Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 20 FirstFirst 12345613 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 391
Like Tree156Likes

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

  1. #41
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,952

    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.


  2. #42
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,952

    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.

  3. #43
    Truckie SPFDRum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 1999
    Location
    St Paul, MN
    Posts
    2,514

    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

  4. #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.

  5. #45
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,952

    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.

  6. #46
    Truckie SPFDRum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 1999
    Location
    St Paul, MN
    Posts
    2,514

    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

  7. #47
    Truckie SPFDRum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 1999
    Location
    St Paul, MN
    Posts
    2,514

    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

  8. #48
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,923

    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

  9. #49
    Truckie SPFDRum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 1999
    Location
    St Paul, MN
    Posts
    2,514

    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

  10. #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.

  11. #51
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,952

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SPFDRum View Post
    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'll admit that I'm not very familiar with the various gun laws, so I'm not sure what's already out there. Because of that I'm not completely sold on the need for new laws vs better or actual enforcement of existing laws vs modification and enforcement of existing laws.

    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.
    I'm not sure if I'm interpretting this right, but your statement was proof of compliance with meds over a 5 year period if on anti-depressants and this reads like you are saying that the person has to also prove that they aren't taking them for depression or being "crazy". If they are not prescribed for these things, would a person still have to prove med compliance over that 5 year period?

    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?
    No answer to this????

    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
    I agree that there is an inherent level of responsibility that comes with ownership of firearms and that the burden of proof should rest with the person wishing to purchase one. It's pretty easy to show that you haven't been arrested or have a criminal background, that you haven't been institutionalized for mental illness. You should probably even be able to show that you aren't taking anti-depressants for treatment of "psych issues", but I see an inherent problem with being able to reasonably be able to prove med compliance unless somebody physically witnesses and documents each and every time you take the medication.

    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?
    Honestly, I don't recall if there was anything else since I wasn't paying that close of attention to the program. The thing that struck me the most was how dismissive and disingenuous he was in the discussion. For example, the moderator pressed him on the idea of limiting magazine capacity and his response was pretty much "it won't work so there's no reason to discuss it or try it".

    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, but the problem isn't just with those advocating for gun control. Some of the "pro-gun" crowd appears to be getting fairly irrational about the issue too. It's the reason I started this thread, to see if others were seeing this same trend among their friends and co-workers and such.

    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.
    Not that I'm trying to compare these things with this issue, but........

    slavery was once legal and then we realized that needed to change, segregation used to be legal and then we realized that needed to change,.....so maybe we're getting to that point where we think something needs to change on guns?

    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.
    I assume your mental health solution was the thing about anti-depressants. If so, I don't believe I offered any excuses to absolve personal responsibility, I simply pointed out some flaws with the idea as stated.

    I'm not sure what solution from the NRA you are referring to nor how I chastised it, so I can't comment regarding that at this time, but will gladly do so when I'm clear on it.

  12. #52
    Truckie SPFDRum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 1999
    Location
    St Paul, MN
    Posts
    2,514

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    I'll admit that I'm not very familiar with the various gun laws, so I'm not sure what's already out there. Because of that I'm not completely sold on the need for new laws vs better or actual enforcement of existing laws vs modification and enforcement of existing laws.
    I'm not sure if I'm interpretting this right, but your statement was proof of compliance with meds over a 5 year period if on anti-depressants and this reads like you are saying that the person has to also prove that they aren't taking them for depression or being "crazy". If they are not prescribed for these things, would a person still have to prove med compliance over that 5 year period?
    No, as you said, there are times that these drugs are not prescribed for mental health issues. I provided a solution for that via their health care provider.
    No answer to this????
    I answered it with past medical history and used the psych run as an example.
    I agree that there is an inherent level of responsibility that comes with ownership of firearms and that the burden of proof should rest with the person wishing to purchase one. It's pretty easy to show that you haven't been arrested or have a criminal background, that you haven't been institutionalized for mental illness. You should probably even be able to show that you aren't taking anti-depressants for treatment of "psych issues", but I see an inherent problem with being able to reasonably be able to prove med compliance unless somebody physically witnesses and documents each and every time you take the medication.
    Again, past medical history would do just that. But as of now, that is HIPPA protected. My proposal eliminates that protection in regards to the background check for the purchase of a firearm.
    Honestly, I don't recall if there was anything else since I wasn't paying that close of attention to the program. The thing that struck me the most was how dismissive and disingenuous he was in the discussion. For example, the moderator pressed him on the idea of limiting magazine capacity and his response was pretty much "it won't work so there's no reason to discuss it or try it".

    Right, but the problem isn't just with those advocating for gun control. Some of the "pro-gun" crowd appears to be getting fairly irrational about the issue too. It's the reason I started this thread, to see if others were seeing this same trend among their friends and co-workers and such.
    What is irrational about their views? Would it, better yet, shouldn't it carry the same weight and emotion as if someone was proposing to infringe upon our 1st, 4th, or even 5th constitutional right?
    Not that I'm trying to compare these things with this issue, but........
    slavery was once legal and then we realized that needed to change, segregation used to be legal and then we realized that needed to change,.....so maybe we're getting to that point where we think something needs to change on guns?
    Strawman, none of these where constitutionally protected.
    I assume your mental health solution was the thing about anti-depressants. If so, I don't believe I offered any excuses to absolve personal responsibility, I simply pointed out some flaws with the idea as stated.
    The only flaw is it puts the responsibility on the individual. If these bans become law, if I have a high-capacity clip, I am now breaking the law. Yet in all the years I have owned firearms, or high-capacity clips, neither them, my firearms, or myself has broken any laws. Unfortunately, this country everybody is a victim.
    I'm not sure what solution from the NRA you are referring to nor how I chastised it, so I can't comment regarding that at this time, but will gladly do so when I'm clear on it
    He proposed an armed officer at every school. As we have armed individuals protecting our banks, our airports, or state buildings, our Hollywood celebrities, and our politicians, why wouldn't we extend the same protection to our children. As far as the rest, he was pointing out to the failed Clinton era assault weapon ban and it's associated regulations. .
    There are people that think the gun is inherently evil, yet millions of Americans enjoy their 2nd amendment rights, legally and with in the context of all laws. Yet do to sensationalism propaganda in the media, and acidamia I may add, we are all lumped together as nut jobs if you voice your support for the 2nd amendment rights.
    How loud do you think they would scream if the tide changed and now maybe our 1st and/or 4th amendment rights are deemed evil?
    Last edited by SPFDRum; 12-24-2012 at 02:51 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

  13. #53
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,952

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SPFDRum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    I'll admit that I'm not very familiar with the various gun laws, so I'm not sure what's already out there. Because of that I'm not completely sold on the need for new laws vs better or actual enforcement of existing laws vs modification and enforcement of existing laws.
    I'm not sure if I'm interpretting this right, but your statement was proof of compliance with meds over a 5 year period if on anti-depressants and this reads like you are saying that the person has to also prove that they aren't taking them for depression or being "crazy". If they are not prescribed for these things, would a person still have to prove med compliance over that 5 year period?

    No, as you said, there are times that these drugs are not prescribed for mental health issues. I provided a solution for that via their health care provider.

    No answer to this????

    I answered it with past medical history and used the psych run as an example.
    Your answer didn't actually address my questions which were about how it would be proved that a person was actually taking their meds. You can't look at getting refills at the right interval because a person could easily flush their meds rather than take them. I take meds daily, but there is nobody that could actually verify that I am actually taking them since I'm the only one in the bathroom when I take them. Blood tests are an option, but even that wouldn't prove long term compliance unless a person was constantly getting them done.

    Here's another wrinkle to this. How do you identify the people taking anti-depressants to know they need to prove compliance with their meds?

    I agree that there is an inherent level of responsibility that comes with ownership of firearms and that the burden of proof should rest with the person wishing to purchase one. It's pretty easy to show that you haven't been arrested or have a criminal background, that you haven't been institutionalized for mental illness. You should probably even be able to show that you aren't taking anti-depressants for treatment of "psych issues", but I see an inherent problem with being able to reasonably be able to prove med compliance unless somebody physically witnesses and documents each and every time you take the medication.
    Again, past medical history would do just that. But as of now, that is HIPPA protected. My proposal eliminates that protection in regards to the background check for the purchase of a firearm.
    Even if PMH wasn't protected by HIPAA, it still wouldn't solve the issue of proving med compliance as I stated above.

    Honestly, I don't recall if there was anything else since I wasn't paying that close of attention to the program. The thing that struck me the most was how dismissive and disingenuous he was in the discussion. For example, the moderator pressed him on the idea of limiting magazine capacity and his response was pretty much "it won't work so there's no reason to discuss it or try it".

    Right, but the problem isn't just with those advocating for gun control. Some of the "pro-gun" crowd appears to be getting fairly irrational about the issue too. It's the reason I started this thread, to see if others were seeing this same trend among their friends and co-workers and such.
    What is irrational about their views? Would it, better yet, shouldn't it carry the same weight and emotion as if someone was proposing to infringe upon our 1st, 4th, or even 5th constitutional right?
    The extremism of a lot of what I'm seeing from them which I included in my original post.

    I would expect strong resistance to actual efforts to infringe upon them. I don't have a problem with them or anybody voicing opposition to people talking about gun restrictions. My concerns are with the way it's done and the content of their message. It isn't well thought out, informed responses defending their side of the issue. It's mainly rhetoric type stuff and IMO, some of it crosses the line into paranoia and delusion.

    Not that I'm trying to compare these things with this issue, but........
    slavery was once legal and then we realized that needed to change, segregation used to be legal and then we realized that needed to change,.....so maybe we're getting to that point where we think something needs to change on guns?
    Strawman, none of these where constitutionally protected.
    It's not a strawman argument. The point is relevant, sometimes we as a nation change our mind about things and decide things that were legal no longer should be. Like our laws, the constitution can be altered. In fact, the 2nd amendment itself was an alteration of the constitution.


    I assume your mental health solution was the thing about anti-depressants. If so, I don't believe I offered any excuses to absolve personal responsibility, I simply pointed out some flaws with the idea as stated.
    The only flaw is it puts the responsibility on the individual.
    Individual responsibility isn't the flaw. The flaw is asking the individual to prove something that they can't reasonably prove.

    If these bans become law, if I have a high-capacity clip, I am now breaking the law. Yet in all the years I have owned firearms, or high-capacity clips, neither them, my firearms, or myself has broken any laws. Unfortunately, this country everybody is a victim.
    Correct and that's part of the problem with trying to impose a ban on something that is already out there and has been for some time.

    I'm not sure what solution from the NRA you are referring to nor how I chastised it, so I can't comment regarding that at this time, but will gladly do so when I'm clear on it
    He proposed an armed officer at every school. As we have armed individuals protecting our banks, our airports, or state buildings, our Hollywood celebrities, and our politicians, why wouldn't we extend the same protection to our children. As far as the rest, he was pointing out to the failed Clinton era assault weapon ban and it's associated regulations.
    I fully support the idea of schools having an armed officer present. It's sad that we have to consider doing that, but I think it's a much better idea than arming the teachers.

    As for the last sentence, just pointing out problems and regulations is not exactly problem solving. Still not quite clear as to what I chastised.

    There are people that think the gun is inherently evil, yet millions of Americans enjoy their 2nd amendment rights, legally and with in the context of all laws. Yet do to sensationalism propaganda in the media, and acidamia I may add, we are all lumped together as nut jobs if you voice your support for the 2nd amendment rights.
    I disagree that everybody is lumped together as "nut jobs". Aside from the sensationalism, part of the problem with how the "pro-gun" crowd is viewed is how they present their position on the issue. I'm really not seeing what a reasonable person or myself would consider "good" arguments to justify some things.

    For example, "why does a person need a military style rifle?". The typical response, "because I want one" or "because the 2nd amendment says I can". There's basically no response to the "Why do you need a 30-round clip?" question.

    There's basically 2 reasons to own a firearm as a civilian outside of having to provide your own weapon as a LEO or security guard - hunting and personal/family protection. Both of which can be accomplished with hunting rifles and handguns. So, it's hard to justify access to military style weapons when there are viable alternatives for hunting and protection and the general public recognizes it. The inability of the gun lobby to do that just reinforces the belief that banning that style weapon is a reasonable action.

    How loud do you think they would scream if the tide changed and now maybe our 1st and/or 4th amendment rights are deemed evil?
    I'm sure it would be loud, but nobody has killed large groups of people with the fruits of those amendments.

  14. #54
    Truckie SPFDRum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 1999
    Location
    St Paul, MN
    Posts
    2,514

    Default

    I'm sure it would be loud, but nobody has killed large groups of people with the fruits of those amendments.
    I will post more, but let me leave you with this about your post: How many times have you heard or read the pen is mightier that the sword?
    So in this regard, has not the written word caused as much death and destruction as any gun? Hitler: propoganda: genocide
    slackjawedyokel 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

  15. #55
    Truckie SPFDRum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 1999
    Location
    St Paul, MN
    Posts
    2,514

    Default

    Nothing more needs to be said about media bias and their view of the legal gun owner.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...ermit-holders/
    Chenzo and bcjack like 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

  16. #56
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Auckland NZ
    Posts
    80

    Default

    Firemedic thank you for your calm and reasoned attempt to debate this important issue. It seems to me there are sadly many in the US who still refuse to believe it is an issue or one worthy of debate.
    Nothing constructive come from name calling or "straw man" arguments and I am sure that your refusal to indulge in them while arguing your points will provide an example others may follow, whatever their own point of view is.
    Finally let me pass my sympathy to you as one who is likely to see those issues you are raising and others are dismissing will cause more misery and mayhem before enough Americans are affected enough to demand real change.
    Stay safe brother and thank you for your efforts. You are an inspiration to me.
    Jim Maclean
    Auckland NZ
    Jim Maclean. IACOJ NZ branch

  17. #57
    Truckie SPFDRum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 1999
    Location
    St Paul, MN
    Posts
    2,514

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jimthefireman View Post
    Firemedic thank you for your calm and reasoned attempt to debate this important issue. It seems to me there are sadly many in the US who still refuse to believe it is an issue or one worthy of debate.
    Nothing constructive come from name calling or "straw man" arguments and I am sure that your refusal to indulge in them while arguing your points will provide an example others may follow, whatever their own point of view is.
    Finally let me pass my sympathy to you as one who is likely to see those issues you are raising and others are dismissing will cause more misery and mayhem before enough Americans are affected enough to demand real change.
    Stay safe brother and thank you for your efforts. You are an inspiration to me.
    Jim Maclean
    Auckland NZ
    Well since I mentioned the strawman point, this is as much directed towards me as anyone. Before your arrogance causes you to fall off your high horse, you may wish to read all the posts on the topic. Point to a single instance that anyone, pro or con states the issue isn't worthy of debate. It gets broken down into 2 very distinct points: 1) you believe the gun is inherently evil, and in of itself, its cable of causing great harm, 2) you believe the human factor is the root of the evil. Capable of wielding any tool, including a gun to cause great harm.
    As America is a free country that enjoys more personal and civil freedoms than any other country in the world, it comes with great responsibility. Until we wake up and realize it is the individual that takes advantage of that, not inanimate objects such as a gun, they may very well continue.
    As far as increased misery and mayhem, do a little research, you may be surprised to find that states with conceal/carry laws have seen a steady drop in all forms of violent crime.
    We are fortunate as Americans, we enjoy some very important and potent Constitutional Rights, I won't apologize when those that do not enjoy such freedoms find it necessary to trample mine.
    But my opinion won't sway you, as I'm sure you don't enjoy the freedoms we do, but read this for a little history lesson: http://rense.com/general81/ligun.htm
    Chenzo and bcjack like 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

  18. #58
    Forum Member Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,672

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SPFDRum View Post
    ...It gets broken down into 2 very distinct points: 1) you believe the gun is inherently evil, and in of itself, its cable of causing great harm, 2) you believe the human factor is the root of the evil...
    I would guess you would put me in group 1. And I don't believe guns are inherently evil. I do believe that guns in the hands of some people make those people capable of mass murder. 1 part of stopping that from happening is not allowing access to the gun. And yes, that is just 1 part.
    "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?

  19. #59
    Forum Member bcjack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    California
    Posts
    106

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bones42 View Post
    I would guess you would put me in group 1. And I don't believe guns are inherently evil. I do believe that guns in the hands of some people make those people capable of mass murder. 1 part of stopping that from happening is not allowing access to the gun. And yes, that is just 1 part.
    New gun laws of any kind will NEVER stop a human with the intent and gumption to commit mass murder. They will steal the gun(s) they want/need to do their deed.

    The way you stop it is with properly trained armed citizens.
    SPFDRum and Chenzo like this.
    everyonegoeshome.com

  20. #60
    Truckie SPFDRum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 1999
    Location
    St Paul, MN
    Posts
    2,514

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bones42 View Post
    I would guess you would put me in group 1. And I don't believe guns are inherently evil. I do believe that guns in the hands of some people make those people capable of mass murder. 1 part of stopping that from happening is not allowing access to the gun. And yes, that is just 1 part.
    Must be 18 to purchase a shotgun or long gun.
    Must be 18 to buy ammunition for such.
    Must be 21 to purchase a handgun.
    Must be 21 to buy ammunition that fits into a hand gun.
    Must pass a background check and a 30 day waiting period to actually purchase a handgun.
    Your 1 part answer is not allowing access to the gun. I ask, pray tell, how do you plan on doing this, by telling them NOT to break the law?

    Lets be honest with ourselves, anything in the hands of some people can cause mass murder; fertilizer, airplanes, the family sedan, tainted Tylenol, even the pen of an architect. The one thing that ties it all together, the human.
    Is bcjack that far off the beaten path, the answer lies in the extremely restrictive gun control laws of lets say Chicago or Washington DC, they should be a mecca for the absence of gun violence. But statistics just don't prove that out. Even the numbers during the Clinton assault weapons ban showed an increase in violent crime.
    So with no statistical evidence in the U.S. that increased gun control or bans are effective, why is it acceptable to remove my means of defending myself or my family? Why is acceptable to make illegal some of my firearms, although neither them nor myself have ever broken any of those laws. Along with millions of others I may add?
    Could it be that some are so far out of touch with reality that there can't be evil people? Are some people so obtuse that they honestly believe that someone could obtain a gun and it is the gun that turns them into a mass murder? Until then they where sanely innocent?
    How is it there is a segment of our population that is so against personal responsibility?
    Chenzo and bcjack like 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

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