The problem with Gun control

This subject has been brought up before. However I wanted to see this discussion take a different turn..

Because it seems a lot of people are under the impression, in society at large, that to limit freedom is to secure it. That just seems like an oxymoron and it's definitely historically inaccurate. Rather than go on some rant about my rights. I'll address it from a different pov.. violence itself.

Gun control is useless, in my reasoning, in curbing violence. Essentially, it just puts a bandaid on the issue. To keep the wound from bleeding out.. That doesn't heal the wound though. What's more troubling is that somehow TPTB have let us believe that violence is inherent within a civilized society. However, that is also two opposing ideas..

Civilization implies a reasoning, observant, critically thinking people. Able to resolve their conflicts without the need for violence. Since to be "Civilized" means to be well mannered. It's always been said that a Free society can only last with an educated, and well mannered people. A civilized society is a Free Society and vice versa. If this is the case then blaming the possession of guns and enacting gun control won't solve our real issue. Moving us no closer to be more civilized society..

Mental illness is also anathema to civilized society. What in our society is causing people to become mentally unstable and violent? What are the systems in place to prevent it? Is there something in the system that causes it? We can limit the right to property all we want. We're just putting lipstick on a pig. Whether or not I agree with the artificial limitations on liberty. It still seems ineffective in treating the problem. It just masks the imbalance.. IMO

I agree that gun ownership is not the cause of the problem.

When you come up with a solution to getting mental wellness to 100% of society, let us know. In the meantime, I still see a benefit in restricting access to weapons to the 1% who isn't well.

Same thing goes for violent offenders in prison. The root cause of the problem lies in some sort of mental imbalance that leads to bad choices. But until we can guarantee we can prevent reincidence, keep them locked up.

The fact is that if you limit the tool of choice people will just get a different tool. Europe proves this. They still have mass killings over there and heck some of them even used guns. And those nations have all the gun control advocates for it could ever want. Their violent crime rates are not vastly different from ours the only difference is the tool used. And dead is dead no matter if I use a gun or a truck.

People do not want to mention the ideology that caused some of those attacks in Europe and would pitch a fit if I suggested religion as the cause or the region of the world the attackers come from and thus maybe banning travel from that part of the world until we can properly ensure that we are not importing trouble. If we do not wish to ban the ideology of the attackers that can be linked to many attacks why are we going to worry about the tool used? Because if the ideology remains violent they will find a tool no matter what. ( To be clear I am not for banning ideas as that is as against the oath I took to the constitution as gun control is. I am just pointing out how one solution is ok but the other is not when they both make as much sense.)

The fact is that we will never get rid of violence. Unless we can stamp out greed, poverty, mental illness, anger etc. We can make the abuse of others illegal. But trying to take away the tools for it only leaves the least physically capable at the mercy of those more powerful. Because a linebacker-sized individual is going to be able to kill someone with a rock or club just fine. But my five foot two small framed self is not going to combat this very well. And again with my stumpy legs, I am not outrunning anyone. So a firearm levels this situation pretty fast and gives me a far better chance at not getting hurt or worse.

Further, as much as people dislike the slippery slope fallacy we can see it at play. For many European nations like England, France, Denmark, Greece, Sweden etc it is not even legal to carry pepper spray defensively never mind anything better. So we can see how death by 100 shallow cuts is a thing.

Manu wrote: I agree that gun ownership is not the cause of the problem.

When you come up with a solution to getting mental wellness to 100% of society, let us know. In the meantime, I still see a benefit in restricting access to weapons to the 1% who isn't well.

Same thing goes for violent offenders in prison. The root cause of the problem lies in some sort of mental imbalance that leads to bad choices. But until we can guarantee we can prevent reincidence, keep them locked up.

Define mental illness. Should someone with depression who is working to treat it have their rights stripped away due to that? What about PTSD because of an abusive spouse? Should they be barred from owning a firearm at the time they are most likely to need it due to this illness?

Also, did you really suggest keeping people locked up until we can guarantee they won't re-offend? Well, I guess a bar fight means life in prison because no one can ever guarantee you won't re-offend.

Manu wrote: I agree that gun ownership is not the cause of the problem.

When you come up with a solution to getting mental wellness to 100% of society, let us know. In the meantime, I still see a benefit in restricting access to weapons to the 1% who isn't well.

Same thing goes for violent offenders in prison. The root cause of the problem lies in some sort of mental imbalance that leads to bad choices. But until we can guarantee we can prevent reincidence, keep them locked up.

Agreed. We have guns here in Canada. But we have gun control.

Notice how little mass shootings happen from those not completely mentally sound?

[quote="Manu" post=305661
When you come up with a solution to getting mental wellness to 100% of society, let us know. In the meantime, I still see a benefit in restricting access to weapons to the 1% who isn't well.

Same thing goes for violent offenders in prison. The root cause of the problem lies in some sort of mental imbalance that leads to bad choices. But until we can guarantee we can prevent reincidence, keep them locked up.[/quote]

There is also the question of the reach of any legislation and the wording of the bill. Take for example an executive order during the obama administration concerning mental health and guns, it was later overturned. What people are not being told is that it was even opposed by the ACLU article , not because of the guns as seen in this quote:

"Adding more innocent Americans to the National Instant Criminal Background database because of a mental disability is a disturbing trend — one that could be applied to voting, parenting or other rights dearer than gun ownership. We opposed it because it would do little to stem gun violence but do much to harm our civil rights."

The ACLU's focus was on due process and the image of disabled peoples in the very broad and vague definitions.

don't get me wrong, keeping guns out of the wrong hands is the right thing to do and should be done but we must also question the rational and wording of the legislation to ensure effects and outcomes.

Another point question often expressed; Why don't politicians so ardent to push for MORE laws, go back and enforce laws that are already on the books. no point passing the same law twice.

Did you know that some folks consider questioning authority a mental illness? This the problem with "guilty until proven innocent" type of solutions.

Jaedon Adar-Barnaby wrote: Did you know that some folks consider questioning authority a mental illness? This the problem with "guilty until proven innocent" type of solutions.

Oh i completely agree! There is the logic that people who want to buy a gun submit to a psychological test yet there are also those that believe merely wanting to buy a gun is a sign of a psychological abnormality so it becomes a self-fulfilling event.

1) people who want to buy guns should be put through a mental test
2) Buying guns is a sign of mental problems
3) repeat.

The guilty until proven innocent is one of the reasons why the ACLU opposed the Order.

Here comes the inevitable response from Senan :ohmy: :evil: You know I respect you, Hattter, so it wouldn't be right if I didn't give you more to debate me about

MadHatter wrote: The fact is that if you limit the tool of choice people will just get a different tool. Europe proves this. They still have mass killings over there and heck some of them even used guns. And those nations have all the gun control advocates for it could ever want. Their violent crime rates are not vastly different from ours the only difference is the tool used. And dead is dead no matter if I use a gun or a truck.

Europe and Japan also prove that strict gun control results in far less gun deaths per capita. Terrorists use trucks because it is harder to get guns. If they could get an AR-15 as easily as we can in America, they would likely be using them a lot more often. I don't have facts to back that up, so take it as my opinion.

MadHatter wrote: People do not want to mention the ideology that caused some of those attacks in Europe and would pitch a fit if I suggested religion as the cause or the region of the world the attackers come from and thus maybe banning travel from that part of the world until we can properly ensure that we are not importing trouble. If we do not wish to ban the ideology of the attackers that can be linked to many attacks why are we going to worry about the tool used? Because if the ideology remains violent they will find a tool no matter what. ( To be clear I am not for banning ideas as that is as against the oath I took to the constitution as gun control is. I am just pointing out how one solution is ok but the other is not when they both make as much sense.)

This is inaccurate information meant to distract from the actual issue. There are some religiously motivated shooters and bombers, but the majority have been committed by white American males.

• 1. Las Vegas - Stephen Paddock - 64 year old caucasian male - American citizen - motive unknown
• 2. Orlando - Omar Mateen - 29 year old Caucasian male - American citizen - religiously motivated, supporter of ISIL, hate crime against LGBT
• 3. Blacksburg (Virginai Tech) - Seung-Hui Cho - 23 year old Asian male - South Korean National and Permanent U.S. Resident - Anxiety and other diagnosed mental health issues
• 4. Newtown - Adam Lanza - 20 year old caucasian male - American citizen - previously diagnosed mental health issues
• 5. Sutherland Springs - Devon Kelley - 26 year old caucasian male - American citizen - history of domestic violence, cruelty to animals, diagnosed mental illness[\li]
  
• 6. Killeen Texas (Luby's Cafeteria) - George Hennard - 35 year old caucasian male - American citizen - hatred of women and minorities[\li]
  
• 7. San Ysidro (McDonald's) - James Huberty - 41 year old caucasian male - American citizen - diagnosed mental health issues[\li]
  
• 8. Austin (U of Texas Tower) - Charles Whitman - 25 year old caucasian male - American citizen - mental health/brain tumor[\li]
  
• 9. Edmond (Postal Shooting) - Patrick Sherill - 44 year old caucasian male - American citizen - disgruntled postal worker responding to reprimand[\li]
  
• 10. San Bernardino - Syed Rizwan Farook - 28 year old caucasian male - American citizen - religiously motivated, devout Muslim and supporter of creation of an Islamic State[\li]

The Columbine shooting, being one of the most shocking events of its kind at the time, is no longer even in the top ten of mass shootings in American history. This list doesn't include Eric Harris and Dylan Klybold (Columbine), Dylann Roof (Charlston Church Shooting), Timothy McVeigh (Oklahoma City Bombing), or Ted Kaczynski (UNAbomber), all white males and American citizens as well. Excluding the 9/11 attacks, the majority of perpetrators are caucasian Americans born and raised here in the U.S. Banning travel from the Middle East and other Muslim countries isn't a logical answer considering we grow these terrorists here and the majority are not religiously motivated.

What I find most fascinating is the lack of women on this list. While mental illness is clearly a big piece of the puzzle, it should be noted that women with mental illness aren't resorting to the same kind of violence. Many of these perpetrators also have a history of domestic violence and/or animal abuse. I'd be curious to see if there is any correlation between violent behavior toward family, particularly women and children, and these violent mass shootings. It may not only be mental illness, but also an ingrained tendency toward violence within males to begin with. I haven't researched this at all, so I might be way off.

MadHatter wrote: The fact is that we will never get rid of violence. Unless we can stamp out greed, poverty, mental illness, anger etc. We can make the abuse of others illegal. But trying to take away the tools for it only leaves the least physically capable at the mercy of those more powerful. Because a linebacker-sized individual is going to be able to kill someone with a rock or club just fine. But my five foot two small framed self is not going to combat this very well. And again with my stumpy legs, I am not outrunning anyone. So a firearm levels this situation pretty fast and gives me a far better chance at not getting hurt or worse.

One on one, I can see this logic, but we're talking about mass shooting events. I would argue that being linebacker sized or being a baby doesn't matter when a person armed with a semi-automatic rifle walks into your church and starts shooting, or targets you from 400 yards away while you are at a concert. No firearm will level these situations in favor of the victims defending themselves because the perpetrator chooses the time and place of the attack to their advantage and always uses the element of surprise. You'd have a way better chance of surviving a linebacker with a club if he is up against fifty of your family and friends in your church or 20,000 concert goers. When that linebacker is shooting at you while you sit at a desk in class, it doesn't matter how many of you are fighting back. People are going to die before the shooter will. Taking away the AR-15 makes these shootings much harder to execute and it also means you as a gun owner will have a better chance of defending yourself with a handgun.

MadHatter wrote: Further, as much as people dislike the slippery slope fallacy we can see it at play. For many European nations like England, France, Denmark, Greece, Sweden etc it is not even legal to carry pepper spray defensively never mind anything better. So we can see how death by 100 shallow cuts is a thing.

Death by a thousand cuts is not the same as 58 deaths by one cut. Gun related deaths in the U.S. per capita still outnumber deaths caused by guns and other violent means in those countries.

Manu wrote: I agree that gun ownership is not the cause of the problem.

When you come up with a solution to getting mental wellness to 100% of society, let us know. In the meantime, I still see a benefit in restricting access to weapons to the 1% who isn't well.

Same thing goes for violent offenders in prison. The root cause of the problem lies in some sort of mental imbalance that leads to bad choices. But until we can guarantee we can prevent reincidence, keep them locked up.

MadHatter wrote: Define mental illness. Should someone with depression who is working to treat it have their rights stripped away due to that? What about PTSD because of an abusive spouse? Should they be barred from owning a firearm at the time they are most likely to need it due to this illness?

The better question is do these people need an AR-15 to defend themselves. Maybe a handgun or shotgun or rifle is appropriate. People in these situations could likely demonstrate their need for protection and would gladly submit to some checks if it meant they could get the weapon they need. If we could do thorough checks for mental illness, we could ask their therapists and doctors for a recommendation. I'm more concerned about those undiagnosed individuals who can get their hands on semi-automatic rifles.

MadHatter wrote: Also, did you really suggest keeping people locked up until we can guarantee they won't re-offend? Well, I guess a bar fight means life in prison because no one can ever guarantee you won't re-offend.

That one is a big stretch. I agree that there has to be room for case by case judgments regarding gun control, mental illness, and incarceration.

The tool used does not matter the deaths do. If they still manage to create the death toll without the tool you fear it does not matter what tool is used. The fact is your vaunted gun control does not stop mass killing

Further its not a distraction tactic Its a fact. The fact is that mass killings in Europe happened in much greater numbers when they started importing a particular set of people with a particular ideology. So lets ban that too just in case or are you not in favor of that? We do not have an issue with that ideology now because we are not taking in the same number of people that hold it nor are they from the same nations. So ya know why should Europe not follow our lead and stop that issue that keeps poping up for them?

No firearm will level the field? Huh funny Texas the shooter stopped shooting because more than one person shot back. It just goes to show that gun free zones are preferred so no one can shoot back.

The fact is the US has always had more violence due to size and a different culture. Further banning guns in those nations did not lower the violent crime rate thus banning guns only changed the tools used which is what I have been saying.

Yes and while you go through your doctors and therapists and blah blah blah people like my mom end up dead because you kept them waiting while their abuser was still out there.

Oh and finally it's not a stretch at all its taking what was said at face value which is violent criminals do not get out until you are sure they will not re-offend. That means life sentences for all who have committed ANY violent crime because you can NEVER be sure.

jag1993 wrote:

Jaedon Adar-Barnaby wrote: Did you know that some folks consider questioning authority a mental illness? This the problem with "guilty until proven innocent" type of solutions.

Oh i completely agree! There is the logic that people who want to buy a gun submit to a psychological test yet there are also those that believe merely wanting to buy a gun is a sign of a psychological abnormality so it becomes a self-fulfilling event.

1) people who want to buy guns should be put through a mental test
2) Buying guns is a sign of mental problems
3) repeat.

The guilty until proven innocent is one of the reasons why the ACLU opposed the Order.

I actually agree with the ACLU about avoiding blanket assessment of the mentally ill as potential criminals and it is a very slippery slope. The thing is, most gun control advocates aren't asking for putting those with prior mental illness into a criminal database. Rather, I'm looking for a more extensive check into what the actual mental illness is. A veteran with PTSD may still be perfectly capable of responsible gun ownership to defend his home or for recreation, but only his doctor/psychologist can make that determination. It shouldn't be left to the gun store owner to determine who is mentally sound and who isn't. What's wrong with asking that question of doctors or requesting a written statement before selling this veteran a gun? No self respecting medical professional would say purchasing a gun is a sign of mental illness unless it was part of a wider pattern of previous violence toward others, or there is unusual purchasing habits as was the case with the Las Vegas shooter. The paranoia surrounding background checks and mental health evaluations is part of the reason why people choose to get guns illegally instead of through legal avenues. It is harder to enforce existing laws when people are hesitant to comply with them out of fear. There is nothing to fear about background checks or mental health evaluations if you don't have a shady background or undisclosed mental health issues.