Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House Gun Control Again

Summations Only

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gun Control Again
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 4636 of 5179 (776031)
01-07-2016 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 4632 by Percy
01-07-2016 8:12 AM


Which way is the worst way? Improved background checks? Record keeping? Mental health? Gun safety technology? Some of them? All of them?
The ones that use a blanket approach to try to solve granular problems.
(sorry for the drive-by's, I get time to read up on threads on my phone, but will only post from a computer with a keyboard. I just don't have the time at the board lately to spend it here, which I don't like.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4632 by Percy, posted 01-07-2016 8:12 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4638 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-07-2016 9:32 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 4637 of 5179 (776032)
01-07-2016 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 4635 by Dr Adequate
01-07-2016 6:50 PM


Yeah, but before he was in the closet.

"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."
Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto.
-Terence

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4635 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-07-2016 6:50 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 4638 of 5179 (776039)
01-07-2016 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 4636 by New Cat's Eye
01-07-2016 6:59 PM


The ones that use a blanket approach to try to solve granular problems.
Ah, so like passing laws instead of talking to each individual angry drunk guy one-on-one and explaining to him why he shouldn't murder his children.
Well, I guess you can do that and Them Liberals Who Hate America will do the other thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4636 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-07-2016 6:59 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 4639 of 5179 (776040)
01-07-2016 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 4629 by Hyroglyphx
01-07-2016 12:21 AM


Not only is it likely, it's happening right now. Gun sales have spiked dramatically because there is a fear that Obama will use recent tragedies to change laws.
Fortunately the stupid paranoid twats who are rushing out to buy more guns are precisely the stupid paranoid twats who already have lots of guns. And although admittedly they are a danger to themselves and everyone around them, this doesn't actually increase if they have more guns, 'cos of them only having two hands each.
It will drive a wedge between government officials and an already paranoid public.
87% of Americans want universal background checks. But if you ask gun owners, that figure falls to a mere 84%. It's not the "public" that's paranoid, it's mentally ill people.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4629 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-07-2016 12:21 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4647 by Percy, posted 01-08-2016 9:47 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 4640 of 5179 (776041)
01-07-2016 9:44 PM


This isn't online yet.
But the January 7 USA TODAY has an article titled "Obama shows restraint on guns" with subtitle "There were no executive orders" by Gregory Korte.
quote:
...only a presidential memorandum asking federal agencies to study smart gun technology. He proposed only one new regulation, a Social Security Administration rule that would allow it to share lists of people on disability with the national background check system.
And the centerpiece of the initiative was the issue of a guidance document on which gun sales require a Federal Firearms License - and therefore subject to a criminal background check. That document mostly restates existing case law and breaks no new legal ground.
I do indeed object btw. And I have been following the details (a poster above seemed to indicate that critics were ignoring the specific Obama actions) as my posts should indicate.
Other issues covered here included claims of murder rates dropping with more gun control (mostly claims that cherry picked state anti-gun legislation and positive drops in crime after)
My response?
The federal Assault Weapons ban was lifted in early 2004. The murder rate was about 16,500 during the last full year of the ban (2003). The murder rate fell down to about 14,000 for 2014.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 4641 of 5179 (776046)
01-07-2016 11:50 PM


The Most Responsible Gun Owner Of All Time
California man ranting about Obama’s gun action opens fire on apartments before cops shoot him dead
Witnesses said the gunman was ranting incoherently about gun control measures proposed by Obama, who announced executive actions earlier that same day intended to keep firearms from being sold to criminals and the mentally ill.
We heard the five shots everyone was screaming, said David Rice, who lives near the apartment complex. He came out screaming ‘Obama! Obama! Obama!’
Well, he makes a good point.

Replies to this message:
 Message 4642 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-08-2016 12:31 AM Dr Adequate has replied

LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 4642 of 5179 (776050)
01-08-2016 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 4641 by Dr Adequate
01-07-2016 11:50 PM


I thought the Navy shooter "ELF" body inscription was interesting
I need to start a thread on that one.
I think I can shed light on that issue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4641 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-07-2016 11:50 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4643 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-08-2016 1:02 AM LamarkNewAge has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 4643 of 5179 (776051)
01-08-2016 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 4642 by LamarkNewAge
01-08-2016 12:31 AM


Re: I thought the Navy shooter "ELF" body inscription was interesting
I need to start a thread on that one.
No you don't. You have already started quite enough threads.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4642 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-08-2016 12:31 AM LamarkNewAge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4646 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-08-2016 6:42 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 4644 of 5179 (776054)
01-08-2016 4:56 AM
Reply to: Message 4632 by Percy
01-07-2016 8:12 AM


Which way is the worst way? Improved background checks? Record keeping? Mental health? Gun safety technology? Some of them? All of them?
None of them, actually! We didn't know what was going to be rolling out of the door given his 2013 proposal which I did take issue with (at least on some issues). Now that the proposal has been unveiled, I don't take issue with any of the measures. This is common sense gun control that doesn't appear to infringe on current rights. As long as there isn't some underhanded fine print and as long as there isn't something more embedded in some other bill, I take no issue with the proposals.

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4632 by Percy, posted 01-07-2016 8:12 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 4645 of 5179 (776057)
01-08-2016 6:35 AM
Reply to: Message 4630 by xongsmith
01-07-2016 4:41 AM


"Awfully silent here about Obama's Executive Order"
quote:
Chastened by immigration, Obama shows restraint on guns
By Gregory Korte,USA Today
WASHINGTON As executive actions go, President Obama's effort to clamp down on illegal gun sales was relatively restrained.
The actions contained no executive orders, the best known and most formal exercise of unilateral presidential authority only a presidential memorandum asking federal agencies to study smart gun technology. He proposed only one new regulation, a Social Security Administration rule that would allow it to share lists of people on disability with the national background check system.
And the centerpiece of the initiative was the issuing of a guidance document on which gun sales require a Federal Firearms License and therefore subject to a criminal background check. That document mostly restates existing case law and breaks no new legal ground.
For all the predictions of executive orders exceeding the president's authority, Obama's actions generally colored within the lines.
"There is nothing here that anyone could say in good faith even pushes at the boundaries of executive authority," said Chelsea Parsons, the vice president of gun policy at the Center for American Progress, a think tank and liberal advocacy group with close ties to the Obama White House. She sees the actions as part of an incremental approach that Obama or future presidents can build on.
Republicans who had complained of executive overreach were underwhelmed. "Ultimately, this executive ‘guidance’ is only a weak gesture a shell of what the president actually wants," said House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California. Speaker Paul Ryan of Wisconsin promised "vigilant oversight" but said Obama's actions were ultimately a "distraction."
The National Rifle Association said the Obama guidance was "ripe for abuse" and promised to defend gun owners from harassment. But an immediate lawsuit is unlikely because there are few actual rules to challenge.
Chastened by immigration, Obama shows restraint on guns

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4630 by xongsmith, posted 01-07-2016 4:41 AM xongsmith has not replied

LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


(1)
Message 4646 of 5179 (776058)
01-08-2016 6:42 AM
Reply to: Message 4643 by Dr Adequate
01-08-2016 1:02 AM


o.k.
I think I can work it into my SSRI thread (it is military research that is related to SSRIs but uses frequencies instead). It's various paragraphs from a book (written by a Ph D), and I have it on a zip drive. It really is interesting. Full of references from mainstream respected sources and journals.
Considering the gun obsession here, I thought I would tie it into the gun issue. That would have been a bad idea. It would have been hard to connect and people might have misunderstood me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4643 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-08-2016 1:02 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 4647 of 5179 (776070)
01-08-2016 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 4639 by Dr Adequate
01-07-2016 9:38 PM


Dr Adequate writes:
Fortunately the stupid paranoid twats who are rushing out to buy more guns are precisely the stupid paranoid twats who already have lots of guns.
I hope you're right. My fear is that too many are first time gun buyers who lack familiarity, training, and the means to store them safely. That women are buying more guns is consistent with that fear, and though I wasn't able to find statistics, news articles (like this one) imply increases in purchases by first time buyers.
One positive statistic is that the percentage of households with guns is declining.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4639 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-07-2016 9:38 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 4648 of 5179 (776252)
01-11-2016 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 4615 by Straggler
01-06-2016 2:49 AM


Interesting Michael Moore comment.
quote:
LamarkNewAge
My biggest objection to "gun control" is that it includes the issue of forcing children on psychotropic drugs.
Straggler
Huh? I assume you have data to back this claim up? International comparisons showing a link between gun control laws and the number of children on psychotic drugs in different nations, for example?
I was talking about the gun legislation connections to tyrannical mental control laws (including discrimination) that you and the NRA support.
http://www.dallasnews.com/...s-gun-background-check-bill.ece
Google
But on your interpretation of what I said, here is an interesting YouTube video of Michael Moore.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpinCRaAQOk
The comments are interesting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4615 by Straggler, posted 01-06-2016 2:49 AM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4649 by Percy, posted 01-11-2016 8:14 AM LamarkNewAge has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 4649 of 5179 (776261)
01-11-2016 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 4648 by LamarkNewAge
01-11-2016 12:56 AM


Re: Interesting Michael Moore comment.
LamarkNewAge writes:
My biggest objection to "gun control" is that it includes the issue of forcing children on psychotropic drugs.
...
I was talking about the gun legislation connections to tyrannical mental control laws (including discrimination) that you and the NRA support.
Your point isn't clear and sounds like crazy talk, but if it's related to gun control and it's not crazy talk then instead of relying so much on links could you make more of your point in your own words? As near as I can tell, you seem to believe that psychotropic drugs are being forced on children, and you seem to be trying to connect that to efforts at making information about mental conditions available for background checks. But you never actually say this or offer evidence - all you offer is YouTube speculation from a non-professional.
There is an on-topic point buried in there. One problem with making information about mental conditions available for background checks is that people might be dissuaded from seeking psychological help if they think it means they'll lose or become limited in their access to guns.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4648 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-11-2016 12:56 AM LamarkNewAge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4650 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-11-2016 11:00 PM Percy has replied

LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 4650 of 5179 (776327)
01-11-2016 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 4649 by Percy
01-11-2016 8:14 AM


Here is my point (with links)
My point is poor people are hurt badly, when seeking jobs, via state-sponsored discrimination. Disqualification from FAA, CDL trucking, security, military, firefighting, police, etc.
The NRA fully supports EVEYTHING Obama just did. Don't let their endless "2nd amendment talk fool you". They don't disagree with a thing Obama just did. The NRA had an awful transformation decades ago (around the early 90s). They support all kinds of background checks and databases (used for discrimination). They were promoting legislation (just a few months ago) to ban people for life from owning guns.
Here are some links to back me up.
quote:
On mental health, Cornyn rejects the obvious
4:21 pm, Thursday, October 29, 2015
Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn of Texas is pushing legislation to reward states that send more information about residents with serious mental problems to the federal background check system for firearms purchasers. But what about helping the mentally ill get treatment before they wind up in court?
-----------
It’s so interesting to see U.S. Sen. John Cornyn frame the debate over gun violence as strictly a mental health issue
He’s an outspoken advocate for improved reporting on mental health to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. He also backs allowing judges to deny gun purchases to people who might be a danger to themselves or others, and offering incentives for improved forms of screening and treatment in courts.
These are the broad strokes of Cornyn’s Mental Health and Safe Communities Act, a bill that has the backing of the National Alliance on Mental Illness and the National Rifle Association. He’s taken to Twitter to promote it, tweeting at President Barack Obama earlier this month to back his bill as a way to address mass shootings but preserve gun rights.
There are some good ideas in Cornyn’s bill. No one is arguing that background checks and mental health treatment shouldn’t be improved, or that the criminal justice system fails many people with mental health issues. But there are also some notable gaps. Cornyn’s bill doesn’t address private gun sales, for example. And the vast majority of people with serious mental illness are nonviolent. It’s unclear just how much gun violence Cornyn’s bill would stop, especially since many shooters have no documented history of their mental health.
On mental health, Cornyn rejects the obvious
I only quoted part of a really long article, but the article had like a dozen or so hyper links (including parts I quoted here).
Here is one of the sites a hyper-link lead to.
quote:
Myth vs. Fact: Violence and Mental Health
A Q&A with an expert who studies the relationship between mental illness and violence.
by Lois Beckett
ProPublica, June 10, 2014, 2:30 p.m.
After mass shootings, like the ones these past weeks in Las Vegas, Seattle and Santa Barbara, the national conversation often focuses on mental illness. So what do we actually know about the connections between mental illness, mass shootings and gun violence overall?
To separate the facts from the media hype, we talked to Dr. Jeffrey Swanson, a professor in psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the Duke University School of Medicine, and one of the leading researchers on mental health and violence. Swanson talked about the dangers of passing laws in the wake of tragedy and which new violence-prevention strategies might actually work.
....
Federal law prohibits people who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution from owning guns. Is that targeting the right people?
The criteria we have are both over-inclusive and under-inclusive at the same time. They capture a lot of people who are not really at risk, at least not anymore. For instance, think about someone who had a suicidal mental health crisis 25 years ago, was involuntarily hospitalized, but now they're recovered and fine, they haven't had problems in years. They want to get a job as a security guard and they can't because they can't possess firearms.
Under-inclusive, because think about someone who's in the middle of their first episode of psychosis, but hasn't been treated. This might be a serious, dangerous mental health crisis a person with paranoid delusions, believing that everyone else is out to get him, isolated, maybe drinking heavily but he is not disqualified from going and purchasing any number of guns.
Myth vs. Fact: Violence and Mental Health ProPublica
The NRA won't debate Obama because it might come out that they agree with everything he just did. They have been pushing it for decades. The NRA blamed the ACLU for decades for stopping what Obama is just doing. Obama hasn't gone far enough for the NRAs wishes and desires, but he just had the voluminous Social Security Disability send mental records to a central database. And it is only being used for discrimination. Ironic that Social Security cards and birth certificates ( which are nearly impossible or at least very difficult for poor people to possess) are never made universally available via the wonders of technology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4649 by Percy, posted 01-11-2016 8:14 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4651 by Percy, posted 01-12-2016 7:22 AM LamarkNewAge has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024