Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Monday, Dec. 24, 2012 | 2:01 a.m.
I am so saddened by the recent events in Oregon and Connecticut. These mass murders occur in our country with a frequency unlike any other country in the world — why? I am neither pro-gun nor pro-gun control. I am only in favor of ending this insanity. I was born and lived my first 44 years in Canada and have never owned or even fired a gun in my life. I am now a U.S. citizen. In a discussion with an acquaintance, I said I hoped these dreadful incidents would spur us to at least discuss alternatives that may prevent ...
Jim say of "the traditional response -- "Guns don't kill people; people kill people." My initial response was to reconfigure this insensitive gentleman's nose"
Well Jim appears to need some mental illness help
Jim is the type to ASSAULT others first before having a civic discussion
Mental illness is a huge problem in this country and people like Jim refuse to recognize it
We do have Gun Control
---
National Firearms Act of 1938
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968
Gun Control Act of 1968, primary federal law regulating firearms. It prohibits all convicted felons, drug users and the mentally ill from buying or possessing guns; and the licensing requirements for gun dealers and requires detailed record-keeping.
Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986. The law bans civilian ownership of machine guns manufactured after May 19, 1986. Weapons made and registered before that date are not affected.
The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 mandates background checks of gun buyers. Checks occur through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), maintained by the FBI. By 2012 Eighteen years after the Brady law is passed, 156 million background check have been performed under the law. The number of gun sales rejected through federal denials reaches nearly a million.
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 produces a 10-year federal ban on the manufacture of new semi-automatic assault weapons. The law specifies 19 weapons that have the features of assault weapons. The act also bans large-capacity ammunition magazines, limiting them to 10 rounds.
The law does not apply to weapons that were already in legal possession, and there are easy ways to adapt new weapons to avoid the prohibitions. The 10-year sunset provision of the assault weapons ban runs its course.
2008 - The Supreme Court in the District of Columbia v. Heller holds that Americans have an individual right under the Second Amendment to possess firearms in federal enclaves "for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."
In reply to Jim Robins; the need to talk about guns should be a short conversation followed with a lot of action; yes Americans do have the right to bear arms; that is to a reasonable extent; I agree, assault rifles passes that Constitutional right. However, the most pressing and important discussion in putting a damper on mass killings is how we are going to reinstitute a national network of mental health screenings and treatment facilities.
The discussion on how critical this program is for America and the mentally ill should be reintroduced in the form of a combination of John F. Kennedy's Community Mental Health facilities network, which focuses on outpatient treatment, and the mentally ill who are less of a threat to society.
This should be combined with aspects of a more centralized national mental health system that George W. Bush proposed; the "New Freedom Commission on Mental Health" which would govern the mental health screening process, policies and regulations of dispensing mind-altering psychotropic's and antidepressants, and would oversee hospitals that focus on inpatient treatment and the more serious of the mentally ill.
Thanks to Ronald Reagan dismantling "Kennedy's Community Mental Health" system, we have to start at basically "ground zero" and build from there. So during the interim time of this process, it would not be a bad idea to ban assault rifles and order a complete citizen surrender of these weapons that are designed more for the purpose of quick mass-killings than any other purpose.
I agree with BChap's assessment of the need for mental health treatment assets as well as not only banning assault weapons, but getting the existing ones out of the hands of the public.
Bad guys (is anyone curious why these perps all seem to be men?) take on police officers that they know to be armed all the time, so an armed Security Guard is not a deterrence. In addition many mass shooters shoot themselves once their carnage is complete so they don't fear dying. The mystery to me is why they have the need to take so many others with them.
If we continue permitting these weapons to be available to almost everyone, we need to have our heads examined.
I am glad Canada has strict gun laws, that means all the killing that took place between the biker gangs in Montreal did not actually take place. It was just a figment of people's imagination.
Oh but the guns came from the USA? So that would mean people would smuggle guns into the USA if we banned them??
Like trying to ban alchohol, it will never work.
Jim, have you been paying attention to the "mass" murders going on in the Middle East? Shiites killings Sunnis like flies and vice versa; government thugs killing protesters in the streets; car bombings; Mosque bombings; open market bombings; and then, of course, there is Syria, where some 40,000 have been murdered by the Assad government and you say "mass murders occur here more frequently than anywhere else in the world?" You are kidding, are you not? How about closer to home? Mexico sees tens of thousands of killings per year from drug cartels that are as senseless and brutal as Newtown. Yes, one mass killing incident a year is one too many but don't go off on a tangent and side with those that are trying to unravel our Constitution with one "crisis" or another. The "useful idiots" won't be satisfied until we become just like Cuba, North Korea or their good old standby favorite, the failed USSR.
PART ONE
Jim Weber brings up an exceptionally good question; "Many mass shooters shoot themselves once their carnage is complete so they don't fear dying. The mystery to me is why they have the need to take so many others with them."
Jim, I can't give you a universal answer that would be absolute to every case that pertains to your question; however, I can provide you with hopefully a good insight into the world of mental illness and mass-killings.
While convicted mass-murderer Charles "Chitat" Ng was in my custody for an extended period during the early 1980's of my Marine Corps years, he provided me an "eye opening" education on mental illness. The link below provides a basic overview with my custody of Charles Chitat Ng who was, of course, to become a notorious mass-murderer.
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/1...
I never thought for a second that Charles Chitat Ng would be taken into custody alive. I have to believe, for good cause, that Ng was not afraid to commit suicide. But, that he believed he would be smart enough to outwit the criminal justice system. As mentally sick as Charles Chitat Ng is, he wasn't wrong in his "out of sorts" assessment. Here we are nearing the year of 2013, and Charles Chitat Ng is still alive on death row. When it comes to mentally deranged mass-murderers, this scenario with Ng would make him a clear exception. For example, Ng's partner, Leonard Lake in all these horrific mass slayings committed suicide by taking a cyanide pill prior to police taking custody of him. Leonard Lake would be the norm in the final actions of a deranged killer.
So, Jim, for the most part, suicide is a part of their final action plan. It's of good reasoning for a person to ask, "Why don't these deranged mass-killers decide to keep shooting until the police arrive and then finish it with the officers?" It seems odd that many of these mass-killers will not, especially since they have armed themselves to the maximum- - but then don't engage law enforcement officers in the final situation where they would truly need these type of heavy weaponry (assault rifles).
I have for many hours in recent years took my past experiences into consideration and wondered while doing mounds of research with these mass-murderers, just how do the majority of these sick minds work when they are planning their final "big show"?
PART TWO
Here is the conclusion that I have come to:
The acts of these irrational maniacs bombarding a large number of people and generally spine-chilling everyone is the last great act of the settling of scores and insolence. It's their ultimate power trip. It's where, in their demented state of mind, they finally hold the decision of life and death over people. It's their choosing death with a big smile on their faces. Most of these "psychopaths" are angry at the world over the way they have been treated, or at least the way they perceive they have been treated. This is their way of remuneration.
To have any other way it would be the nightmare scenario for these mass-killers. An example would be, is if the suspect were to be led out of a building, on the national news, per se, and in handcuffs. At this point the killer would feel powerless, and oppressed by law enforcement officials. The killer knows full-well that apprehension means many more years of being under someone's rule, never, ever being free again. Therefore, the majority of these mass-killers go into this situation with the full intent of killing themselves to deny the world its opportunity for justice.
Whacked out crazy people watching video games and being given unsupervised psychotropic drugs, then being lied to by the socialist nut-jobs from Canada, our own government and the media. Ban the car! Lanza placed four guns, hundreds of rounds, tactical gear, extra high capacity clips and himself in the car and drove five miles to the scene. Probably while listening to loud Satanic music that was downloaded from an adult Internet site.
In reply to Jerry Fink; no offense taken where you stated, "Don't go off on a tangent and side with those that are trying to unravel our Constitution with one "crisis" or another. The "useful idiots" won't be satisfied until we become just like Cuba, North Korea or their good old standby favorite, the failed USSR."
I fully understand, Jerry, everybody here is entitled to their opinion. Even those who have their own issues with reality.
When five and six-year old children are gunned down in their classroom the nation has passed the point of a national crisis.
We know that conservatives don't want to talk about the murdered first-graders of Newtown and would prefer to focus on important issues such as the president's birth certificate or why the filthy rich deserve to be even filthy richer. But some of us see that slaughter as an appalling turning point.
By Mred,
"I am glad Canada has strict gun laws,that means all the killing that took place between the biker groups in Montreal did not actually take place.It was a figment of people's imagination".
About 183 people die from gun shots each year in Canada. About 30,000 people die from gun shots each year in the United States.There is no comparison between the 2 countries in death's caused from gun shots.
BChap = "I fully understand, Jerry, everybody here is entitled to their opinion. Even those who have their own issues with reality."
Well said BChap, planet Bizarro is a strange place isn't it? I can't understand how some people can twist reality using pretzel logic to buy into some conspiracy driven by paranoia.
"Face it; we need to talk about guns"
Robin -- face it, "we" have been talking it to death here for the past week, thoroughly, and really don't need to again. I see here some of the same posters posting what they've already posted several times.
Your bit ""Guns don't kill people; people kill people." My initial response was to reconfigure this insensitive gentleman's nose" belies your hypocrisy. Mainly you're saying as an adult you refuse to control your own emotional reactions in a minor disagreement. Boiled down you admitted to being too immature to be trusted with the freedoms our Bill of Rights protects. You know, like a child.
"Jim, have you been paying attention to the "mass" murders going on in the Middle East?. . . .Mexico sees tens of thousands of killings per year from drug cartels that are as senseless and brutal as Newtown."
lvfacts -- good reminders. Watched a YouTube report a few months ago where Romney's cousins still in Mexico are fighting a nearby cartel. Mexico has strict gun controls, yet the lawless shoot and kill pretty much at will. Weapons courtesy of the very same regime We the Herd just voted back to business as usual.
"When five and six-year old children are gunned down in their classroom the nation has passed the point of a national crisis."
LastThroes -- and Connecticut already has some of the strictest gun control laws in this nation, see that @ http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...
"We must choose between freedom and fear -- we cannot have both. If the citizens of the United States persist in being afraid, the real rulers of this country will be fanatics fired with a zeal to save grown men from objectionable ideas by putting them under the care of official nursemaids." -- Scales v. U.S., 367 U.S. 203, 270 (1961), Justice Douglas dissenting
The second amendment does not say anything about ammunition. Maybe we should consider the regulation of ammunition. Also, it does not say anything about magazine size, maybe we should consider regulation in this area also. Even if a mass killer has multiple small capacity magazines, when he is reloaded he is vulnerable.
In reply to Vernos; you are precisely correct. Ironic, isn't it Vern, that these NRA fanatics supported a fallacy war in Iraq. There, in Iraq, their assumptions was based on Saddam Hussein's possession of weapons of mass destruction. But here in their own country, these same people support causes of maintaining assault rifles for sale and possession which are none other than another form of weapons of mass destruction.
These extremists make no sense. But, this is for sure, each one of them who have this type of mindset are dangerous to not only our safety, but our free way of life.
I have not been able to find any reliable information that covers the source of guns used in crimes, but I'm sure someone has it, preferably from a government source.
That said, I would like to see more emphasis placed on responsible ownership. This means keeping firearms properly secured when not in use, for starters. I think it would be reasonable to hold the registered owner of a weapon responsible in some fashion if they created circumstances that led to the illegal use of their weapon. (In other words, keeping a weapon in the nightstand when you are out on the town is to be strongly discouraged.)
Not counting domestic violence for this, I would speculate that a large amount of gun crime is committed with stolen/illegally obtained weapons. Or in the recent case, through the irresponsible actions of the registered owner.
I think it will be more effective in the long run to expand background checks to include those who could reasonably be seen as having access to a weapon if the owner failed to secure it properly as circumstances require. This means family members in virtually every case.
Gun safes should be required for anyone with multiple weapons. Granted, weapons intended for home defense (i.e. a shotgun or handgun) need to be easily accessible, but anyone who allows it to come into the possession of an unauthorized person should be held accountable (even if the weapon is stolen or used by a family member!)
Gun control begins with responsible ownership.
Just when we think we've seen the ultimate gun slaughter another massacre almost upstages the previous one:
WEBSTER, N.Y. --"Authorities say four firefighters were shot, two of them killed while responding to a house fire in western New York."
Even firefighters have become easy targets for deranged gun nuts. Will the NRA say we need armed guards at all burning buildings now?
This is somewhat on a tangent, but if we grant that mental health is part of the issue here, then I think this is legitimate.
We hear dozens of ads everyday for prescription drugs that claim to help one with depression and other mental problems that all carry a warning to "call your physician immediately if you have thoughts of suicide ..." among other rather nasty side effects. Even a prescription to help one stop smoking carries the same warning!
Is there any correlation between the number of people going off the deep end with attacks (of any type) and the number of prescriptions for these medicines?
Is part of the answer something so simple as to let people self-medicate and "chill" with legalized pot, which to the best of my information would not require such a warning?
And why are there ads for so many of these prescription drugs in the first place? How many people are being prescribed for these drugs simply because they saw an ad and then told their doctor that they thought it would help them, when in fact it might not be needed at all?
How much of the completely unexplained irrational behavior can be laid at the feet of those who produce and over-prescribe these drugs?
"The second amendment does not say anything about ammunition."
notacon -- no, but that kind of thing chills the exercise of freedoms the Second Amendment protects. That can make it unConstitutional and void.
"...I would like to see more emphasis placed on responsible ownership. This means keeping firearms properly secured when not in use..."
boftx -- no, the emphasis needs to be on responsible USE. Your suggestion of "properly" securing hints at ignorance. In my experience when you need it you need it NOW, and you're stressed because your home has been invaded. Not the time to be fumbling with locks and wondering where you kept the ammo, etc. How I store my weapons is nobody's business but mine.
Posters should watch "1984" then "Minority Report" for perspective.
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." -- H.L. Mencken
KillerB,
I phrased that carefully, recognizing that a "working" weapon needs to be available at an instant's notice. Responsible use includes proper safety measures for weapons (of any type) that are not actually being carried at the time.
Let's assume for sake of discussion that John Q. Citizen owns a shotgun, two hunting rifles of different caliber, a 10mm handgun and a .22 pistol. The shotgun and 10mm are intended for home defense, while the others are for hunting and target shooting.
There is no reason that the secondary weapons can not be secured in such a fashion to minimize theft or misuse by others. And the primary weapons should be secured, too, when not under the direct control of the owner or an authorized user.
Responsible use, as you put it, includes taking responsibility to prevent irresponsible use.
KillerB - the ammunition supply issue and the magazine capacity issue can be taken up in a court of law. There are limits to our rights in many areas. This may prove to be so for these issues also.
Followup to the tangent.
It is my understanding that drugs like Prozac and other anti-depressants work basically by making you not give a damn about things that upset you.
If this is the case, then the logical question is what effect do they have on one's "moral compass?"
Further out on the tangent, Prozac was introduced in 1987. This means that there is likely a significant number of children and young adults today whose mother might have been taking that (or a similar drug since then) while pregnant. Granted, the mother might not have known about the pregnancy at the time.
This raises the question of what effect might have been produced in the developing embryo? What would a study of such children show us?
In short, I think we must look far beyond the "simple" answer of stringent restrictions or outright bans and focus on the root causes for the seeming increase in irrational, violent behavior we see today.
Mr. Robins said: "My initial response was to reconfigure this insensitive gentleman's nose -- although it never happened, it was a distinct possibility. Now, let's assume I had a concealed weapon in my pocket, pulled that out and ended the same guy's life. I am the same person in both circumstances, and the only factor affecting this guy's life was whether or not I used a gun to "express my displeasure.""
You've conflated two things. First, you say you CHOSE to NOT hit the other guy with your fist then you compare that to actually shooting the other guy. Since you CHOSE to not hit the other guy with your fist, whether you had a gun or not is a non-issue because your non-violent course would have kept you from shooting as well. The guy who didn't throw a punch is NOT the same guy who would have pulled the gun and the trigger.
We should discuss what can be done to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Talking is a good thing. If the only solution is to infringe on the Second Amendment, then we should talk about that, having an honest discussion. At that point, we can decide if we should amend the Constitution or leave it alone.
There is one common denominator in all this killing. They are all Young males the product of our leftist controlled education system over the last 25 years! Perhaps we should be taking a look at these people, a massive reeducation program may be the best way to undo the damage and all the misinformation these young people have been fead by the leftists that have infiltrated our schools nation wide.
Mental health in a violence based youth culture and domestic terrorism are the primary root causes of the violent deaths at issue here. The entire debate over removing guns from American society is a waste of time. Instead guns should be used to protect the innocents from these evil doers. The Second Amendment is ensconced in America's culture, and will remain. Guns are not to blame. Bad and sick people are. The are an estimated 300 million guns in circulation in the US. More are entering society every day.
"Let's assume for sake of discussion..."
boftx -- I have been between my child and a violent home invader, and unarmed. Have you? Since then a loaded shotgun with the safety off stays just inside my front door.
The real point is so long as it stays there without using it for other than a lawful purpose, like brandishing it while threatening a neighbor, or worse, no one has the right to tell me what to do with it or anything else behind the closed doors of my home!
"We should discuss what can be done to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. . .If the only solution is to infringe on the Second Amendment, then we should talk about that, having an honest discussion."
Victor_E -- first off talk of stripping the people of Second Amendment protections shows a profound ignorance of it. The Bill of Rights never covered anyone who truly trespasses on the community's domain. At present the a blanket condition of release agreements is no weapons or ammunition. I know, I have a friend charged with prostitution earlier this year and that was on the form.
All living things have an absolute right to self-defense. Many convicted, particularly for non-violent crimes, don't deserve that prohibition. These Discussions mostly ignore the fact berserkers have no regard at all for any laws or other restrictions their prey abide by -- law-abiding then means defenseless.
"Fear is the foundation of most governments." - John Adams "Thoughts on Government" (1776)
Just noticed the new article here about the home invasion on N. Rainbow @ http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2012/dec...
"The assailants barged in when the woman occupant answered the door. The intruders were met with armed resistance." What a different outcome if dad (presumably him) had not been keeping and bearing a firearm for defending his family and home.
A front door peephole is a good idea, too!
"Abe Lincoln may have freed all men, but Sam Colt made them equal." -- post-Civil War slogan found @ http://www.colt.com/ColtLawEnforcement/H...
KillerB,
Thankfully I have not had to do that. And I am not saying you don't have the right to take the steps that you have said or implied.
What I do say is that given today's lack of gun education responsible owners must be aware of the potential consequences and must weigh many different factors in deciding how to treat their firearms. One of the hardest decisions to make is how to keep a weapon such as a shotgun handy while at the same time ensuring that those who lack the proper respect for firearms (for one reason or another) are not able to gain possession of it.
Touching on your specifics, I would question the wisdom of keeping the safety off. In my opinion, it should be part of your standard procedure to automatically check and thumb it off by feel when you pick it up, just as it is SOP to remove the clip and then cycle the action to ensure a weapon is clear when inspecting one.
"Touching on your specifics, I would question the wisdom of keeping the safety off."
boftx -- nope, that's why I keep the chamber empty. It's reasonable to assume anyone knows the sound of a shotgun being jacked. After that I'm read with a tube full of buckshot.
Again, when faced with a life or death situation forced on you by a guy who just beat in your side door with a sledge hammer, you act, not think. Stress blocks wisdom, even reasoning. A good example is the many rounds fired by cops, like the recent murder of two unarmed motorists @ http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...
"...government security is just another kind of violence." -- Rep. Ron Paul today @ http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2012/dec...
Boftx: I, too, noticed that shotgun by the front door with the safety off. My very first thought was of a guy (read "idiot") here in the north who recently shot himself in the a** (rear end...) with a pistol. Safety off. In his pocket - it DROPPED out! In a THEATER!!! I was taught as a pre-teen: safety ON unless you are about to fire; properly secured whenever not actually in your hands; stored away from children.
"I, too, noticed that shotgun by the front door with the safety off."
renorobert -- opinions vary. Your example guy was just plain stupid.
"This case illustrates that tragic facts make bad law." -- Wyeth v. Levine, 129 S.Ct. 1187 (2009), Justice Alito, with whom The Chief Justice and Justice Scalia join, dissenting.
renorobert,
It sounds like you were raised pretty much the same as I was with respect to guns.
While you and I might take that kind of attitude towards weapons for granted, it is obvious that there are some people today who don't.
I'm pretty sure the majority of gun owners agree with us, but because there are those who don't know, I think we need to consider codifying the basics in law so at least some cases people will learn, hopefully before it is too late.
Again, the Newton case would never have happened if the mother had been a responsible gun owner. (And one has to wonder just how many others knew she was allowing her son access to weapons and didn't voice concern.) The same can be said about the tragic accidental shootings we read about. Granted, it won't do a damn thing to stop domestic violence shootings, but it might keep a few guns out of the hands of those who should not have them.
By the way, for those who want to ban assault-type weapons because they are basically only for military use, read US v Miller (1939) where it was implied (if not stated outright) that only weapons that were appropriate for a military setting were protected by the Second Amendment.
Assault rifles are totally offensive, not defensive. They are not part of the defensive arms described in the Constitution. In the same sense, neither are Howitzers or grenade launchers part of defensive arms.
SunJon,
Where in the Constitution does it describe "defensive weapons?"
Jim.......Good letter.
YES, assault rifles are the number one problem in
mass murders.
Those kids and teachers would be alive today if
the assault rifle ban was still in place.
WE NEED TO IMMEDIATELY BAN ALL ASSAULT RIFLES!
And also improve our mental health care.
Y'all are a bunch of loons. My guns and future guns are none of y'all's business. Guns are needed to protect us from the likes of the Obama lovers and the crap they do to normal Americans.
Guns don't kill, people kill people; get use to it stop making excuses for people's sick choices. Crap, you do for the Obama lovers and look at the crap they do and you still don't get it. They do it because they can and know liberals will simply enable their lazy pathetic lives and their gang banging off spring and make some damn excuse for blame the working class for their poor lazy butts.
"My guns and future guns are none of y'all's business. Guns are needed to protect us from the likes of the Obama lovers and the crap they do to normal Americans."
its2hot -- you actually make a good point, when translated from redneckese.
"...what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure." -- Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, Nov 13, 1787
"Those kids and teachers would be alive today if
the assault rifle ban was still in place."
The old gun law nor any proposed gun law by the Democrats would have any affect on what happend in Conn. or something like Conn in the future.
its2hot doesn't seem to ralize that most of Obama's supporters do not have "gang banging offspring". Matter of fact, Obama's support was heavily skewed to the better educated. And we want to trust people like him with guns??