"Lizzie Borden had an axe and gave her mother forty whacks, and then when she was done, she gave her father forty-one"

Obviously guns were not her problem. Nut cases will use whatever is available to harm others when they go off the rails. Jared Lee Loughner who shot Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and others in Arizona,  James Holmes who murdered the theatergoers in Aurora, Colorado,  and Adam Lanza the perpetrator of the Sandy Hook Elememtary School shootings all had something in common, they were all obviously wild-eyed lunatics that anyone with a brain in their head would have noticed. But because of political correctness and laws protecting crazies from being institutionalized against their wills, they were ignored until they committed their horrific crimes. Adam Lanza's own mother was herself complicit because she bought the assault rifle and handguns for her obviously mentally deranged son. Until we are willing to address the actual cause of these mass murders rather than opposing the ownership of inanimate objects by legal owners nothing will change, in which case then axes should then be banned.

And what do you do about suicide bombers or guys like Timothy McVeigh (Oklahoma City Bombing) who can build bombs with fairly common and easy to get materials.

Quote from: SarahM777 on January 12, 2013, 05:31:33 PM
And what do you do about suicide bombers or guys like Timothy McVeigh (Oklahoma City Bombing) who can build bombs with fairly common and easy to get materials.

That's another issue entirely and BTW - those materials are no longer so easily accessible. Purchases of large amounts of ammonium nitrate and nitromethane are now controlled items.

Quote from: Shantel on January 12, 2013, 05:18:27 PM
But because of political correctness and laws protecting crazies from being institutionalized against their wills, they were ignored until they committed their horrific crimes.

It's not just "political correctness." Many of the uninstitutionalized here in CA are out due to policies enacted by Gov. Ronald Reagan to "cut costs." These shootings are definitely a mental health issue. But conservatives generally don't want to see monies spent on addressing these concerns.

Quote from: Constance on January 12, 2013, 05:55:13 PM
It's not just "political correctness." Many of the uninstitutionalized here in CA are out due to policies enacted by Gov. Ronald Reagan to "cut costs." These shootings are definitely a mental health issue. But conservatives generally don't want to see monies spent on addressing these concerns.

I'll concede that was a huge mistake and although it may seem awfully mean of me to bring this up it seemed to me in retrospect that the negative intent of that decision may have come back to haunt him later as he suffered and died with Alzheimers. Other than that I liked him because he was able to unite both parties rather than the disunity we are experiencing now.

There is no tidy solution to the gun issue, and the best hope we're going to have is one with a nuanced approach.  I think it'd be bad if hunting was suddenly turned into an underground activity, the possibility of someone having a concealed gun may put some amount of fear into a person (who illegally possesses a gun) who might pull a gun on another, and leaning too hard on "mental fitness" for restrictions can unjustly discriminate against various subgroups in the population (TGs are more likely to classified as having disorders, and that may be used to more often deny them guns) as well as discourage people with mental problems from getting professional help (as seeking help can lead to a documentation of their mental state and reduce their rights/privileges).  On the other hand: having laws that give people easy access to guns where they might abuse it is bad (no waiting periods facilitate "hot-blooded" murder, guns in bars gives weapons to people while they are intoxicated and have compromised judgment), background checks can identify people who have abused weapons in the past, "open carry" laws makes it easier for would-be gun-abusers to identify when they can ~safely pull their guns on someone, teachers carrying guns is impractical due to them constantly being surrounded by students (and a teacher who moves around the classroom cannot guarantee their gun remains secured while fully focusing on teaching), and there is simply not enough armed security to go around to secure all the schools/malls/theaters/etc from someone with the element of surprise and the advantage of striking during a moment of greatest vulnerability (Fort Hood was attacked effectively by a lone individual, and Fort Hood is a place with lots of people who have guns and who know how to use them).

Likewise, we can't selectively turn video games, TV, movies, and/or the news into the scapegoat(s) (like the NRA president does).  There is a lot of absolutely horrible content, but a lot of it is quite good, and it is not the sort of thing sorted out by counting the number of times the f-word is used or how many people are killed in a movie (and the first amendment limits what legal authorities can do to constrain them anyway).  Religion, economic (in)equality, human rights for social minorities, drugs, and interpersonal interaction also have complex effects on society.  We can call on the government to do some things to help set us on a better course, but a great deal of the onus is going to be on individuals (not just in terms of "personal responsibility," but also in terms of the world we create for others).

Quote from: Dee on January 12, 2013, 03:02:36 PM
I don't know where to start with this thread.

Where there are guns, there is more homicide:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

I also feel that altering gun control laws...

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

Criminals don't care about laws. Murder is illegal and making it more illegal won't stop a criminal from murdering. The Bath School bombing, Oklahoma City federal building bombing, "Happy Land" fire were all done without a firearm. If the goal is reducing murder by firearm ALL forms of violence must be addressed at the same time otherwise it's trading one bad thing for another.

I don't like guns and in Australia they are difficult to get unless you are an Outlaw Biker or some such. Yes they are available under licence for people who legitimately need them.

I wouldn't go fishing in the NT without a firearm, crocs are difficult to reason with and suffer no mental health issues.

But guns are very common in the USA and I cannot see any way that they will not continue to be so. I have to admit I find it odd that certain classes of weapon are available but that happens.

There is always going to be a knee jerk reaction to massacres and in the USA the campaign to get rid of the gun dependent mentality following the recent massacre is understandable. But in itself I cannot see it solving a problem.

In Australia there was a massive gun buy back after the Port Arthur massacre, a massacre that makes others fade in comparison. I do not mean that glibly or without heart felt pain for other people brutally murdered.

The removal of guns had very little effect on the possession of guns by criminals. By definition these people have no regard for the law so gun buy backs have no impact on them.

In the USA and in Australia we seem to have developed a mental health care system based on don't bother to do anything and we can out them in gaol when they get too crazy. It is a poor health model in my opinion.

There is also an acceptance of violence in the general community as a means of resolving problems.

This is not new by any means, and some will argue that society is less violent than it used to be. But the capacity for violence by an individual is compounded by the ability to obtain weapons that are designed to kill large numbers of people quickly.  That after all is the purpose of military grade weapons, they are designed to inflict the maximum damage in the shortest period of time. They really have no other function.

I have no answers to this complex and very difficult problem. One suggestion is that there needs to be a divorce of very powerful industrial lobby groups from government decisions. Difficult I know, but as long as the NRA pays for political power then their opinions cannot be seen in any useful way.

In Australia we have the same problem with the mining industry, they are massively powerful and any government intervention into controlling their activity will fail.

I see the USA has the same problem with the coal industry for example, 'Climate change? what climate change?'

But I feel this is an area that needs to be discussed.

What is the government for? Is it to rule the country for the benefit of the individual or for the conglomerate mass, that in turn is uninterested in individual rights.

Sorry if this was a bit long but I enjoyed thinking through the issues while I was putting them down

Cindy

Quote from: peky on January 12, 2013, 11:32:06 AM
88% of Americans own a gun, statistically speaking,...seems to be the will of the free people to own a gun my friend

"Statistically speaking" being key; but I rather imagine that you are above trying to fool people with statistics, pardner. In America there are about 88.9 guns per 100 people, but the actual number of households with guns hovers around 45%.

Quote from: Incarnadine on January 12, 2013, 11:57:11 AM
Then the 2nd Amendment has been successful!  The animal of tyranny has been unable to rear its head because the bigger animal of an armed population has kept it in check.

Someone has said that the beauty of the 2nd Amendment isn't needed until they try to take it away. 

It doesn't always happen that a tyrant arises, but a disarmed population cannot stop that tyrant if he does.  The same with crime - just because a citizen isn't armed doesn't mean he will become a victim, but if he is armed, he can be protected from becoming a victim.

I can only recall the rise of one tyrant in American history, and he successfully quelled the rebellion against him... regardless - if you are suggesting that the murders of tens of thousands of innocent children, friends, family members, and folks otherwise minding their own business is an acceptable trade-off, in order to keep the number of imaginary tyrants in check... well then - voila! I reckon we can quit worrying about it now... and the next time a bunch of kindergarteners get their brains sprayed across a chalkboard we'll just drape little American flags on their coffins and say, "Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori."

Seems legit.

Secondarily, it was mentioned somewhere (maybe not in this thread - I can't remember...) that the outcome in Aurora (sp?) may have been different had folks in the theatre been armed... I got to thinking about that some, and I imagine that the outcome would have been considerably different: suppose ten folks in there were packing... gun fire erupts... return fire ensues... who are you gonna shoot? The guy dressed like a swat team member, or just fire in every direction that you perceive gun shots to be originating from? All this amidst a panicked mass of people... my best guess is that everyone in that theatre would have died if there were more folks there with guns. 

I'm not actually against gun-ownership - but we truly need to review that right in a reasonable way.

Wounded Knee

Alright, so far everyone has missed the point of the topic of this thread entirely. It's all about how the media and press has abrogated it's responsibility to report events that might counter their obviously skewed desire to purposefully ignore any story contrary to their agenda. They learned well from the former Soviet Union which used disinformation to control the masses, even now the editorial board at Pravda are laughing at Americans for their sheepishness knowing full well that they have just extricated themselves from the very place we are now headed. Read the article and lets have some comments about the media and drop the stupid mantra about those awful guns.

On Sunday December 17, 2012, 2 days after the CT shooting, a man went to a restaurant in San Antonio to kill his X-girlfriend. After he shot her, most of the people in the restaurant fled next door to a theater. The gunman followed them and entered the theater so he could shoot more people. He started shooting and people in the theater started running and screaming. It's like the Aurora, CO theater story plus a restaurant!

Now aren't you wondering why this isn't a lead story in the national media along with the school shooting?

There was an off duty county deputy at the theater. SHE pulled out her gun and shot the man 4 times before he had a chance to kill anyone. So since this story makes the point that the best thing to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun, the media is treating it like it never happened.

Only the local media covered it. The city is giving her a medal next week. Just thought you'd like to know.

I don't know that folks in this thread have missed the point entirely- I believe Peky raises a number of questions about whether and why we should carry guns.  But you are right, not much conversation about how the media handled the NM story.

The most I can say about this point, is that media industry personnel use their intuition with what and how they report any story.  And please don't read this as a defense of their morality- sometimes this intuition is to avoid association with an unpopular message which might prevent greater career opportunities.  Other times, it's like what you mentioned Shantel: stop a story dead in it's tracks in attempt to curb behavior.

I can easily see a national journalist being conflicted with something like the NM story- do we want to influence the attitude that we should carry weapons, in case we need to become vigilant?  Does the weight of that decision define and, to an extent, deteriorate the integrity of our journalism?  As a media professional, I can tell you this is something I struggle with:

Quote from: Sadie May on January 13, 2013, 09:23:05 AM

Secondarily, it was mentioned somewhere (maybe not in this thread - I can't remember...) that the outcome in Aurora (sp?) may have been different had folks in the theatre been armed... I got to thinking about that some, and I imagine that the outcome would have been considerably different: suppose ten folks in there were packing... gun fire erupts... return fire ensues... who are you gonna shoot? The guy dressed like a swat team member, or just fire in every direction that you perceive gun shots to be originating from? All this amidst a panicked mass of people... my best guess is that everyone in that theatre would have died if there were more folks there with guns. 

I'm not actually against gun-ownership - but we truly need to review that right in a reasonable way.

Because this isn't an unrealistic scenario.  To never pull a trigger, and feel responsible for fostering that type of culture.

[And just because I can never tell how my tone comes off: it's a very personal topic to many of us here, but I think highly of each of your comments and arguments.  Hugs to everyone!  Just please don't poke me with your pistol  ]

  I the past few years I've been looking at the Glock webpage.  This is not due to my TG condition, but the deteriorating conditions in my neighborhood.  The only several times since my '71 navy boot camp days I handled firearms was at the cabin is when others brought them in.  I rather shoot with my camera.  However, I often reason off of buying a gun is the fact that it will not defend against a shot in the back. 

  Joelene

Quote from: Shantel on January 12, 2013, 01:13:29 PM
According to BATFE there are upwards of 300,000,000 guns out in the U.S. you're going to ban them. So what will that accomplish? How will you suggest that they all be found? When that happens will anyone other than the murderers and miscreants have a firearm of their own? Just how will banning anything work? The government banned illegal drugs, and at one time booze, how did that work out?

The part in bold was also brought up by my dad.  To ban all of the guns in the U.S. and to enforce that ban would involve going door-to-door with a police force [not everyone is going to be willing to go to the town hall to hand over their guns] and possibly a military force.  That's the making of a police state right there.  Plus what about the families who rely on guns for food?  How is the government going to remove guns in rural areas?  How are they going to fund this forced removal?

Then you have the issues of criminals.  Criminals don't care if something is illegal.  They're going to do what they want when they want.

Anyway, back on topic.

I don't personally own a gun, but my dad has several [for hunting though he wouldn't hesitate to use it if someone broke into the house].  I plan on owning a gun when I'm out on my own for protection.  I won't carry it around everywhere as I don't trust myself not to accidentally shoot myself because I tripped or something, but it will be nicely secured and ready for use beside my bed just in case someone breaks into my home.

As a someone who has looked at teaching, I wouldn't carry a gun if I was teaching at a school that allowed it.  The thought of there being approximately 30 kids in the classroom and there being a gun disturbs me.  30 kids can easily overpower a teacher if it got into their heads to do so.  The gun could also cause trust issues if the students found out about it and trust is something that is key when it comes to teaching.

Edit:

On the topic of the media covering news inaccurately, that happens a lot.  It's one reason I never trust the media for my sole source of information.  They also "sensationalize" every single thing that they cover, and they pick-and-choose what they cover.  It's why you see so many negative things in the news about guns.  They choose to cover that and not any story where someone benefited from a gun.

Quote from: Cindy James on January 13, 2013, 03:46:41 AMIn the USA and in Australia we seem to have developed a mental health care system based on don't bother to do anything and we can out them in gaol when they get too crazy. It is a poor health model in my opinion.

My mother a very traditional US Liberal Democrat said exactly the same thing.  The mental health care system is totally broken.  We have no mechanism to address the truly needy including some who need commitment against their will.   We can fix anything that is included on a mental health insurance rider--at least as long as the coverage lasts.  The mental health market has moved to where there is a viable cash flow.

I understand those who find firearms reassuring.  Finding solutions for the disassociated prior to their flipping over the edge would be a worthwhile project. 

Quote from: mistressstevie on January 13, 2013, 08:57:25 PM
My mother a very traditional US Liberal Democrat said exactly the same thing.  The mental health care system is totally broken.  We have no mechanism to address the truly needy including some who need commitment against their will.   We can fix anything that is included on a mental health insurance rider--at least as long as the coverage lasts.  The mental health market has moved to where there is a viable cash flow.

I understand those who find firearms reassuring.  Finding solutions for the disassociated prior to their flipping over the edge would be a worthwhile project.

Very good point Misstressstevie...perhaps a certificate of sanity issued by a psychiatrist should be required to purchase, own, and carry any kind of firearm..this should include the military and police...food for thought, comments?

Quote from: peky on January 14, 2013, 03:50:50 PM
Very good point Misstressstevie...perhaps a certificate of sanity issued by a psychiatrist should be required to purchase, own, and carry any kind of firearm..this should include the military and police...food for thought, comments?

That sounds like a good idea to me. And considering the recent judgement against the drunk DC cop who shot 3 transwomen, shooting under the influence should carry a stiffer penalty.

Quote from: DianaP on January 14, 2013, 04:05:43 PM
Considering the fact that the damage is so extensive and all guns can't be taken back, that's probably the best path. Then again, I never bought into psychiatric evaluations (I would fail every time  ). After all, on the ink blot test, the guy asked me what I saw and...



...two welders flipping up their masks and eating the eyeballs off of a clown while simultaneously high-fiving. The one on the left ate it faster, causing a trail of blood on the left side of the clown's face.



... two giant birds from a mad scientist's lab carrying a giant beetle that will replicate and eat all of the metal in a city, unless a ransom is paid to said scientist.



Mutant panda.

No gun..wait..no nail clippers for you girl!!!

Quote from: DianaP on January 14, 2013, 04:05:43 PM
Considering the fact that the damage is so extensive and all guns can't be taken back, that's probably the best path. Then again, I never bought into psychiatric evaluations (I would fail every time  ). After all, on the ink blot test, the guy asked me what I saw and...



...two welders flipping up their masks and eating the eyeballs off of a clown while simultaneously high-fiving. The one on the left ate it faster, causing a trail of blood on the left side of the clown's face.



... two giant birds from a mad scientist's lab carrying a giant beetle that will replicate and eat all of the metal in a city, unless a ransom is paid to said scientist.



Mutant panda.

Coronal sections through the the hind brain