Mentallly Ill + Guns = Bad Outcomes

[Double D]

Originally Posted by CampingJosh

Life is dangerous. Taking away a person's ability to defend himself does nothing to fix this.
I don't believe that background checks are an accurate means of predicting future outcomes.

Democide. Governments in the 20th century were responsible for killing 262,000,000 people not counting wars and criminals. I have no interest in allowing a government the power to disarm its citizens.

Call it insane if you want; my position is backed by the facts. Armed, unopposed governments are far, far more dangerous than "armed madmen" of any number.

Can we get an amen?

[tcox4freedom]

Originally Posted by Double D

Can we get an amen?

AMEN!!!!

[time2shoot]

Hallelujah amen

[Ed~]

Originally Posted by CampingJosh

Life is dangerous. Taking away a person's ability to defend himself does nothing to fix this.
I don't believe that background checks are an accurate means of predicting future outcomes.

Democide. Governments in the 20th century were responsible for killing 262,000,000 people not counting wars and criminals. I have no interest in allowing a government the power to disarm its citizens.

Call it insane if you want; my position is backed by the facts. Armed, unopposed governments are far, far more dangerous than "armed madmen" of any number.

Thanks for your reply Josh. Your points on Democide is well taken and have been influential in my thoughts about Gun Control in the past as well as this issue.

I believe that you know I am not some lily-smelling Pollyanna who wishes paint the world pink. In my other posts I have mentioned my enjoyment of motorcycles, backpacking into the desert, living overseas as well as traveling alone through 25+ countries to see and learn first hand what our world is about. My motto has always been: Fortune smiles upon the brave.

I feel lucky now not to feel regularly threatened where I live, work, and travel between AZ, CA, and OR. I am lucky, and acknowledge not everyone enjoys such freedoms from danger as I do in this world. But I do not believe that setting the stage for Shootouts benefits society, rather serves to removes our freedom to enjoy life.

Where I chose to express my position on this issue comes strictly from my own training in Firearms Safety. If I am the most experienced person with newbies on the range, I take on the responsibility of safety for everyone there. I would never hand a loaded gun to anyone who I felt wasn't paying attention or not mature enough to understand the responsibilities.

Extrapolating from that, I would never hand a gun to someone I felt was so mentally imbalanced as to be a threat to themselves or others. I would not trust to go hunting with that person, stand next to him at the range, wouldn't want that person to lay a hand on a gun at all.

If anyone is of the position that those deemed a threat to themselves and others by the courts & licensed health professionals should still guaranteed their 2nd Amendment rights, that society's safety is promoted by having more firearms in the hands of those who have nothing to lose by "going postal"... so be it. I don't agree.

After much careful thought about particular this issue, I simply say the benefits of gun control for a few dangerously insane folks far outweigh concerns of everyone being disarmed by our government.

I mean no insult to anyone's beliefs on this forum and have learned/gained much from the perspective of Josh and many others regarding Gun Control.

Here, I've merely stated my views, explained my reasoning, and have yet to learn any new info to help change my perspective. I still do not believe folks like Jared Loughner's should be enabled to singly cripple my elected Congresswoman, shoot and kill innocent men, women, bright little girls, and generally wreck havoc in society under the name of "freedoms & rights". He was able to destroy so many lives and hurt our entire community with a gun. He couldn't possibly have done the same with a knife or his fists. Such willful ignorance of the facts is the basis of fanciful thinking that allows such tragedies to be repeated over and over again until we learn from our mistakes.

With freedoms comes responsibilities. Those who are criminally insane are not prosecuted for their actions because they are deemed incapable of being held responsible for their actions. Therefore the courts have stripped them of certain freedoms. In this case, dangerously insane people lose their right to bear arms in our society even before they have committed a crime. That's A-OK by me.

Our current reality is a far cry from the hallucination that our courts and health professionals are corrupt puppets of an authoritarian regime that seeks to quell dissent by force of arms and remove our ability to fight back. I am politically aware, regularly contact my elected representatives on numerous issues, talk and educate those who will listen on civil/human rights and actively participate as a citizen in our republic --aside from riding my motorcycles frequenting the shooting range for enjoyment and to sharpen skills. For all those reasons, I trust when the courts identify future "JL's" and limit their ability to own firearms and wish to enable that work so I am more free to enjoy my life rather than fear for my safety on a regular basis.

In other words, I know the true value of all my freedoms.

[Ed~]

Commonwealth of Virginia
Office of the Governor

Dear Governor,

This week here in Virginia and across the world, we are remembering the tragedy and celebrating the lives of those innocent individuals who lost their lives at Virginia Tech five years ago on April 16, 2007. A senseless act of violence forever changed the lives of so many individuals and it will be remembered as one of the most horrific rampages by a lone gunman in history. The victims will continue to be remembered in Virginia and beyond. As Governor of Virginia, I believe that we can all work together to help prevent these acts from occurring again anywhere in our Nation.

I write to ask for your support in providing critical information to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). This system is about saving lives and protecting people from harm by not permitting the transfer of firearm or explosive materials into the hands of prohibited persons. Launched by the FBI on November 30, 1998, NICS information is required to be used by federal firearms licensees to instantly determine whether a prospective buyer is eligible to purchase a firearm or explosive. In the last decade, more than 100 million checks have been made, leading to more than 700,000 denials.

In January of 2008, President George W. Bush signed the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (NIAA) in remembrance of the victims of the April 16th tragedy on the Virginia Tech campus. The NICS Improvement Amendments Act (NIAA) seeks to address the gap in information available to NICS about such prohibiting mental health adjudications and commitments and other prohibiting backgrounds. The Virginia Tech shooter was able to purchase a firearm from a federal firearms licensee because information about his prohibiting mental health was not available to deny transfer of the firearms used in the shootings. Although at the time of the event, Virginia was submitting information to NICS due to uncertainties in the law, we were not submitting information on those persons who were voluntarily admitted to a treatment facility, but were required to receive out-patient treatment. This problem was corrected immediately by Executive Order and later followed-up and expanded by a statutory change in the Code of Virginia. Filling these information gaps will better enable the FBI or other State Point of Contacts to operate as intended, to keep guns out of the hands of persons prohibited by federal or state law.

The Commonwealth of Virginia continues to be a leader in submitting information to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. I would encourage you to evaluate your state’s reporting of mental health and other critical information to NICS, and take any required action related to that reporting to prevent tragedies such as the shooting at Virginia Tech from happening again.

Sincerely,
Robert F. McDonnell
Governor, Virginia

[RunningOnMT]

Ed, I respect your point of view and believe me, no one takes offense at you expressing it no matter how much we may disagree. Having said that, I've got to tell you that encouraging a politician to enact legislation creating any further safeguards than already exists, threatens the second amendment rights of all of us.

While even if the politicians who propose such legislation are themselves well intentioned, the gun grabbing tyrants in state legislatures and congress will take the opportunity to limit the access and use of firearms to as many as possible. Once legislation is introduced, debate and compromise takes over, often producing laws far different from what was intended.

Josh's comments were right on target and I couldn't agree more. Far better to have a few threats from nuts in our society, than to weaken the rights of the rest of us. I fear the government of a disarmed people more than I do the lunatics among us.

[Jerryboy]

Originally Posted by Ed~

Thanks for your reply Josh. Your points on Democide is well taken and have been influential in my thoughts about Gun Control in the past as well as this issue.

I believe that you know I am not some lily-smelling Pollyanna who wishes paint the world pink. In my other posts I have mentioned my enjoyment of motorcycles, backpacking into the desert, living overseas as well as traveling alone through 25+ countries to see and learn first hand what our world is about. My motto has always been: Fortune smiles upon the brave.

I feel lucky now not to feel regularly threatened where I live, work, and travel between AZ, CA, and OR. I am lucky, and acknowledge not everyone enjoys such freedoms from danger as I do in this world. But I do not believe that setting the stage for Shootouts benefits society, rather serves to removes our freedom to enjoy life.

Where I chose to express my position on this issue comes strictly from my own training in Firearms Safety. If I am the most experienced person with newbies on the range, I take on the responsibility of safety for everyone there. I would never hand a loaded gun to anyone who I felt wasn't paying attention or not mature enough to understand the responsibilities.

Extrapolating from that, I would never hand a gun to someone I felt was so mentally imbalanced as to be a threat to themselves or others. I would not trust to go hunting with that person, stand next to him at the range, wouldn't want that person to lay a hand on a gun at all.

If anyone is of the position that those deemed a threat to themselves and others by the courts & licensed health professionals should still guaranteed their 2nd Amendment rights, that society's safety is promoted by having more firearms in the hands of those who have nothing to lose by "going postal"... so be it. I don't agree.

After much careful thought about particular this issue, I simply say the benefits of gun control for a few dangerously insane folks far outweigh concerns of everyone being disarmed by our government.

I mean no insult to anyone's beliefs on this forum and have learned/gained much from the perspective of Josh and many others regarding Gun Control.

Here, I've merely stated my views, explained my reasoning, and have yet to learn any new info to help change my perspective. I still do not believe folks like Jared Loughner's should be enabled to singly cripple my elected Congresswoman, shoot and kill innocent men, women, bright little girls, and generally wreck havoc in society under the name of "freedoms & rights". He was able to destroy so many lives and hurt our entire community with a gun. He couldn't possibly have done the same with a knife or his fists. Such willful ignorance of the facts is the basis of fanciful thinking that allows such tragedies to be repeated over and over again until we learn from our mistakes.

With freedoms comes responsibilities. Those who are criminally insane are not prosecuted for their actions because they are deemed incapable of being held responsible for their actions. Therefore the courts have stripped them of certain freedoms. In this case, dangerously insane people lose their right to bear arms in our society even before they have committed a crime. That's A-OK by me.

Our current reality is a far cry from the hallucination that our courts and health professionals are corrupt puppets of an authoritarian regime that seeks to quell dissent by force of arms and remove our ability to fight back. I am politically aware, regularly contact my elected representatives on numerous issues, talk and educate those who will listen on civil/human rights and actively participate as a citizen in our republic --aside from riding my motorcycles frequenting the shooting range for enjoyment and to sharpen skills. For all those reasons, I trust when the courts identify future "JL's" and limit their ability to own firearms and wish to enable that work so I am more free to enjoy my life rather than fear for my safety on a regular basis.

In other words, I know the true value of all my freedoms.

"He who would give up a little freedom, for a little security, deserves neither and will loose both"

[raven818]

The definition of insanity...what ever the majority says it is.

[Ed~]

Originally Posted by raven818

The definition of insanity...what ever the majority says it is.

Amen to that! The majority, no matter how insane, are the ones who get to call the one sane person, "insane".

Discouragin'.

[Ed~]

Originally Posted by RunningOnMT

I've got to tell you that encouraging a politician to enact legislation creating any further safeguards than already exists, threatens the second amendment rights of all of us.

RunningOnMT, I understand Josh's point and agree with everyone about the importance of protecting our 2nd Amendment Rights.

Here, I am not trying to make the world a "safer place" by enacting new legislation to make sure all the thorns are removed from the road of life. In fact, you will notice that absolutely no new legislation is being considered.

What is talked about here is simply ensuring current safeguards be as effective as originally designed by making sure all paperwork already collected on the state level are submitted in a timely manner to the federal agencies in charge. It is asking the Governor to do his/her duty under existing laws!

This is not threatening to to the average, safe & responsible gun owner. If anything it helps avoid us good guys from being mixed up with the bad apples that shouldn't have guns in the first place. Nothing is worse for gun rights activists than sensational shootings in the news by madmen.

So again I stress, same Background Checks as before only fewer nutcases slip through the cracks to do damage in society.

[CampingJosh]

Originally Posted by Ed~

This is not threatening to to the average, safe & responsible gun owner. If anything it helps avoid us good guys from being mixed up with the bad apples that shouldn't have guns in the first place. Nothing is worse for gun rights activists than sensational shootings in the news by madmen.

So again I stress, same Background Checks as before only fewer nutcases slip through the cracks to do damage in society.

Ed;

We may just have to agree to disagree here.

I'm not interested in protecting the rights of the "average" gun owner. I believe that it is the natural right of every person to defend himself and his own from outside intrusion. Firearms are the most effective means of providing oneself with this protection.
Firearms are no more dangerous than automobiles, gas stations, or common household chemicals. All of these can be misused in order to cause massive destruction and loss of life. I said it before, and I'll say it again: Life is inherently dangerous. Everywhere.

If the people adjudicated mentally defective are genuinely a danger to themselves and others, why on earth are they free to roam broadly through society? Wouldn't it be far safer for everyone to lock them in an institution of some kind, whether prison or hospital?
Or if they don't need that kind of supervision, then we do we single out firearms as the one item illegal for them to possess? What's special about guns? Couldn't they grab control of a steering wheel on a bus as it drives across a bridge, plunging sixty or so people to their death? Perhaps then everyone should have to pass a background check every time they want to board any bit of public transportation. Life is dangerous.

I don't trust government. And I certainly don't trust government to define sanity. I'm a devoutly religious person; many in North America today believe that I'm insane on that basis alone. (Side bar: "Sanity" just means perceiving the world in the same way as the majority; it does not necessarily mean perceiving the world as it actually is.)

Throughout the 20th century, "mental illness" was an accepted cause for extermination by more than one government. How difficult would it be to have political enemies declared "mentally defective" and thereby stripped of the means to protect themselves when the equivalent of the SS or the KGB comes to take them away? Especially when they are declared defective by "licensed health professionals" when the ones who have the ability to take political prisoners are the same who have the authority to define licensing.

In March I spent some time traveling in Nicaragua, and I visited a former political prison (Fortaleze El Coyotepe) where people were raped, tortured, and murdered by their government because they disagreed with the rulers. I saw blood stains still on the walls decades after the prison was closed. I saw cells where prisoners were chained to the wall with an opening in the ceiling above them that was used a toilet by the guards. I saw cells without any hint of light, where prisoners lost track of time and had their spirits and minds broken. Countless rapes, tortures, and murders took place here in the name of "safety for the people."
These people were unable to defend themselves; they didn't have the means. So please excuse me when I distrust those who would choose to strip the rights of some in the name of safety for the masses.

We may say that such atrocities would never happen in the U.S., and we'd probably be right in that. But it's not that such atrocities wouldn't happen here because our government is somehow inherently righteous and just. It wouldn't happen here because the citizens of the United States have the means to defend themselves from abusive governments (both within and without).
The U.S. government was intentionally designed to have checks and balances to prevent any one person or group from obtaining too much power. The President can veto acts of Congress that overstep their bounds. The courts can strike down laws enacted by the Congress and President. Juries have the authority to determine both fact and law--yes, a jury can say "not guilty because that action isn't a crime, no matter what the elected officials have said"--protecting fellow citizens from abuses of power.
And, if all else fails, the people have the authority and the ability to abolish the established government and institute a new one. It's precisely because this last check exists that it has been (and remains) unnecessary. We are not subjects of arbitrary government because we do have the ability to stand up for ourselves and our fellow citizens.

That we are free to own the means of self defense is the only guarantee that we have freedom of any kind. I for one will not be a part of taking liberty from anyone who has not first taken the liberty of another (the real definition of a "criminal"). I will not be a part of punishing a person for the atrocities that they have the potential to commit; you and I have that exact same potential. Life is dangerous, and stripping the rights of others does not solve this.

We may have to agree to disagree on this one. I see no way that you can convince me of an opinion other than that which I've laid out here.

[Double D]

Can we get another amen?

[tcox4freedom]

Originally Posted by Double D

Can we get another amen?

Amen!

I just don't understand why some people can't see that gun laws will do ABSOLUTELY nothing; but, harm law abiding citizens.

If someone is intent on doing harm to others there are countless easy & more effective ways of doing so. Not the least of these is driving your car into a crowd of people.

How many times have we heard about this happening? (Answer: A LOT!!!!)

How many more people are killed by drunk drivers than mad men with firearms? (Answer: A LOT!!!)

We live in a FREE society. In order to remain "FREE" we need to accept certain risks. The more we allow our government to have "authority" over us because we fear risk in our life, the more ENSLAVED we become as a people.

Personally, I choose "Liberty" and "Freedom". "Give me liberty or give death!" should be the mantra of ALL free men. We should fear any RISK that threatens our FREEDOM in the same manner we fear risks to our personal safety.

Risks to "BOTH" our safety and our freedom should be "confronted" head on. We should be willing to fight for both; lest we give up both.

-