[split] Gun Control (Orlando Mass Shooting)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-06-2016, 03:58 PM
RE: [split] Gun Control (Orlando Mass Shooting)
(16-06-2016 03:28 PM)Popeyes Pappy Wrote:  
(16-06-2016 03:10 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Don't you get it? They don't want to discuss it. They're going to get hung up on minutia because that's their only way of deflecting questions. If they actually know anything about guns they certainly can comprehend questions -- they simply choose to pretend they don't understand.

It's the same way congress works or in this case doesn't. It effectively shuts down gun control talk before it can begin.

They're just wagging the dog. Drinking Beverage

That's simply not true moms. Biker and some others may not be interested in more effective gun control legislation, but Chas, myself and some other gun owners on this forum are. I just want to be on the same damn page when we are having the discussion. Wouldn't you be upset if you found out after the fact that the assault weapons ban you supported meant the family heirloom revolver your grandfather carried in World War I had to be turned in so it could be cut up for scrap because somebody considered it a semi-automatic weapon despite not meeting the definition for semi-automatic weapon?

I kind of get what you're saying but WW1 was a hundred years ago now. Such a gun is unlikely to be a "registered" weapon anyway. I know my late grandfather's WW2 Luger didn't require it (spoils of war and all that).

The government doesn't really care about weapons older than 50 years old...and already have regulations in place to protect antique gun collectors.

From the ATF webpage:

A regulation implementing Federal firearms laws, 27 CFR §478.11, defines Curio or Relic (C&R) firearms as those which are of special interest to collectors by reason of some quality other than is associated with firearms intended for sporting use or as offensive or defensive weapons.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2016, 04:06 PM
RE: [split] Gun Control (Orlando Mass Shooting)
(16-06-2016 03:44 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(16-06-2016 03:28 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Edited:

"Minutia" is plural for minutiae so technically I did use it properly. Tongue

I believe it is the other way 'round. Consider

Did my dyslexia kick in? Did I go left when I should have gone right?

When I threw the word into google this came up:

Minutiae

plural noun: minutia

Please don't make me drag out my 1930s dictionary...


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2016, 04:46 PM
RE: [split] Gun Control (Orlando Mass Shooting)
(16-06-2016 03:42 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(16-06-2016 03:10 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Don't you get it? They don't want to discuss it. They're going to get hung up on minutia because that's their only way of deflecting questions. If they actually know anything about guns they certainly can comprehend questions -- they simply choose to pretend they don't understand.

It's the same way congress works or in this case doesn't. It effectively shuts down gun control talk before it can begin.

They're just wagging the dog. Drinking Beverage

No, the terminology is important to the conversation. The anti-gun side misuses terminology in an attempt to obfuscate and mislead.

Calling things "assault weapons" is rhetoric, not fact. There is no commonly accepted definition of "assault weapon".

Calling any repeating arm "semi-automatic" misleads and misinforms.

When we are talking about restricting access to certain firearms or classes of firearms then the terminology is critical.

We can talk about this without being technical, but once you bring up firearms terminology then you need to get it right or, if corrected, acknowledge that and move on.

Ok, that's actually a fair statement...

Tell me then, what are your thoughts on gun control and the issues this country faces going forward.

I'm interested to know what you think could be done to stem deaths -- especially mass deaths (like in Orlando -- witnesses have reported they believed initial shots fired were part of the music or show).


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2016, 05:02 PM (This post was last modified: 16-06-2016 08:40 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: [split] Gun Control (Orlando Mass Shooting)
One of the most frightening suggestions I've heard (over and over and over again) is to consider the mental health history of a gun purchaser in the background check. First, it goes against everything HIIPA is all about. Second, a headshrink already has a duty to act if they feel like I am a threat to myself or others. But it don't involve telling The Man about it. It involves handing me off to a team prepared to give more attention to my treatment. (Dunno what happens if I refuse to comply. Dunno if the shaman has a duty to report it to The Man or not. Dunno if they're allowed to even then.)

And what about firearms I already own? Will The Man require me to surrender my Mossbergs now that I've been diagnosed with major depression and general anxiety disorder even though I've never exhibited any indication that I am threat to myself or others. (Told my witch doctor if I ever determine that it's time to off myself it will be by nitrogen, not gunpowder. Scary thing was he didn't say anything but just nodded.)

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
16-06-2016, 05:29 PM
RE: [split] Gun Control (Orlando Mass Shooting)
(16-06-2016 03:58 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(16-06-2016 03:28 PM)Popeyes Pappy Wrote:  That's simply not true moms. Biker and some others may not be interested in more effective gun control legislation, but Chas, myself and some other gun owners on this forum are. I just want to be on the same damn page when we are having the discussion. Wouldn't you be upset if you found out after the fact that the assault weapons ban you supported meant the family heirloom revolver your grandfather carried in World War I had to be turned in so it could be cut up for scrap because somebody considered it a semi-automatic weapon despite not meeting the definition for semi-automatic weapon?

I kind of get what you're saying but WW1 was a hundred years ago now. Such a gun is unlikely to be a "registered" weapon anyway. I know my late grandfather's WW2 Luger didn't require it (spoils of war and all that).

The government doesn't really care about weapons older than 50 years old...and already have regulations in place to protect antique gun collectors.

From the ATF webpage:

A regulation implementing Federal firearms laws, 27 CFR §478.11, defines Curio or Relic (C&R) firearms as those which are of special interest to collectors by reason of some quality other than is associated with firearms intended for sporting use or as offensive or defensive weapons.

I don't know, Moms. You'll have to ask Stevil and Brian37 if you can have an exemption for your grandfather's semi-automatic handgun. Ask them if I can have one for the M1 Garand my father carried in Korea while you're at it, please.

I don't support bans of anything. I've already pointed out in this thread and others that other countries that don't have gun violence problems on the scale we do here in US allow these type of weapons. I think we could adopt laws similar to theirs including better background checks and accountability. There are a lot of gun control measures I would support, but if all the other side will accept are bans then no, I don't think we can find a middle ground because they won't accept a middle ground.

Save a life. Adopt a greyhound.

[Image: anigrey.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2016, 05:30 PM
RE: [split] Gun Control (Orlando Mass Shooting)
(16-06-2016 04:46 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(16-06-2016 03:42 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, the terminology is important to the conversation. The anti-gun side misuses terminology in an attempt to obfuscate and mislead.

Calling things "assault weapons" is rhetoric, not fact. There is no commonly accepted definition of "assault weapon".

Calling any repeating arm "semi-automatic" misleads and misinforms.

When we are talking about restricting access to certain firearms or classes of firearms then the terminology is critical.

We can talk about this without being technical, but once you bring up firearms terminology then you need to get it right or, if corrected, acknowledge that and move on.

Ok, that's actually a fair statement...

Tell me then, what are your thoughts on gun control and the issues this country faces going forward.

I'm interested to know what you think could be done to stem deaths -- especially mass deaths (like in Orlando -- witnesses have reported they believed initial shots fired were part of the music or show).

I have discussed my views before on other gun threads here, but briefly:
  • The U.S. has a violence problem - the causes are many and varied;
    We need to identify and address these societal problems.
  • We need to find effective ways to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill;
  • We need to find ways to identify those mentally/emotionally unfit to have firearms, consistent with a free society;
    (mentally unfit includes those associated with violent cults)
  • There are currently federal firearms laws that would take criminals out of society for a long time, but they are not being enforced. Enforce them.
    (State prosecutors rarely refer criminals to a federal prosecutor for firearms infractions.)
  • There should be a minimum standard for firearms licensing that all states must meet; this must include safety training.
    (This is also an opportunity to identify those who should not have a firearm)
  • Federal background checks are all well and good for licensing. I don't think they are necessary every time one buys a firearm.
    Some states don't require it (ATF-Qualified Permit)
  • Firearms should generally be locked up unless under nominal control of a licensee.
    The licensee/owner should be held liable for any injury resulting from the misuse of an unsecured firearm.
  • A license to carry a concealed firearm should require training over and above the standard license.

I'm sure I have more opinions on this. Big Grin

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
16-06-2016, 05:36 PM
RE: [split] Gun Control (Orlando Mass Shooting)
(16-06-2016 05:02 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  One of the most frightening suggestions I've heard (over and over and over again) is to consider the mental health history of a gun purchaser in the background check. First, it goes against everything HIIPA is all about. Second, a headshrink already has a duty to act if they feel like I am a threat to myself or others. But it don't involve telling The Man about it. It involves handing me off to a team prepared to give more attention to my treatment. (Dunno what happens if I refuse to comply. Dunno if the shaman has a duty to report it to The Man or not. Dunno if they're allowed to even then.)

HIPAA isn't gospel. The violent should lose some of the privacy protections.

Quote:And what about firearms I already own? Will The Man require me to surrender my Mossbergs now that I've been diagnosed with major depression and general anxiety disorder even though I've never exhibited any indication that I am threat to myself or others. (Told my witch doctor if I ever determine that it's time to off myself it will be by Nitrogen, not gunpowder. Scary thing was he didn't say anything but just nodded.)

I don't think that either of those is a valid reason to prevent you (or anyone) from owning a firearm. There are other disorders that would.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2016, 05:37 PM
RE: [split] Gun Control (Orlando Mass Shooting)
(16-06-2016 05:02 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  One of the most frightening suggestions I've heard (over and over and over again) is to consider the mental health history of a gun purchaser in the background check. First, it goes against everything HIIPA is all about. Second, a headshrink already has a duty to act if they feel like I am a threat to myself or others. But it don't involve telling The Man about it. It involves handing me off to a team prepared to give more attention to my treatment. (Dunno what happens if I refuse to comply. Dunno if the shaman has a duty to report it to The Man or not. Dunno if they're allowed to even then.)

And what about firearms I already own? Will The Man require me to surrender my Mossbergs now that I've been diagnosed with major depression and general anxiety disorder even though I've never exhibited any indication that I am threat to myself or others. (Told my witch doctor if I ever determine that it's time to off myself it will be by Nitrogen gas, not gunpowder.)

If a mental health care professional believes you are in imminent risk to harm yourself or others they can (and usually will) report you to the police.

But your comments about Hippa and reporting to prevent a weapon purchase, that's an interesting question -- if the individual keeps to their medication regimen and shows no signs of emotional distress (aside from what they're normally feeling), no history of hospitalization -- I would hope there'd be no reason to report people like that.

But I've also got a good friend, she lives in Indiana and her husband has a long history of schizophrenia, including numerous hospital stays, history going off his medications and becoming violent to her and her children.

She has his name off all the bank accounts, credit cards...she's got a durable power of attorney...Yet he can legally purchase a rifle.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2016, 06:10 PM
RE: [split] Gun Control (Orlando Mass Shooting)
A pertinent story I heard on NPR an hour or so ago regarding gun terminology. Less than three-and-a-half minutes, it's worthwhile listening to those unfamiliar with a couple of key phrases:

http://www.npr.org/2016/06/16/482362941/...un-control

(16-06-2016 05:02 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  One of the most frightening suggestions I've heard (over and over and over again) is to consider the mental health history of a gun purchaser in the background check. First, it goes against everything HIIPA is all about. Second, a headshrink already has a duty to act if they feel like I am a threat to myself or others. But it don't involve telling The Man about it. It involves handing me off to a team prepared to give more attention to my treatment. (Dunno what happens if I refuse to comply. Dunno if the shaman has a duty to report it to The Man or not. Dunno if they're allowed to even then.)

And what about firearms I already own? Will The Man require me to surrender my Mossbergs now that I've been diagnosed with major depression and general anxiety disorder even though I've never exhibited any indication that I am threat to myself or others. (Told my witch doctor if I ever determine that it's time to off myself it will be by Nitrogen, not gunpowder. Scary thing was he didn't say anything but just nodded.)

I was of the opinion up until a few months ago that mental health checks would address a lot of our issues with firearms deaths, until Jormungandr and Rhythm over at AF pulled me by the short hairs. Looking through their links and some others, I was surprised to discover that less than 1% of all firearms murders are committed by people diagnosed with mental illnesses.

It struck me that I had been looking for the easiest "answer" to a goddamned hard problem.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post
16-06-2016, 06:13 PM
RE: [split] Gun Control (Orlando Mass Shooting)
(16-06-2016 05:37 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(16-06-2016 05:02 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  One of the most frightening suggestions I've heard (over and over and over again) is to consider the mental health history of a gun purchaser in the background check. First, it goes against everything HIIPA is all about. Second, a headshrink already has a duty to act if they feel like I am a threat to myself or others. But it don't involve telling The Man about it. It involves handing me off to a team prepared to give more attention to my treatment. (Dunno what happens if I refuse to comply. Dunno if the shaman has a duty to report it to The Man or not. Dunno if they're allowed to even then.)

And what about firearms I already own? Will The Man require me to surrender my Mossbergs now that I've been diagnosed with major depression and general anxiety disorder even though I've never exhibited any indication that I am threat to myself or others. (Told my witch doctor if I ever determine that it's time to off myself it will be by Nitrogen gas, not gunpowder.)

If a mental health care professional believes you are in imminent risk to harm yourself or others they can (and usually will) report you to the police.

But your comments about Hippa and reporting to prevent a weapon purchase, that's an interesting question -- if the individual keeps to their medication regimen and shows no signs of emotional distress (aside from what they're normally feeling), no history of hospitalization -- I would hope there'd be no reason to report people like that.

But I've also got a good friend, she lives in Indiana and her husband has a long history of schizophrenia, including numerous hospital stays, history going off his medications and becoming violent to her and her children.

She has his name off all the bank accounts, credit cards...she's got a durable power of attorney...Yet he can legally purchase a rifle.

He wouldn't get a license in Massachusetts. Consider

This is one of the reasons for federally-mandated minimum standards for licensing.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: