"Guns don't kill people, people kill people" (Representatives, voted, doctor)

[Redraven]

Originally Posted by Reynard32

In my opinion, if any of you gun-"advocates" cared one whit about the atrocious level of gun carnage that goes on in this country, you'd come up with some rational, sane, and effective ideas for how we might reduce those god-awful numbers. But I hear NOTHING. Nothing at all. What else should sane people think of this sort of thing?

Oh, yes, we most assuredly CARE about the carnage!
HOWEVER, we are not prone to suggesting "feel good" laws that really will not accomplish anything to reduce the carnage, as many of the antis do.
Ah, yes, the wonderful "background check" that is touted by many of the antis. The fact is, many of the recent mass shootings were done by people who PASSED the "background check", because there is no way to report mental instability to the authorities without running afoul of the existing HIPAA laws regarding patient confidentiality, and there is no way to remove those unstable people from society!
So, 100% background check for all gun sales? Nope, won't work, as has already been proven. For example, look at Washington State and Missoula, MT.
Waiting periods? Look at the Reagan attempted assassination. Hinckley bought that pistol THREE MONTHS before the attempt. Waiting periods have not reduced the violence.
"Gun free" zones? It is obvious they are really "free fire" zones.
What laws do YOU think we should have? Can you show that any law you recommend will REALLY reduce the violence? Or is it just more of the "Oh, hey, some people don't obey existing laws, so let's pass another law to stop that!" Or do you believe the "War On Drugs" has been so successful that we should start a "War On Guns"?
Remember how well the "War On Alcoholic Beverages" worked?
Give us reasonable, well thought out ideas for laws that punish criminals but do not make criminals out of law abiding citizens, and do not violate the Federal Constitution or the various State Constitutions, and perhaps we can talk about them.

By The Way, reynard, I have never repped you in any way, good or bad. If somebody did, you brought it on yourself, don't try to blame me for it.

[suzy_q2010]

Every single gun death has a human being behind the trigger. That's the point of the thread. The way to prevent those deaths is to deal with the conditions that cause the human to pull the trigger. The vast, vast majority of gun owners will never fire a gun at another human being and they are responsible and will never have an accident.

The experience in Japan disproves this assertion.

It takes no longer to jump off a bridge than to locate, load, and fire a gun.

If you are not advocating gun bans, what would you like to see done?

Yes, all you are doing is repeating "it's the guns" over and over and over. What do you propose be done?

What "controls" for guns do you think we should have that do not already exist?

I have told you what I think needs to be done, in several previous posts: increase funding for mental health care, address domestic violence by prosecuting abusers and incarcerating them without the necessity for the abused person to press charges. Reduce gang violence by offering alternatives to joining gangs. The problem is that all of those require funding. It's much easier to convince yourself that banning guns is the answer rather than going to the polls and voting for a tax increase.

People who are suicidal should not have access to guns. Families should make sure of that and mental health professionals should address the issue in the treatment of people with depression.

Yes, dead is dead, whether you commit suicide by gun or by hanging. To prevent suicide you have to get the suicidal person into treatment for the mental illness causing the suicidal thoughts.

The point is that suicide exists in Japan despite the absence of guns.

You are the one who is screeching, not the rest of us.

[Thoris]

I love this use of "death tolls on the highways" as an excuse for all the madness over any hint of gun control. By all means, people kill people, but let's take a closer look at this car story before we start saying, "See it's not the guns fault, no way can we blame the manufacturer, it would be unconstitutional to infringe on our right to bear arms if you impose any regulations!" Cars certainly do kill people, and people drive cars, some people even drive cars with the intention of killing people, but according to your logic it all ends there. Nothing can be done to force auto makers to make safer cars? We shouldn't impose stricter controls on who we allow to get behind the wheel? We shouldn't enforce driving regulations to make people drive more responsibly and less dangerously? Where in the constitution does it say that the government has the right to require that I drive the speed limit? You might want to say that, because there were no cars when they wrote the constitution, they obviously couldn't foresee a problem with crazy drivers, well they didn't have M-1's then either, nor AK47's. In fact, all they had were muzzle loaders that posed zero risk of anyone engaging in mass murder.

Nobody wants to take your precious guns away, all we ask is the chance to sit down and hash out some regulations that reduce risk to the general public. Gun owners should be there and the government should be there, however, just as General Motors doesn't get a seat at the table when we discuss highway speeds and drunk driver's, Remington should not have the ability to influence our arriving at sane, reasonable, NECESSARY gun laws.

[suzy_q2010]

Originally Posted by Thoris

I love this use of "death tolls on the highways" as an excuse for all the madness over any hint of gun control. By all means, people kill people, but let's take a closer look at this car story before we start saying, "See it's not the guns fault, no way can we blame the manufacturer, it would be unconstitutional to infringe on our right to bear arms if you impose any regulations!" Cars certainly do kill people, and people drive cars, some people even drive cars with the intention of killing people, but according to your logic it all ends there. Nothing can be done to force auto makers to make safer cars? We shouldn't impose stricter controls on who we allow to get behind the wheel? We shouldn't enforce driving regulations to make people drive more responsibly and less dangerously? Where in the constitution does it say that the government has the right to require that I drive the speed limit? You might want to say that, because there were no cars when they wrote the constitution, they obviously couldn't foresee a problem with crazy drivers, well they didn't have M-1's then either, nor AK47's. In fact, all they had were muzzle loaders that posed zero risk of anyone engaging in mass murder.

Nobody wants to take your precious guns away, all we ask is the chance to sit down and hash out some regulations that reduce risk to the general public. Gun owners should be there and the government should be there, however, just as General Motors doesn't get a seat at the table when we discuss highway speeds and drunk driver's, Remington should not have the ability to influence our arriving at sane, reasonable, NECESSARY gun laws.

What "sane, reasonable, NECESSARY gun laws" do you propose?

Unfortunately, the people who make our laws can come up with some that are completely unenforceable because they set requirements that the manufacturers cannot meet, which is a back door approach to banning guns altogether.

It's much like certain health care legislation that was passed with virtually no input from doctors.

[Thoris]

Gun manufacturers can most certainly take steps like installing biometric gun locks on new weapons sold. The government should require that existing weapons be retro-actively fitted with these locks. Fines would be imposed whenever a gun was seen without this equipment. Gun manufacturers can meet this requirement.

Enforce background checks at all levels of gun sales, retail stores, gun shows and internet. Provide more funding to speed up and enforce.

Allow the ATF to receive a simple up or down recommendation from medical records to allow a gun sale.

Anything you would care to add? Amend with cause?

BTW, the ACA had significant input (all that was necessary) from doctors. You provide me with your evidence that they didn't I will provide you with evidence that they did.

[suzy_q2010]

Originally Posted by Thoris

Gun manufacturers can most certainly take steps like installing biometric gun locks on new weapons sold. The government should require that existing weapons be retro-actively fitted with these locks. Fines would be imposed whenever a gun was seen without this equipment. Gun manufacturers can meet this requirement.

Enforce background checks at all levels of gun sales, retail stores, gun shows and internet. Provide more funding to speed up and enforce.

Allow the ATF to receive a simple up or down recommendation from medical records to allow a gun sale.

Anything you would care to add? Amend with cause?

Gun locks are a possibility, but that contradicts your statement that the manufacturers should have no input.

Background checks are not a new regulation. I agree that existing regulations should be enforced.

Who would establish the criteria for a physician to recommend that someone not be allowed to buy a gun? How would you prevent abuse? The mere recommendation that someone not be allowed to buy a gun would disclose health information about that person.

My approach is to deal with the social issues that lead to gun violence. We have to be prepared to pay for that though.

BTW, the ACA had significant input (all that was necessary) from doctors. You provide me with your evidence that they didn't I will provide you with evidence that they did.

This is a topic for a different discussion, but I cannot find a single reference to the names of physicians who had significant influence on any of the features of the ACA. The AMA does not count. It does not represent the majority of physicians in the US.

[Redraven]

Originally Posted by Thoris

1. Gun manufacturers can most certainly take steps like installing biometric gun locks on new weapons sold. The government should require that existing weapons be retro-actively fitted with these locks. Fines would be imposed whenever a gun was seen without this equipment. Gun manufacturers can meet this requirement.

2. Enforce background checks at all levels of gun sales, retail stores, gun shows and internet. Provide more funding to speed up and enforce.

3. Allow the ATF to receive a simple up or down recommendation from medical records to allow a gun sale.

Anything you would care to add? Amend with cause?

BTW, the ACA had significant input (all that was necessary) from doctors. You provide me with your evidence that they didn't I will provide you with evidence that they did.

1. New weapons, fine, I don't care, I don't plan on buying any new weapons in the near future.
The "mandatory retro-fit", though, has some issues, IMO. In effect, you are saying that it is OK for the government to impose unfunded mandates on the people, forcing them to buy something whether they want it or not. Now, if you want to give Government vouchers to gun owners so they can buy the necessary "fix" for every gun they own, that's fine, from a gun owners standpoint. However, from a taxpayers standpoint, we, the people, can't afford it. Besides, will the system fit ALL hand guns? If it doesn't fit every hand gun made everywhere in the world since 1873, it is worthless!

2. Background checks are already required for all gun sales by licensed dealers. Most sellers at gun shows are licensed dealers. Most internet sellers are licensed dealers. Those that aren't have to ship the weapon from one licensed dealer to another, and the receiving dealer is required to do the background check before delivering the weapon. This system has been in place for many years, and has had no effect on mass shootings. In fact, as previously noted, many of the recent mass shooters PASSED the required background check AND possibly even the waiting period (which usually applies only to hand guns)! If you are going to require a background check before I can loan a hunting rifle to my son, perhaps you should take a good long look at what has happened and is happening in Washington State since the voters passed that foolish law.

3. Can you ensure that there will be NO breach of patient confidentiality? If not, such a system will be illegal and possibly unconstitutional under current laws.

THINK about it.

[Thoris]

Originally Posted by suzy_q2010

Gun locks are a possibility, but that contradicts your statement that the manufacturers should have no input.

Manufacturers do not need to have input as to whether or not they must install locks, they actual lock design is up to them, providing it meets requirements.

Originally Posted by suzy_q2010

Background checks are not a new regulation. I agree that existing regulations should be enforced.

Background checks are not new, but they are not currently required for ALL gun sales. Make it so.

Originally Posted by suzy_q2010

Who would establish the criteria for a physician to recommend that someone not be allowed to buy a gun? How would you prevent abuse? The mere recommendation that someone not be allowed to buy a gun would disclose health information about that person.

The physicians, gun owners and government can determine the requirements regarding mental health, might not be perfect, but would certainly be better than what we have. The government can already order that certain medical records be made available under certain situations, a simple YES/NO would not present a problem.

Originally Posted by suzy_q2010

My approach is to deal with the social issues that lead to gun violence. We have to be prepared to pay for that though.

Illicit use of guns is already an expensive endeavor, I doubt there would be an much of an increase in costs.

Originally Posted by suzy_q2010

This is a topic for a different discussion, but I cannot find a single reference to the names of physicians who had significant influence on any of the features of the ACA. The AMA does not count. It does not represent the majority of physicians in the US.

Agreed, but would be prepared to supply you with names on request. I live in Rochester, MN, the home of Mayo Clinic, I know doctors here were in on consultations.

[Reynard32]

Originally Posted by Redraven

Oh, yes, we most assuredly CARE about the carnage! HOWEVER, we are not prone to suggesting "feel good" laws that really will not accomplish anything to reduce the carnage, as many of the antis do.

So just more of the same then. You care very deeply, but not so deeply as to bring you to do or to see done anything that might actually help limit all this carnage that bothers you so very deeply. Kind of what I expected after 500+ posts of gun-"advocates" running away from the notion of harm-reduction as fast as their little legs will carry them.

[Thoris]

Originally Posted by Redraven

1. New weapons, fine, I don't care, I don't plan on buying any new weapons in the near future.
The "mandatory retro-fit", though, has some issues, IMO. In effect, you are saying that it is OK for the government to impose unfunded mandates on the people, forcing them to buy something whether they want it or not. Now, if you want to give Government vouchers to gun owners so they can buy the necessary "fix" for every gun they own, that's fine, from a gun owners standpoint. However, from a taxpayers standpoint, we, the people, can't afford it. Besides, will the system fit ALL hand guns? If it doesn't fit every hand gun made everywhere in the world since 1873, it is worthless!

If it doesn't have a biometric trigger lock then it must be in a biometric gun safe. We are not talking about collectors items here. If you feel strongly about that, then I will concede to having certain types of guns classified as collectors pieces (like they do with cars) and removing this stipulation. I am going to presume you are of the "Small Government" persuasion, if so then I am sure you would agree that those who "use the system, should pay for the system", as exampled by the gasoline tax paying for highways.

Originally Posted by Redraven

2. Background checks are already required for all gun sales by licensed dealers. Most sellers at gun shows are licensed dealers. Most internet sellers are licensed dealers. Those that aren't have to ship the weapon from one licensed dealer to another, and the receiving dealer is required to do the background check before delivering the weapon. This system has been in place for many years, and has had no effect on mass shootings. In fact, as previously noted, many of the recent mass shooters PASSED the required background check AND possibly even the waiting period (which usually applies only to hand guns)! If you are going to require a background check before I can loan a hunting rifle to my son, perhaps you should take a good long look at what has happened and is happening in Washington State since the voters passed that foolish law.

"Most" gun sales are by "licensed dealers" is not ALL gun sales. Make it so. Putting speed limits on highways REDUCES the number of fatalities on highways, it does not eliminate them.

Originally Posted by Redraven

3. Can you ensure that there will be NO breach of patient confidentiality? If not, such a system will be illegal and possibly unconstitutional under current laws.

As said earlier, the government already has access to this information, a simple YES/NO, GREEN/RED, GO/STOP, would suffice without revealing the details as to medical history.

THINK about it.[/quote]