Defensive Carry banner
1 - 20 of 83 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,567 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I was reading a thread here entitled "KELLY: Gun checks need mental health component" and the responses brought me to start this thread.

I'm not sure what the answer to this problem is or even if most people on this board think that people like Loughner or Lanza being able to get a gun is in fact a problem.
I, on the other hand do, but am not real sure of a solution without an "infringement" on 2A rights.

My questions are:
Do you think that people with mental issues like Loughner and Lanza having access to guns is a problem?
If no, why not? And if so, I'm asking for discussions and thoughts on reasonable and viable solutions.

Also, I'm looking for whether or not you think that it can be done without government interference.

Thank you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
263 Posts
Every one of the mass shooters has or had family and friends that knew the person was not stable. What has happened to our society? A responsible family member or friend could have prevented each and every one of the above mentioned mass murders, WITH OUT government intervention. Has our society degenerated to a point where we can no longer accept responsibility for our family members?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,571 Posts
I'll bite.

We can reduce the question by one to start with...

Lanza did not have access to guns, per se, they were his mother's.

He murdered her to get them.

There was an article written by a woman with a child similar to Lanza, it made the news... Title was, IIRC, I Am Adam Lanza's Mother.

I don't really have an answer to your question. But, I do know that keeping guns put of the hands of crazies won't stop mass killing.

In Australia, they took ALL the guns away (effectively, anyway). And, the anti-gunners will claim there have been no mass shootings since... That's a half truth... 4 dead is the "requirement" for a mass killing.

A man with a handgun killed 1 or 2 (can't remember, but I posted it here), wounded another, and had the gun wrestled away from him... Would have been a mass killing, but for that.

Another man torched a youth hostel.... Burning 15 victims to death.

Both occurred after the AU gun confiscation.

In China on the same day as Sandy Hook, a madman with an axe and knives, slashed 20+ children and an adult woman. They did not die, but could have.

Columbine was more than guns... The killers also had bombs planted...

A homeless man followed a customer into Wal mart, went to sporting goods, selected a bat, found the man he followed in, and "swung for the fences". The customer died.

You may try to keep them from getting guns... But if the voices in their heads tell them "it's time" not having access to guns WILL NOT STOP THEM.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,567 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
I'll bite.

We can reduce the question by one to start with...

Lanza did not have access to guns, per se, they were his mother's.

He murdered her to get them.


There was an article written by a woman with a child similar to Lanza, it made the news... Title was, IIRC, I Am Adam Lanza's Mother.

I don't really have an answer to your question. But, I do know that keeping guns put of the hands of crazies won't stop mass killing.

In Australia, they took ALL the guns away (effectively, anyway). And, the anti-gunners will claim there have been no mass shootings since... That's a half truth... 4 dead is the "requirement" for a mass killing.

A man with a handgun killed 1 or 2 (can't remember, but I posted it here), wounded another, and had the gun wrestled away from him... Would have been a mass killing, but for that.

Another man torched a youth hostel.... Burning 15 victims to death.

Both occurred after the AU gun confiscation.

In China on the same day as Sandy Hook, a madman with an axe and knives, slashed 20+ children and an adult woman. They did not die, but could have.

Columbine was more than guns... The killers also had bombs planted...

A homeless man followed a customer into Wal mart, went to sporting goods, selected a bat, found the man he followed in, and "swung for the fences". The customer died.

You may try to keep them from getting guns... But if the voices in their heads tell them "it's time" not having access to guns WILL NOT STOP THEM.
I had to look this up again because I thought Adam Lanza shot his Mother before going to the school and that is in fact the case. He had already gotten at least one gun while she was still alive. Also, she was sleeping, why would he have to kill her to get them, unless she was sleeping in front of the safe.

From what I understand from this post is that you feel that there is no problem with people who have mental issues, like Lanza and Loughner, being able to get guns because they would have used something just as effective to get the job done?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
39,177 Posts
Mass shootings are extremely anomalous, to the point of being all but nonexistent. On the extraordinarily rare occasions they do occur, they are so highly publicized and now, politicized as to be seen as a regular phenomena against which preventive action against potential perpetrators is necessary. The one common thread which connects ALL these shootings is the target-rich, gun free zones in which they take place. Get rid of the gun buster signs, and mass shootings and body counts will both decrease.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,567 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Every one of the mass shooters has or had family and friends that knew the person was not stable. What has happened to our society? A responsible family member or friend could have prevented each and every one of the above mentioned mass murders, WITH OUT government intervention. Has our society degenerated to a point where we can no longer accept responsibility for our family members?
I agree that a responsible family member could have prevented the shootings, but I don't agree that they should be held responsible for the killings.

Morally though.... I agree with you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
136 Posts
...but am not real sure of a solution without an "infringement" on 2A rights.

My questions are:
Do you think that people with mental issues like Loughner and Lanza having access to guns is a problem?
If no, why not? And if so, I'm asking for discussions and thoughts on reasonable and viable solutions.
Does anyone disagree that society has the right to lock dangerously insane people away in mental institutions for the safety of others and themselves? This would definitely be a major violation of a person's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but not if we consider that a person's rights end when they infringe upon the rights of another. (I posted the relevant amendments below for reference - tyvm Wikipedia.)

I have no problem with denying a person firearms if they are deemed mentally unstable and dangerous. It is no different than putting them in a building where they cannot hurt anyone. It is terribly sad, but denying reality for any reason is terribly foolish.

I do have a problem with how legislation these days is crafted so ambiguously that the government can, and does as we see in so many cases today, define the terms for any given situation to suit their goals. So with respect to "mental stability," I have zero faith in our government to properly define or justly execute. This, in my opinion, is the great danger. There has already been news, a few weeks ago, of some guy having his firearms confiscated because his wife admitted herself for depression or something sometime earlier, I think a couple of years. "A mentally unstable woman had access to firearms...sorry...they have to go."

Just watch. If they "enhance" background checks, it will be done so in a manner as noted above, and not only on the point of mental stability. Did you forget to pay that speeding ticket or was it unlawful protest, which now disqualifies you from owning firearms? Were you justifiably upset at the idiot who was texting while he ran the red light and hit you, hurting one of your kids, or are you suffering from PTSD? "Sorry, we need to take those guns,it looked like PTSD to the officer."

Our government is like rock, paper, scissors (or at least is supposed to be).

The executive branch is the rock. (Actually petrified poo at the moment.)

The legislative branch is the paper.

The judicial branch is the scissors.

The branches of government were set up to keep one another in check, but the rock can appoint scissors it deems will serve its will. So then we have scissors snipping away at laws (paper) by redefining terms to suit the current agenda. Laws really do not mean anything anymore, well, I should say they mean what those in power want them to mean in a given situation. Even our constitution is trimmed and twisted as needed to achieve goals that are absolutely unconstitutional.

The checks and balances are broken; not working as intended. We need rock, paper, scissors, lizard, spock...or something besides what is currently brewing in that pot of insanity we call the federal government.

God help us. No, seriously, God, please help us, really.

  • Fifth Amendmentdue process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain. --- No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of aGrand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

  • Sixth AmendmentTrial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel --- In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,071 Posts
Violence is an individual decision and no amount of legislation will stop that which was born into the heart of man. Some men can control their inherent violent tendencies and some cannot. Once an individual makes their decision to act upon their violent intentions, the tool they choose is irrelevant. A person who dies from a gunshot is no more or less dead than a person who is impaled, burned, strangled, or run over by a car. Violence takes on many shapes and forms. In the midst of a violent attack there is only one tool that can tip the balance of power from a 250 man to a 110 pound woman and that is a firearm and the ability and knowledge of how to effectively implement that defensive weapon.

So many cities are creating task forces talking about how to "solve the violence problem." Violence is not like a bad sewer system that you can fix. You can't stop or prevent the violence that each individual out there committing it one act at a time with some sort of decry, resolution, or legislation from a government body. How you stop it is by arming the potential victims with the ability to defend themselves to the point where the aggressors realize their actions have immediate negative consequences. Anything else is just wasting time, effort, money, and lives.

I speak from personal experience as a person that was the target of violent aggressors at the age of 15 in my own bedroom of my own home. Criminals laugh at laws because they are for people who care, who have something to lose. Background checks won't stop criminals. Organized crime will pay people to straw buy, file the numbers off to protect their purchasers (who will continue doing it for the money), and guns will continue to be sold to criminals with no background checks. High capacity magazines, we can't keep illegal drugs and people out of this country, you think guns and magazines will be difficult? Do you think criminals will stop stealing guns?

There's not a single law that has been proposed or passed that would have stopped what happened in CT. If the nut job didn't have a gun, do you think that would have stopped a violent attack? Driving into a bus stop? Going in a school with a machete? A chainsaw? These people are crazy, they don't follow laws or normal patterns of thought and behavior. They do outlandish things and there's nothing we can do to control their thoughts and actions. We can only control OUR thoughts and actions. I choose to accept reality, prepare, and act accordingly if faced with it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,955 Posts
There should be no gun legislation. At all.
But for the sake of the thread. There shouldnt be mental health anything involved in anything to do with the ability to legally get a firearm.

To prevent someone from accessing a firearm before they do something criminal assumes someone has an accurate crystal ball. One cant have their rights stripped because of something someone thinks they might do but have not done.

Anyone sane enough that they have not been involuntarily placed in an institution, is sane enough to get a firearm if they want one. Lanza is a prime example. If he legally had a gun or not he still would have killed his mother to get those. And done the same thing.

We nor any society will ever by legislation stop violence or mass violence. With the exception of getting rid of gun free zones and prohibitions about where armed citizens can legally be armed. The one and only thing that will help stop violent attacks by people with guns is other people with guns to oppose them and put them down.

No gun regulation has ever worked. No check will ever stop anyone from getting whatever type of firearms they want if they dont voluntarily submit to the check. This is one area that though many dont like the sound of it, where meeting violence with swift and overwhelming violence in response will do anything at all to prevent mass shootings or attacks.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
20,206 Posts
Our "instant news" and "American idol" approach to what is "news" has resulted in the amplification of the tragic. Numbers matter... oh, the Texas Tower shooting was bad, 17 killed, but the Luby's Cafeteria was worse, 23 killed, no, the Newtown shooting was worse, 26 were killed and 20 were children!!! To me it sounds like the Monty Python 'Four Yorkshiremen' skit. Realistically, the likelihood of being a victim of a mass shooting is about 5 times less likely than being killed by lightning.

On top of that, advances in medical and social science notwithstanding, we still haven't figured out who the criminals are before they commit the criminal act. Sure, we can apply the Dr. Phil approach and say past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior, but the ACLU helps keep us in line and reminds us that locking people up before they commit a crime isn't proper snooker, Constitutionally speaking. The thought police have not yet been deputized.

So in the current context and discussion, can well-intended laws keep dangerous instruments (not just guns) out of the hands of those who would use them to commit mayhem? If we value and respect our Constitutional protections, the short answer is NO. Back to the "numbers equal news" thought I started with: do automobile fatalities make the 6 o'clock news for months on end? No, but we kill 36,000 a year (a hundred a day) with cars. A single criminal shooting is generally "below the fold" news, but if 6 are killed in one setting, we hear about it for years on end (e.g., Giffords in Tucson) even though the total annual firearms deaths (including accident, suicide and homicide) is below the number killed by drivers.

The bottom line is that although the Newtown and Aurora shootings were tragic, and although they both involved so-called "assault weapons," trying to prevent future incidents of a similar nature by legislation is no more effective than outlawing lightning strikes. Mental illness and the false, feel-good "security" of gun-free zones are far more responsible for violent gun deaths than the type of weapon used or how many cartridges the magazines held.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,181 Posts
I believe it is too complicated to expect our government to discern what mental or emotional issues would be the basis for judging someone unfit to retain his rights to self defense. What percentage of ( insert your own : bipolar, depressed, PTSD, MPD, ....) people participate in mass shootings, murder, or other violent crimes? Some do. Is it a greater number than the sociopaths who go undetected for years as serial killers? There is risk in everything and if we want to live as a free people then bad things will at times happen. I prefer to keep it along the lines of where it already falls. Someone already determined , by a judge, to be incapable of managing their own affairs or involuntarily committed. Those steps would normally occur after at least some type of compelling behavior such as terroristic threats, violence, stalking or other criminal activities. The criminal actions or threatened actions should trigger an assessment, but there should no presumption of a threat just because someone has issues.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,274 Posts
[...snip...]

My questions are:
Do you think that people with mental issues like Loughner and Lanza having access to guns is a problem?
If no, why not? And if so, I'm asking for discussions and thoughts on reasonable and viable solutions.

Also, I'm looking for whether or not you think that it can be done without government interference.

Thank you.
Do you think that people with mental issues like Loughner and Lanza having access to guns is a problem? :

Of course I think it's a problem that he had access to them. A safe could of prevented the whole ordeal. Far as people with "mental issues" being able purchase weapons, my problem with it is this:

The last thing we need is another "panel" to decide who can and can't own weapons (by all means infringement)..

Been raped and received counseling? DENIED.
Ever lost a loved one? DENIED.
Ever lost a pet? DENIED.
Ever been in a car accident before? DENIED.
Ever seen combat? DENIED, because you have to have PTSD then. (sarcasm).

Who here hasn't at one point or another went through a period of sadness or depression but rose up out of it? Because you were temporarily depressed (i.e. due to a loss of a loved one, etc.), should you be forever deemed as a threat to yourself and others? Where will the line be drawn?

So to sum it up, I don't think HIPAA privacy laws should be violated. I don't want a "panel" to be created to decide who is or isn't fit to own a weapon. I don't want anymore infringement. I'm not for giving up an inch.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tcox4freedom

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,578 Posts
I don't want people with severe mental issues having access to guns. My proposed solution is to reduce the number of people with severe mental issues. Without using government, there's no way to force people with mental health issues to get 'help', but people needing to be forced to get help is a subset of people needing help.
And so, increasing the level of help available will reduce the number of people I'll (eventually) not want to have access to guns.
How to help? Charity dollars, aggressively. Diagnostics, treatments, support groups, etc.
All of society spends about 0.5% of our income on medical R&D. Supporting (specifically) mental health research with 0.5% of your income means that you're making a significant (relative) contribution and that you're still spending less of your income on it than we spend on the military defense. You're being proactive with protecting your gun rights, and you're trying to make the world a better place.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36,326 Posts
Do you think that people with mental issues like Loughner and Lanza having access to guns is a problem?
Sure. But if they're identified as being so threatening to others that that's a real issue, then IMO they shouldn't be walking the streets unattended (perhaps even at all). Same goes with felons. If they're so risky they're a threat by any standard, then they shouldn't be released. But, once they're out, IMO their lives are their own (including full civil rights as citizens).

Also, I'm looking for whether or not you think that it can be done without government interference.
Can people be kept out of circulation without interference from Uncle? Only via one method: suicide by citizen, if they seek to perpetrate their heinous acts on upstanding people. If Uncle can't take care of it, WE will.

The real question is, can keeping obviously-threatening people away from citizens be done without infringement upon the liberties that make us who we are? I think so, yes. But it'll take an actual desire to focus on crime reduction instead of liberty evisceration as the first goal, focusing on the root causes, not the symptoms, not the tools used, not the getaway car brands, not the tennis shoes employed to run away. In the short term, removal of the actual dangerous felons from our midst is necessary, without erasing/harming citizens' ability to defend themselves. In the long term, correction of the core issues of poverty, poor family structure, poor education, poor support resources needs to be addressed; without that, IMO, we'll never see a meaningful reduction in violent crime.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
136 Posts
Anyone sane enough that they have not been involuntarily placed in an institution, is sane enough to get a firearm if they want one. Lanza is a prime example. If he legally had a gun or not he still would have killed his mother to get those. And done the same thing.
Exactly. Ideally, we could prevent those who are potentially dangerous from owning firearms, but there is no guaranteed predictor. If there was, I would not trust the government to apply it justly. Even if there was such a guaranteed predictor and a guarantee the government would apply it justly, there are a hundred other ways to kill people.

So, this is why I agree with what you wrote - if the person is not committed, then society has deemed them "safe enough." People will always slip through the cracks, nothing is perfect, except the statement "nothing is perfect." Well, at least on this side of eternity.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,345 Posts
I am becoming an old skeptic. I find any law with good intentions always seems to have those hidden faults in them. Yes I would like to see that really mentally disturbed people do not have the ability to hurt other people....but saying that and then seeing that the Liberal Politicians now view our returning military that have PTSD as mentally disturbed and should be banned from owning a weapon.... So we ask these heroes to carry a gun to protect us, but now we Ban them from owning a gun to protect themselves or their families ? Let's say LIBTARDS disgust me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,345 Posts
I am becoming an old skeptic. I find any law with good intentions always seems to have those hidden faults in them. Yes I would like to see that really mentally disturbed people do not have the ability to hurt other people....but saying that and then seeing that the Liberal Politicians now view our returning military that have PTSD as mentally disturbed and should be banned from owning a weapon.... So we ask these heroes to carry a gun to protect us, but now we Ban them from owning a gun to protect themselves or their families ? Let's say LIBTARDS disgust me.
Like George Orwell's 1984 It all in who controls what the truth is!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,571 Posts
I had to look this up again because I thought Adam Lanza shot his Mother before going to the school and that is in fact the case. He had already gotten at least one gun while she was still alive. Also, she was sleeping, why would he have to kill her to get them, unless she was sleeping in front of the safe.
Why did he have to kill her to get them? Well, I heard the night before he went on his spree, he told her he wanted to get the AR, about 30 mags, the shotty and some shells, the .40 with a mag or two... and go shoot up his old school... and a lot of the kids in it.

She said "No, Adam, that wouldn't be a nice thing to do." He said, "Okay, mom. I guess you're right." And then he waited 'til she was asleep and killed her.

From what I understand from this post is that you feel that there is no problem with people who have mental issues, like Lanza and Loughner, being able to get guns because they would have used something just as effective to get the job done?
That is not what I said. What I said was that laws will not change the fact that crazies will kill people en masse. Keeping guns from them will not stop them. Laws to try to keep guns from them will not stop them.

I am not saying "go to the loony bin and hand out a firearm to every released inmate."

Do we need a solution? Yes. Is there one? No. Will there ever be a solution? Possibly. Do I want the government involved in that solution? Absolutely NOT.

You know, it used to be that the government would sterilize the insane... Our government, right here in the good ol' USA. Google "Eugenics." And the results were? Well, the vast majority of sterilizations occurred in California. The law, in part, allowed sterilization of the following people: "feebleminded, insane, criminalistic, epileptic, inebriate, diseased, blind, deaf; deformed; and dependent" – including "orphans, ne'er-do-wells, tramps, the homeless and paupers." Of course, all the loonies are still in California... and some have moved to Colorado...

Oh, and by the way, the practice of sterilizing those in mental institutions, continued through part of the 1970's. And also, by the way, The SCOTUS decision allowing for the sterilization of the "feebleminded" has never been overturned.

Most of my information on Eugenics is from: Social Origins of Eugenics

Read that, and tell me who is going to determine if someone should be sterilized... or if they are sane enough to have a gun...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
457 Posts
I think the Media plays a pretty big role in creating copycats. Mabey not mental people but they do give them the want to by seeing these killers names published a thousand times a day.. Ya know why is it that we hear the killers name and know them all, but The media never reports on people who stop a crime with a gun? I cant name 1 person who has stopped a crime or slowed one down, though there have been many this year..

And on another note: When the government starts to decide who is "Of sound Mind" and who is not, that is trouble. More people will stop getting help for alcohol/drugs, PTSD, Anxiety,depression which in turn can make things worse. People need to remember, This has nothing to do with saving ONE MORE LIFE, because if it did, then you cant deny that a gun inthe right hands saves lives every day in America. IT is about control, and about the economic collapse taht we are about to experince full force. Plus other reasons which Im not gonna get into..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,567 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
Sure. But if they're identified as being so threatening to others that that's a real issue, then IMO they shouldn't be walking the streets unattended (perhaps even at all). Same goes with felons. If they're so risky they're a threat by any standard, then they shouldn't be released. But, once they're out, IMO their lives are their own (including full civil rights as citizens).



Can people be kept out of circulation without interference from Uncle? Only via one method: suicide by citizen, if they seek to perpetrate their heinous acts on upstanding people. If Uncle can't take care of it, WE will.

The real question is, can keeping obviously-threatening people away from citizens be done without infringement upon the liberties that make us who we are? I think so, yes. But it'll take an actual desire to focus on crime reduction instead of liberty evisceration as the first goal, focusing on the root causes, not the symptoms, not the tools used, not the getaway car brands, not the tennis shoes employed to run away. In the short term, removal of the actual dangerous felons from our midst is necessary, without erasing/harming citizens' ability to defend themselves. In the long term, correction of the core issues of poverty, poor family structure, poor education, poor support resources needs to be addressed; without that, IMO, we'll never see a meaningful reduction in violent crime.
In my Opinion, this is a down to earth post with good starting points to a solution. I also think that most can be done without the "help" of legislation.
 
1 - 20 of 83 Posts
Top