Like Tree156Likes

Thread: The Gun Control Debate.......Anybody else seeing this trend?

  1. #26
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,959

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SPFDRum View Post
    How about the seemingly harmless box cutter?
    What about it?

    I assume you are referring to the use of them in the planes on 9/11. While some people may have been injured with them, they weren't the actual instrument of death and destruction in those attacks.

  2. #27
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,959

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tbzep View Post
    That's great to take the BB gun from the mean little dog shooter. However, it isn't right to take my child's BB gun from him because somebody else's son did something wrong. My son only shoots targets and starlings. (Ok, he's grown now but that's all he used to shoot.)
    I agree that it's certainly not a fair solution for those who act responsibly, but it's also not like this is a new concept for our nation. We've removed other things from the market already due to the negligence of small groups of people.

    Does one person's 2nd Amendment right to own firearms, specifically ones who's sole purpose is to injure and kill people in a rapid fashion, supercede another person's constitutional right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

    As I said, a complete ban on guns is not a realistic solution and I don't believe that the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to unfettered access to any and all weapons created. The solution lies somewhere in the middle and neither side will ultimately be fully happy with it.

  3. #28
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,959

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tbzep View Post
    The AR-15 used was a semi-auto, one trigger pull...one bullet down range. It wasn't designed to kill and injure multiple people in a single incident any more than a deer rifle or semi-auto shotgun, though it is designed to look the same. It's parent rifle, the M-16 is select fire with full auto or 3 round burst according to the model. It is designed for armed conflict with multiple targets.
    Your argument here is pretty weak and I think has some inaccuracies.

    While I served in the Marine Corps, the M-16A2 was my assigned weapon the whole time. It may have changed with subsequent updates, but that model did not have a "full auto" option. It was only single shot and 3 round burst. The M-16A1 did have a full auto option.

    Regardless, I rarely fired my weapon using the 3 round burst option. It is very possible to fire a substantial number rounds in a short time using the single shot option. I know this because I've done it.

    So the argument that the AR-15 is somehow "less" of a threat because it only fires single rounds is ludacris. Firing one round per second amounts to 60 in a single minute and that absolutely has the potential for a significant number of victims!

  4. #29
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    Your argument here is pretty weak and I think has some inaccuracies.

    While I served in the Marine Corps, the M-16A2 was my assigned weapon the whole time. It may have changed with subsequent updates, but that model did not have a "full auto" option. It was only single shot and 3 round burst. The M-16A1 did have a full auto option.

    Regardless, I rarely fired my weapon using the 3 round burst option. It is very possible to fire a substantial number rounds in a short time using the single shot option. I know this because I've done it.

    So the argument that the AR-15 is somehow "less" of a threat because it only fires single rounds is ludacris. Firing one round per second amounts to 60 in a single minute and that absolutely has the potential for a significant number of victims!
    If you will take notice, I said that the M-16 is select fire, meaning it is full auto or 3 round burst according to the particular model, so I was very specific to note both in my post. You need to read a little closer.

    If it is no less suited for mass killing than an M-16, then why are class 3 weapons subject to so much more scruitny to own? With your logic, full auto is no more of a threat, because you stated semi-auto is no less of a threat.

  5. #30
    Savage / Hyneman 08'

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    450

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    I agree that it's certainly not a fair solution for those who act responsibly, but it's also not like this is a new concept for our nation. We've removed other things from the market already due to the negligence of small groups of people.
    New concept or old, does that make a difference? Just because the masses have had to feel the consequences of a few in past doesn't make it right. That is one of the bigger stink bombs with the whole concept. Freedoms are taken away from the responsible because a tiny percentage act foolish.
    We do not rise to the occasion. We fall back to our level of training.

  6. #31
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,959

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tbzep View Post
    If you will take notice, I said that the M-16 is select fire, meaning it is full auto or 3 round burst according to the particular model, so I was very specific to note both in my post. You need to read a little closer.
    OK, I misinterpreted your post. However, I think your post was still inaccurate since it omitted the fact that each model is capable of both single shot and multi-shot firing.

    If it is no less suited for mass killing than an M-16, then why are class 3 weapons subject to so much more scruitny to own?
    I can't answer your question at this point since I'm not familiar with the weapon classifications that you are referring to nor the regulations related to them.

    With your logic, full auto is no more of a threat, because you stated semi-auto is no less of a threat.
    Yeah, pretty much.

  7. #32
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,959

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DFDMAXX View Post
    New concept or old, does that make a difference? Just because the masses have had to feel the consequences of a few in past doesn't make it right. That is one of the bigger stink bombs with the whole concept. Freedoms are taken away from the responsible because a tiny percentage act foolish.
    Does it make a difference? Not really in terms of the effect. Like I said, it wouldn't be fair to the law abiding gun owners and that's what makes this issue so complicated, but life isn't always fair.

  8. #33
    Truckie
    SPFDRum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 1999
    Location
    St Paul, MN
    Posts
    2,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    Does it make a difference? Not really in terms of the effect. Like I said, it wouldn't be fair to the law abiding gun owners and that's what makes this issue so complicated, but life isn't always fair.
    So then because it is a complicated situation, it's completely acceptable to use the knee jerk, feel good solutions that have historically in this regard and many others proven to be unsuccessful? Irregardless on how many rights, civil liberties, or constitutional guarantees are trampled of the majority.
    That is becoming the typical American attitude; it's hard, therefor we shall pick the easy, ineffective solution that makes us feel good.
    ...and they said that not keeping score and everyone makes the team wouldn't have any negative effect.
    My posts reflect my views and opinions, not the organization I work for or my IAFF local. Some of which they may not agree. I.A.C.O.J. member
    "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
    George Mason
    Co-author of the Second Amendment
    during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
    Elevator Rescue Information

  9. #34
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    OK, I misinterpreted your post. However, I think your post was still inaccurate since it omitted the fact that each model is capable of both single shot and multi-shot firing.
    "Select fire" means it has a semi-auto mode and a full auto or burst mode, so I'm still hitting the bullseye.
    I can't answer your question at this point since I'm not familiar with the weapon classifications that you are referring to nor the regulations related to them.
    A Class 3 license is required for dealers to transfer NFA type firearms (full auto/burst, silencers, short barreled rifles and shotguns, etc.
    Yeah, pretty much.

  10. #35
    Forum Member
    Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,685

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SPFDRum View Post
    So then because it is a complicated situation, it's completely acceptable to use the knee jerk, feel good solutions that have historically in this regard and many others proven to be unsuccessful? Irregardless on how many rights, civil liberties, or constitutional guarantees are trampled of the majority.
    That is becoming the typical American attitude; it's hard, therefor we shall pick the easy, ineffective solution that makes us feel good.
    ...and they said that not keeping score and everyone makes the team wouldn't have any negative effect.
    Just curious, but if this was put to a vote and the "majority" voted to ban certain guns...would the vote be followed? Would you give up your gun if you had one of them that was on the banned list?
    "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

  11. #36
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,959

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SPFDRum View Post
    So then because it is a complicated situation, it's completely acceptable to use the knee jerk, feel good solutions that have historically in this regard and many others proven to be unsuccessful? Irregardless on how many rights, civil liberties, or constitutional guarantees are trampled of the majority.
    That is becoming the typical American attitude; it's hard, therefor we shall pick the easy, ineffective solution that makes us feel good.
    ...and they said that not keeping score and everyone makes the team wouldn't have any negative effect.
    I'm not in any way advocating for "knee jerk, feel good solutions". I'm advocating for addressing a serious matter in a serious fashion. Our mental health and criminal justice systems need to be looked at because shortcomings with them contribute to many of these shooters being on the street and able to do what they've done. However, access to firearms has to be part of the discussion and part of the solution. Nothing is likely to be "foolproof", but I firmly believe that we can reduce the frequency and severity of these incidents.

  12. #37
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,959

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tbzep View Post
    "Select fire" means it has a semi-auto mode and a full auto or burst mode, so I'm still hitting the bullseye.
    OK. I guess we aren't quite talking the same language.

    A Class 3 license is required for dealers to transfer NFA type firearms (full auto/burst, silencers, short barreled rifles and shotguns, etc.
    OK. In that case, my answer to your question is "I have no idea why".

  13. #38
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    228

    Default

    1. In response to the BB gun line of comments, would you expect a parent to take away their kids BB gun, and every BB gun in town because one child was irresponsible?

    2. What is the definition of an assault weapon, and how did that definition come to existence? Did you know this term did not exist until the ban in 1994. Below is the definition:

    Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
    Folding or telescoping stock
    Pistol grip
    Bayonet mount
    Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
    Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally)
    .
    Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following: Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
    Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
    Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
    Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more

    A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.
    Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following: Folding or telescoping stock
    Pistol grip
    Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
    Detachable magazine.

    Now tell me what part of that definition addresses the lethality of the weapon. The folding stock? The pistol grip? The flash suppressor? All of these are cosmetic, and have no reflection on rate of fire, or even magazine capacity. This definition was arbitrarily created by Congress, and was only successful at prohibiting scary "looking" guns. Several government reports have even shown that the assault weapon ban from 1994 to 2004 did nothing to reduce incidents of gun violence.

    3. Now to the current events that have thrust guns back into the limelight. All were committed by young disturbed men with a inclination towards social awkardness and violent behavior. The Aurora shooter did have an AR-15, it jammed after just a few rounds. The majority of his victims were wounded by the good ole Remington 870 pump action shotgun. The Sandy Point shooter did have and use an AR-15 type gun, but also had two semi auto handguns that could have inflicted the same amount of carnage, and are honestly easier to conceal and use that a large, bulkier assault rifle.

  14. #39
    Truckie
    SPFDRum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 1999
    Location
    St Paul, MN
    Posts
    2,516

    Default

    Double post......
    Last edited by SPFDRum; 12-23-2012 at 04:44 PM.
    My posts reflect my views and opinions, not the organization I work for or my IAFF local. Some of which they may not agree. I.A.C.O.J. member
    "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
    George Mason
    Co-author of the Second Amendment
    during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
    Elevator Rescue Information

  15. #40
    Truckie
    SPFDRum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 1999
    Location
    St Paul, MN
    Posts
    2,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    I'm not in any way advocating for "knee jerk, feel good solutions". I'm advocating for addressing a serious matter in a serious fashion. Our mental health and criminal justice systems need to be looked at because shortcomings with them contribute to many of these shooters being on the street and able to do what they've done. However, access to firearms has to be part of the discussion and part of the solution. Nothing is likely to be "foolproof", but I firmly believe that we can reduce the frequency and severity of these incidents.
    If these justice system short-comings mental health issues are so important, why is in the mainstream media, a vast majority are calling for bans and severe restrictions? Where is the uproar over the failed mental heath system and its rules that prevent mental health of an individual being accessed in a background check? Why there isn't, because one persons mental health trumps the majority.
    Where is the uproar over the justice system and adding mandatory sentences on top of what ever plea bargain they where to weasel out of some liberal judge or over worked prosecutor? Again, why there isn't, the "rights" of one trumps the majority.
    You mention access, well lets be honest, the full responsibility of the murderers ability to access the guns rest solely on his mother's shoulders.
    Funny how in just this scenario, individual rights are proven to be more important than the majority. Further more, the gun control group has absolutely no issue with taking away the legal rights of millions of law abiding gun owners.
    Finally you mention severity, what are you basing this hypothesis on? As a VAST majority of these mass shootings have taken place where it is a known fact it is illegal for the average individual to carry. Many of these same places have big signs on the entrance spelling that out: "this premise bans guns". So as a result, the law abiding citizen does just that, enters the facility unarmed. Yet a single one of these signs has yet to deter a bad guy.....
    They are already breaking numerous laws, so what makes you honestly think that they would ;
    -submit themselves through a background check
    -not obtain a gun through illegal means
    -not obtain a clip with a capacity greater than being proposed
    -not use a semi-automatic weapon?
    I find it amazing that, in all the ways the human animal has devised to kill, only when using a gun does it absolve the murderer from responsibility. Somehow it becomes the guns fault.
    Last edited by SPFDRum; 12-23-2012 at 02:57 PM. Reason: clean up grammer
    My posts reflect my views and opinions, not the organization I work for or my IAFF local. Some of which they may not agree. I.A.C.O.J. member
    "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
    George Mason
    Co-author of the Second Amendment
    during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
    Elevator Rescue Information

  16. #41
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,959

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mcwops View Post
    1. In response to the BB gun line of comments, would you expect a parent to take away their kids BB gun, and every BB gun in town because one child was irresponsible?
    No I wouldn't and I think some of your are reading too far into that comment. It was specifically addressing the issue of "taking away the guns" as a solution part of the discussion. The typical parent's reaction to the situation I described would be to immediately take away the BB gun in conjunction with counseling the child regarding their behavior.

    There was a question of why "taking away the guns" was viewed by some as a solution rather than focusing more on the individual person's mental state and mental health system as solutions. I was answering that question with that example, not discussing the fairness of or ability to take away guns from other people. It's likely viewed as a solution because taking the misused object away is commonly used as a solution by parents.

  17. #42
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,959

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SPFDRum View Post
    If these justice system short-comings mental health issues are so important, why is in the mainstream media, a vast majority are calling for bans and severe restrictions? Where is the uproar over the failed mental heath system and its rules that prevent mental health of an individual being accessed in a background check? Why there isn't, because one persons mental health trumps the majority.
    There has been "uproar" over the failings of our mental health system. It may not be as loud and persistent as the calls for gun control, but it is there. What there hasn't been much of is action. Part of the problem is that the media doesn't make much of an issue about it and most people don't give it much thought until they have a 1st hand experience or something like this happens. Kind of like how we've handled the issue of millions of people in this country having no health insurance and limited access to affordable healthcare.

    The other part of the problem is that not all of the mentally ill are easily identifiable before they do something like this and the ones identifiable still have rights and you just can't lock them up because they have a mental illness of some sorts.

    Where is the uproar over the justice system and adding mandatory sentences on top of what ever plea bargain they where to weasel out of some liberal judge or over worked prosecutor? Again, why there isn't, the "rights" of one trumps the majority.
    Like above, there is uproar, but there isn't action. Unfortunately the people with the power to address this part have lacked to fortitude to take serious action to stop it.


    You mention access, well lets be honest, the full responsibility of the murderers ability to access the guns rest solely on his mother's shoulders.
    I agree 100%.

    Funny how in just this scenario, individual rights are proven to be more important than the majority. Further more, the gun control group has absolutely no issue with taking away the legal rights of millions of law abiding gun owners.
    I'm not sure I understand the first part of this. As for the second part, I think you are painting with too wide of a brush. Not everybody that advocates for gun control is at that outer fringe like not everybody that advocates for gun rights is at the opposite outer fringe of the issue.

    Finally you mention severity, what are you basing this hypothesis on? As a VAST majority of these mass shootings have taken place where it is a known fact it is illegal for the average individual to carry. Many of these same places have big signs on the entrance spelling that out: "this premise bans guns". So as a result, the law abiding citizen does just that, enters the facility unarmed. Yet a single one of these signs has yet to deter a bad guy.....
    They are already breaking numerous laws, so what makes you honestly think that they would ;
    -submit themselves through a background check
    -not obtain a gun through illegal means
    -not obtain a clip with a capacity greater than being proposed
    -not use a semi-automatic weapon?
    I'm not sure I'm following your point since your question doesn't seem to line up with what you wrote after it. As for the question itself, "severity" in this case refers to scope of the incident, specifically in terms of the amount of people injured or killed in the attack.

    I'm fully aware that someone intent on committing one of these atrocities could illegally acquire the necessary items. I don't expect anything that is done will completely eliminate these incidents. I think the best we can hope for is to enact common sense ideas that could reduce the likelihood of them happening.

    The use of guns in illegal fashion is part of the problem so guns have to be part of the discussion looking for solutions. Yes, maybe some of the ideas won't actually help improve things, but I know that doing nothing has less of a chance to improve things.

    I find it amazing that, in all the ways the human animal has devised to kill, only when using a gun does it absolve the murderer from responsibility. Somehow it becomes the guns fault.
    I think you are way off base thinking that murderers are somehow being absolved of responsibility because they used a gun. I think you are way off base thinking that anybody sees these incidents as being the gun's fault.

    I think the big difference in how the various "murder weapons" are reacted to has a lot to do with how they are perceived. With the exception of bombs and 9/11, how many of these various weapons have been used to commit mass murder and injury at a single event? I may be wrong, but I can't think of any off hand that compares to the number of mass shooting events that we've seen. While the statistics may say otherwise, gun violence in general seems to be more prevalent in the media. So if the perception of the public is that people are being injured and killed everyday by guns vs any other specific type of weapons, they are bound to view access to guns as an issue.

  18. #43
    Truckie
    SPFDRum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 1999
    Location
    St Paul, MN
    Posts
    2,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    There has been "uproar" over the failings of our mental health system.
    More of a whimper. That is the problem, the media has an agenda. In this case, it is obviously gun control. It does them no good to give equal time to an educated opposing view.
    Need further proof, look at the incredibly biased reporting of LaPierre's call for an armed police officer at every school. Not a single counter-point other than a ban.

    It may not be as loud and persistent as the calls for gun control, but it is there. What there hasn't been much of is action. Part of the problem is that the media doesn't make much of an issue about it and most people don't give it much thought until they have a 1st hand experience or something like this happens. Kind of like how we've handled the issue of millions of people in this country having no health insurance and limited access to affordable healthcare.
    We in Minnesota have handled the the health care issue by having a state law that prevents an emergency room from turning away a patient, no matter what their ability to pay is. Again the media doesn't report that, they scour the city to find the family that fell through the cracks. How horrible it is a mother with kids, who has never worked a day in her life, doesn't have free health care.
    The other part of the problem is that not all of the mentally ill are easily identifiable before they do something like this and the ones identifiable still have rights and you just can't lock them up because they have a mental illness of some sorts.
    Yet it's acceptable to continually preach its ok to take away the rights of millions of law abiding gun owners. Follow this story closely, I can guarantee that there will be a list of common symptoms and actions leading up to this that are the same as all others. Instead of taking away my rights, as I have not broken any laws, I propose that any individual that has taken an anti-depressant show proof of med compliance for a fixed period of time, say 5 years. Add to this, mental health records be included in the background check.
    Like above, there is uproar, but there isn't action. Unfortunately the people with the power to address this part have lacked to fortitude to take serious action to stop it.


    I agree 100%.

    I'm not sure I understand the first part of this. As for the second part, I think you are painting with too wide of a brush. Not everybody that advocates for gun control is at that outer fringe like not everybody that advocates for gun rights is at the opposite outer fringe of the issue.
    Reading the main stream media, I beg to differ. Again I refer to the beating LaPierre is receiving.

    I'm not sure I'm following your point since your question doesn't seem to line up with what you wrote after it. As for the question itself, "severity" in this case refers to scope of the incident, specifically in terms of the amount of people injured or killed in the attack.

    I'm fully aware that someone intent on committing one of these atrocities could illegally acquire the necessary items. I don't expect anything that is done will completely eliminate these incidents. I think the best we can hope for is to enact common sense ideas that could reduce the likelihood of them happening.

    The use of guns in illegal fashion is part of the problem so guns have to be part of the discussion looking for solutions. Yes, maybe some of the ideas won't actually help improve things, but I know that doing nothing has less of a chance to improve things.


    I think you are way off base thinking that murderers are somehow being absolved of responsibility because they used a gun. I think you are way off base thinking that anybody sees these incidents as being the gun's fault.
    I base this on media reports, run over a group of school children waiting for the bus, very little, if any, description of the vehicle; how much it weighed, did they need such a big one, the tires where to big, etc. But use a gun, they are showing pictures of it.... Not to mention digging up every obscure incident that's every happened
    I think the big difference in how the various "murder weapons" are reacted to has a lot to do with how they are perceived. With the exception of bombs and 9/11, how many of these various weapons have been used to commit mass murder and injury at a single event? I may be wrong, but I can't think of any off hand that compares to the number of mass shooting events that we've seen. While the statistics may say otherwise, gun violence in general seems to be more prevalent in the media.
    Again, you have a populace being shaped and molded by the media. What would the reaction be if they gave national press to every incident of elderly driving through crowds? That is just one example, and lets be honest, it happens far more than people realize.
    So if the perception of the public is that people are being injured and killed everyday by guns vs any other specific type of weapons, they are bound to view access to guns as an issue.
    No, it will be very difficult to have an open honest discussion until EVERYTHING is on the table. Including the media and the rock star cult status they propel these murders into the moment it happens.
    Want to successfully shoot up a school, don't google the anarchist cookbook, google CNN's play by play, second by second diatribe of the last shooting.
    Last edited by SPFDRum; 12-23-2012 at 07:16 PM.
    My posts reflect my views and opinions, not the organization I work for or my IAFF local. Some of which they may not agree. I.A.C.O.J. member
    "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
    George Mason
    Co-author of the Second Amendment
    during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
    Elevator Rescue Information

  19. #44
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    100

    Default

    But use a gun, they are showing pictures of it.... Not to mention digging up every obscure incident that's every happened.
    Around here, they almost never show pictures of the firearm used. What I see most often used is a .22, .25, .32, .38 special, or .380. (all handguns). Sometimes it's a .22 rifle or a shotgun and occasionally a deer rifle. Every now and then it's a 9mm. What do they show on tv during the news broadcast almost every single time? A stock photo of an AK47 or an M-16. Once in a blue moon they will flash a picture of a Glock, even if it was a .22 revolver.

    There's one exception here. One local station shows a picture of a 1911 for every single incident involving any type of firearm, whether its a robbery using a weapon, a firearm being stolen, or any shots fired type of report. Of course, that channel also uses the same stock fire photo for reports of homes, forests, grass, shopping malls, business, etc. that fire departments (or should I say first responders? ) respond to.

  20. #45
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,959

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SPFDRum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    The other part of the problem is that not all of the mentally ill are easily identifiable before they do something like this and the ones identifiable still have rights and you just can't lock them up because they have a mental illness of some sorts.

    Yet it's acceptable to continually preach its ok to take away the rights of millions of law abiding gun owners. Follow this story closely, I can guarantee that there will be a list of common symptoms and actions leading up to this that are the same as all others. Instead of taking away my rights, as I have not broken any laws, I propose that any individual that has taken an anti-depressant show proof of med compliance for a fixed period of time, say 5 years. Add to this, mental health records be included in the background check.
    The vast majority of the talk I'm hearing is about banning "assault weapons", limiting the volume of purchasing, limiting magazine capacity. None of which is actually taking away anybody's "rights" because the 2nd Amendment doesn't guarantee unfettered access to any and all weapons, the ability to purchase weapons in bulk or frequent fashion nor the amount of rounds a magazine can hold.

    I disagree with your proposal because I think it's flawed for a couple reasons. First of all, taking anti-depressants is not specifically indicative of mental illness as they are not exclusively prescribed for depression or being "crazy".

    Second, how does one show "med compliance" over a 5 year period? Would it be by showing that you've gotten refills at the right intervals because all that shows is that you've purchased the meds. Would it be by witness verification because for most people they probably don't have anybody that has consistently witnessed them taking the meds? Would it be by blood test because that wouldn't prove compliance beyond a short period of time?


    I'm not sure I understand the first part of this. As for the second part, I think you are painting with too wide of a brush. Not everybody that advocates for gun control is at that outer fringe like not everybody that advocates for gun rights is at the opposite outer fringe of the issue.
    Reading the main stream media, I beg to differ. Again I refer to the beating LaPierre is receiving.
    Well, based on his performance on Meet the Press this morning, he's probably earned much of that beating.


    I think you are way off base thinking that murderers are somehow being absolved of responsibility because they used a gun. I think you are way off base thinking that anybody sees these incidents as being the gun's fault.
    I base this on media reports, run over a group of school children waiting for the bus, very little, if any, description of the vehicle; how much it weighed, did they need such a big one, the tires where to big, etc. But use a gun, they are showing pictures of it.... Not to mention digging up every obscure incident that's every happened
    I don't think that's indicative of faulting the gun over the person. I think it's more indicative of sensationalized journalism.

    I think the big difference in how the various "murder weapons" are reacted to has a lot to do with how they are perceived. With the exception of bombs and 9/11, how many of these various weapons have been used to commit mass murder and injury at a single event? I may be wrong, but I can't think of any off hand that compares to the number of mass shooting events that we've seen. While the statistics may say otherwise, gun violence in general seems to be more prevalent in the media.

    Again, you have a populace being shaped and molded by the media. What would the reaction be if they gave national press to every incident of elderly driving through crowds? That is just one example, and lets be honest, it happens far more than people realize.
    Right, that's pretty much my point. We see far more news stories involving guns than other weapons or elderly people driving into crowds. So most people would think guns are the bigger problem.

    I remember a couple years ago, the media made a big deal out of some shark attacks on the east coast as if there was suddenly an epidemic of people being attacked by sharks. The reality of the situation was that the number of shark attacks that year was "normal", but the reporting of it made it seem like a bigger deal than it was.

    So if the perception of the public is that people are being injured and killed everyday by guns vs any other specific type of weapons, they are bound to view access to guns as an issue.

    No, it will be very difficult to have an open honest discussion until EVERYTHING is on the table. Including the media and the rock star cult status they propel these murders into the moment it happens.
    Want to successfully shoot up a school, don't google the anarchist cookbook, google CNN's play by play, second by second diatribe of the last shooting.
    I agree, to truly address this matter, EVERYTHING has to be on the table for discussion and that includes the stuff that the NRA and "pro-gun" crowd is opposed to. I agree wholeheartedly that the media is a very big part of the problem with how they handle the reporting of these incidents. I think for the most part, they shouldn't report anything about the shooters other than basic generic information like age/sex and maybe if they had or didn't have any connection to the victims or location. They shouldn't report on the shooters "agenda" or go into the detail of how they planned or executed the attacks.

    It's essentially no different than some of the investigative reporting that the media does on something like airport security. Although there is merit to investigating something like that to assess effectiveness and vulnerability, but to openly report some of the information they do is like telling terrorists how to attack us.

  21. #46
    Truckie
    SPFDRum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 1999
    Location
    St Paul, MN
    Posts
    2,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    The vast majority of the talk I'm hearing is about banning "assault weapons", limiting the volume of purchasing, limiting magazine capacity. None of which is actually taking away anybody's "rights" because the 2nd Amendment doesn't guarantee unfettered access to any and all weapons, the ability to purchase weapons in bulk or frequent fashion nor the amount of rounds a magazine can hold.
    And we already have hundreds if not thousands of laws doing just that. I ask, would you feel better if the shooter broke 50 laws instead of 10?
    I disagree with your proposal because I think it's flawed for a couple reasons. First of all, taking anti-depressants is not specifically indicative of mental illness as they are not exclusively prescribed for depression or being "crazy".
    Exactly, so now it puts the responsibility on the person that wants to purchase a firearm and the care provider to prove that.
    Second, how does one show "med compliance" over a 5 year period? Would it be by showing that you've gotten refills at the right intervals because all that shows is that you've purchased the meds. Would it be by witness verification because for most people they probably don't have anybody that has consistently witnessed them taking the meds? Would it be by blood test because that wouldn't prove compliance beyond a short period of time?
    If you ride the box, you know as well as I the number of calls we get for people acting strange, violent, or expressing suicidal tendencies, only to find out they are not taking their meds. As of now, this important piece of information is protected. Again, firearm ownership bares responsibility, it should be up to that individual to prove they are capable of such. Not punish the millions of law abiding gun owner


    Well, based on his performance on Meet the Press this morning, he's probably earned much of that beating.
    Other than bans and restrictions to the law abiding citizen, what did the talking heads on Meet the Press offer?

    I don't think that's indicative of faulting the gun over the person. I think it's more indicative of sensationalized journalism.
    But as you and I are having a great debate, what is the vast majority of human sheep being exposed too? Unfortunately, sensationalized journalism.
    Right, that's pretty much my point. We see far more news stories involving guns than other weapons or elderly people driving into crowds. So most people would think guns are the bigger problem.

    I remember a couple years ago, the media made a big deal out of some shark attacks on the east coast as if there was suddenly an epidemic of people being attacked by sharks. The reality of the situation was that the number of shark attacks that year was "normal", but the reporting of it made it seem like a bigger deal than it was.

    I agree, to truly address this matter, EVERYTHING has to be on the table for discussion and that includes the stuff that the NRA and "pro-gun" crowd is opposed to.
    What is that stuff? Things that are already legal, or worse, things that where banned in Clinton's assault weapons ban, that provided absolutely no reduction in any crime statistic. Now in Minnesota, a conceal/carry state, once you complete the class you are able to go to the pd and get a sheet that says you have passed a background check. I believe it is good for 30 days. Go to a gun show, no paper, no purchase. Effectively closing one of the loopholes so bastardized in the press. Puts the responsibility right where it belongs, the purchaser, who must have said paperwork, and the seller that must record it prior to sale. A very easy solution to really, to an issue the media has blown completely out of proportion.
    I agree wholeheartedly that the media is a very big part of the problem with how they handle the reporting of these incidents. I think for the most part, they shouldn't report anything about the shooters other than basic generic information like age/sex and maybe if they had or didn't have any connection to the victims or location. They shouldn't report on the shooters "agenda" or go into the detail of how they planned or executed the attacks.

    It's essentially no different than some of the investigative reporting that the media does on something like airport security. Although there is merit to investigating something like that to assess effectiveness and vulnerability, but to openly report some of the information they do is like telling terrorists how to attack us.
    I provide a solution to the mental health issue, you provide excuses to absolve the individual of responsibility.
    I provide an example of a solution offered by the NRA, you chastise it, yet offer no other solution.
    Last edited by SPFDRum; 12-24-2012 at 10:51 AM.
    My posts reflect my views and opinions, not the organization I work for or my IAFF local. Some of which they may not agree. I.A.C.O.J. member
    "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
    George Mason
    Co-author of the Second Amendment
    during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
    Elevator Rescue Information

  22. #47
    Truckie
    SPFDRum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 1999
    Location
    St Paul, MN
    Posts
    2,516

    Default

    As far as the mental health aspect of this, I would go so far as to say maybe it's about time we teach our educators how to profile:

    Besides the revenge motive, mass murderers usually share certain other psychological or behavioral characteristics, the experts said.
    Grant Duwe, a criminologist with the Minnesota Department of Corrections who has written a history of mass murders in America, cited five:
    The killer blames others for his problems.
    He is much more likely to have a mental illness, particularly paranoid schizophrenia, than homicide perpetrators in general.
    He is often a loner, with few friends or social connections.
    He carefully plans his attacks, taking days to months to get ready.
    He is much more likely to be suicidal than a typical killer. "Because the mass murderer considers his life no longer worth living, he will either kill himself or force the police to kill him," Dr. Duwe said.

    But I know this will fall on deaf ears; it may infringe on the rights of this individual, not on those legal, law abiding gun owners that may own semi-automatic firearms. Some of which may resemble military hardware. Because it is painfully obvious the media has portrayed that individual as the bad guy.
    My posts reflect my views and opinions, not the organization I work for or my IAFF local. Some of which they may not agree. I.A.C.O.J. member
    "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
    George Mason
    Co-author of the Second Amendment
    during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
    Elevator Rescue Information

  23. #48
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,171

    Default

    SPFDRum,

    Logic, and real attempts at curbing or solving these issues have little meaning to the knee jerk reactionary anti-gun crowd. Once you understand that people are blameless and the gun is somehow capable of evil all on its own you will see the light. Once you start to hold people themselves accountable for their actions you may damage their self esteem and THAT my friend is the worse possible thing you can do to someone in our society today.

    I hope you are having a great Holiday Season and a very Merry Christmas!
    Last edited by FyredUp; 12-24-2012 at 11:21 AM.
    Chenzo likes this.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  24. #49
    Truckie
    SPFDRum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 1999
    Location
    St Paul, MN
    Posts
    2,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    SPFDRum,

    Logic, and real attempts at curbing or solving these issues have little meaning to the knee jerk reactionary anti-gun crowd. Once you understand that people are blameless and the gun is somehow capable of evil all on its own you will see the light. Once you start to hold people themselves accountable for their actions you may damage their self esteem and THAT my frien is the worse possible thing you can do to someone in our society today.

    I hope you are having a great Holiday Season and a very Merry Christmas!
    Don, my friend, you are unfortunately so very correct. I did post some time back that who would have thought everyone making the team and not keeping score (hate to hurt anyone's feelings) would have such a negative effect on personal responsibility.
    And thank you very much, its been a good year only to get better and our family will be definitely enjoying a very Merry Christmas!!
    I sincerely hope that you are having a blessed year and it continues to the next!! A Merry Christmas to you and your family, Brother!!
    Chenzo likes this.
    My posts reflect my views and opinions, not the organization I work for or my IAFF local. Some of which they may not agree. I.A.C.O.J. member
    "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
    George Mason
    Co-author of the Second Amendment
    during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
    Elevator Rescue Information

  25. #50
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SPFDRum View Post
    As far as the mental health aspect of this, I would go so far as to say maybe it's about time we teach our educators how to profile:
    They do report those behavioral anomolies. They talk with parents, DCS, sometimes police, etc. Seldom is anything ever followed up. You'd be amazed how badly a child must be treated before DCS will intervene. Same goes for potentially violent behavior.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Anyone else see a trend.....
    By BCmdepas3280 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02-16-2006, 01:12 AM
  2. Noticeable Trend?
    By ltoffd in forum Federal FIRE ACT Grants & Funding
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 09-02-2004, 01:30 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-24-2004, 11:11 AM
  4. Disturbing Trend - MUTT x 4
    By RspctFrmCalgary in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 06-21-2002, 10:42 AM
  5. Disturbing Trend
    By firedog11ku in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-01-2001, 10:03 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register