Since Sandy Hook, 1,000 kids under age 12 have died from guns

[EuTuCroquet?]

bbm

Good idea. It's been shared several times in this thread, too.

Yeah huh.

BTW thanks for suggesting I look up some info on the number of mass shootings from your post #135 - I think that link Massshootingtracker.org is handy and contains a lot of useful info.

Will keep that link bookmarked.

 

[K_Z]

When I was stationed overseas, we had Armed Forces Radio and Television service on base (which we affectionately called A-Farts, lol). AFRTS doesn't have regular commercials-- they have public service announcements on the commercial breaks. Some of these are adverts for National Parks and monuments, and others are what I'd categorize as educational good advice. We laughed about a lot of them, such as the one "Your eyebrows, wear them with pride!" However, there were lots of educational PSAs about good health habits and safety-- the importance of wearing helmets while biking or on motorcycles, for example.

I really wish we had that on commercial channels in the U.S. because things like gun safety PSAs could reach a lot of people and children in their homes. Good habits are the result of education and reinforcement over time. We have to stop pretending guns are evil, and teach ALL adults and children about what they are, how they work, what to do if you encounter an unsecured firearm, etc. What could be the possible HARM of teaching SAFETY as a strategy to develop confidence in the whole population? What possible BAD thing could occur from teaching safety measures and respect for gun handling?? It astounds me that so many are so opposed to even TALKING and TEACHING about this subject. The inaccurate propaganda rules the airways and scares ignorant people unnecessarily because of the extreme bias of the media. Particularly the propaganda of manufactured scary terms, like "assault weapon". There is no such thing as an "assault weapon". Every weapon can potentially be an "assault weapon" if used to assault.

Education, education, education WILL make a difference in behavior, over time. WE have to stop pretending the goal is to limit or get rid of guns as the solution to criminality and accidents. We have to act to make improvements where we can, and accept the fact that guns are, and always will be, a part of American society. We have to reinforce safe ownership for those who want to own, but not pretend guns don't exist by people who don't want to own them.

Look at seatbelt use since the 1970s, child restraints, and helmets, as examples. We have made huge improvements in health and safety with seatbelts, mandated child restraint systems, and helmets-- which many people laughed at as unnecessary decades ago. Education DOES work to change behavior. We have to stop demonizing guns and gun owners, IMO. When we make that switch, we will see a decrease in child gun accidents, IMO. But it will take years of education, and lots of public acceptance. Just like carseats, helmets, and seatbelts.

We can't fix all the social problems of lunatics and criminals, but where ACCIDENTS take children's lives, we CAN make a difference, IMO.

 

[Jennifer17]

When I was stationed overseas, we had Armed Forces Radio and Television service on base (which we affectionately called A-Farts, lol). AFRTS doesn't have regular commercials-- they have public service announcements on the commercial breaks. Some of these are adverts for National Parks and monuments, and others are what I'd categorize as educational good advice. We laughed about a lot of them, such as the one "Your eyebrows, wear them with pride!" However, there were lots of educational PSAs about good health habits and safety-- the importance of wearing helmets while biking or on motorcycles, for example.

I really wish we had that on commercial channels in the U.S. because things like gun safety PSAs could reach a lot of people and children in their homes. Good habits are the result of education and reinforcement over time. We have to stop pretending guns are evil, and teach ALL adults and children about what they are, how they work, what to do if you encounter an unsecured firearm, etc. What could be the possible HARM of teaching SAFETY as a strategy to develop confidence in the whole population? What possible BAD thing could occur from teaching safety measures and respect for gun handling?? It astounds me that so many are so opposed to even TALKING and TEACHING about this subject. The inaccurate propaganda rules the airways and scares ignorant people unnecessarily because of the extreme bias of the media. Particularly the propaganda of manufactured scary terms, like "assault weapon". There is no such thing as an "assault weapon". Every weapon can potentially be an "assault weapon" if used to assault.

Education, education, education WILL make a difference in behavior, over time. WE have to stop pretending the goal is to limit or get rid of guns as the solution to criminality and accidents. We have to act to make improvements where we can, and accept the fact that guns are, and always will be, a part of American society. We have to reinforce safe ownership for those who want to own, but not pretend guns don't exist by people who don't want to own them.

Look at seatbelt use since the 1970s, child restraints, and helmets, as examples. We have made huge improvements in health and safety with seatbelts, mandated child restraint systems, and helmets-- which many people laughed at as unnecessary decades ago. Education DOES work to change behavior. We have to stop demonizing guns and gun owners, IMO. When we make that switch, we will see a decrease in child gun accidents, IMO. But it will take years of education, and lots of public acceptance. Just like carseats, helmets, and seatbelts.

We can't fix all the social problems of lunatics and criminals, but where ACCIDENTS take children's lives, we CAN make a difference, IMO.

Was that just education though, or laws passed?

 

[KaaBoom]

Many people have no concept of why our 2nd amendment exists. It exists not only to allow citizens to protect themselves and their families from violent crimes, but to allow citizens to protect themselves against a government that becomes fascist, brutal, or dictatorial.

Actually the first part, which most people totally ignore is the reason it exists. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." The Militia is what is now known as the National Guard. So the purpose is to make certain that nobody tries to disarm the National Guard. Study the history of it.

But forget about that for now. Assuming I'm wrong (which I am not) and you are right. It's propostris to think that Second Amendment supporters are defending against a tyrannical government. That is just absurd. Every single person who has ever taken up arms against the government in the last 241 years, has failed epically. No matter how many or what type of firearms you own, you will never be a match for your local police department, let alone the United States Government. And deep down, I don't believe you really believe that is the reason for owning guns.

So it is nothing but a smokescreen for another agenda.

 

[Jennifer17]

Actually the first part, which most people totally ignore is the reason it exists. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." The Militia is what is now known as the National Guard. So the purpose is to make certain that nobody tries to disarm the National Guard. Study the history of it.

But forget about that for now. Assuming I'm wrong (which I am not) and you are right. It's propostris to think that Second Amendment supporters are defending against a tyrannical government. That is just absurd. Every single person who has ever taken up arms against the government in the last 241 years, has failed epically. No matter how many or what type of firearms you own, you will never be a match for your local police department, let alone the United States Government. And deep down, I don't believe you really believe that is the reason for owning guns.

So it is nothing but a smokescreen for another agenda.

BBM. And who decides what a tyrannical government is?

 

[KaaBoom]

BBM


Not all people of legally owned guns are mentally ill though.

No, but easy access to firearms, and little to no mental health services, is the cause of what we are seeing.

 

[K_Z]

Was that just education though, or laws passed?

Some of both. We've made lots of progress with education in areas such as decreasing teen pregnancies (exponentially fewer than 30 years ago), and things like DARE education in schools. Gun safety education should be just like DARE education, IMO. I'm good with writing into law some basic and ongoing requirements for gun education in K-12. But as I said earlier, the real wrangling would be over "what" the education specifically includes, just like sex ed, birth control, "alternative lifestyle" indoctrination, etc. Competing political agendas would likely water down the objective safety content so that it had no real value.

 

[Jennifer17]

)Some of both. We've made lots of progress with education in areas such as decreasing teen pregnancies (exponentially fewer than 30 years ago, and things like DARE education in schools. Gun safety education should be just like DARE education, IMO. I'm good with writing into law some basic and ongoing requirements for gun education in K-12. But as I said earlier, the real wrangling would be over "what" the education specifically includes, just like sex ed, birth control, "alternative lifestyle" indoctrination, etc. Competing political agendas would likely water down the objective safety content so that it had no real value.

Bbm. I am guessing more laws than education. The drug education does not really seem to be working either, IMO.

 

[K_Z]

No, but easy access to firearms, and little to no mental health services, is the cause of what we are seeing.

I agree. Deinstitutionalization was an abject disaster for competent mental health care in the U.S. It was a completely, thoroughly incompetent and unrealistic proposal, IMO. Reform would have been *much* better.

Not everyone agrees that deinstitutionalization was a good thing. Torrey supports involuntary outpatient commitment as a long term management strategy (mostly because inpatient is not really available anymore).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Fuller_Torrey

 

[Jennifer17]

I agree. Deinstitutionalization was an abject disaster for competent mental health care in the U.S. It was a completely, thoroughly incompetent and unrealistic proposal, IMO. Reform would have been *much* better.

Not everyone agrees that deinstitutionalization was a good thing. Torrey supports involuntary outpatient commitment as a long term management strategy (mostly because inpatient is not really available anymore).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Fuller_Torrey

But really, only Adam Lanza was mentally ill enough to be institutionalised. The rest of the big mass shooters didn't really exhibit mental illness of a degree to be institutionalised.

 

[K_Z]

But really, only Adam Lanza was mentally ill enough to be institutionalised. The rest of the big mass shooters didn't really exhibit mental illness of a degree to be institutionalised.

No-- IMO, quite a few should have been involuntarily committed, and had dangerous behaviors for quite a long time before they murdered. I can think of half a dozen right off the top of my head.

This is why it's so critical, IMO, to categorize shootings into those that are careless/ negligent, those that are true accidents, those that are criminal homicidal behaviors, those that are ideological terrorists, and those with mental illness. Each has a different cause, and each requires a different strategy to make improvements.

 

[KaaBoom]

BBM. And who decides what a tyrannical government is?

You can remove the word "tyrannical", and just make it government. They all fail. The Oregon Militia guys tried it and failed. In 1861 half the country took up arms against the US Government, and failed. If that didn't work, John Doe and his gun collection certainly isn't going to be a match for a US Air Force smart bomb.

 

[KaaBoom]

But really, only Adam Lanza was mentally ill enough to be institutionalised. The rest of the big mass shooters didn't really exhibit mental illness of a degree to be institutionalised.

Mental health is half the problem. The other half is easy access to firearms. Addressing one, but not the other, would only solve half the problem. So as usual, we will address neither, and the spiral of gun violence will continue.

 

[kaen]

But really, only Adam Lanza was mentally ill enough to be institutionalised. The rest of the big mass shooters didn't really exhibit mental illness of a degree to be institutionalised.

The Virginia Tech shooter was mentally ill. The Aurora movie theater shooter was mentally ill. Gabby Giffords shooters mentally ill. (Here is a pie chart of killers with a history of mental illness--https://publicintelligence.net/mass-shootings-mental-illness/.)

 

[Jennifer17]

The Virginia Tech shooter was mentally ill. The Aurora movie theater shooter was mentally ill. Gabby Giffords shooters mentally ill. (Here is a pie chart of killers with a history of mental illness--https://publicintelligence.net/mass-shootings-mental-illness/.)

Oh yes, I get that they were mentally ill, but not everyone who is mentally ill shows symptoms serious enough for institutionalisation. Other countries have mentally ill people and a lack of long term institutional care. I would consider most of the Sandy Hook, conspiracy theorists mentally ill, but you can't lock them all up.

 

[K_Z]

If Adam Lanza had been involuntarily committed, and competently supervised 24/7, and medicated, as he should have been, he would not have had access to Nancy's guns. He would not have been allowed to live in her home, spiraling deeper and deeper into madness. Our very warped ideas about what constitutes "liberty" and civil rights are killing us. There is a time and a place to limit and supervise people who have very obvious dangerous behaviors and inclinations. There is an appropriate time to force mentally ill people to take medications that control their behavior. We are so afraid of "guessing wrong" about who the dangerous people are, that we do absolutely absurd things to prove how "enlightened" we are. How "tolerant" we are, how "accepting" we are of mental illness, criminality, and dangerous ideologies. So because we are unwilling to take on the hard task of deciding who is in need of supervision and involuntary commitment, we tacitly accept that a certain number of these people will harm themselves, and others.

Same with James Holmes, and others. But appropriate mandatory evaluation and mandatory supervision and treatment is very expensive and human resource intensive. The guns aren't the problem when lawfully and responsibly owned. The behaviors and mental state/ ideology of likely shooters is what is most relevant. Because dangerous people will use whatever is available if they want to harm others. Including mass murders of children, like Sandy Hook.

There is no easy solution to mental illness. Most of the time true mental illness (not personality disorders and situational coping problems like grief) can never be cured, only controlled. But we recoil from the cost and ramifications of control and supervision. We have vociferous, but IMO woefully misguided activists who fight for the rights of seriously mentally ill people to refuse medication, treatment, and supervision. So there it is.

 

[Jennifer17]

If Adam Lanza had been involuntarily committed, and competently supervised 24/7, and medicated, as he should have been, he would not have had access to Nancy's guns. He would not have been allowed to live in her home, spiraling deeper and deeper into madness. Our very warped ideas about what constitutes "liberty" and civil rights are killing us. There is a time and a place to limit and supervise people who have very obvious dangerous behaviors and inclinations. There is an appropriate time to force mentally ill people to take medications that control their behavior. We are so afraid of "guessing wrong" about who the dangerous people are, that we do absolutely absurd things to prove how "enlightened" we are. How "tolerant" we are, how "accepting" we are of mental illness, criminality, and dangerous ideologies. So because we are unwilling to take on the hard task of deciding who is in need of supervision and involuntary commitment, we tacitly accept that a certain number of these people will harm themselves, and others.

Same with James Holmes, and others. But appropriate mandatory evaluation and mandatory supervision and treatment is very expensive and human resource intensive. The guns aren't the problem when lawfully and responsibly owned. The behaviors and mental state/ ideology of likely shooters is what is most relevant. Because dangerous people will use whatever is available if they want to harm others. Including mass murders of children, like Sandy Hook.

There is no easy solution to mental illness. Most of the time true mental illness (not personality disorders and situational coping problems like grief) can never be cured, only controlled. But we recoil from the cost and ramifications of control and supervision. We have vociferous, but IMO woefully misguided activists who fight for the rights of seriously mentally ill people to refuse medication, treatment, and supervision. So there it is.

And yet, in other countries who do have gun control measures, the mentally ill are not so dangerous. I don't care how many arguments you make on behalf of 'responsible gun owners', you cannot get beyond that document that was written over two centuries ago in different times with different circumstances.

So, you would curtail the rights of the mentally ill, but not allow any curtailment of rights of gun ownership? Not all shooters are mentally ill. Most are just angry and it seems that that is a way to resolve conflict by shooting someone.

 

[K_Z]

We in the U.S. actually have a very well defined process to amend our constitution, in Article V. Granted, it would take decades, but it is possible, given enough will of MOST of the people. Most of the people in the entire U.S., not just the liberal anti-gun enclaves in a few coastal cities, though--however vocal they may be.

This explains the process:

The actual wording of Article V is: “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”

https://www.lexisnexis.com/constitution/amendments_howitsdone.asp

Quite frankly, there is no way, IMO, that enough of the U.S. population would ever agree to a constitutional amendment to change or abolish the 2nd amendment.

We abolished legal alcohol with prohibition, then amended our constitution again to undo that. So it can be done.

And those men that wrote the constitution 200+ years ago were true geniuses and visionaries, that their ideas are STILL critical to the integrity of our union today.

 

[Jennifer17]

We in the U.S. actually have a very well defined process to amend our constitution, in Article V. Granted, it would take decades, but it is possible, given enough will of MOST of the people. Most of the people in the entire U.S., not just the liberal anti-gun enclaves in a few coastal cities, though--however vocal they may be.

This explains the process:



https://www.lexisnexis.com/constitution/amendments_howitsdone.asp

Quite frankly, there is no way, IMO, that enough of the U.S. population would ever agree to a constitutional amendment to change or abolish the 2nd amendment.

Are not the people in the 'liberal enclaves' American citizens? Are they somehow different that other American citizens? Don't numbers of citizens count? I would bet that there are three million more Americans who want some gun control than the the 32% who don't, who are far more vocal about the 2nd amendment than liberals. Threatening civil war, putting gun sights on anyone who would like some gun control. Far more vocal and don't mind threatening violence on gun control advocates

How does it sit with you, that a candidate for the VP published a photo with a political opponent with her face in the crosshairs and some idiot actually shoots her in the head? This is a person running for the second most important position in the country.

 

[Woodland]

Does anyone remember this mom?

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...the-back-by-4-yr-old-son&highlight=Jamie+Gilt

She had a website - pro gun, pro safety, pro responsible ownership ...

She took her 4 year-old to a gun range, taught him how to fire a handgun and whatever else was 'age appropriate' for a 4 year-old to know about guns, then placed a loaded handgun in her sons hands while her back was turned. It doesn't matter imo that she had placed the gun under the front seat and it slid backwards to the back floor below where her son was sitting - she could have passed it to him over top of the front seat for all the difference it made.

Wonder how far she has come in her recovery - recovery from the gunshot she received to her back by her 'responsibly trained' 4 year-old.