Reporter, Cameraman Shot While On-Air

[gourimoko]

I mean, just today we had Ashley Banfield (I would fuck the shit out of her btw) advocating for a society where employers could essentially blacklist employees as being "mentally troubled."

Do we really want to live in a society where we regularly practice denouncing people for thinking wrongly? Eccentrics, people with compulsive disorders.. there was just an article the other day that describes how neurotics are far more creative than others because they "think too much."

JFK once said something to the effect of "conformity is the jailer of freedom and the jailer of growth."

I just fear any move to a society where one's civil rights can be preemptively curtailed by the diagnosis of a shrink; the ramifications of such a paradigm I think are lost on those looking for quick fixes to problems that need long-term solutions.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I am going to ramble this isnt all aimed at you, just conversation.


Gour if your able to use Mental illness as a defense, don't you think we should be able to use it to preventive label?

I'll just point out for information's sake that the kind of mental illness that will get you out of a crime generally is a very high standard. It's not whether or not you were able to "control yourself", because it's impossible to tell the difference between someone who can't control themself, and the person who just didn't.

So in most jurisdictions, the requirement for "not guilty by reason of insanity" requires (in short) that the person be unable to perceive reality correctly, to the point where the person not only subjectively believes they did the right thing, but thinks society would agree. So usually, any attempt to cover up or conceal evidence of the crime automatically forfeits the defense, because such actions reveal that you know society would not approve of what you did.

It stems from a common law doctrine called the Rule in M'naghtan's Case.

It is generally a loser of a defense. And as you can see, it requires a pretty extreme form of mental illness, and something that generally doesn't apply to mass shooters.

 

[RonG]

But, as you said, that's a very slippery slope.

Mental illness just like mental wellness, is a spectrum of condition. It changes.

One can have genetic predispositions to certain conditions, or it can develop through stress, diet, drug abuse, or simply the ever-changing physiology of the human body; something that is very opaque to us at present.

The argument regarding mental illness being used as a defense is logically rooted in the concept of free will; did this person make a free choice. The degree of illness that a person would suffer from would be beyond that of everyday neurosis and into the rarest forms of psychosis.

My point is that you would very rarely find people who would (1) willingly take such tests if they themselves believed they might fail; and (2) would fail if their intent is not medical treatment but instead evasion.

I'm not advocating for a mental health evaluation. I am saying that certain things should be red flagged investigated further and that if deemed a risk would exclude them from owning a gun.

Here's an article of a man very likely was suffering from some degree of severe mental illness:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...f-5-children-3-adults-in-home-after-standoff/

He killed 6 children and 2 adults, after sneaking into a home, restraining them with handcuffs, then executing them; with a handgun.

But here's the thing.

David Conley had already been arrested, tried, and convicted of Domestic Violence; which federally bars him from even possessing a firearm or anyone from selling or giving him a firearm - even in private sale. There are zero exceptions or loopholes to this rule.

So going back to 2000, Conley was barred from owning a gun; medical examination or not - yet he still managed to get one.

So adding psych tests to those looking to purchase wouldn't have prevented Conley from acquiring a firearm as he didn't do so legally.

More to the point, psychological evaluations are not tests that can weed out deception. If someone is wanting to pass an evaluation, they very likely can do so. Instead, the tests are designed to detect potential cognitive and emotional problems in willing patients; not unwilling criminals.

So this entire conversion makes little sense in that context.

We are on the same page on this Gour think back to my posts and I have stated several times bad people are going to find a way to do bad shit.

Hunting and firearm ownership are two different things.

Most firearm owners rarely if ever go hunting, and I'm not really a fan of using hunters as prototypical firearm owners.



Because you have a civil right to own a firearm; therefore, you should not require a competency test in order to exercise that right.

Another example is competency or literacy tests for voting. Should people be required to be able to read and write before casting a ballot? Should there be federal requirements on journalists to report truthfully? Terrorism is bad so should we be able to ignore constitutional for "obviously" bad people? Drone-strikes against American citizens abroad, sans trial...

There's lots of questions here, that all really have their own slippery slopes.

My single point with this issue, regardless of those others, is that many of these seemingly common-sense restrictions, tests, mandates, etc don't actually solve the problem, they just further entrench the idea of government responsibility over an issue that's best solved by individuals.

I feel the same way about health insurance mandates for private insurance, dodging the tax system solely for political expediency; but that's another topic.

I don't think an educating class one time in your lifetime is to much to ask for, the indirect lives that can be saved would make it worth while even if it never prevented another murder but prevented the death of a child. Honestly i think we can have singular legislation that doesn't bleed over into other rights. I dont think this has anything to do with voting, freedom of speech ect.

If they were to do it like hunters safety was done, there would be a huge amount of the populas grandfathered and not required and I would be ok with that.


You live in Texas. I live in California. We have polar opposite laws when it comes to firearm ownership.

I can't even bring my SBR AR-15 from Ohio to L.A.

For the shotguns, bolt action, and even the assault rifles; I don't feel there should be a waiting period. On the handguns, again, that varies state to state.

I don't agree that all firearms should be subject to a waiting period though.



It's a private sale of a protected item (a firearm) between two consenting adults - what more needs to be said?

I am all for the private selling that doesn't mean it should allow you to bypass the current state or federal laws in place.

Did you step-dad go out and kill anybody?

You and I have had enough conversations over the years that I don't think you need to take this approach with me. You don't intended but to me it comes off as childish beneath me and you.

Closing loopholes has nothing to do with preventing crime, Ron. Those people at gun shows are almost entirely law-abiding citizens practicing their second amendment rights.

Almost.

Like what?

My whole post had the examples you just don't personally like them. The fact is none of like minded people such as you and myself aren't going to like the inconvenience but it doesn't mean it doesn't have some value.

I take exception to this...

No one is saying we don't have issues; the point is that guns aren't running around killing people on their own.

We have human beings in our society ready and willing to commit acts of murder - addressing that issue solves the problem, not curtailing the freedoms of millions upon millions of lawful owners solely to change the narrative on CNN.

Nothing i suggested really clogs up the rights of sane law abiding citizens, there is a day coming that we will all have to make some changes and give a little from both sides to make this a safer country. If you really think about what said in my original post and this one hell all of them so far in this thread, I think you will understand how tired of this I personally am.

I had to talk to my daughter and son's about what to do in the event a shooter enters her school.
I had to tell them what to do if they hear threats against other kids or the school in general.
I had to talk to my kids about how to re-act if they are under fire in a public setting like a movie theater a sniper at a gas station or college.
I had to talk to my kids about what to do if they are somewhere that is being robbed at gun point.

I am a Marine as most of you know, as is my wife. My son is active duty Army. We are all gun owners and we have all served to protect those rights and freedoms. I am having a hard time dealing with the stuff i have had to teach my kids that I never had to be concerned with as a child. Its foolish to just throw our hands up and say we just can't do anything because of the 2nd amendment and how it is written.

I agree with Obama on very little, I am not on board with his complete plan to address this issue but i do agree with this statements below.

“It breaks my heart every time you read about or hear about these kinds of incidents,” Obama said. “What we know, is that the number of people who die from gun-related incidents around this country dwarfs any deaths that happen through terrorism.”

"At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this kind of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries. It doesn't happen in other places with this kind of frequency. It is in our power to do something about it."

Lastly, I go to Mexico twice a year. I have friends who think I am nuts that I am putting my life in danger. I simply ask them where they think they live and if they even bother to read or watch anything in the news once a week.

I don't have the answers but at least I am willing to offer some ideas up to be shot down or molded but the truth is none of us are the problem so we dont make it our problem.

 

[gourimoko]

I'm not advocating for a mental health evaluation. I am saying that certain things should be red flagged investigated further and that if deemed a risk would exclude them from owning a gun.

Like what specifically though?

We are on the same page on this Gour think back to my posts and I have stated several times bad people are going to find a way to do bad shit.

Agreed. Yes, I know.. I also think I'm a bit to the right of you on this particular issue, because I have a hard time justifying some of the reforms being proposed here and in the media.

I don't think an educating class one time in your lifetime is to much to ask for,

You can say the same about the number of things I cited above.

I don't think it's much to ask for someone to have a valid driver's license to vote?

I don't think it's much to ask for the government to have access to every phone call made to every person?

I don't think it's much to ask that everyone buy private health insurance?

"the indirect lives that can be saved would make it worthwhile, even if it never actually prevented another death"

My argument is that these types of gradual reductions of our freedoms and encroachments, even if seemingly slight, must be justifiable by more than the hope of living in a safer society.

the indirect lives that can be saved would make it worth while even if it never prevented another murder but prevented the death of a child. Honestly i think we can have singular legislation that doesn't bleed over into other rights. I dont think this has anything to do with voting, freedom of speech ect.

Sure it does..

These types of laws set precedent; they establish rights as privileges that can be regulated. Very much how the freedom of movement and the privilege to drive are now separate and distinct. This question is about the role and powers the government has in our society; and I don't want to move down the path that allows government to regulate our civil rights in such a direct and limiting way.

Consider "free speech zones" as an example.

If they were to do it like hunters safety was done, there would be a huge amount of the populas grandfathered and not required and I would be ok with that.

I'm not really concerned with today; so grandfathering in portions of the population isn't an issue for me. My issue is with what happens tomorrow; what happens in a society where government regulation over gun ownership (or any right) is the norm - such that it's now unreasonable to consider ownership itself as a free exercise of a civil right.

So in that society, further legislation becomes easier to implement; a gun ban in that society is a much closer reality than it is in ours.

I am all for the private selling that doesn't mean it should allow you to bypass the current state or federal laws in place.

It's impractical for a private seller to meet federal and state guidelines at a gun show.

You and I have had enough conversations over the years that I don't think you need to take this approach with me. You don't intended but to me it comes off as childish beneath me and you.

Think about what I've said...

You're talking about an old-man buying a gun at a gunshow. He's not a threat to society.

I'm pointing out that you want restrictions on an old man who is very likely a law-abiding citizen from purchasing a rifle. Why? Did he do anything to make you think he shouldn't own a gun?

Almost.

Right.. Almost, as in, not statistically significant:

"Thousands of gun shows take place in the U.S. each year. Gun control advocates argue that because sales at gun shows are much less regulated than other sales, such shows make it easier for potential criminals to obtain a gun. Similarly, one might be concerned that gun shows would exacerbate suicide rates by providing individuals considering suicide with a more lethal means of ending their lives. On the other hand, proponents argue that gun shows are innocuous since potential criminals can acquire guns quite easily through other black market sales or theft. In this paper, we use data from Gun and Knife Show Calendar combined with vital statistics data to examine the effect of gun shows. We find no evidence that gun shows lead to substantial increases in either gun homicides or suicides. In addition, tighter regulation of gun shows does not appear to reduce the number of firearms-related deaths."

http://closup.umich.edu/research/workingpapers/oldpapers/gunshows-sept08-final.pdf

Point being: further legislation to restrict private sales won't fix the problems we're talking about. We're just assuming that a less free society is a safer one. It's a remarkable conclusion, but I don't think a rational one.

My whole post had the examples you just don't personally like them. The fact is none of like minded people such as you and myself aren't going to like the inconvenience but it doesn't mean it doesn't have some value.

Ron, actually I'm at a loss.. I don't really know what you'd want to do to restrict gun sales?

You want longer waiting periods? I'm not entirely sure what more you want gun store owners to do before authorizing a sale?

Nothing i suggested really clogs up the rights of sane law abiding citizens, there is a day coming that we will all have to make some changes and give a little from both sides to make this a safer country.

Again, why should we sacrifice even a modicum of our liberties to pretend we have a safer society?

Do you really believe that tightening loopholes at gun shows will reduce violent crime in the United States by any measurable degree? And if you do believe this, do you have any rational basis for believing this?

If you really think about what said in my original post and this one hell all of them so far in this thread, I think you will understand how tired of this I personally am.

I'm tired of it too..

Let me tell you how tired I am man...

I'm so tired of going and writing emails, going to knock on people's doors, going to speak at churches, talking to folks every two years about their vote - about how to use their vote to effect real change in their very real lives - and then to have middle-class people tell me their voting for upper class politicians who only want to serve globalists, bankers, and corporations.

I'm tired of folks telling me about practical societal change, and how we need to reduce crime, woe is me, society is crumbling around us; but then don't want to spend a nickle on education reforms, healthcare, housing, or even their own fucking social security or medicare programs they themselves will rely on.

I'm sick to death of the hypocrisy of the conservative and liberal voters in this country that talk out of both sides of their mouths.

So yeah man, I'm tired too.. But.. we're here now talking about it, and I'm doing my very best to remind everyone to simply stay grounded and not let a mad gunman change the way we live and change the structure of our society and social contract.

I had to talk to my daughter and son's about what to do in the event a shooter enters her school.
I had to tell them what to do if they hear threats against other kids or the school in general.
I had to talk to my kids about how to re-act if they are under fire in a public setting like a movie theater a sniper at a gas station or college.
I had to talk to my kids about what to do if they are somewhere that is being robbed at gun point.

Unless you're envisioning a world without guns, you'd need to tell them those things anyway, Ron.

I am a Marine as most of you know, as is my wife. My son is active duty Army. We are all gun owners and we have all served to protect those rights and freedoms. I am having a hard time dealing with the stuff i have had to teach my kids that I never had to be concerned with as a child. Its foolish to just throw our hands up and say we just can't do anything because of the 2nd amendment and how it is written.

I'm asking you what should be done?

I think it's 'equally foolish to be so willing to surrender freedoms without reading the fine print. What are we buying by selling our liberty? What's the return policy?

I agree with Obama on very little, I am not on board with his complete plan to adress this issue but i do agree with this statements below.

“It breaks my heart every time you read about or hear about these kinds of incidents,” Obama said. “What we know, is that the number of people who die from gun-related incidents around this country dwarfs any deaths that happen through terrorism.”

And I'm so sick of his platitudes and bullshit lip-service, I don't know what to do.

He's not going to say this tomorrow in Chicago after another dozen people get murdered; or the day after tomorrow, or then the day after that.

Using the killing of two people, in what seems to be a completely unpreventable event, while ignoring the slaughter of people living in urban communities daily so that you can get votes is sad.

"At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this kind of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries. It doesn't happen in other places with this kind of frequency. It is in our power to do something about it."

Do something like what? Are we really going to lie to ourselves about these "common-sense" measures that have no relevance with 99% of gun-related crime?

Lastly, I go to Mexico twice a year. I have friends who think I am nuts that I am putting my life in danger. I simply ask them where they think they live and if they even bother to read or watch anything in the news once a week.

Err. I know tons of people that go to Mexico once a month.. Your friends might want to broaden their horizons a bit..

I don't have the answers but at least I am willing to offer some ideas up to be shot down or molded but the truth is none of us are the problem so we dont make it our problem.

I'm with you on discussion, but in doing so you're saying that anyone advocating for less control is "foolish." You're appealing to common-sense by saying "we all know," etc, when we don't all agree.

I don't think we need greater gun control in this country; in fact, I think a good portion of the laws we have at present are overreaches of federal authority.

I just wish folks would stop looking to the government when things like this happen and really look in the mirror.

Criminality emerges from society, not government. What can we do to address the issue of crime? By addressing crime rates, we can work to reduce homicide rates.

 

[Jack Brickman]

Its funny to me that people are so dismissive of this stating we are more developed. One would argue other than the upper-middle class and upper class (which is some obscure percentage of our population) that there isn't a whole lot of difference between our lower classes and those countries listed. This goes not only monetarily comparison but other social aspects as well.

Saying, "hey, we're just as shitty as all those third world countries" isn't exactly a feather in our cap. We should be significantly better than Honduras at fucking everything. The fact that we're not is sad.

 

[spydy13]

Right.. Almost, as in, not statistically significant:

"Thousands of gun shows take place in the U.S. each year. Gun control advocates argue that because sales at gun shows are much less regulated than other sales, such shows make it easier for potential criminals to obtain a gun. Similarly, one might be concerned that gun shows would exacerbate suicide rates by providing individuals considering suicide with a more lethal means of ending their lives. On the other hand, proponents argue that gun shows are innocuous since potential criminals can acquire guns quite easily through other black market sales or theft. In this paper, we use data from Gun and Knife Show Calendar combined with vital statistics data to examine the effect of gun shows. We find no evidence that gun shows lead to substantial increases in either gun homicides or suicides. In addition, tighter regulation of gun shows does not appear to reduce the number of firearms-related deaths."

http://closup.umich.edu/research/workingpapers/oldpapers/gunshows-sept08-final.pdf

Point being: further legislation to restrict private sales won't fix the problems we're talking about. We're just assuming that a less free society is a safer one. It's a remarkable conclusion, but I don't think a rational one.

That study is only about two states though (although I know it says it tries to make up for that by covering states at opposite ends of the gun control spectrum), gour. It also specifically says that it can't account for people who transport guns out of the states they tracked.

More generally though, isn't the gun show loophole pointed to as a way for guns to reach the black market which allows gangs, drug dealers, etc. to procure weapons without having their info on file?

Edit: Also, you said in your last post that it is impractical for private sellers to meet federal/state guidelines, but I saw in that article that California requires that at gun shows. Have you been to one there? Do they just have a booth set up for people to go through that process after a sale has been agreed upon by two parties?

 

[Otsego Mar]

That study is only about two states though (although I know it says it tries to make up for that by covering states at opposite ends of the gun control spectrum), gour. It also specifically says that it can't account for people who transport guns out of the states they tracked.

More generally though, isn't the gun show loophole pointed to as a way for guns to reach the black market which allows gangs, drug dealers, etc. to procure weapons without having their info on file?

Edit: Also, you said in your last post that it is impractical for private sellers to meet federal/state guidelines, but I saw in that article that California requires that at gun shows. Have you been to one there? Do they just have a booth set up for people to go through that process after a sale has been agreed upon by two parties?

Unfortunately, there are plenty of other ways which lead to guns on the black market - theft, person to person sale, and even your federal government (i.e. arming outside factions, etc).

 

[gourimoko]

That study is only about two states though, gour. It also specifically says that it can't account for people who transport guns out of the states they tracked.

Are you appealing to the absence of evidence?

Where is the study that shows gun show sales lead to higher gun crime?

More generally though, isn't the gun show loophole pointed to as a way for guns to reach the black market which allows gangs, drug dealers, etc. to procure weapons without having their info on file?

It is, but that's a false narrative; that's the point.

Gun show dealers aren't feeding gangs... It's a ridiculous notion.

Crimes are generally committed with stolen guns (57%) and guns coming across the border (25%). Of those, a third of those guns are nearly new, meaning manufactured within the last three years and having fewer than two owners (if any).

This points away from gun shows being a source of guns for criminals.

 

[spydy13]

Are you appealing to the absence of evidence?

Where is the study that shows gun show sales lead to higher gun crime?

I haven't looked for it, but I'm just saying that the study itself says that it does account for everything.

It is, but that's a false narrative; that's the point.

Gun show dealers aren't feeding gangs... It's a ridiculous notion.

Crimes are generally committed with stolen guns (57%) and guns coming across the border (25%). Of those, a third of those guns are nearly new, meaning manufactured within the last three years and having fewer than two owners (if any).

This points away from gun shows being a source of guns for criminals.

I wasn't saying that gang members are walking into gun shows and buying guns.

I was suggesting that black market dealers buy guns at a show and then sell them to gang members on the street. Either way, I'm sure that would be nearly impossible to put any statistical number on, but I guess that's kind of the point.

Anyways, could you also comment on the edit I added to my post?

 

[gourimoko]

I haven't looked for it, but I'm just saying that the study itself says that it does account for everything.

I didn't think it had to account for "everything" to provide evidence.

I wasn't saying that gang members are walking into gun shows and buying guns.

I was suggesting that black market dealers buy guns at a show and then sell them to gang members on the street.

This is not a reflection of reality.

Either way, I'm sure that would be nearly impossible to put any statistical number on, but I guess that's kind of the point.

It isn't impossible since you can track gun registration. It doesn't happen at a statistically significant rate. We know where 80%+ of illegal guns come from. It isn't gun shows.

Anyways, could you also comment on the edit I added to my post?

Sure..

 

[gourimoko]

Edit: Also, you said in your last post that it is impractical for private sellers to meet federal/state guidelines, but I saw in that article that California requires that at gun shows. Have you been to one there? Do they just have a booth set up for people to go through that process after a sale has been agreed upon by two parties?

California's rules are anything but a model for the States; as I said, I can't even bring my personal favorite rifle across state lines - it's illegal here under it's current configuration.

But to answer your question, the rules in California are technically the same as buying in a store; with a 10-day waiting period. There's also a residency requirement, which is unconstitutional.

What this means is that dealers at gun shows must have an FFL with the federal government or go through an FFL licensed dealer to sell their guns via consignment.

So, essentially, you aren't buying from private dealers - they've been eliminated. You're buying from gun stores selling on behalf of private dealers.

Out of state dealers or sellers actually leave their guns with a licensed dealer to wait out the 10 day period.

It's an impractical measure that makes purchasing in at a gun show in California impractical. You're much better off driving to Salt Lake City, Colorado, Nevada, or Arizona; buying your gun and waiting for 3-days rather than 10. If you can't wait, they'll mail it to you after 72 hours (not from them personally, but from a dealer - saves on commission).

All in all, California is a perfect example of banning something by overly regulating it.

First, keep in mind that all of these rules apply only to handguns, not rifles.

Second, any and all rifles in California must have a barrel lengths (via permanently attached muzzles for shorter rifles) no shorter than 16" no exceptions. Why makes all SBRs illegal in this state.

 

[spydy13]

It isn't impossible since you can track gun registration. It doesn't happen at a statistically significant rate. We know where 80%+ of illegal guns come from.

How do all those guns get stolen though? Obviously the cops would suspect something if a single person reported tons of guns stolen, but that seems like such a high percentage for some sort of shady shit not to be going on other than just criminals breaking into gun stores or houses when they need a gun.

 

[gourimoko]

How do all those guns get stolen though?

According to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), about 250,000 guns are stolen each year, 85%+ being from household and vehicular burglaries. The primary victims (80%) are White non-Hispanic owners in White neigborhoods. There is only a 20% recovery rate.

That accounts for 1.4M stolen guns over a period from 2005 to 2010.

Less than 0.1% of guns (as in, not statistically measurable) used in crimes were from gun shows.

People confuse "straw purchase" with "private purchase," they aren't the same thing.

Obviously the cops would suspect something if a single person reported tons of guns stolen, but that seems like such a high percentage for some sort of shady shit not to be going on other than just criminals breaking into gun stores or houses when they need a gun.

I think you have an incorrect preconceived notion of what is going on.

The majority of the guns used in crimes are stolen from peoples homes and cars. The next largest quantity (~25%) is from guns that come across the border and can be traced to numerous locations (not necessarily Mexico).

 

[spydy13]

According to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), about 250,000 guns are stolen each year, 85%+ being from household and vehicular burglaries. The primary victims (80%) are White non-Hispanic owners in White neigborhoods. There is only a 20% recovery rate.

That accounts for 1.4M stolen guns over a period from 2005 to 2010.

Less than 0.1% of guns (as in, not statistically measurable) used in crimes were from gun shows.

People confuse "straw purchase" with "private purchase," they aren't the same thing.



I think you have an incorrect preconceived notion of what is going on.

The majority of the guns used in crimes are stolen from peoples homes and cars. The next largest quantity (~25%) is from guns that come across the border and can be traced to numerous locations (not necessarily Mexico).

Thanks for the info.

 

[KI4MVP]

According to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), about 250,000 guns are stolen each year, 85%+ being from household and vehicular burglaries. The primary victims (80%) are White non-Hispanic owners in White neigborhoods. There is only a 20% recovery rate.

That accounts for 1.4M stolen guns over a period from 2005 to 2010.

If phones can be made so they can't be used if they are stolen, shouldn't there be a way to do the same thing for guns?