rootX said:Cannot same people who determine whether a person is fit for punishment also determine who is unfit? There will be mistakes but ignoring the mental health issue just seems absurd to me after seeing a series of consecutive massacres all sharing the same root cause.
On positive side:
1) There will be more awareness among Americans about mental health
2) You would less likely to see a mad person shooting in public places
3) People who are not healthy will not live in denial but rather seek help than just ignoring and wasting all their life in dark
rootX said:I never said declaring people criminals based on a prediction. Rather, all I said that taking guns from hands of people who shouldn't have them. The people who are unhealthy can unlikely use them for their protection or for any other intent that American founders had.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_4473Wikipedia.org said:Form 4473 contains name, address, date of birth, government-issued photo ID, National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) background check transaction number, make/model/serial number of the firearm, and a short federal affidavit stating that the purchaser is eligible to purchase firearms under federal law.
ATF Form 4473 said:Have you even been adjudicated mentally defective, (which includes a determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that you are a danger to yourself or to others, or are incompetent to manage your own affairs) OR have you ever been committed to a mental institution? (See instructions for question 11.f.)
ATF Form 4473 said:Question 11.f. Adjudicated Mentally Defective: A determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease: (1) is a danger to himself or to others; or (2) lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs. This term shall include: (1) a finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case; and (2) Those persons found incompetent to stand trial or found not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility.
rootX said:If these people can escape their punishments for being schizophrenia[1] why they should be given lethal weapons that can be used to harm innocent lives. It's similar to letting a blind person drive a car.
rootX said:Yes, it will never be possible to prevent all freshly blooming nuts (looking at all past incidents however none of them was freshly bloomed when they went on rage) from getting guns. But at least, the mental health should be given a consideration when legally handling person a gun.
ATF Form 4473 said:11.b. Are you under indictment or information in any court for a felony, or any other crime, for which the judge could imprison you for more than one year? (See Instructions for Question 11.b.)
11.c. Have you ever been convicted in any court of a felony, or any other crime, for which the judge could have imprisoned you for more than one year, even if you received a shorter sentence including probation? (See Instructions for Question 11.c.)
11.d. Are you a fugitive from justice?
11.e. Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?
...
11.g. Have you been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions?
11.h. Are you subject to a court order restraining you from harassing, stalking, or threatening your child or an intimate partner or child of such partner? (See Instructions for Question 11.h.)
11.i. Have you ever been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence? (See Instructions for Question 11.i.)
RTTNews) - Former University of Colorado student James Holmes was referred to a threat team at his school weeks before he killed 12 people in a deadly theater shooting, throwing new onus on the institution.
Holmes, 24, was seeing school psychiatrist Dr. Lynne Fenton in the week's leading up to the shooting. Fenton, alarmed by Holmes and worried about a possible violent streak, warned the school's Behavioral Evaluation and Threat Assessment (BETA) team, the Denver Post reported this week.
The team was set up by Fenton in 2010 to help pinpoint possible violent students and alert the school to them before an incident could take place.
Pkruse said:I guess the simple answer to the original question is:
“Nothing useful.”
You are contradicting yourself. You can't know if someone shouldn't have a gun until they do something wrong. You're declaring: 'If we give you a gun, you might/will use it to commit a crime, so you can't have one.' That's deciding ahead of time to limit a right based on a crime that hasn't been committed yet.rootX said:I never said declaring people criminals based on a prediction. Rather, all I said that taking guns from hands of people who shouldn't have them. The people who are unhealthy can unlikely use them for their protection or for any other intent that American founders had.
You're suggesting we send everyone who tries to buy a gun to see a psychologist or take a test that includes mental competency prior to buying a gun; in order to try to predict if they might use the gun to commit a crime. How does that jive with your first sentence I quoted?But at least, the mental health should be given a consideration when legally handing person a gun.
Repeating it doesn't make it any more true or less nonsensical than the first time you said it. Again, you don't know if someone is a murderer until they commit a murder and what you are suggesting also limits the freedom of those innocents.I don't understand why freedom of a nut is more valuable than innocent lives.
So you exaggerated because this issue upsets you. Fine. I'm glad you are self-aware enough to recognize that. But this is why I don't like changing policy based on a traumatic event. People have a tendency to not behave rationally after a traumatic event and the law needs to be rational.Reason I said innocent lives are priceless because they are more way more valuable than these nuts freedom or lives from my personal opinion as you already said "the scales are generally tipped far toward life".
Yes I might have been exaggerating because of the anger.
Just for clarity, I do want increased gun control in the US. Why don't these mass shootings make me angry and want it even more? Simple: I'm less emotionally driven than you are so I recognize that these events don't change anything.Seeing these shootings one after another and yet complete inaction from the government, why wouldn't you be angry?
As I said above, I do want increased gun control. What you are not getting is that recent events do not point to any additional need that wasn't already there three weeks ago and that taking quick action based on preventing specific crimes that already happened from happening again can lead to making rash decisions, such as additional compromises in freedom that may prove unnecessary with a more rational analysis.Government inaction was the main reason I started this thread. I feel occurrence of the same cause behind these incidents is bit too much to be ignored. You likely will have different ways to dealing with the issue but yet you and others seem to be ignoring that there is an issue.
edward said:In many cases there is no positive way to identify a menatlly ill person until after the fact. Trying to do it by having them fill out a form is a joke.
edward said:The federal laws and State laws are a jungle of contradictions. Primarily it appears that one of two elements must be present in regards to mental illness.
1. The person has been adjudicated to be incompetent to manage his own affairs.
2. The person has been involuntarily committed to a mental health facility.
Agreed:edward said:I just am amazed at the apples and oranges comparisons I am seeing posted here. In many cases there is no positive way to identify a menatlly ill person until after the fact. Trying to do it by having them fill out a form is a joke.
rootX said:You cannot price innocent people lives who just are enjoying their day at their school, watching a movie and having a peaceful religious gathering. Lives of people who never did anything wrong to others are priceless and these lives shouldn't be compromised just to give some psycho or neo-nazi freedom to do whatever he pleases. But, of-course this is a personal opinion.
I'm working on a more detailed analysis, but real quick:Pkruse said:Mech Engr: Yes I read the posts. Lots of good thinking and discussion. Certainly much has Ben done, but I'd argue that it is all non effective window dressing designed to make people feel good rather than address the problem. It is still easy for anyone to get a gun, and to use it in any way they desire.
russ_watters said:He was thwarted from further shooting by a failed attempt to reload that gave victims an opportunity to take him down. Thus it is reasonable to conclude that if the assault weapons ban had still been in effect, its ban on magazines above 10 round capacity could have prevented 12 people from being shot.
At present, our mental health care system is so fractured, with followup so unreliable, information so scattered and authority granted to psychiatrists so meager, that those with delusions, even those who have expressed the desire and intent to kill others, falling through the cracks isn't the exception; it's the rule.
rootX said:But, I only wanted to know about if something is being done and how successful the government has been in tackling the gun-violence issue)
CAC1001 said:One other point I thought I'd make (which has also been addressed to some degree in this thread already in the talk about mentally ill people), which has been pointed out by the columnist Charles Krauthammer, is that we as a society have taken the view that it is better to have lots of legitimately mentally ill people out loose in society so as to prevent the few sane people who could be wrongly locked up from ending up so. This was due to a change in the civil rights laws due to I think a SCOTUS case in the 1980s from groups such as the ACLU that changed these laws around. Beforehand, a person like a Jared Loughner for example, would have been committed into an institution, as so many knew he was mentally ill. Because of the laws now though, until the person does something bad, they can't be committed.
CAC1001 said:Aside from the "high-capacity magazines" (I put that in quotes because I wouldn't say anything over 10 rounds means high capacity, it depends), the AWB banned weapons based on their cosmetic features. According to the proponents of the AWB, having certain types of grips and barrel coverings and so forth makes the weapon more dangerous or deadly. The counter-argument (also the view I hold) is that that's like the difference between giving a set of crappy golf clubs to a person who can golf versus a set of decent clubs. They'll be able to hit the ball with either, it's just the decent clubs will be better-made. A lot of media reports have said it would have made the AR-15 James Holmes used illegal, but that's a misconception, as it never outlawed the AR-15. At most, it would have outlawed certain cosmetics of the AR-15 Holmes had.
You also can improvise, I mean if you want to fire forty rounds and have only ten round magazines, you could carry four pistols, and just shift to a different pistol upon using up the ammunition in one.
The Assault Weapons Ban didn't stop the guys in the 1997 North Hollywood shootout, who had assault rifles (automatic fire weapons) and large capacity magazines. California has an AWB, but it didn't stop a gang member in 2005 from pulling out an SKS assault rifle (which had to be converted (the SKS is a semi-automatic rifle), itself something that isn't easy to do as the weapons have to be manufactured where you can't just easily convert them), with a large capacity magazine and armor-piercing rounds which are only supposed to be available to law enforcement and the military, and which I believe you need a special license to even manufacture them.
edward said:This is apples and oranges again. Any weapon that can be used to commit mass murder is an assault weapon. The previous description of grips and bayonet attachment is ludacris now. Holmes used an AR15 with a 100 round rotary magazine. Luckily it jammed. How many shots were fired was never disclosed.
Ironically that is probably what a sane person would think of doing...
Those guys were criminals and knew exactly what they were doing and why. They also knew where and how to obtain the weapons, which were most likely very expensive unless they stole the weapons themselves.
A person who goes off of the deep end isn't going to be able to do that. Even that is a moot point now that slide stocks and 100 round magazines are available for purchase online.
SixNein said:The problem with many weapons available on the market is the large risk that they impose to the public. A person can rush a crowed with an assault rifle and kill large amounts of people before anyone has the ability to respond. In my opinion, these weapons are primarily offensive.
On a side note, I don't understand the whole "intent of the founding fathers" argument. Their intent was based on a situation entirely different then ours. If they were writing the constitution today, I'm willing to bet it would be different.
A normal person wouldn't do that. It's either terrorists or mad people who are behind these kinds of attacks IMO. It's interesting to note that while guns are widely available but Al-Qaeda has never managed to use them in the US. The point is that it's not that easy to kill large amounts of people even when you are very determined. Waking one morning and feeling like playing with your gun in public is bit easier as the recent massacres suggest.SixNein said:The problem with many weapons available on the market is the large risk that they impose to the public. A person can rush a crowed with an assault rifle and kill large amounts of people before anyone has the ability to respond. In my opinion, these weapons are primarily offensive.
CAC1001 said:Remember, assault rifles are not available for sale. And any gun can be used offensively. A gun is gun is a gun generally, they're machinery capable of killing
Of course it was different. Just look at the way war was conducted then and now. In addition, compare a gun 300 years ago to a modern machine gun. If you are going to argue "Anything can kill; therefore, guns", you might as well extend that argument to the right to own nukes. Nukes don't kill people, people kill people right?Was it?
There are plenty of Westernized countries that, given enough economic crisis and radical politics, could experience another tyrannical government. Modern liberal democracies do not make obsolete the right to bear arms regarding a tyrannical government. In the United States, it sounds incredibly rare because of how stable our system is and how large our country is (such an instance would probably lead to another civil war if it really happened). But rare doesn't make it impossible.
Also, the concept of the right to bear arms was not created by the Founding Fathers. A lot of people think the right for people to bear arms was a novel concept because of the war they'd just fought with England, but actually, the right to bear arms goes back to the English Bill of Rights from 1689. By the time the Constitution was being written, the idea that people have a fundamental right to bear arms was something that was considered as normal then as our idea that people have a right to free speech and freedom of religion and so forth today is.
The question was over whether to codify it into the Constitution or not. In terms of what the Founders meant by the word "arms," they meant weapons commonly owned by law-abiding citizens that they would be expected to muster to milita conscription with. At the time, the weapons used for war, hunting, personal protection, etc...were pretty much the same, and really to a good degree, that is still the case. Yes, there are guns designed solely for hunting, but there are plenty of guns used for all of these things, and military guns can easily be adopted for hunting (they make some of the best hunting weapons) and of course for personal protection purposes, and hunting guns can be adopted for military purposes as I've pointed out.
The difference today is that in addition to handguns, rifles, and shotguns, the military has a whole slew of additional weapons that didn't exist before, that are not commonly owned by citizens (tanks, bombs, aircraft, etc...). Now if one wants to say that citizens should have a right to those to be able to stand up to a modern tyrannical government,
well that would require amending the Constitution as interpreting the Second Amendment as covering that would likely be a form of right-wing judicial activism as you are stretching the meaning of the word "arms." The left-wing judicial activist argument is that the word arms only meant weapons of the time and not modern weapons, but by that argument, then one could say the First Amendment doesn't apply to modern forms of free speech and the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply against modern forms of search and seizure.
rootX said:A normal person wouldn't do that. It's either terrorists or mad people who are behind these kinds of attacks IMO. It's interesting to note that while guns are widely available but Al-Qaeda has never managed to use them in the US. The point is that it's not that easy to kill large amounts of people even when you are very determined. Waking one morning and feeling like playing with your gun in public is bit easier as the recent massacres suggest.
Are you American? That's an odd thing to not understand:SixNein said:On a side note, I don't understand the whole "intent of the founding fathers" argument. Their intent was based on a situation entirely different then ours. If they were writing the constitution today, I'm willing to bet it would be different.
That's a very difficult question. The answer can include some facts and logic, but also includes a significant component of opinion. Much is made of the fact that the US has a higher gun murder rate than most other western countries. Seems to indicate a problem. Trouble is, we also have a much higher car accident death rate. Is that also a symptom of a problem? To really answer that question, we have to investigate why and what we get out of it (ie, more miles driven = more deaths).How many people dying do you think is reasonable? What is your tolerance?
SixNein said:You seem to have missed the point. My overall point is that public risk is a big factor in the discussion. So when we talk about what guns and components should or should not be available to the public, we should consider how much risk is involved. Yes any gun can kill; however, guns have different capabilities to kill over a period of time. And according to those rates, they can benefit offensive use over defensive use. For example, how does a machine gun empower gangs and lone wolf individuals compared to legally abiding citizens?
Of course it was different. Just look at the way war was conducted then and now. In addition, compare a gun 300 years ago to a modern machine gun. If you are going to argue "Anything can kill; therefore, guns", you might as well extend that argument to the right to own nukes. Nukes don't kill people, people kill people right?
Gun ownership isn't going to stop a tyrannical government. Instead, education is the real protection from such things.
What did arms mean then compared to now? In a basic nutshell, you are comparing apples to oranges.
We are a nuclear power with a gigantic military. We have weak neighbors and we are flanked by fish. The whole argument that we need these guns in the domestic area in case we get invaded is simply risible.
Ideas are more dangerous to tyrannical governments then guns. Your not going to win any kind of rebellion unless the majority is on your side. Unless of course, the international community steps into help.
The word "arms" as expressed in the constitution did mean arms of the day. The question for us to resolve is how should we interpret that today in light of new technologies and the realities of our time? For the most part, this is a job for the supreme court. But the legislator could clarify it.
russ_watters said:That's a very difficult question. The answer can include some facts and logic, but also includes a significant component of opinion. Much is made of the fact that the US has a higher gun murder rate than most other western countries. Seems to indicate a problem. Trouble is, we also have a much higher car accident death rate. Is that also a symptom of a problem? To really answer that question, we have to investigate why and what we get out of it (ie, more miles driven = more deaths).
CAC1001 said:To expand on those points, Japan has a significantly lower gun violence rate than the European countries, even though all have restrictive gun laws. And most of the gun violence in the U.S. occurs in the inner cities between gangs. If we could stop the gang violence in the major cities, it would reduce America's gun violence rate by an astronomical amount. The causes of the gang violence is a wholly separate issue though.
So then we should think about the Now implications of having a gun policy that is based partly/largely on a highly improbable possibility. Is it worth it?CAC1001 said:And yeah I know all that is a highly-improbably scenario, but highly improbable doesn't mean impossible.
That was one of the purposes of the militia.Arms then as the Founders intended meant the weapons commonly owned by citizens that would be used to form up a militia.
Where did I ever say we needed guns for fear of invasion?
And knives. And a list of other objects too long to fit in this post.Curious3141 said:An incident like that simply would not have happened if civilians were barred from owning and carrying guns (and the law was strictly enforced).