Protestantism

» Brian Tubbs - Gun ownership

In response to 1950s - answer to redback posted by paper_turtle:

Those stats are out there, Paper Turtle, but I don't know them off the top of my head. Of course, they would have to be adjusted for population growth. And that is a legitimate dynamic to this. I will grant that population growth makes gun rights more problematic. The more people you have, the more congestion and friction you have, and that means a greater likelihood for violence. Population growth IS a factor in the rise of violence in our society.

» Brian Tubbs - Happy Revolution Day

Ironically, TODAY is the anniversary of the start of the American Revolution. How did it start? Well, the British royal governor was concerned about the forming of citizen militias and the stockpiling of GUNS and ammunition. So, he sent troops to get the weapons. And, well, the rest is history.

» paper_turtle - Gun ownership

In response to Gun ownership posted by BrianTubbs:

Population growth IS a factor in the rise of violence in our society.
.
Of course it is, and there are a host of other factors which contribute to the rise in violence.
.
BUT it seems to me that:
++ if we know the times are increasingly violent, and
++ if we know that we cannot, within a short amount of time, do anything to make people less violent,
++ then, it only seems logical (IMHO) to do what we can to reduce the potential for deaths by violence by limiting the use of guns.
.
Yes, anything can be used as a weapon, but, a gun has power beyond other weapons of choice (e.g., its much more dangerous to try to take the weapon away or attempt to overpower one's assailant), and its relatively easy access makes it *the* weapon for crimes of impulse. Further, if you're really intent on making sure your potential victim *doesn't* recover, 27 bullets are a lot more sure than any other weapon.
.
peace and love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle

» redback - 1950s - answer to redback

In response to 1950s - answer to redback posted by BrianTubbs:

"Quite a few reasons. But not guns."

Guns are the medium, not the reason. My concern is not simply successful murders. The nature of crime ebbs and flows with local crime initiatives, whether the criminal gang moves in or leaves town, whether our army continues to leave several rocket launchers unguarded etc, banks robbed yesterday, shops today. One person was arrested recently here and 37 recent burglaries solved. A 'crime wave' stopped with this one arrest.

I ABC when I see seasonally-adjusted eg unemployment as its a way to fudge figures. Same with any population adjusted figures.

We just don't have this gun mentality here so have the luxury to speculate on yours. We have a country that agonises over a national road toll of 25 over this 2007 Easter break. Our total gun-related deaths in 2003 (? later figures unavailable) was 290 with homicide 54. It's been going down every year so should be less now.

Following "our" like massacre 10 years ago, our gun buyback...reportedly the largest in the world..and amnesty..resulted in 820,000 firearms** being destroyed. Reportedly halving the number of gun-related deaths since. (**Maybe in context, this only equates to clearing one US city?)

You have the mentality over there that the right to bear arms over-rides any other risk that comes with it. A kid is accidently killed by a gun and this DOES "defend to the death" your freedoms. An immigrant from a country without a right to bear arms enjoys or becomes sadly exposed to the freedoms your country offers...sometimes shortly after arrival. Who knows the exponential effect.

We learn a lot from the USA. One thing we've learned is that you can learn from us.

-- posted by redback

» pink101 - Guns Are The Tools of Death

.
Conjecture about guns is not a very good way to arrive at a conclusion about the causes of murder.
.
Guns are merely the tools of death for some person or persons bent on killing. The fact that a gun is in a holster ready to be put into action doesn't kill anyone. How many police officers are there in the United States who carry weapons in plain sight and how many who carry concealed after hours--are police officers ALWAYS on duty 24-7? Some say so. They are not the focus of wanton killing and we seldom hear about officers having to use their weapons. The gun is most obviously NOT the problem; but, it is access to the gun that is the potential problem.
.
We live in a capitalist economy. Guns are products of highly skilled manufacturing processes employed by manufacturers that are in business to make a profit. Once a certain level of productivity is achieved, it gets to be a matter of numbers. 100 automatic pistols provides a $10,000.00 profit. 1,000 profide a profit of $100,000.00. The questions the manufactuers ask is about how much money they want to make. Loose gun laws, it would seem, lessen the liability factors for the industry. It's the same kind of questioning those manufacturers have to ask that provide the world with weapons of mass destruction. "What are the limits to our profits?"
.
Beyond that, we need a great deal of education and understanding in our society. We cannot depend on the family or the churches to provide the necessary morality and discipline that will keep violence prone people out of the picture. There is a lesson in Masonry that teaches the candidate to reflect on the past. The speacker says, "Reflect, reflect, reflect...", as he points in a direction. Wisdom tells us to be introspective. Reactionary, knee jerk responses are not going to settle the problems we have with violence.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - Law loopholes!

.
Can we justify demanding more gun restrictions when laws currently on the books aren't being enforced, or have loopholes big enough to drive a truck through? Let's get serious.
.
Did He Buy the Guns Legally?
A federal background check cleared Virginia Tech shooter Cho Seung-Hui to buy weapons. It should have stopped him cold.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18217741/sit...
.
Quote:
.
"...But Kristen Rand, an analyst with the Violence Policy Center, a gun-control advocacy group, points out that the other criteria in the 1968 federal law-whether the gun applicant has been "adjudicated as a mentally defective"-seems to apply to Cho's circumstances. The definition of "mentally defective" under a federal regulation states that it applies to anybody who has been determined by a "court, board, commission or other lawful authority" to have been a "danger to himself or others." [Migisi: Cho had indeed been declared mentally ill by a magistrate in the Montgomery County Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court in 2005!]
.
"...The gun lobby-typically opposed to any attempt to tighten federal gun controls-doesn't disagree. The National Rifle Association has decided to make no public comment about any aspect of the Virginia Tech tragedy, according to a spokesman. But a source close to the gun lobby (who asked not to be identified because of the organization's sensitivities about making any political points related to the tragedy), pointed out that pro-gun lobbyists and groups like the NRA have long supported adding all relevant mental-health records to background check databases. "We have no problem as long as one is adjudicated mentally incompetent [in denying gun purchases] and we have no problem with mental health records being part of the NICS," the source said. "The problem is not with the gun community. The problem is with the medical community" that has traditionally opposed making such records available on privacy grounds.
.
"Whatever the reason, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy of New York, contends that every year thousands of gun purchases by mentally unstable and other unqualified people have been falling through the cracks. McCarthy has been sponsoring legislation that would offer incentives to states to report more records of mental illness and commitments to federal and state databases.
.
"The issue isn't new. McCarthy began sponsoring the bill four years ago, after a mentally unstable constituent killed a few parishioners and a priest at a church in her Long Island district. Lawmakers in Washington are certainly aware of the problem. In 1998, a man named Russell Weston killed two police officers in a shootout at the U.S. Capitol, using a .38-caliber gun that he had acquired with a gun permit he got from his home state of Illinois. When he filled out his federal form, he answered, like Cho, that he had no record of mental illness. Illinois officials were unaware that Weston had been ordered to a mental institution for a 90-day evaluation in Montana two years earlier. Why didn't they know? Montana's strict privacy laws prevent the reporting of commitments to law enforcement. The gap in reporting was duly noted in some news stories at the time, and quickly forgotten, until this week." (end)
.

-- posted by Migisi

» paper_turtle - Law loopholes!

In response to Law loopholes! posted by Migisi:

What follows below was originally posted in the "God and Suffering" thread (message #46)

redback wrote:
Was he mentally ill and simply fell through the cracks due to reckless inertia by government's mental health authorities?
.
Was he not mentally ill so the mental illness assessment was simply an abuse of process?
.
As I understand it, Cho had been deemed so severely mentally ill that he was deemed to be handicapped (and a denger to himself and others). This, however, was in a civil action (involving two women he had stalked) and not a criminal action. Therefore, when the gun shop owner did a criminal background check (all it is required to do by Virginia law), nothing about the civil action showed up.
.
In matters dealing with mental health, the judges are bound, by law, with administering the least restrictive ruling. They cannot force a mentally ill person to receive treatment or be medicated. They cannot even assign a social worker to check up on the mentally ill person to see to it that he/she abides by what was agreed to in court (and/or has not slipped further into mental illness).
.
Do US gun shops have reckless indifference to issuing guns to those with court-recorded mental illness assessments?
.
There are laws in place regarding issuing a gun permit to a person with mental illness, but they vary from state to state, and are not equally enforced. IMHO, though, gun shops seem to give lip service to the law, but may not be as thorough as I believe they should be.
.
How soon will it inevitably become yesterday's news?
.
:( Too soon, I'm afraid.
.
peace and love,
Paper Turtle
.
PS--I agree the present law isn't working and needs a major overhaul. Seems to me one way around medical privavy issues would be to require gunshop owners to request reports of civil actions when they pertain to mental health issues.
PT

-- posted by paper_turtle

» Migisi - Law loopholes!

In response to Law loopholes! posted by paper_turtle:
.
Seems to me one way around medical privavy issues would be to require gunshop owners to request reports of civil actions when they pertain to mental health issues.
.
That responsibily is not on the business man (nor should it be, IMO), but on the law enforcement agency MANDATED by law to do the background checks to insure public safety. The application for a firearm goes to the state police. They are responsible to investigate backgrounds. No system is perfect. However, far more could be done to update and keep records current. And yes, I firmly believe that mental health records NEED to be included. The 'privacy' issue being used to excuse not including these records went out with the Patriot Act.

-- posted by Migisi

» redback - Law loopholes!

In response to Law loopholes! posted by paper_turtle:

Thanks PT for transferring one of my posts. Every so often, I feel useful here. The topics overlap for me so I strive to be consistent (and fair dinkum) in each...just in case anyone is awake at the time.

I don't doubt the US authorities rationalise the mental illhealth crisis process the way you describe. The more States you have, the greater the inconsistency. The more one doubts the legal defence or even existence/cause of this thing called 'mental illness' the less the political will to think beyond crisis management. Sure beats any truly preventative strategies.

There needs to be some sort of 'environmental impact statement' each time a related decision is made. But be fair dinkum. Any checks and balances are totally secondary to your almost divine umbrella 'right to bear arms'. Having a licence refers to ownership, not skills in safety and usage, doesn't it?

Here, a pistol licence MUST be linked to a current club membership which must be linked to a minimum number of recorded attendances to legally retain membership regularly inspected by police. The club management develop some idea of the member's bona fides and will terminate membership as one of my neighbours knows.

Back as a young fella, on extra-duty cash payroll duty, I carried a German Luger around to protect the payroll clerk. I was issued with 3 BIG bullets. Most others carried the gun in a bag and all bullets in their pockets. Me...the gun was loaded and safety on...hand on the gun. Mandatory pistol practice with other teams and their baby 32 Brownings. What woosses they were!

This practice was discontinued before cash pay was phased out. Even tho' there may be some minor tinkering at the edges, your right to bear arms is unchanged in...300 years???

Make the record of licence refusals public. How many does your district process and how many % does it refuse? Does zero refusal reflect what you know of your local citizens?

-- posted by redback

» paper_turtle - Law loopholes!

In response to Law loopholes! posted by redback:

Just to be clear, I am definitely *not* pro-gun. I would support *much* stronger gun-control laws.
.
I don't have a clue what the regulations are for the state of Vermont. I do know that its still illegal to carry a concealed weapon. In my local town it is illegal for anyone to bring any kind of fire arm onto school property (this includes parents with gunracks in pickup trucks).
.
The more one doubts the legal defence or even existence/cause of this thing called 'mental illness' the less the political will to think beyond crisis management. Sure beats any truly preventative strategies.
.
I agree, although within many states a different model, focused on real prevention, is already in place and being practiced, or has been recently instituted. Now the word just has to reach those in power on a national level. Clinton was aware of the prevention model, but got very little support from congress.

peace and love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle