Discuss. General Tavern rules apply. (No mudslinging, be respectful, etc.) I'll open with the statement that people should not have guns. No one at all, except the armed forces, and even then, keep the guns on the bases. Cops should carry riot shields and armor instead of guns. If they need crowd control, use Water Cannons. Supporting evidence: the following skit: What's your reason? Setting: A gun shop, modern day. A Customer walks into the gun shop and asks the Shopkeeper, "Hi, i'd like to buy a gun please." The Shopkeeper pulls out an application form and asks the customer "Alright, what's your reason for wanting to buy a gun?" The Customer says "I need one for personal protection." The Shopkeeper nods. "I have just the thing for you, I guarantee you cannot get any more personal protection than this baby right here. What i'm about to show you offers so much protection, it can stop a shotgun shell." The customer, very interested, stares at a full-size Riot Shield, the kind the police use. He scoffs. "That's not what I want, I want a gun!" The Shopkeeper shrugs. "Are you sure? This fine piece of equipment will protect you more than a gun ever will! It's very strong, reinforced titanium and kevlar..." by now, the angry Customer has left. Later, another Customer enters. "Hi, I need a gun." Again, the Shopkeeper clicks his pen and pulls out an application form. "For what reason?" he asks. The Customer hesitates, than says "Hunting." The shopkeeper smiles. "Of course! I love to hunt. Hunting is a wonderful sport. I guarantee that this item will give you the maximum amount of satisfaction you can ever get from hunting! Here, this is the sport at its peak." And he pulls out a Crossbow, complete with crosshairs for better accuracy. The customer shakes his head. "No, I want a gun." he states. The shopkeeper reluctantly puts away the Crossbow. "Are you sure? With a gun, it's so...boring, just pulling a trigger. And it's unfair to the animal, with this you give the deer a chance and have to chase it for up to an hour, just like the Native Americans did back in the day! Unless of course..." He fails to finish his sentence, as the pissed off customer has left in a huff. Later, a third customer walks in. "Hi, I'd like to buy a gun." he says. The shopkeeper holds his pen at the ready. "For what reason, sir?" he asks. The customer glares. "I dont need a reason, read the god **** second amendment "THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS." It's in the constitution you idiot! The shopkeeper merely smiles. "Of course, I have the perfect thing for you. This gun is covered under Second Amendment laws, guaranteed!" And he holds up a 200-year-old, civil-war-era musket, complete with rusty bayonet. The customer shrieks. "No, man! I want a Glock, a shotgun, something better than that civil war crap!" The shopkeeper merely smiles. "I'm sorry sir, please come back when they update the second amendment to include those types of guns. Here, i'll even give you a discount..." the shopkeeper holds out a discount to the enraged customer, who tears it in half and leaves. Fourthly, another Customer walks in. "I really need a gun, now." He says. The Shopkeeper holds his pen and application form ready. "For what reason, sir?" he asks. Instead of stating his reason this time, the Customer snatches the application form and looks at it. There, in the spot titled "Reasons" is a circle for "other". "Other! That's my reason!" the Customer declares triumphantly. The shopkeeper shrugs. "Very good answer sir." he says, while pressing a button under the counter. Two cops arrive at the shop in less than a minute and cuff the Customer. "Hey! What the *PROFANITY* ARE YOU *PROFANITY* GUYS DOING? I'VE DONE NOTHING WRONG!" He yells, almost breaking the glass of the windows. "Actually, you have." The Shopkeeper begins. "the "other" reason, by exclusion of the other reason, can only include wanting to kill or rob someone. Therefore, you were thinking about commiting a crime when you selected "Other" as your reason. Caught you red-handed, trying to buy the tools necessary to commiting a crime. You confessed to it when you selected "Other"! Take him downtown, please." The cops nod and take the Customer away. The last thing he hears from the Shopkeeper is "Oh, and I knew it was you all those times!"
Moral of the story: You do NOT need a gun for a particular activity. In any given activity (And I challenge you to give me a valid, legal activity for which you would need to personally own a gun), there are many other options. Why buy a gun for personal protection when a Riot Shield blocks shotgun shells? Why buy a gun for hunting when the point of hunting (and every other sport) is satisfaction, and since you get more satisfaction with more challenge, and since a crossbow offers more challenge than a gun, you'll get more satisfaction with the crossbow. Why buy a gun based on the Second Amendment when the Colonial-age guns were either giant cannons or black-powder, muzzle-loading Muskets? Did the Founding Fathers have AR-15's, and SPAZ-12 shotguns,And AK 47s, not to mention all the accessories like laser scopes and hollow-point bullets? I dont think so!
The only way you can disprove my argument is to give me a valid, LEGAL activity which requires you to personally own a gun. This excludes Skeet-shooting, because the facility can and should/will provide the gun. Until anyone can do that, YOU DONT NEED A GUN, NO ONE NEEDS GUNS! They're WAY too dangerous and make it too easy to kill someone! Why have something you dont need?
Unless we actually have a problem with the aforementioned people obtaining guns and doing harm with them, the checkups should be out of the question.
I was thinking that it would just be a one time thing when applying for a gun permit. Not constant checkups.
The criteria that would prohibit someone from owning a gun would be so ridiculously rare, it's a non-issue. Anger issues is the most common, but even people with anger issues are seldom committing crimes.
Even so, I think it's better to be safe than sorry. Simply having the procedures in place will reduce the amount of guns out there, since people won't want to go through with it unless they really want to own a gun.
I agree that it's not the legal gun owners committing crimes, but it is still a small factor from them as well.
What we need is better control over the illegal guns out there, for the most part.
I realize that term is what many Americans use, however I do infact find it offensive, I would prefer if you used something along the lines of hadicapped.
Offensive or no...that's what's in the DSM. I don't think the word itself is offensive, although it can be used in offensive ways.
Perhaps I'm not following, but how does one know if someone is reasonably stable to own a gun if there is no primary background check.
Pretty much where I'm at. Guns aren't harmless toys for anyone to go out and buy. Freedoms or no, if you want to own one, you should acknowledge the danger they pose in the hands of someone who will misuse it and go through the system for the good of the whole. Sure it's annoying, but so is getting a driver's license (which is a whole other thing I'm not going to rant about here).
People who are depressed aren't necisarily going to commit suicide. If a depressed person goes out of their way to get tested so they can buy a gun to kill themselves with, they will not act suicidal while being tested.
Was more of thinking risk factors, such as previous suicide attempts and bipolar disorder. Not a stupid question, "are you depressed" or something.
That's like asking if someone lies...
Tests can't reveal intentions.
But background checks can reveal things about people, such as their judgement, tendencies to get into violent situations, how responsible they are, things like that.
Requiring people to go through tests before they're allowed to buy a gun would be as useful as the TSA, and that's to say, not useful at all.
TSA is a whole other matter. There's millions more people every day that they have to process than a one time background check.
We tell someone they need to be tested before they buy a gun. All they have to do is not talk about killing anyone and they pass. Let's be honest, we might as well hand them a piece of paper and ask, "Do you plan on killing yourself or others?" and have a check box yes or no.
We have different ideas of what said test/background check includes then. A pitiful excuse for bureaucracy like that I would argue against too.
We have different ideas of what said test/background check includes then.
if they think the questions are straight and all only takes 10 mins. then i understand they think it wont help. that would be just stupid and ofcours 99% will pass such a test/background check.
Even so, I think it's better to be safe than sorry. Simply having the procedures in place will reduce the amount of guns out there, since people won't want to go through with it unless they really want to own a gun.
I agree that it's not the legal gun owners committing crimes, but it is still a small factor from them as well.
To suggest it's better to be safe than to be sorry is to assume the means of being safe are acceptable. I believe the means are unacceptable. It's not worth bothering people about to maintain this extra tiny amount of safety.
Pretty much where I'm at. Guns aren't harmless toys for anyone to go out and buy. Freedoms or no, if you want to own one, you should acknowledge the danger they pose in the hands of someone who will misuse it and go through the system for the good of the whole. Sure it's annoying, but so is getting a driver's license (which is a whole other thing I'm not going to rant about here).
I'm okay with background checks. Guns shouldn't be sold to ex convicts or people with a violent criminal record.
I'm just concerned with how the government gathers information and the criteria they set.
@noname you asked a few pages ago why doctors would report if someone's family members had guns. The answer is because when a doctor suspects that someone poses a danger to themselves or others, part of the assessment is to determine 'access to lethal means.' Obviously, guns in the home represents access to lethal means. That is why they would have to ask, then doctors become mandated reporters and have to report this information to the authorities. Thats just the way it is. Its whats known as 'limits of confidentiality.'
In response to your skeptisim about a check up or evaluation of some sort as a gateway to gun purchasing: what about if it included a drug test?
Also, you mentioned anger problems and crimes. Crimes are very, very frequently committed by people with anger problems. Not all people with anger problems commit crimes, but crimes are committed by people with anger problems. If you need proof of that, even though it seems incredibly common sense to me, look at the mental illness rates in youth and adult penal institutions, its overwhelming. And personally, I have worked with a lot of parolees, and they are an angry angry bunch.
A huge part of the gun control problem in this country is black/grey market and illegal gun sales. Politicians funded by the NRA wrote legislation to completely declaw the AFT (bureau of alcohol, tobacco, and firearms). The ATF has had the same number of agents for a really long time despite an exponential growth in their job duties. They currently have enough staff to check up on gun retailers once ever 17 years! The ATF hasn't even had a full-time director is 6 years. Thanks republicans and the NRA. Ironically, it is the NRA and those same politicians they funded, who are now saying, in an effort to prevent any further gun control measures, that we should simply enforce the existing laws and not write new ones. However, it is the legislation THEY wrote that IS CURRENTLY preventing the existing laws from being enforced! Its just a game to them. Meanwhile tens of thousands of people in this country are shot and killed every year.
What we need is some common sense! Lets start with this: There is currently no federal law prohibiting the sale of firearms to people who are intoxicated! Who besides the NRA and cletus (the moonshining redneck from the simpsons) would object to that?! C'mon man!
you asked a few pages ago why doctors would report if someone's family members had guns. The answer is because when a doctor suspects that someone poses a danger to themselves or others, part of the assessment is to determine 'access to lethal means.' Obviously, guns in the home represents access to lethal means. That is why they would have to ask, then doctors become mandated reporters and have to report this information to the authorities. Thats just the way it is. Its whats known as 'limits of confidentiality.'
If a doctor honestly believes a patient or another person is in danger for one reason or another, it would be appropriate for the doctor to break patient confidentiality.
If the patient doesn't seem to pose a threat to themselves or anyone else, there is no reason the doctor should inform the government as to whether they have a firearm or not.
In response to your skeptisim about a check up or evaluation of some sort as a gateway to gun purchasing: what about if it included a drug test?
I don't think there are enough people who use drugs that would result in extreme acts of violence to warrant a drug test. Of course, if someone has a criminal record for hard drug abuse (such as meth), then I'm okay with them being refused their right to buy a gun.
Also, you mentioned anger problems and crimes. Crimes are very, very frequently committed by people with anger problems. Not all people with anger problems commit crimes, but crimes are committed by people with anger problems.
Yes, anger issues can resort to gun violence. But, what would testing these people accomplish? Let's say we do test everyone, what do we do with the people who have anger issues? Do we refuse them the right to buy a gun? If we allow people with anger issues to buy guns, then it would be rather pointless to use the test as a means of keeping guns out of angry people's hands. If you believe people with anger issues shouldn't be allowed to buy a gun, then allow me to remind you that most people with anger issues don't kill people.
What we need is some common sense! Lets start with this: There is currently no federal law prohibiting the sale of firearms to people who are intoxicated! Who besides the NRA and cletus (the moonshining redneck from the simpsons) would object to that?! C'mon man!
How often do intoxicated people buy guns and go on a shooting spree the same night? Is it really an issue worth addressing? If it is, then I would agree that we should prohibit intoxicated people from buying guns.
The problem with gun deaths stem from gangs. Such a large portion of gun crimes are criminal on criminal.
Such a large portion of gun crimes are criminal on criminal.
Right, so probably illegal guns, so if guns were even slightly harder to buy, maybe one or two hoops to jump through, the trickle down to the illegal gun market would slow down. Its also very relevant to the extreme violence in the drug cartel wars. They are buying all of the guns they use from US retailers. I don't see why is such a bad thing to make getting those guns just a little bit more difficult. I think the everyday gun violence that has become commonplace is more important to deal with than the mass shootings that get media coverage. And the way to do that is a complete holistic approach that treats the root causes of the violence not just the symptoms. Making guns harder to get is just one way. It won't solve all the problems but if it denies one person from getting a gun that will kill an innocent person, and causes only minor inconveniences to some people, shouldn't we do it?
How often do intoxicated people buy guns and go on a shooting spree the same night? Is it really an issue worth addressing?
Think about the kind of person who would try to buy a gun while drunk. Think about the decision making process of a drunk person period. Drunk people, or people on drugs, have impaired decision-making functioning. For the same reason they shouldn't operate heavy machinery, drive a car, juggle chain saws, or make important life decisions, they shouldn't be able to decide to buy a gun. And seriously? a Spree? If they shoot one person is that not bad enough?
But, what would testing these people accomplish? Let's say we do test everyone, what do we do with the people who have anger issues? Do we refuse them the right to buy a gun?
I'm not necessarily advocating that, I was just responding to the previous anger comment. I'm not in favor of making the medical/mental health profession the gatekeepers for gun ownership.
Sorry, forgot to add Re: the drunk person issue that I brought up. The point is not that banning the sale of guns to drunk people would solve all the problems. I'm definitely not saying that. But it sure seems like a good, common sense idea. And the NRA and other gun lobbying interests have so completely gummed up the political process that even things like background checks, which are favored by the majority of NRA members, stand very little chance of even being brought into the debate, even in the wake of an unspeakable tragedy. Andy why is the NRA continuing to oppose background checks, to the point of ludicrous hyperbole, even when the majority of their own members support the idea?
Sorry, forgot to add Re: the drunk person issue that I brought up. The point is not that banning the sale of guns to drunk people would solve all the problems. I'm definitely not saying that. But it sure seems like a good, common sense idea. And the NRA and other gun lobbying interests have so completely gummed up the political process that even things like background checks, which are favored by the majority of NRA members, stand very little chance of even being brought into the debate, even in the wake of an unspeakable tragedy. Andy why is the NRA continuing to oppose background checks, to the point of ludicrous hyperbole, even when the majority of their own members support the idea?
If you create a law tackling a non-issue, all you do is introduce more room for unintentional consequences.
Background checks are an invasion of privacy. This is why I'm very cautious when it comes to suggesting what information is and is not available.
I'm not sure on that point. I've always thought that unstable people are not able to play sane long enough to go through the process of purchasing a gun. Criminals know they won't pass the background check and it's probably easier for them to buy a gun illegally off the street. I think most people pretty much know if they won't pass the background check and just don't try.
Pretty much where I'm at. Guns aren't harmless toys for anyone to go out and buy. Freedoms or no, if you want to own one, you should acknowledge the danger they pose in the hands of someone who will misuse it and go through the system for the good of the whole. Sure it's annoying, but so is getting a driver's license (which is a whole other thing I'm not going to rant about here).
I recognize your point and I mostly agree. I'm not against making it a little harder to own a gun (within reason), as long as your only disqualifying the people who should already be disqualified under the law.
Was more of thinking risk factors, such as previous suicide attempts and bipolar disorder. Not a stupid question, "are you depressed" or something.
I always assumed it would show up on the background check, as long as it was documented. No one who wants to commit suicide is going to go into a gun shop fill out paper work and then wait three days for their gun to kill themselves. Suicide just doesn't work that way. Some people have attempted suicide in the past and haven't ever done it again. Anti depressants do help people and a lot of those people are stable because of it. They're not all wackos waiting to shoot people.
you asked a few pages ago why doctors would report if someone's family members had guns. The answer is because when a doctor suspects that someone poses a danger to themselves or others, part of the assessment is to determine 'access to lethal means.' Obviously, guns in the home represents access to lethal means. That is why they would have to ask, then doctors become mandated reporters and have to report this information to the authorities. Thats just the way it is. Its whats known as 'limits of confidentiality.'
If a doctor think someone poses a danger to themselves or others, I don't think if they have a gun or not matters. If they're going to hurt someone they don't need a gun. "Access to lethal means" I have access to a dozen screwdrivers, a couple box cutters, 7 kitchen knives, golf clubs and a baseball bat, as well as many other potentially lethal objects. That's without guns. That's dumb, everyone has access to lethal means. A gun can't kill a person more than a screwdriver to the jugular will. Also, its not a chicken or the egg question, if a doctor believes they are a threat, then they're a threat, it doesn't matter if they have a gun or not.
I don't think there are enough people who use drugs that would result in extreme acts of violence to warrant a drug test. Of course, if someone has a criminal record for hard drug abuse (such as meth), then I'm okay with them being refused their right to buy a gun.
The usage of some types of drugs can cause violent behavior, psychosis, and a lot of other really crazy mental problems that would disqualify a person from owning a gun.
âI do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense,â he said. âBut I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.â
If a doctor think someone poses a danger to themselves or others, I don't think if they have a gun or not matters. If they're going to hurt someone they don't need a gun. "Access to lethal means" I have access to a dozen screwdrivers, a couple box cutters, 7 kitchen knives, golf clubs and a baseball bat, as well as many other potentially lethal objects. That's without guns. That's dumb, everyone has access to lethal means. A gun can't kill a person more than a screwdriver to the jugular will. Also, its not a chicken or the egg question, if a doctor believes they are a threat, then they're a threat, it doesn't matter if they have a gun or not.
Just to explore this with you a little, what do you think a doctor would do if they came to reasonably suspect that their patient was posing a threat to themselves or someone else? It doesn't sound like you are fully aware of the step by step practical reality of that kind of situation. First you assess ideation, then plan, then intent, then means. If the doctor has a reasonable suspicion that they are realistically thinking about hurting someone or themselves, access to the means to those intentions is a critically important factor. For example, If they are living with their parents, you would want to tell the parents to remove any weapons, sharps, medications, and toxins from their reach, by removing them from the house or locking them up. Most people who think about hurting themselves or someone else are not fully committed to doing so. So steps to reduce their likelihood are always taken and usually the first line of defense. Also they are generally not thinking clearly, so they are likely to not resort to McGuyver-esque means.
Not doing these preventative things leaves doctors, psychiatrists, psychologists, and therapists liable for malpractice lawsuits if somebody ends up getting hurt. They would lose money, their career, their license and their reputation.
However, As you astutely pointed out, short of physical containment, there is no way to completely stop somebody from hurting themsleves or someone else if they are determined. Therefore doctors need to take the necessary steps as provided by law, to carry out their duties and protect themselves from lawsuits. If simply controlling access to means is not going to be sufficient to prevent violence from happening, then the doctor must notify the police (and the intended victim) or have the person hospitalized.
Background checks are an invasion of privacy. This is why I'm very cautious when it comes to suggesting what information is and is not available.
If you want a drivers license you have to jump through hoops and submit to a background check. If you want many different kinds of jobs, you have to submit to a background check. If you want a loan or a credit card, they do a background check. If you buy a house they do a background check. If you run for office, people do background checks. If you want to travel internationally...etc. This is the world we live in and background checks happen all the time. Why would the line at background checks stop when buying a gun?
If you create a law tackling a non-issue, all you do is introduce more room for unintentional consequences.
There are laws against selling Alcohol to someone who has had too much alcohol! Why? because its dangerous. So that drunk person, who can't legally drive a car, get on a plane, go to work, go to school, or even be out in public (yes, being drunk in public is a crime), but that person Can Still Buy a Firearm!!! If a drunk person buying a gun is less dangerous than those other things, then maybe its me who's crazy. And to address your point, what exactly are the unintentional consequences of a law banning the sale of guns to drunk people?
That you started this thread with the premise "I defy you to provide a reason to own a gun", leaves me speechless. I live in the hill country, know many people in the mountains.
They don't deliver food here. You grow it, you hunt it, you fish it.
Ever tried hunting with a rock? Traps are dangerous to everything, can't use that. I find this kind of naïve discussion of guns annoying. Surprise, people with degrees retire into the wild to get away from this sort of thing. Yet you still can't leave us alone. Shame on you.
