Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's more than a bit humorous that the folks who are whining about how gun control folks don't understand guns, so they should cease in discussing them, are the same ones weighing in on mental illness and some fantasy connection to homicidal behavior and haven't a clue what they're talking about. Not a clue.
Hey, all I can tell you is that my brother is schizophrenic, and I'm not.
He's the one sitting in jail after a showdown with the ATF, the FBI, and the bomb squad - not me.
By the way, the DA told us that when he is released (because he will be eventually most likely) that the local law enforcement groups cannot protect us from him. His exact words were "Arm yourselves and be prepared to protect yourselves."
The elephant in the room nobody, least of all the mainstream media, want to acknowledge or add it to the public discussion, least it detract from their popular "America's love affair with violence & guns/ban guns" narrative-
For those of us who came of age in the 1970s, one of the most shocking aspects of the last three decades was the rise of mass public shootings: people who went into public places and murdered complete strangers. Such crimes had taken place before but their rarity meant that they were shocking.
Something changed in the 1980s: these senseless mass murders started to happen with increasing frequency. Why did these crimes go from extraordinarily rare to commonplace?
For a while, it was fashionable to blame gun availability for this dramatic increase. But guns did not become more available before or during this change. Instead, federal law and many state laws became more restrictive on purchase and possession of firearms, sometimes in response to such crimes. If gun availability does not explain the increase of mass public murders, what else might?
At least half of these mass murderers (as well as many other murderers) have histories of mental illness.
In the 1960s, the United States embarked on an innovative approach to caring for its mentally ill: deinstitutionalization. The intentions were quite humane: move patients from long-term commitment in state mental hospitals into community-based mental health treatment.
Mental illness is an excuse.
People are made with emotions. Not everyone deals with their emotions in the same way.
Giving people guns means dealing with the consequences. Love you guns? Deal with the consequences.
What's more: when your government uses violence to resolve its problems, the people will solve their own problems in the same way. Monkey see, monkey do.
The elephant in the room nobody, least of all the mainstream media, want to acknowledge or add it to the public discussion, least it detract from their popular "America's love affair with violence & guns/ban guns" narrative-
For those of us who came of age in the 1970s, one of the most shocking aspects of the last three decades was the rise of mass public shootings: people who went into public places and murdered complete strangers. Such crimes had taken place before but their rarity meant that they were shocking.
Something changed in the 1980s: these senseless mass murders started to happen with increasing frequency. Why did these crimes go from extraordinarily rare to commonplace?
For a while, it was fashionable to blame gun availability for this dramatic increase. But guns did not become more available before or during this change. Instead, federal law and many state laws became more restrictive on purchase and possession of firearms, sometimes in response to such crimes. If gun availability does not explain the increase of mass public murders, what else might?
At least half of these mass murderers (as well as many other murderers) have histories of mental illness.
In the 1960s, the United States embarked on an innovative approach to caring for its mentally ill: deinstitutionalization. The intentions were quite humane: move patients from long-term commitment in state mental hospitals into community-based mental health treatment.
Of all the laws I see being proposed in my state (Washington), I see no mention of the "mental impairment" factor. And what I've seen so far in the media (national and local) is a willingness to overlook mental impairment in legislation. It makes me wonder about people who say "mental impairment is being discussed." Discussed off the record, perhaps, but not ON the record for legislative purposes. And that makes me think that the attitude is "anti-gun uber alles" - that all legislation being proposed affects only guns and not the owners who might be mentally impaired.
It's sad. I'm reminded of the old saying, "Throwing out the baby with the bath-water" - with the baby being law-abiding (and sane/responsible) gun owners and the bath-water being mentally-impaired gun owners. And I think it would be fair to say that there are more sane/responsible gun owners than mentally-impaired gun owners.
Just wanted to make an observation beyond what I posted above. In my area, no one can now legally "buy" most handguns. They can only legally "order" them from a gun shop. Since Obama's first post-Sandy Hook address on gun control, supply of handguns has dried up as people rush to purchase weapons - hoping that ownership that takes place before a ban would be somehow "grandfather in" and allowed. Not necessarily.
In Washington, State Senate Bill 5737 would outlaw all assault-style weapons (as legislators would define them) and would also outlaw all magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. But, unless I missed something, I see no provision in the Senate Bill that would "grandfather in" current owners of these weapons/magazines. If true, that would make "existing" owners criminals. And if later found to have such a weapon/magazine, owners would be given a choice:
1) keep the weapons/magazines legally ... but only after they sign a waiver giving law-enforcement the right to conduct once-yearly "home inspections" to make sure the gun is stored/maintained properly. These inspections would be unannounced.
2) Refuse to sign the waiver and the weapon/magazine would be confiscated ... and the owner brought up on Class C Felony charges.
In short, a "sign it or else" option ... with all owners treated as "guilty until proven innocent" unless they can show that the storage/maintenance dictates of the state are complied with. I've already written to my state senator/reps telling them how I feel about Senate Bill 5737 - as well as two similar pieces of proposed legislation (House Bills 1588 & 1676). And I'm hoping that someone in Olympia is listening.
P.S. At the risk of becoming an after-the-fact criminal, I've put a Ruger P95PR15 9mm handgun on order from my local gun shop. It comes with a 15-round clip. This constitutes my first handgun purchase (and I'm 62 years old). If State Senate Bill 5737 becomes law, I'll be a criminal (grin). But if it becomes law before my order can be filled, Ruger offers the same model with a 10-round magazine (at the same price) - and I'll just resubmit my order for it.
Last edited by Kronicle; 02-15-2013 at 04:53 AM..
Reason: grammar correction
Hey, all I can tell you is that my brother is schizophrenic, and I'm not.
He's the one sitting in jail after a showdown with the ATF, the FBI, and the bomb squad - not me.
By the way, the DA told us that when he is released (because he will be eventually most likely) that the local law enforcement groups cannot protect us from him. His exact words were "Arm yourselves and be prepared to protect yourselves."
Houston, we have a problem.
Were the feds trying to confiscate your brother's guns?
Were the feds trying to confiscate your brother's guns?
Nope, not at all.
The FBI did however interview my dad for three hours. They also looked over all the documentation that my dad has for all his guns (my brother was living in a guest house on my parents' property at the time of the incident but my dad - being a responsible gun owner - had his guns locked in a safe where my brother couldn't get to them). At the end of the interview, they didn't confiscate any guns but made sure my dad understood that he was responsible to keep them all away from my brother.
That depends... there are different levels of crazy. And there are different levels of gun control.
And there is more than one way to skin the cat in regards to the mass killing issue.
What do you propose?
Get yourselves really p***ed off and phone your rep's when your country can ship a billion or so over to Afghanistan and then lose it to a corrupt leader like Karzai but continue stripping mental health care to the bone within your own country!
Instead you sit in front of your wide screen and yawn when news like that is presented with the commentator barely staying awake. You sit up and get all blustery when what..... AR-15's are going to get controls placed upon them!
~"Dang! That's my 2nd amendment rights they're tampering with right thar!"~
What about all that other crap about your right to LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PERSUIT OF HAPPINESS?
You folks have got the most screwed up set of priorities of any bunch of monkeys on this planet today.
A serious discussion unblemished by frothing nincompoops wringing their hands about imaginary efforts to "disarm Americans" and repeal the 2nd Amendment.
Having read many of your insulting posts, you would be left out of any, "serious discussions".
I do want guns out of the hands of the violent mentally ill. However, how will a person with a mental illness be able to protect themselves? Not every mentally ill person is going to commit a mass murder. Actually, many are victims of crime. So should we penalize all mentally ill for the crimes of a few?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
