiles = 34,485
Poisoned = 41,592
Firearms = 31,387
We should be regulating poison as well.
Gun makers and their NRA lobbyist have us in the cross hairs. A fearful citizenry desperately searching for a way to dodge the bullets has been their goal all along.
Drugs, alcohol, pesticides are all regulated. Even inhalants like spray paint. Most deaths relative to poisons and automobiles are accidents.
The gun nuts feel that if I have an accident while driving my car and my wife gets killed it is is the same thing as if I blew my wife's head off with a gun. I don't!
Read the front page of the newspaper today. A high school kid arrested on gun and explosives charges. He threatened to blow up his high school. It's easier for a kid to get his hands on guns and bombs then spray paint.
gasoline, diesel fuel, fertilizer, can be used to create massive destruction. Any time someone wants to buy tons of the above it should be suspect.
I was working a narco desk when the methamphetamine craze began in the United States. Companies like Costco were selling 20,000 packages or more of products containing pseudoephedrine to individual buyers. Currently most states have limits on the purchase of pseudoephedrine. When a runny nose kid walks into a store and wants to buy $200,000 worth of Sudafed that should raise some flags. If that same kid walks into Home Depot and wants to buy thousands of dollars worth of products used to make bombs that also calls for some common sense.
Freeman said:
"2011 Deaths
Automobiles = 34,485
Poisoned = 41,592
Firearms = 31,387
We should be regulating poison as well."
I say:
We have, as a country done so. Examples are our new strategies for dealing with mad cow, legionnaires disease, and more pertinently the Tylenol murders. Particularly in the Tylenol case we moved as one to safeguard the over the counter medicine problem.
Guns that can only be used with a code, smart, one user only bullets?
We just need folks to maybe look at bullets as instant, permanent poisoning?
Those attempting to compromise the CONSTITUTIONAL UNALIENABLE RIGHTS of Americans under the ruse of "reasonable regulation is fair" is an enemy of America.
: {
RefNV doesn't have an argument, Jeff.
Simply, our risk of death by automobile and death by poisioning is about equal with our industrialized peers. Our risk of death via firearm homicide is astronomically higher.
"The US homicide rates were 6.9 times higher than rates in the other high-income countries, driven by firearm homicide rates that were 19.5 times higher. For 15-year olds to 24-year olds, firearm homicide rates in the United States were 42.7 times higher than in the other countries. For US males, firearm homicide rates were 22.0 times higher, and for US females, firearm homicide rates were 11.4 times higher. The US firearm suicide rates were 5.8 times higher than in the other countries, though overall suicide rates were 30% lower. The US unintentional firearm deaths were 5.2 times higher than in the other countries. Among these 23 countries, 80% of all firearm deaths occurred in the United States, 86% of women killed by firearms were US women, and 87% of all children aged 0 to 14 killed by firearms were US children."
It's not our culture... we share our culture throughout the world. Our entertainment (movies, music, video games) is just as popular, just as violent as those in our industrialized peers... yet our firearm homicide rates are insanely higher.
When you compare apples to apples, there's no denying the impact our lax gun safety regulations have had on our country.
Living in fear on an almost continual basis is not normal.
Appropriate fear is a response to danger that is imminent. It produces the fight or flight syndrome. Adrenalin is pumped into the system. One makes a choice in the action they take.
Projecting fear in some situations can be more dangerous because it can signal another person to have the same reaction toward you. The choice they make to protect themselves may result in a more dangerous situation. Both individuals may become aggressive or defensive.
Sometimes people become addicted to the adrenalin they produce from fear. They need to get a hit on a regular basis, so they start seeing more reasons to be fearful. They make up things to be fearful of to get the adrenalin rush. This is not normal.
Then you have people who have had to endure extremes of fear and violence, resulting in Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, which needs treatment.
Healthy fear is only normal when one is in imminent danger in order to take action.
The quote of my statement: "Then, we have those who are living in fear that has progressed to paranoia. They have control issues as well. Certainly, their stability is questionable."
Paranoia is not normal. LIVING in fear is a control issue since one is involved in working through scenarios of how to respond to imagined events in order to be prepared. This takes a good deal of time in such a persons life. Everything becomes a potential threat. This is not normal.
Jeff,
It appears that you and I agree on something. Will wonders never cease? All kidding aside, we are not always as far apart as it appears. As you state, I do use measured tones, which seems to irritate you at times, where you are more acerbic.
Michael
Sorry Kevin, I'm not taking guns away from women and the elderly who need to protect themselves from younger, stronger perpetrators. As a poster mentioned yesterday, guns would be sold on the black markets where crime perpetrators would only have access to guns and it would increase the flow of money going to illegal activities. There are other murder options such as hammers, hands, fists, feet, knives and other sharp objects, poison, explosives, narcotics, drowning, fire, strangulation and asphyxiation which compromises 33% of murders. I have parents in their 60's in my home state who have registered fire arms and a security system that detects movement outside of entry doors/windows(before entering the house) AND once a breach to a door/window sensor occurs(once inside the house). This system triggers inside and outside lighting and a distinct alarm tone for both(beep sound for outside window/door sensor breach and siren for actual window/door sensor breach). I'll never apologize for wanting to see my parents have the ability to protect themselves should someone enter their home.
The only time in my life when I was in danger and the fear response kicked in was when I owned a gun.
Fortunately, I never had to use it, but I was prepared to shoot if I had to. I was able to use my brain in both instances, rather than my trigger finger.
However, my tendency to take chances because I was armed led me to see that my thinking was getting warped, and I had more fear. I got rid of the gun and lived happily ever after.
I spoke to a friend in Portugal about European gun laws.
In Europe, a person must prove they are in danger to own a gun for self protection. One may own one rifle for hunting that is single shot, no automatic guns allowed.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/09/21/nev...
Intimate partner violence is killing the women in this town. The women in Connecticut was slaughtered by her son.
Read the above Fox report.
Peacelily,
The emotions of fear or concern are healthy reactions to what one perceives as a risky/dangerous situation, person, place, activity or thing. Self preservation requires it. Both pain and fear are mechanisms of self-preservation. My concern with your statement is your context to these emotions indirectly referring to someone as unstable or paranoid should they feel the emotions of fear or concern. People should not feel ashamed or abnormal if they feel fearful or concerned about a situation, person, place, activity or thing. That is my message. We all have fears and concerns and most have dealt successfully with both in order to get back to more positive emotions:
1. Confuse/doubt(uncertainty) to Enlightened(make clear)competent
2. Anger to Cheerful(enthused)
3. Guilt to Relaxed
4. Embarrassed to Prideful
5. Social Rejection to Comfortable
6. Fear(intimidation) to Safe (secure)
Kevin, about that 30% lower suicide rate, this could in part be related to the northern countries not getting sufficient sunlight. They have long periods of lack of sunlight.
This leads to more depression problems, alcoholism, and suicide in some countries.
I have friends in Sweden and Finland who I discussed this with.
I think were getting into fantasyland here. Nevada is the most violent state in the country when it comes to violence against women. On a per capita basis we also have an astronomical amount of guns.
Try to find one woman that has successfully used a gun to defend herself in the last 10 years. I'm sure there have been one or two but I can't find a single instance.
Oklahoma Girl, 12, Shoots Intruder During Home Burglary
http://abcnews.go.com/US/kendra-st-clair...
Woman Shoots at 2 Intruders; 1 Dead: Police
http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Homeown...
N.M. woman shoots, kills intruder in her home
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/natio...
Fayetteville woman shoots intruder
http://www.wral.com/fayetteville-woman-s...
While the people scramble from one mass shooting to the next in fear and panic, dodging bullets and mopping blood-soaked floors clean of the carnage, gun makers are laughing all the way to the bank.
We're all fools for allowing the nation to be held hostage by rightwing radicals who couldn't care less how much damage their 'rights' have done to our own.
"I'm not taking guns away from women and the elderly who need to protect themselves from younger, stronger perpetrators."
Oh really?
"In a first-of its-kind study, epidemiologists at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine found that, on average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. The study estimated that people with a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not possessing a gun."
This is what proponents of no-holds-barred gun proliferation do not want you to understand. They don't want you to understand that the risk of your child killing themselves accidentally skyrockets with a gun in the home. They don't want you to know that gun homicides are higher in the United States by a factor of 7, as compared to other, similar countries! They say that guns are needed for ladies and the elderly to protect themselves when statistics show it makes them more likely to be seriously harmed.
They say that gun control has never worked, but fall silent when Australia is mentioned.
"At the heart of the push was a massive buyback of more than 600,000 semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, or about one-fifth of all firearms in circulation in Australia. The country's new gun laws prohibited private sales, required that all weapons be individually registered to their owners, and required that gun buyers present a "genuine reason" for needing each weapon at the time of the purchase. (Self-defense did not count.) In the wake of the tragedy, polls showed public support for these measures at upwards of 90 percent."
"What happened next has been the subject of several academic studies. Violent crime and gun-related deaths did not come to an end in Australia, of course. But as the Washington Post's Wonkblog pointed out in August, homicides by firearm plunged 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides. The drop in suicides by gun was even steeper: 65 percent. Studies found a close correlation between the sharp declines and the gun buybacks. Robberies involving a firearm also dropped significantly. Meanwhile, home invasions did not increase, contrary to fears that firearm ownership is needed to deter such crimes. But here's the most stunning statistic. In the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there had been 11 mass shootings in the country. There hasn't been a single one in Australia since."
When we try to talk about sensible gun safety reforms, Ref gives us imagined attacks on his/her parents and nonsense about poison and fire.
We have laws against arson, yet people still set stuff on fire. Should we NOT have laws against arson? This is the "reasoning" of the gun fanatics.
When you compare apples to apples, there's no denying the impact our lax gun safety regulations have had on our country.
I think it was Ronald Reagan who turned the loonies loose from the mental health clinics in the first place.
I mentioned it yesterday: a good starting point would be to expand the background check to all members of the household or location where a weapon would be accessible.
Another tangent might be to take away the stigma from suicide. Take all laws that make it illegal (just what is the penalty, anyway?) and put in place means to allow someone to end their life with dignity if so desired. That might reduce the number of murder suicides, and possibly help prevent some weapons falling into dangerous hands.
@antigov: Yes, I believe you are correct that the Reagan administration cut funding for mental health. In turn, thousands and thousands were released from institutions where they were provided with care and medications. Not only did this increase the crime rate, it also created the nationwide homeless population we have today. Those who were, and those who now should be, institutionalized also added to the unemployment problem, as well as to workplace issues created by those who are not skilled or competent enough to work. But we decided as a country that we did not want to pay for their care any longer and now we are paying a different price.
RefNV (Re Freeman): You're just a bit off-topic. . . again. The topic here is:
"20 Children Died in Newtown, Conn., School Massacre"
http://abcnews.go.com/US/twenty-children...
It's not about individuals defending themselves from other individuals. With due diligence you can pick one or two of those off the internet almost any day,
No easy answer to prevent the next Newtown. Three issues: availability of weapons, school security, and how we handle mental illness in our society. Some ideas:
Gun control: Require a state license to buy/sell firearms and register each weapon at time of purchase/sale -- state felonies if you don't. Waiting periods & background checks for licenses, and they need to be renewed every year. (This wouldn't prevent Newtown, just make it a little harder.)
School security: "Harden" schools. Barriers, metal detectors, armed security. (This wouldn't prevent Newtown either, just make it harder, to the point it might deter the attack.)
Mental illness: Allow the police to detain for up to 72 hours anyone reported to be a danger to themselves or others. They'd have to see a counselor before release, to make a preliminary assessment as to their mental competency, and could be held for another 72 hours and a competency hearing if so recommended by the preliminary assessment. No criminal charges. Individual could be remanded for confinement if so determined. (For Newtown, availability of this would've allowed the mother or someone close to the family to report the son before the tragedy, if they'd been so inclined. He might've been able to talk his way out of it, or maybe inmto a group home where he'd have to interact with others and maybe move out of his increasingly desperate isolation.)
Kevin and Robert,
No one is in favor of children being murdered by deranged gunmen. I'm not for 34,000 people dying from automobile accidents, 41,000 dying from poison and 31,000 dying from firearms. What I'm not for is making it unlawful for a US citizen to protect themselves against those who might do them harm during a criminal act. Creating a black market for firearms benefits the criminal and puts US citizens at a disadvantage. 33% of murders are from such things as hammers, hands, fists, feet, knives and other sharp objects, poison, explosives, narcotics, drowning, fire, strangulation and asphyxiation. If someone wants to kill they will seek out other sometimes crueler methods.
My parents and their ability to protect themselves definitely overrides your desire to control their ability to do so. Those who live near borders to Mexico understand the need to have some line of defense against being attacked. Whether you like it or not, not everyplace is like your spot here in the Las Vegas valley. Get out of your cocoon and see what others deal with then come back here and lets discuss firearms. My concern for protecting my parents is genuine. You're lost in your gun control ideology without a true understanding of what communities deal with beyond your own.
Mr. Freeman... None of your above examples have anything to do with Nevada. As stated Nevada leads the nation in terms of gun ownership and violent crimes against women.
I haven't been able to find one instance of a woman using a gun in the state of Nevada to defend herself.
The other day someone mentioned "reductio ad absurdum" arguments. The argument that gun proliferation in the state of Nevada is making women safe is a classic example.
Most gun owners have almost no training. People can't shoot worth a damn. The military can't shoot worth a damn. They require 250,000 rounds to hit one assailant. Vast numbers of police officers are very poor marksman. Basically no one in this country can shoot but everyone wants a gun.
People are watching way too many movies and TV shows.
Gerry, you wrote:
"Try to find one woman that has successfully used a gun to defend herself in the last 10 years. I'm sure there have been one or two but I can't find a single instance".
I shared with you four examples of women defending themselves from intruders. Notice that you did not have the filter of in "Nevada" in your statement.
Here is one in Nevada:
Woman shoots intruder during home invasion attempt
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/jul...
There is a vast difference between ideology and statistical reality. In a few short decades more people have been slaughtered by gun violence then in all of our wars combined including the Civil War which was very costly. The cost of treating tens of thousands of gunshot victims every year is enormous. The King Drew Trauma Center in Los Angeles went bust largely because of gun violence. They were the busiest trauma center in the world.
UMC writes off over $200 million in goodwill every year and operates at a $70 million loss. That's where most of the Vegas gunshot victims end up and it costs the hospital millions.
I believe at some point you stated you went to college someplace in Texas. Research what has been happening in Texas over the last 10 years. That's another state that's got an unbelievable amount of gun violence. The hospital industry told Perry that that if he didn't do something about uncompensated care they would never build another hospital in Texas again.
There is a moral outrage associated with gun proliferation and the financial cost. Talk to any administrator of any major hospital in a big city and asked that administrator what he or she thinks about the gun boom.
You would like your parents to have guns to protect themselves? The elderly is where murder suicides come into play. Every year countless elderly people shoot each other
http://www.webmd.com/depression/features...
One... Excellent! Now tell me how many crimes against women involving guns take place in the state of Nevada every year.
Read your own post. The article said it was unclear as to whether or not the people knew each other and that no arrest was made in the case. That tells me it was some type of a dispute and had nothing to do with self-defense. They probably shot it out over some drugs.
Drug disputes occur every day. I wonder if either one of these people paid their hospital bills.
Ref, you never answered my argument.
Simply, our risk of death by automobile and death by poisioning is about equal with our industrialized peers. Our risk of death via firearm homicide is astronomically higher.
"The US homicide rates were 6.9 times higher than rates in the other high-income countries, driven by firearm homicide rates that were 19.5 times higher. For 15-year olds to 24-year olds, firearm homicide rates in the United States were 42.7 times higher than in the other countries. For US males, firearm homicide rates were 22.0 times higher, and for US females, firearm homicide rates were 11.4 times higher. The US firearm suicide rates were 5.8 times higher than in the other countries, though overall suicide rates were 30% lower. The US unintentional firearm deaths were 5.2 times higher than in the other countries. Among these 23 countries, 80% of all firearm deaths occurred in the United States, 86% of women killed by firearms were US women, and 87% of all children aged 0 to 14 killed by firearms were US children."
Why do you think Americans are so at-risk for these violent acts? Get specific.
We face similar rates of homicide via poisoning, arson, vehicular homicide, etc. But we are wildly more at-risk for homicide via firearms.
We've limited our exposure to death via any number of different weapons. Firearms are no different. We can find a sane, reasonable way to address the outsized threat posed to our citizens by the proliferation of firearms.
"No one is in favor of children being murdered by deranged gunmen."
You are specifically in favor of gun laws which enable these "deranged gunmen" to have access to semi-automatic assault rifles and high-capacity magazines. You've told us tales of citizens being at a "disadvantage" because of gun safety laws, regardless of what the evidence shows.
You are not in favor of children being mowed down by deranged gunmen, yet you support these individual's access to weapons. That is the reality of your position, Ref.
Tell us: which additional firearms safety laws do you support? Which laws would you enforce to limit the number of homicides by firearms in the United States?
Or, do you believe our Constitution mandates these deranged gunmen have "unalienable" rights to firearms?
Where do YOU draw the line?
The Constitution does NOT allow the possession of home armories or hand held Gatlin guns for personal protection.
Anyone who needs more than a six shot hand gun for self protection is such a miserably poor aim that they are more qualified for the Darwin award then self protection...and should be properly awarded.
Gerry wrote "I believe at some point you stated you went to college someplace in Texas. Research what has been happening in Texas over the last 10 years. That's another state that's got an unbelievable amount of gun violence".
Gerry, in Texas, the murder rate per 100,000 people has dropped each year from 6.4 in 2003 to 4.4 in 2011. The 2011 national average was 4.7. In the past, states along the Mexico border have had higher murder rates but Texas has recently dropped
below the national average.
Gerry, lets agree to disagree. Being from Texas and the southwest, I've seen the benefit of gun ownership to protect both people and livestock. I don't mind New York or New York city having a gun ban but it just won't work for Texas and its rural communities that can't get a quick police response like large urban areas. You have to have a means to protect yourself, your family and livestock. A one-size-fits-all national gun ban is not favorable to border states with Mexico and rural areas that can't get quick responses from police agencies.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-r...
"in Texas, the murder rate per 100,000 people has dropped each year from 6.4 in 2003 to 4.4 in 2011."
Wow! It must be all the guns, right?
The stat Ref doesn't want you to know?
Number of Deaths Due to Injury by Firearms per 100,000 Population, 2009
Texas: 11.1
National Average: 10.1
The number of deaths due to firearms is ABOVE the national average.
Further, "Since 2000, the state's population has increased by 12.7 percent, nearly twice that of the nation (6.4 percent)."
So the number of murders could have INCREASED while the number of murders "per 100,000" decreased.
That's the problem with statistics, Ref.
Yet again, Ref offers not a single constructive thing the government can do to reduce the amount of gun violence or deaths due to guns. He can't answer simple questions about his/her own beliefs.
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur...
Murder is way too narrow when discussing gun issues. In Texas gun deaths run 11 per 100,000. That represents a lot of dead Texans when you are looking at one of the most populous states.
Gerry,
According to your link Jerry, your data covers year 2005. Do you have any updated data from 2010 or 2011? By the way, your deaths by firearms has Texas ranked 26th out of 51 states which includes DC. The national average was 11.5 compared to 11 for Texas. You stated in an earlier post "Research what has been happening in Texas over the last 10 years. That's another state that's got an unbelievable amount of gun violence". Gerry, Texas is slightly better than average by even measuring gun violence with your 2005 data. Gerry, I'm not seeing the data that supports your premise that Texas has "an unbelievable amount of gun violence".
RefNV, you twice missed the keyword in my statement, "living" in fear. To clarify for your needs, that references someone in an almost continual state of fear of one thing or another. There are people who suffer from that, and it is like an addiction to fear, or OCD. That is not normal fear.
Anything I refer to as a mental health problem does not reference a normal state of mind.
However, there are plenty of people who think they are normal when they are not.
Mr Stone,
In direct response to your letter, here is what I consider reasonable regarding firearms. Clearly, many will disagree.
1) An individual may be allowed to possess a 6 shot handgun for family and home protection, as long as the pass criminal and comprehensive mental health investigations.
2) An individual may be allowed to own a single non-automatic hunting rifle, as long as they pass criminal and comprehensive mental health investigations.
3) Collectors must register for that purpose, but be limited to no more than 6 non-automatic firearms, after passing criminal and comprehensive mental health investigations.
4) All gun owners must fulfill gun handling and safety training before they will be allowed to store the weapons on their property. All guns must be stored in a safe on the owner's property.
6) Any gun owner who feels in danger must call the police immediately, if possible, and apprise the police that a gun(s) are in the home.
7) Annual renewal of gun licenses must include repeat criminal and mental health examinations.
8) No concealed weapons may be carried on the person without providing proof of need to the police.
9) Any ownership of semi-automatic or automatic firearms may only be allowed for a formal militia and stored in an armory for the militia, after criminal and comprehensive mental health exams are and the individual owner passes the investigations.
10) Weapons stored on property that has more than one person requires each individual on property have the same criminal and comprehensive mental health exams and investigations, as well as training in handling and safety of the weapon(s).
11) Each gun owner must carry liability insurance related to any injuries or deaths resulting from the use of the gun.
12) Ammunition rounds should be limited, but I haven't decided the amount that is needed for a personal defense in the home, and for hunting.
13) Possession of any assault weapons, WMD's, drones, or other weapons that go beyond personal, family, and property defense, and hunting, are illegal for personal use.
14) States may specify some variations that don't represent increased hazard & risk to the public, depending on the need represented by the nature of the location, i.e., rural, ranching, city, etc.
15) Law enforcement is the primary responsible party for the protection of the public and property. Enabling them to perform their function adequately must be facilitated.
16) Mental Health Services must be enhanced and facilitated to examine, treat and trace people with mental health problems, including offering anger management and treatment of adrenalin addictions.
17) Limitations and regulations on manufacturer's production and export of armaments must be strictly enforced.
18) All confiscated weapons must be made inoperable, and stored in a secure location with limited access, until they are destroyed following legal processes.
antigov,
You are correct. As Gov. of California, Ronald Reagan began emptying the State mental hospitals, putting them on the streets.
Peacelily wrote "The only time in my life when I was in danger and the fear response kicked in was when I owned a gun. Fortunately, I never had to use it, but I was prepared to shoot if I had to. I was able to use my brain in both instances, rather than my trigger finger.However, my tendency to take chances because I was armed led me to see that my thinking was getting warped, and I had more fear. I got rid of the gun and lived happily ever after".
Peacelily, glad you had the sense to rid yourself of your gun. A clear mind and understanding of your gun and how to protect yourself with it is vital. A mild concern of my parents was an accidental shooting of a family member/neighbor trying to get into the house at night which never occurs but still was in the back of their minds. I remedied this by having their security system turn on all the lights in their home inside and out so they can see who might be entering the home. The security system triggers a chime and the lights whenever someone approaches an exterior door or window. The security system tells them which door/window has been approached so they can investigate(camera system or directly looking out the window/door) prior to anyone gaining entry into the home. Additionally, my parents have an intercom system for each exterior entry just in case they need to talk with someone at one of their doors to see what their needs are. These precautionary measures help prevent an accidental shooting.
Regarding your 10:55pm post, I made my position clear regarding chastising someone who has the emotion of fear or concern. I felt that questioning someone's stability because they have a fear or concern was out of line. It is important for those who have a concern or fear to feel comfortable expressing/explaining their emotions to those who are close to them or a professional in the field. Lets not taboo the human emotions of fear or concern.
RefNV,
Good common sense precautionary measures.
I don't taboo natural human emotions. I spoke of abnormal excess that can be instability. Clearly, if someone lives in fear most of the time, they need to change some thinking, and as you state they should be able to express this to a professional without fear, and with trust.
Life to me is about living in balance & peace, loving, giving, sharing, connectedness, being joyful & just, having inner freedom, and appreciating life in all circumstances and surroundings.
This I wish for all humans.
Good morning one and all. It's nice to know this one is still going, maybe we can set some kind of record.
Ref..You may not think Texas has a massive gun violence problem but the Texas medical authorities do. It costs them billions.
Over the last 10 years something in the neighborhood of 25,000 Texans have been killed by guns. I believe that's roughly 5 times the number of servicemen killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
That may be nothing to you but it has to be devastating to the tens of thousands of families.
Gerry,
Over the last 10 years, 30,000 Texans lost their lives in traffic accidents. Will you propose banning vehicles as well?
Gerry, you choose. I can flip between using total and aggregate numbers or use exceptions or extreme numbers that fall outside the norm just as easily as you can. We can even use total numbers for multiple centuries if you choose.
It's a very compelling cause to eliminate deaths however, not at the expense of our right to protect ourselves in rural America. A one-size-fits-all gun ban in America is not a solution that fits all areas of our country.
Nice response Peacelily. It is clearer now where you stand. :)
I'm curious about how easily Republicans are willing to give away our fourth ammendment rights in order that we poor can shoot one another.