Mass shooting

[Guest Derek L]

Nope the NRA doesn't support legislation that might slow down gun purchases. They don't care about mass shootings it drives up gun sales, (good guys need guns to defend against bad guys, bad guys need more guns because good guys now have them) that isn't me talking that is their line on this whole gun argument. They work for the money which means selling guns, it is why they are against universal background checks to. They have one solution to every problem MORE GUNS. Follow the money on this one it tells a simple story.

My proposal would eliminate background checks on firearms purchases, well also legally absolving firearms manufactures and dealers of culpability of crimes committed by their products…….

[eyeball]

What happens here when a person is diagnosed with a condition that will impair their sight?………Their Doctor is required by law to report said condition to the Province and the patient loses his drivers licence……

Insert a similar process to your scenario………….Even to further the example relating to firearms, the RCMP revokes on average several thousand firearms licences a year.

Several thousand per year, why? Do you have any breakdown of these numbers for example how many are for a report of mental illness?

In any case, if this is what you're proposing will happen I predict that the incidence of self-reported mental illness will miraculously plummet, especially amongst gun-owners. OTOH drug use will go up as they seek to treat/heal themselves by self-medicating.

[Guest Derek L]

Several thousand per year, why? Do you have any breakdown of these numbers for example how many are for a report of mental illness?

In any case, if this is what you're proposing will happen I predict that the incidence of self-reported mental illness will miraculously plummet, especially amongst gun-owners. OTOH drug use will go up as they seek to treat/heal themselves by self-medicating.

The RCMP doesn't give a breakdown, but:

Reasons for licence refusals or revocations include: a history of violence, mental illness, potential risk to oneself or others, unsafe firearm use and storage, drug offences, and providing false information.

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/facts-faits/index-eng.htm#a

[punked]

My proposal would eliminate background checks on firearms purchases, well also legally absolving firearms manufactures and dealers of culpability of crimes committed by their products…….

They don't care it would slow gun purchases and hit their bottom line. The NRA know which side of their bread is buttered and by whom. Your proposal would never work and is a none starter. It is a distraction to buy time.

[eyeball]

Looks more like hundreds of revocations per year than thousands in any case its probably fair to say at least several dozen of these will involve mental illness.

So how do doctors reports of mental illness make their way to the RCMP? Do they have to wait until an incident makes them known to police or do doctors call a hotline or something? How does the doctor know he's dealing with a gun owner?

[punked]

Looks more like hundreds of revocations per year than thousands in any case its probably fair to say at least several dozen of these will involve mental illness.

So how do doctors reports of mental illness make their way to the RCMP? Do they have to wait until an incident makes them known to police or do doctors call a hotline or something? How does the doctor know he's dealing with a gun owner?

I think almost all revocations deal with abuse in the home. This was the only use of the gun registry, in causes of abuse the police could look up if the abuser had firearms and take them away.

[Guest Derek L]

They don't care it would slow gun purchases and hit their bottom line. The NRA know which side of their bread is buttered and by whom. Your proposal would never work and is a none starter. It is a distraction to buy time.

It wouldn’t slow purchases, again you’re demonstrating your ignorance and I’m forced to question your claim to owning firearms legally in Canada, fore a licence holder here would know you’re talking out of your arse…………As such, a similar licence at the State levels that eliminates the need for background checks on firearms purchases, wouldn’t slow sales there either.

As to being a distraction, no, it’s a viable solution offered by a Canadian firearms owner and member for nearly 20 years of the NRA……….Your alternative in the States as supported by the Administration will not happen.

[punked]

It wouldn’t slow purchases, again you’re demonstrating your ignorance and I’m forced to question your claim to owning firearms legally in Canada, fore a licence holder here would know you’re talking out of your arse…………As such, a similar licence at the State levels that eliminates the need for background checks on firearms purchases, wouldn’t slow sales there either.

As to being a distraction, no, it’s a viable solution offered by a Canadian firearms owner and member for nearly 20 years of the NRA……….Your alternative in the States as supported by the Administration will not happen.

It would slow purchases. If bad guys can't get guns many good guys wouldn't want guns either. That is a hit both to the gun purchases from thugs and low lives and from people who are scared of thugs and low lives. It would really hurt gun purchases. Again the one and only solution that the gun lobby offers is more guns. Ask yourself why? Oh yah more guns means more money for gun makers. Mind their is an upside being most those guns are American made but that is beside the point.

Your solution will not happen either Derek. Nothing that stops bad guys from buying guns to scare good guys into buying guns is going to happen. Mass shootings, stories of people stopping gun wielding maniacs, home robberies, and so on are good for business end of story. The gun lobby doesn't want it to stop it is a 24 hour a day 7 day week thing that drives gun sales. That is where the NRAs money comes from. They don't care what you think they need to sell more guns.

Edited February 4, 2013 by punked

[Guest Derek L]

Looks more like hundreds of revocations per year than thousands in any case its probably fair to say at least several dozen of these will involve mental illness.

So how do doctors reports of mental illness make their way to the RCMP? Do they have to wait until an incident makes them known to police or do doctors call a hotline or something? How does the doctor know he's dealing with a gun owner?

I honestly don’t know how big brother the RCMP currently finds out, but as first hand evidence, my father several years ago required a Doctors note well renewing his licence explaining why he had a prescription for an anti depressant (Zyban)

I would assume the RCMP is enlightened by CIHI’s mental health records/database, in concert with CPIC…..As is mentioned on the RCMP link:

Continuous eligibility screening is conducted over the term of the licence to identify any public safety risks that may arise over time.

[eyeball]

I think almost all revocations deal with abuse in the home. This was the only use of the gun registry, in causes of abuse the police could look up if the abuser had firearms and take them away.

Meaning there's still no way to prevent a gun owner from becoming ill. The problem I have with this database notion is the assumptions that seem to go hand in hand with it. Will ANY and all mental illnesses' trigger a denial of application or revocation order? How will it deal with privacy issues and will all people who are mentally ill be reported or just ill gun owners? How will the doctors be able to differentiate a gun owner from a non-owner?

Remember we're talking about registering anywhere from 70 - 90 million Americans. I just don't think anyone who is seriously proposing this has really thought it through very well.

[Guest Derek L]

It would slow purchases. If bad guys can't get guns many good guys wouldn't want guns either. That is a hit both to the gun purchases from thugs and low lives and from people who are scared of thugs and low lives. It would really hurt gun purchases. Again the one and only solution that the gun lobby offers is more guns. Ask yourself why? Oh yah more guns means more money for gun makers. Mind their is an upside being most those guns are American made but that is beside the point.

Your solution will not happen either Derek. Nothing that stops bad guys from buying guns to scare good guys into buying guns is going to happen. Mass shootings, stories of people stopping gun wielding maniacs, home robberies, and so on are good for business end of story. The gun lobby doesn't want it to stop it is a 24 hour a day 7 day week thing that drives gun sales. That is where the NRAs money comes from. They don't care what you think they need to sell more guns.

I’m done with you

And based on your assertion, I again call BS that you have ever legally owned a gun, in Canada or the United States………..

Punked’s logic, I won’t purchase guns if bad guys aren’t purchasing guns………Fore having a gun licence will slow gun sales.......WOW....

edit to add: The most popular handgun in the United States is made in Austria:

Edited February 4, 2013 by Derek L

[Guest Derek L]

Meaning there's still no way to prevent a gun owner from becoming ill. The problem I have with this database notion is the assumptions that seem to go hand in hand with it. Will ANY and all mental illnesses' trigger a denial of application or revocation order? How will it deal with privacy issues and will all people who are mentally ill be reported or just ill gun owners? How will the doctors be able to differentiate a gun owner from a non-owner?

Remember we're talking about registering anywhere from 70 - 90 million Americans. I just don't think anyone who is seriously proposing this has really thought it through very well.

NIMH, amongst various other bodies, already maintain mental health records in the United States……….at both a federal and state level.

[gunrutz]

So if we need to take an ill persons gun away, which i admit would be good in a perfect world, do we take away anything and everything else they could use as a weapon? That mentally ill individual who decapitated a stranger on a bus didn't do it with a gun. But of course the main problem here is that some value the lives of indiviuals murdered all at once more than those killed one at a time, it isn't logical, but then neither are most of the people on the wrong side of this issue. Reasonable limits, i think Canadian laws are good mostly good, but at some point you have to accept that it is not ever going to be possible to prevent another mass shooting, just as our gun registry did nothing for Dawson college, no that it ever could have.

But again and for the thousandth time a lot of people who argue for limits on this or bans of that would happily see all firearms banned or would at least be indifferent, so this bias obviously clouds judgement and while arguments are made within a cloak of civility the extrmeme beliefs are never far below the surface and concerns about mental health issues is just an example. It's a lever to open the door on the bigger argument of 'why does anyone need a gun', i would have no problem having stricter enforcement and regualtion concerning gun owners and mental health issues, but I also have no doubt that there are not an enormous number of people who are being killed by mentally ill gun owners, at least no more than are being stabbed, or bludgeoned, or strangled, or decapitated by them.

O but it's the power of the gun, and o my he might kill more than one person, or several people, yep, but for everyone of those there are many, many more single homicides that are just as important, that aren't perpetrated with a scary black gun, and that few people ever get excited about. It is wrong measure the value of an individuals life by the manner in which it was taken or by the number of others it was taken with, yet judging by the reactions you see many people are doing just that. If a serial killer shoots one person a day for a month do we focus on the serial killer or the gun? If he strangles them? Stabs them? Do we still blame the tool?

[bush_cheney2004]

....It's a lever to open the door on the bigger argument of 'why does anyone need a gun', ....

And yet these very same people will argue that no limitations to "abortion rights" are acceptable, despite that, unlike abortions, firearms rights are actually articulated in the U.S. Constitution.

[Guest Derek L]

So if we need to take an ill persons gun away, which i admit would be good in a perfect world, do we take away anything and everything else they could use as a weapon? That mentally ill individual who decapitated a stranger on a bus didn't do it with a gun. But of course the main problem here is that some value the lives of indiviuals murdered all at once more than those killed one at a time, it isn't logical, but then neither are most of the people on the wrong side of this issue. Reasonable limits, i think Canadian laws are good mostly good, but at some point you have to accept that it is not ever going to be possible to prevent another mass shooting, just as our gun registry did nothing for Dawson college, no that it ever could have.

But again and for the thousandth time a lot of people who argue for limits on this or bans of that would happily see all firearms banned or would at least be indifferent, so this bias obviously clouds judgement and while arguments are made within a cloak of civility the extrmeme beliefs are never far below the surface and concerns about mental health issues is just an example. It's a lever to open the door on the bigger argument of 'why does anyone need a gun', i would have no problem having stricter enforcement and regualtion concerning gun owners and mental health issues, but I also have no doubt that there are not an enormous number of people who are being killed by mentally ill gun owners, at least no more than are being stabbed, or bludgeoned, or strangled, or decapitated by them.

O but it's the power of the gun, and o my he might kill more than one person, or several people, yep, but for everyone of those there are many, many more single homicides that are just as important, that aren't perpetrated with a scary black gun, and that few people ever get excited about. It is wrong measure the value of an individuals life by the manner in which it was taken or by the number of others it was taken with, yet judging by the reactions you see many people are doing just that. If a serial killer shoots one person a day for a month do we focus on the serial killer or the gun? If he strangles them? Stabs them? Do we still blame the tool?

Quite simply:

And for perspective:

[punked]

Quite simply:

And for perspective:

Good try guns killed 33,000 people in America last year.

[Guest Derek L]

Good try guns killed 33,000 people in America last year.

Rifles were used in in 323 homicides…………And those are the ones the idiot gun grabbers want to ban:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

More people were murdered with knives than rifles like the AR-15.

[punked]

Rifles were used in in 323 homicides…………And those are the ones the idiot gun grabbers want to ban:

http://www.fbi.gov/a...de-data-table-8

More people were murdered with knives than rifles like the AR-15.

And some 3000 gun deaths from "Gun Unknown" although if those 3000 deaths are all hand guns you would have a good point. I got it research into these "unknown gun deaths" no wait the government can't do that because the NRA lobbied to change the rules to study guns.

[eyeball]

I don't think we need to prohibit the ownership of guns but I do think better controls regarding access is called for and certainly in the U.S. I think we should be applying our technology and developing smarter guns and putting GPS chips in guns so they can be tracked and set off alarms when appropriate and so on. I think almost all guns should be stored at armouries or the gun-clubs and shooting ranges they're used in and hunting rifles when checked out should be outfitted with GPS. Few people question the wisdom of constantly keeping up the effort and pressure to make cars or planes safer and death and injury has definitely gone down as a result. With guns however any change that might prevent death and injury comes at a glacial pace that is reminiscent of attempts to change the constitution or reform the senate or end prohibition.

As for comparing guns to knives...tell it to the oft-amused gun owner who can be counted on to joke about knives at gun fights - a joke that belies and only underscores the emptiness of the counter-suggestion that we control everything else that can kill too exactly as if it were a gun.

Mass shootings can be counted on to cause more fearful societies and reactive governments, a bad combination if there ever was one. Of particular concern to me is the call for more controls and registration of people who suffer mental illness - from both gun advocates and control advocates. I cannot think of anything that will keep and drive the mentally ill even further into the shadows (especially gun owners) than knowing they'll be in a special government data-base dedicated just to them. I expect governments will actually perceive a benefit to keeping them in the shadows because nothing keeps the issue of mental health out of a budget better than it's invisibility.

All this so people can maintain an attachment to their guns that's comparable to Gollum and his Precious. Gun owners should do the decent thing and either lead, follow or get out of the way.

Edited February 5, 2013 by eyeball

[Guest Derek L]

And some 3000 gun deaths from "Gun Unknown" although if those 3000 deaths are all hand guns you would have a good point. I got it research into these "unknown gun deaths" no wait the government can't do that because the NRA lobbied to change the rules to study guns.

“Type not stated ” firearms deaths are attributed to instances where the police are unable to determine said type of firearm used, be it a pistol or pistol calibre carbine……….i.e. a handgun in 45 Colt or a rifle in 45 Colt……………. “Other guns” would include rimfires, black powder, percussion cap etc….

But hey, thanks for coming out.

Edited February 5, 2013 by Derek L

[Guest Derek L]

I don't think we need to prohibit the ownership of guns but I do think better controls regarding access is called for and certainly in the U.S. I think we should be applying our technology and developing smarter guns and putting GPS chips in guns so they can be tracked and set off alarms when appropriate and so on. I think almost all guns should be stored at armouries or the gun-clubs and shooting ranges they're used in and hunting rifles when checked out should be outfitted with GPS. Few people question the wisdom of constantly keeping up the effort and pressure to make cars or planes safer and death and injury has definitely gone down as a result. With guns however any change that might prevent death and injury comes at a glacial pace that is reminiscent of attempts to change the constitution or reform the senate or end prohibition.

As for comparing guns to knives...tell it to the oft-amused gun owner who can be counted on to joke about knives at gun fights - a joke that belies and only underscores the emptiness of the counter-suggestion that we control everything else that can kill too exactly as if it were a gun.

Mass shootings can be counted on to cause more fearful societies and reactive governments, a bad combination if there ever was one. Of particular concern to me is the call for more controls and registration of people who suffer mental illness - from both gun advocates and control advocates. I cannot think of anything that will keep and drive the mentally ill even further into the shadows (especially gun owners) than knowing they'll be in a special government data-base dedicated just to them. I expect governments will actually perceive a benefit to keeping them in the shadows because nothing keeps the issue of mental health out of a budget better than it's invisibility.

All this so people can maintain an attachment to their guns that's comparable to Gollum and his Precious. Gun owners should do the decent thing and either lead, follow or get out of the way.

Good luck with that.

[jbg]

So if we need to take an ill persons gun away, which i admit would be good in a perfect world, do we take away anything and everything else they could use as a weapon? That mentally ill individual who decapitated a stranger on a bus didn't do it with a gun.

But he didn't decapitate many people at once.

As I've posted previously I think we overall have a mental health problem more than a gun problem. And I think that stems from the fact that many people, possibly excepting the family of the ill person, doesn't seek out mentally ill people and check out how they're doing. In the case of reclusive mentally ill people such as Jared Lochner, James Holmes and Adam Lanza what we don't know can hurt us.

If they were appropriately treated and/or confined the choice of weaponry would be irrelevant.

[GostHacked]

I don't think we need to prohibit the ownership of guns but I do think better controls regarding access is called for and certainly in the U.S. I think we should be applying our technology and developing smarter guns and putting GPS chips in guns so they can be tracked and set off alarms when appropriate and so on. I think almost all guns should be stored at armouries or the gun-clubs and shooting ranges they're used in and hunting rifles when checked out should be outfitted with GPS. Few people question the wisdom of constantly keeping up the effort and pressure to make cars or planes safer and death and injury has definitely gone down as a result. With guns however any change that might prevent death and injury comes at a glacial pace that is reminiscent of attempts to change the constitution or reform the senate or end prohibition.

What do you think GPS will solve? it's just another unreasonable attempt at gun control. I will say that some form of gun control is good, but what we are seeing is a case where everyone is actually responsible with a gun is being punished for the actions of a few. And this will always be the case.

Damn I'd love do save you but my gun won't fire being in this GPS enabled restricted zone. The gun just won't fire!. No worries, criminals will always find a way around it. Always have, always will.

After 9/11 you saw tighter controls at airports. Has it solved the problem of international terrorism? No. Has it reduced the risk of a terror attack? Not one bit.

As for comparing guns to knives...tell it to the oft-amused gun owner who can be counted on to joke about knives at gun fights - a joke that belies and only underscores the emptiness of the counter-suggestion that we control everything else that can kill too exactly as if it were a gun.

What I have said, and others have chimed in as well, is the mental state of many of these people who commit these crimes. The possibility of a crime is still there no matter if you take the gun away or not. Sure knives may not be as deadly, compared to a gun, but that still does not talk about what is making these people do these things in the first place?

Mass shootings can be counted on to cause more fearful societies and reactive governments, a bad combination if there ever was one. Of particular concern to me is the call for more controls and registration of people who suffer mental illness - from both gun advocates and control advocates. I cannot think of anything that will keep and drive the mentally ill even further into the shadows (especially gun owners) than knowing they'll be in a special government data-base dedicated just to them. I expect governments will actually perceive a benefit to keeping them in the shadows because nothing keeps the issue of mental health out of a budget better than it's invisibility.

I have a problem with a person with mental disabilities to own a firearm. You need to treat those people before a gun can be put in their hand. I am sure there are some grey areas, but in cases where it is clear cut that the person is not of a mental state conducive to safe use of a firearm, they should be denied.

This does not push them farther into the shadows. It's reasonable to screen people better and deny based on a certain mental state.

All this so people can maintain an attachment to their guns that's comparable to Gollum and his Precious. Gun owners should do the decent thing and either lead, follow or get out of the way.

They are trying to lead, but the government does not want to listen. The government would love to see the gun owners get out of the way so they can follow. And then the USA can follow in the footsteps of the UK and Australia. No that guns are banned for the most part., criminals LOVE this as they won't encounter as much resistance when they are committing crimes.

The government would rather deal with the guns than deal with the huge mental health issue that seems to be common among these mass shootings. Only in these mass shootings do people pay attention or the media whores themselves out for ratings.

Is there any real reason to have kids that have not even hit their teens yet to put them on brain numbing drugs like Ritalin?

[Guest American Woman]

'American Sniper' author killed at Texas gun range

Ex-Navy SEAL Chris Kyle and one other man fatally shot, sheriff says

The motive for the shooting was unclear.

There are unconfirmed reports that Kyle and Littlefield were helping a veteran with post-traumatic stress disorder when they were shot.

If that part is on track, does it make any sense to anyone except for gun nut whackado's to take someone with PTSD to a gun range in the first place?

Evidently it's not all that uncommon to take someone with PTSD to a shooting range:

Former soldiers and veterans groups have said that trips to gun ranges are a common form of therapy for vets struggling with PTSD.

Shooting - and becoming re-accustomed to loud sounds -- can be cathartic for vets who have spent time in war zones, veterans groups say.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/sniper-killer-traded-soul-victims-new-truck-article-1.1255561#ixzz2K3uXqnoD

[Guest Derek L]

Evidently it's not all that uncommon to take someone with PTSD to a shooting range:

Former soldiers and veterans groups have said

that trips to gun ranges are a common form of therapy for vets struggling with PTSD.

Shooting - and becoming re-accustomed to loud sounds -- can be cathartic for vets who have spent time in war zones, veterans groups say.

Read more: http://www.nydailyne...1#ixzz2K3uXqnoD

Fine, take them to gun ranges, but Christ don‘t give them guns, the alleged killer had been in and out of a mental hospital after threatening to kill himself and others for months…….I don’t begrudge Kyle for attempting to help his fellow vet, but obviously this further illustrates why crazy people shouldn’t have guns.