Mass shooting

[punked]

Just wanted to add:

http://www.vpc.org/aboutvpc.htm

Sour Grapes that my tax exempt organization is supported by more people and money then yours?

So you ask about how the NRA pushed in 11 states a law to give felons back their guns they refuse to read the details? Its not like I linked to a bunch of people who can't even get the facts right in a 30 second ad I cited a real source. Stop trying to change the subject do you agree or disagree with the NRA should felons get their guns back as soon as they get out of jail?

[Guest Derek L]

They push laws they like and have huge power to do so. They have made it so the ATF will never have a real head and will only have a part time acting head so they effect the enforcement of laws yes.

Are you trying to set me up to get my talking points out so your side looks uneducated or do you just know nothing about that you are talking about?

So it’s the NRA’s fault that, per Vice President Biden, the Federal Government can’t regulate the laws they already have on the books…………..And you want to create more laws?

The NRA is supportive of the idea of the Federal Government enforcing the laws that they already have:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/nras-keene-says-group-is-generally-supportive-of-tough-background-checks-for-purchasers/2013/01/17/35fac06a-60a1-11e2-bc4f-1f06fffb7acf_story.html

WASHINGTON — The head of the National Rifle Association says the organization has no problem with tighter background checks of gun purchasers.

But association president David Keene also says too much emphasis has been placed on banning certain firearms.

[punked]

So it’s the NRA’s fault that, per Vice President Biden, the Federal Government can’t regulate the laws they already have on the books…………..And you want to create more laws?

The NRA is supportive of the idea of the Federal Government enforcing the laws that they already have:

http://www.washingto...7acf_story.html

If the NRA is so supportive of "enforcing the laws they have" then why did they give their congressman of the year award to the man who made it so the ATF can never get a real head?

ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THEN WORDS. Stop posting the words of a group who lie about simple things like if there or are not guards at the school the Presidents daughters go to? Again the words of a bunch of lairs are pretty meaningless to me. The actions however do mean something and you haven't spoken to any of them.

[Guest Derek L]

Yah here I will refute it. The article cites an organization I have shown as liars many times in this thread. That makes then an unreliable source how about you find a reliable one and I will entertain what they are saying ok?

Yet the assault Weapons ban won’t go through Congress nor a Democratic lead Senate…………Did you ever stop to think that maybe it’s you that is out of touch?

And the NRA certainly isn’t stopping you from purchasing a gun, in Canada or the United States.......go ahead, try it

[punked]

Yet the assault Weapons ban won’t go through Congress nor a Democratic lead Senate…………Did you ever stop to think that maybe it’s you that is out of touch?

And the NRA certainly isn’t stopping you from purchasing a gun, in Canada or the United States.......go ahead, try it

Sure maybe it is out of touch. How is it polling? Washington post says:

A Washington Post-ABC News poll released on Monday showed 58 percent of adults and 59 percent of registered voters support a nationwide ban on the sale of assault weapons. A Pew poll released the same day showed 55 percent of Americans support a ban.

Wait maybe Congress is the ones out of touch. Which makes sense considering the house Republicans lost the national popular vote by about 1.5 million. I think maybe Obama who won his election by 4 million votes is probably in touch here.

[Guest Derek L]

Sure maybe it is out of touch. How is it polling? Washington post says:

Wait maybe Congress is the ones out of touch. Which makes sense considering the house Republicans lost the national popular vote by about 1.5 million. I think maybe Obama who won his election by 4 million votes is probably in touch here.

Oh punked:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/01/15/why-passing-an-assault-weapons-ban-in-congress-will-be-difficult/

That may sound like good news for gun control activists. And in some ways, it is. But a closer look at the numbers should trouble advocates of an assault weapons ban.

There are notable gaps between Democrats and Republicans on the issue, the polls show. In both surveys, clear majorities of Democrats favor a ban, while narrow majorities of Republicans do not.

In the Washington Post-ABC News poll, 76 percent of Democrats said they support a ban, while just 45 percent of Republicans said they do. In the Pew poll, 69 percent of Democrats said they support a ban on assault style weapons, while just 44 percent of Republicans said the same thing.

The divide matters, especially in the House, where many Republicans hail from safe GOP districts in which the threat of a primary from a more conservative candidate looms larger than the possibility of losing in the general election. Plus, the House GOP Conference has already demonstrated its stubbornness when it comes to issues demanding compromise from both parties.

There is much broader consensus for requiring background checks for sales of guns at gun shows and in other private transactions, to end the so-called “gun show loophole.” Nearly nine in ten Americans in both polls support such background checks.

Why does this matter when it comes to an assault weapons ban? Those opposing it might nonetheless favor new background checks, especially since the public is overwhelmingly supportive of the latter. And if they come to the table with something, they could evade attacks from opponents that they are doing nothing to impose new restrictions.

And from Harry Reid:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/01/harry-reid-assault-weapons-ban.php

The Democratically-controlled U.S. Senate will not be a free-for-all of new gun regulations following the shooting at Sandy Hook, according to Majority Leader Harry Reid. Instead, Senators will focus on passing legislation that can move through the Republican-controlled House, Reid said.

That could spell doom for an assault weapons ban. Speaking on Nevada Week In Review, a news show on the PBS affiliate in Las Vegas, Reid said there’s no real chance of a new ban passing the House.

“Is it something that can pass the Senate? Maybe. Is it something that can pass the House? I doubt it,” he said in video of the program provided to TPM by Vegas PBS. “So I think there are things that we know we can do.”

[punked]

You have no point. You said that I was out touch then when I pointed out 60% of America supports it and maybe it is congress who is out of touch you cite congress. Hmmmm??

[eyeball]

Simply put gun control, should be violent people control.

What sorts of controls do you propose? Preemptive or reactive - after-the-fact that is?

None on the weapons themselves…….Just regulations on the people that can own firearms.

What people? Everyone who suffers a mental illness or just some? Where is the line between too crazy and not crazy enough, who draws how is it drawn and on what basis?

People can still study gun violence, just not with taxpayer dollars.

How about taxpayer funding to study mental illness so we can better determine who we should be regulating or not regulating? This brings us back to the first of your points that I've responded to. Simply put what sort of controls, on who and based on what? How do we get to where you're talking about and are you certain you know enough about mental illness to comment on it?

BTW if the NRA is proposing public funding for the study of mental illness as an alternative to the study of gun violence, sign me up.

Edited January 19, 2013 by eyeball

[Guest Derek L]

What sorts of controls do you propose? Preemptive or reactive - after-the-fact that is?

Clearly a mixture of both.

What people? Everyone who suffers a mental illness or just some? Where is the line between too crazy and not crazy enough, who draws how is it drawn and on what basis?

I would think those in Healthcare would be best equipped to make said calls………How about the same criteria as our society requires of the police and military?

How about taxpayer funding to study mental illness so we can better determine who we should be regulating or not regulating? This brings us back to the first of your points that I've responded to. Simply put what sort of controls, on who and based on what? How do we get to where you're talking about and are you certain you know enough about mental illness to comment on it?

I fully admit to not being an expert on mental illness, and I wouldn’t oppose public funding for further research and treatment……….

As to the NRA on mental illness, they support putting the mentally ill on a said databases used already in said background check……..but such moves are countered by advocates of personal privacy……..

[bush_cheney2004]

The NRA already provides the foundation for training in firearms safety, storage, and legal responsibilities. Many law enforcement agencies use NRA training curriculum, including the training of course instructors. The NRA helps to keep the vast majority of U.S. firearms in competent hands.

[eyeball]

Clearly a mixture of both.

I would think those in Healthcare would be best equipped to make said calls…

They would, and hopefully society won't go too nuts when they prescribe treatment instead of punishment when ill people shoot others.

……How about the same criteria as our society requires of the police and military?

I don't know why or how those would differ from anyone else because mental illness can strike anyone, anytime, anywhere. No one is immune to it.

I fully admit to not being an expert on mental illness, and I wouldn’t oppose public funding for further research and treatment……….

As to the NRA on mental illness, they support putting the mentally ill on a said databases used already in said background check……..but such moves are countered by advocates of personal privacy……..

Well, the NRA is talking about registering upwards of 70 million Americans in a government database and the lack of trust most NRA members seem to have for the government leaves me wondering if they've really given this idea much thought. Given the incidence of mental illness in the general population the NRA could potentially be calling for the disarmament of up to 20 - 25% of it members at some point in their lives. As I said, no one is immune.

I suspect many NRA members consider themselves staunch advocates of personal privacy, but perhaps just of their own.

Edited January 19, 2013 by eyeball

[Guest Derek L]

They would, and hopefully society won't go too nuts when they prescribe treatment instead of punishment when ill people shoot others.

But what if said people refuse the prescribed treatment?

I don't know why or how those would differ from anyone else because mental illness can strike anyone, anytime, anywhere. No one is immune to it.

Well I don’t dispute that some people do slip through the proverbial cracks in such organizations, said communities through the usage of the initial screening processes, both physically and mentally straining programs, are able to “weed out” most of those inflicted with said illnesses…………Perhaps with increased research, such screening could be done at a much younger age and with more “permissive techniques”……Wouldn’t that not only be better for society, but also those suffering with various forms of mental illness.

Well, the NRA is talking about registering upwards of 70 million Americans in a government database and the lack of trust most NRA members seem to have for the government leaves me wondering if they've really given this idea much thought. Given the incidence of mental illness in the general population the NRA could potentially be calling for the disarmament of up to 20 - 25% of it members at some point in their lives. As I said, no one is immune.

I suspect many NRA members consider themselves staunch advocates of personal privacy, but perhaps just of their own.

Well the database would be used to help screen out people with mental illness, in the hopes that it would reduce “mass shootings”………..Would you be opposed to “disarming” 20-25% percent of gun owners if it prevented such shootings? I feel, as I’m certain most gun owners and the NRA would also, that your perceived requirement of 20-25% is too high based on current precedents……..In the United States, it’s estimated that anywhere between 40-50% of American households have a firearm within them……..So let’s say 140 million households with firearms……..are 20-25% of households involved in a firearms related death a year?

[eyeball]

But what if said people refuse the prescribed treatment?

Courts can order treatment.

Well I don’t dispute that some people do slip through the proverbial cracks in such organizations, said communities through the usage of the initial screening processes, both physically and mentally straining programs, are able to “weed out” most of those inflicted with said illnesses…………Perhaps with increased research, such screening could be done at a much younger age and with more “permissive techniques”……Wouldn’t that not only be better for society, but also those suffering with various forms of mental illness.

It's not a matter of people slipping through cracks, its a matter of them becoming ill. And the term you're looking for is "diagnose" not "weed out". You're talking about science fiction if you think we're anywhere near being able to predict let alone weed out mental illness. Just so you know and this has a direct bearing on your question about refusing treatment, almost 50% of people with anxiety and depression never report their condition or seek treatment for it.

Well the database would be used to help screen out people with mental illness, in the hopes that it would reduce “mass shootings”……

How though and what about gun owners who become sick after they've been screened? How do you weed them out with Neighbourhood Watch Committees? No one is immune from mental illness, ever.

…..Would you be opposed to “disarming” 20-25% percent of gun owners if it prevented such shootings? I feel, as I’m certain most gun owners and the NRA would also, that your perceived requirement of 20-25% is too high based on current precedents…

The Canadian Mental Health Association says 20% of all people will suffer a mental illness.

• Mental illness indirectly affects all Canadians at some time through a family member, friend or colleague.
  
• 20% of Canadians will personally experience a mental illness in their lifetime.
  

Others peg the rate of mental illness at up to 27%.

…..In the United States, it’s estimated that anywhere between 40-50% of American households have a firearm within them……..So let’s say 140 million households with firearms……..are 20-25% of households involved in a firearms related death a year?

I don't know, but as the CMHA makes clear they'll all come in contact with mental illness.

I suggest it would be a far greater imposition on the mentally ill to become registered with the government than it would be to require gun owners to simply store their guns in armouries.

Edited January 20, 2013 by eyeball

[eyeball]

How would Adam Lanza's registration in a federal database prevented him from doing what he did?

Edited January 20, 2013 by eyeball

[Guest Derek L]

Courts can order treatment.

That’s weak……..we have a family friend who’s daughter suffers from bi-polar disorder and frequently refuses to take her medication, and as a result on a couple of occasions has ended up in hospital…….The court can’t force mentally ill people to take medication.

It's not a matter of people slipping through cracks, its a matter of being ill. And the term you're looking for is "diagnose" not "weed out". You're talking about science fiction if you think we're anywhere near being able to predict let alone weed out mental illness. Just so you know and this has a direct bearing on your question about refusing treatment, almost 50% of people with anxiety and depression never report their condition or seek treatment for it.

We as a society do frequently……….how often do we have police officers going on shooting sprees akin to the OP? They actually have access to high capacity magazines and assault rifles on their person and in the truck of their cruisers…..

How about gun owners who become sick after they've been screened? How do you weed them out with Neighbourhood Watch Committees? No one is immune from mental illness, ever.

How do you weed them out of our police forces and the military?

The Canadian Mental Health Association says 20%;

• Mental illness indirectly affects all Canadians at some time through a family member, friend or colleague.
  
• 20% of Canadians will personally experience a mental illness in their lifetime.
  

Others peg the rate of mental illness at up to 27%.

And what percentage of said Canadians suffering from a form of mental illness are dangerous to themselves or society?……Of that percent, what percentage are suffering a form of mild depression over a death in the family or mild anxiety over starting a new job or as simple as quitting smoking?

It’s quite obvious that ~23% of Canadians that have lost a family member don’t kill themselves or others in society………..

I don't know, but as the CMHA makes clear they'll all come in contact with mental illness.

I suggest it would be a far greater imposition on the mentally ill to become registered with the government than it would be to require gun owners to simply store their guns in armouries.

Guns checked out for hunting should be equipped with GPS activated trigger locks, or more to the point deactivated when located in their pre-determined area of intended use.

per this site:

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/canada

Canada has on average ~200 gun homicides committed a year, and for the sake of argument, let’s assume they’re all committed by legal gun owners……….Now of the ~200 homicides, it’s reasonable to assume that there are roughly ~200 murderers (using guns) out of millions of legal firearms owners in Canada………Let me know when the number of gun homicides a year in Canada reaches ~25000, fore then (again assuming all crimes are committed by legal gun owners) we’ll be at roughly 1-2% of gun owners being murderers…………until then:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/12/04/homicides-statistics-canada-2011.html

Homicide rates in Canada rise 7%

Firearm deaths at lowest level in almost 50 years as killers favour the blade

The number of homicides in Canada rose to 598 in 2011, 44 more than the previous year, marking the first increase in three years, according to data released today.

Statistics Canada reported Tuesday that the homicide rate has stayed "relatively stable over the past decade." Prior to that, it had been declining since the mid-1970s.

However, deaths related to firearms aren't nearly as common, the federal agency said.

And legal gun ownership has been increasing in Canada, every year, for years.......

[Guest American Woman]

Wouldn't be nice if the American government could commission a study to answer you question?

You think a study has to be done to answer that question? The answer is obvious. If assault weapons are banned but a Ruger mini 14 will kill a bunch of people, banning assault weapons will do nothing to prevent mass shootings. Nothing at all. That's not rocket science - and it doesn't require a study. Canada's laws would have done nothing to prevent the Conn. school killing.

Well they can't because the NRA got a stupid law passed that you support. Don't ask questions if you don't support getting answers.

The law actually says that tax money can't be used to advocate or promote gun control, not that they can't do studies - and it doesn't prevent private groups from advocating or promoting gun control. Case in point - the NRA doesn't get any tax money and there's nothing to stop people from forming an anti-gun group to counter it.

[Guest Derek L]

How would Adam Lanza's registration in a federal database prevented him from doing what he did?

Might have given more weight to his Mothers attempt to have him committed to a puzzle factory months prior to the shooting....

[eyeball]

That’s weak……..we have a family friend who’s daughter suffers from bi-polar disorder and frequently refuses to take her medication, and as a result on a couple of occasions has ended up in hospital…….The court can’t force mentally ill people to take medication.

Yes it can, I know someone who's paranoid schizophrenic son was just ordered by the court to either take his medication via a monthly injection or be committed.

We as a society do frequently……….how often do we have police officers going on shooting sprees akin to the OP? They actually have access to high capacity magazines and assault rifles on their person and in the truck of their cruisers…..

I don't know, do you?

How do you weed them out of our police forces and the military?

I don't know, do you?

And what percentage of said Canadians suffering from a form of mental illness are dangerous to themselves or society?……Of that percent, what percentage are suffering a form of mild depression over a death in the family or mild anxiety over starting a new job or as simple as quitting smoking?

I don't know, all I know is that if the NRA had it's way every single one would be in the fed's database.

It’s quite obvious that ~23% of Canadians that have lost a family member don’t kill themselves or others in society………..

per this site:

http://www.gunpolicy...s/region/canada

Canada has on average ~200 gun homicides committed a year, and for the sake of argument, let’s assume they’re all committed by legal gun owners……….Now of the ~200 homicides, it’s reasonable to assume that there are roughly ~200 murderers (using guns) out of millions of legal firearms owners in Canada………Let me know when the number of gun homicides a year in Canada reaches ~25000, fore then (again assuming all crimes are committed by legal gun owners) we’ll be at roughly 1-2% of gun owners being murderers…………until then:

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...anada-2011.html

And yet you would still propose we screen every citizen and register all the weeds we find in a federal database just so you can store your gun at home instead of an armoury.

Sorry, but that's just plain nuts.

And legal gun ownership has been increasing in Canada, every year, for years.......

Great. What's that got to do with treating the ill like criminals?

[eyeball]

Might have given more weight to his Mothers attempt to have him committed to a puzzle factory months prior to the shooting....

Would the database have prevented her son from accessing her weapons?

[Guest Derek L]

Yes it can, I know someone who's paranoid schizophrenic son was just ordered by the court to either take his medication via a monthly injection or be committed.

Explain Vancouver’s Lower Eastside….

I don't know, do you?

Can't think of the last time that happened in Canada.......PTS cases and all

I don't know, do you?

I most certainly do….Medical history checks, numerous interviews and then the initial physically and mentally exhausting training intended to weed out a great many people…….As I said, there most certainly cases involving PST after the fact, but I can think of an incident in recent memory to the same level as the OP or to what you purport.

I don't know, all I know is that if the NRA had it's way every single one would be in the fed's database.

And you'd rather them not?

And yet you would still propose we screen every citizen and register all the weeds we find in a federal database just so you can store your gun at home instead of an armoury.

Sorry, but that's just plain nuts.

We already do to an extent sufficient enough to ensure that homicides committed by a legal gun owner within Canada are statistically nil when compared to the numbers associated with legal firearms ownership.

What’s nuts is an unsupported fear of legal gun ownership within Canada……….Hey, even Paranoids have enemies I suppose.

Great. What's that got to do with treating the ill like criminals?

Gun crimes have dropped despite the demise of the LGR and the steady increase of gun ownership within Canada.

[Guest Derek L]

Would the database have prevented her son from accessing her weapons?

Sure, if he was locked up in a mental hospital.

[Guest American Woman]

Sure, if he was locked up in a mental hospital.

It's not as if his mother had tried to have him locked up in a mental hospital - and failed. As I've pointed out before, people who used to be locked away in mental hospitals are now mainstreamed into society, so that's going to put society at greater risk; but locking up every potentially dangerous person isn't good, either.

[eyeball]

Explain Vancouver’s Lower Eastside….

Why? You seem to realize enough already to know enough given your stance towards drug prohibition, something the NRA is apparently quite at odds with.

Can't think of the last time that happened in Canada.......PTS cases and all

I most certainly do….Medical history checks, numerous interviews and then the initial physically and mentally exhausting training intended to weed out a great many people…….As I said, there most certainly cases involving PST after the fact, but I can think of an incident in recent memory to the same level as the OP or to what you purport.

Okay but what you and the NRA seem to be suggesting is that everyone should be required to submit to similar screening so all the mentally ill people (that would be on the order of 70 - 90- million Americans) be registered in a database that so that we can prevent them from owning weapons. You seem oblivious to the already profound stigmatization that mentally ill people are faced with in society and now you want society to weed them out? Good luck with that.

What do we do about all the people who are weeded out that currently own weapons?

And you'd rather them not?

It's that obvious?

We already do to an extent sufficient enough to ensure that homicides committed by a legal gun owner within Canada are statistically nil when compared to the numbers associated with legal firearms ownership.

What’s nuts is an unsupported fear of legal gun ownership within Canada……….Hey, even Paranoids have enemies I suppose.

Except what we're talking about is mass shootings at the hands of the mentally ill.

Gun crimes have dropped despite the demise of the LGR and the steady increase of gun ownership within Canada.

We're not talking about crime. you've already determined that most gun crime is related to drugs and we already know what what the solution to preventing most of that is.

What's really nuts, almost criminally so, is forever conflating crime with illness and somehow imagining by solving one we address the other.

BTW, the explanation for the Lower East Side of Vancouver and it's larger population of mentally ill people is that such places offer anonymity for those who seek to escape the stigmatization they experience in their home communities.

[eyeball]

Sure, if he was locked up in a mental hospital.

So, you really are that determined to keep your guns that you would have the state lock up everyone that is mentally ill for simply being mentally ill?

You clearly need help.

[Guest Derek L]

Why? You seem to realize enough already to know enough given your stance towards drug prohibition, something the NRA is apparently quite at odds with.

How well are the courts doing at mandating treatment for those living on the streets inflicted with mental illness…..

Okay but what you and the NRA seem to be suggesting is that everyone should be required to submit to similar screening so all the mentally ill people (that would be on the order of 70 - 90- million Americans) be registered in a database that so that we can prevent them from owning weapons. You seem oblivious to the already profound stigmatization that mentally ill people are faced with in society and now you want society to weed them out? Good luck with that.

What do we do about all the people who are weeded out that currently own weapons?

Not everyone, just those wishing to purchase a gun legally…….we do it in Canada……………As for current gun owners, the same applies, every current Canadian that owns guns legally has been through the same process………If the ~200 gun homicides, and ~1000-1500 gun suicides committed every year in Canada are to much for society to bear, increase (as I’ve suggested) the standards and screening associated with Canadian gun licensing………….Since you, not a gun owner, wouldn’t be effected, what do you care about privacy concerns of legal gun owners in this regard?

Except what we're talking about is mass shootings at the hands of the mentally ill.

And of those ~200 gun homicides committed a year in Canada, how many are done by mentally ill legal gun owners.

We're not talking about crime. you've already determined that most gun crime is related to drugs and we already know what what the solution to preventing most of that is.

What's really nuts, almost criminally so, is forever conflating crime with illness and somehow imagining by solving one we address the other.

BTW, the explanation for the Lower East Side of Vancouver and it's larger population of mentally ill people is that such places offer anonymity for those who seek to escape the stigmatization they experience in their home communities.

Hey, you’re the one apparently concerned about shootings committed by the mentally ill in Canada, so much so, that even though total gun homicides don’t even approach 1% of the total numbers of legal gun owners here, you wish to place draconian restrictions on people’s property…………

Of the ~200 gun homicides committed a year in Canada, how many are done by those suffering mental illness?

Or of the ~11000 gun homicides committed a year in the United States, how many are done by those suffering mental illness, as opposed to, like here, their roles associated with the criminalization of drugs?

If the numbers are a low percentage when compared to drug related crimes, what are you worried about?

Legalize drugs and have the courts force the mentally ill to take their Scooby Snacks…………There you go, drastic decrease in gun deaths…..problem solved.