At what point will it be reasonable to arm our teachers to protect students?

[blessingx]

Discussion About Newtown Leads To Shooting In Wentzville Barber Shop
 
 

American Gun Deaths to Exceed Traffic Fatalities by 2015

Edited December 20, 2012 by blessingx

[Dusty Chalk]

I don't think that's a dumb idea at all. There are any number of statistically dangerous activities that turn out to be safer - orders of magnitude safer - for people who spend a lot of money on them, join a club, or attain some sort of expertise. Think bicycling. We know that the concealed weapons permit folks people are pretty trustworthy. But licensing for all gun ownership wouldn't fly second amendment-wise. (Nor do I think it should, frankly). A hefty tax might have the desired effect and heaven knows, the government could use the dough. (Of course it's an open question whether they'd use it on health care or war.)

 

I agree that we present a lot of images that are damaging. Video games, most of entertainment, books, even. Most of that we can't do anything about. It's a reflection of who we are. To become a totalitarian place where art and entertainment are heavily censored would be, well, a worse reflection.

 

On the other hand, there are some things that we can control and we ought to. Has anybody looked at a policeman lately? Arrested development cases posturing to look like killers. Nice role model work there. Would it hurt to lose the storm trooper/ outlaw biker get-ups? All our heroes seem to be the people who operate outside the rules. Cold hearted violent killers way too often. That's stuff that authority figures can actually control. Without subjugating anybody, without eroding the liberties that are (or were) the underpinnings of our society, and maybe, just maybe, with effect.

What about all those people who see all those images without committing violent crimes?  I'm sorry, I mean all of us people...no, it's not that bad an idea, but it would be more fair to tax something that is known to cause dysfunction -- parents.

[morphsci]

There is an 11% Federal tax on firearms and ammunition. The proceeds go to the Sec. of the Interior to be distributed to the states for wildlife conservation. Look up Pittman-Robertson Act.

Edited December 20, 2012 by morphsci

[HeadphoneAddict]

A higher tax on firearms to be used for improving access to mental health care might not be such a bad thing.  I practiced part-time pediatric psychiatry for 7 years before I retired (mostly limited to ADHD, depression, OCD, anxiety, autistic spectrum disorders, bipolar disorder, and reactive attachment disorder).  During that time I came to see just how terrible access to mental health care was in this country.  We have 350,000,000 guns and only 47,000 Psychiatrists.  When I needed to refer a patient to a board certified psychiatrist it could take weeks to get them seen.  If they needed hospitalization for suicidal ideation or psychosis it was often hard to find them a hospital bed (only 100 psych beds here for a population of half a million).  

 

I would normally leave it up to psychiatrists to determine which "at risk" people are unsafe to own a gun, and to decide what kind of re-assessment should be done to give people their rights back after they have been successfully treated.  But, not only is it hard to find an opening for services, there's not a good way to force someone who is simply "acting strange" according to family and friends to get help.  A 72 hour hold often isn't enough time to assess the situation, and anything longer than that can itself be an infringement in someone's right.  

 

On the other hand, since we can't get everyone expertly evaluated, the way the government would have it is every soldier with PTSD would lose their right to keep and bear arms, even if the psych assessment was that they are not a danger to themselves and others.  And possibly every person treated with Prozac for being too sad could lose their right.  And so on and so on.  It's too easy to lay out criteria like that, because we don't have enough psych services to see and treat everyone who needs care, and right now there is no way to properly terminate and reinstate someone's right to own a firearm based on a psych determination.  Once they take it away you usually can't ever get it back, and there is no appeals process.  And, there is no consistent way for the medical community to report the mental status of someone into the background check records.

 

Since there is no requirement to do a psych eval on everyone who wants to exercise their right to keep and bear arms, even just banning identified "at risk" people wont completely solve the problem because there are still people who could snap with no signs of problems prior to the event.  That leads people to ask for a bigger step - banning firearms completely so those not identified as at risk wont have access to firearms.  But that will only stop the 99% who are law abiding citizens from owning firearms for protection, plus maybe keep some of the mentally ill from getting them if they aren't smart enough to find firearms on the black market.  At the same time it gives the criminals free reign to prey on the weak and unprotected in their "gun free" zones.

 

So yes, I would rather pay a higher tax on firearms which would be used for improving access to mental health care, than to see the government try another failed assault weapons and high cap mags ban.  We already pay a $200 tax on every sale or transfer of a suppressor, short barreled rifle, or full auto weapon, and the number of sales or transfers of those items is much lower than it would be if there were no tax.  And, you don't see people committing crimes with those weapons, with an almost infinitesimal rate of crime by the people like me who have NFA tax stamps.

 

That's one way to reduce the numbers in circulation without completely taking away the rights of the law abiding citizens to have a choice in how they defend themselves.  It still doesn't make much sense to tax a "right", but we already have to get permits to assemble (such as a parade or protest) or to marry.  So we've gone down that slippery slope before without the world ending.

 

The $200 tax isn't what stopped me from buying a full auto weapon, it's logic.  Partly from the fact that accuracy suffers when firing off too many rounds in succession too rapidly, and ammo is too costly to waste by "spray and pray" method.  It's just stupid to use a full-auto for self defense, although sometimes fun to shoot with them at targets (I've been to a couple of machine gun and silencer meets).  It's also partly the fact that a full auto weapon costs 20-30x the amount of a semi-auto version, ever since the manufacture of new full-auto weapons for non-law enforcement personnel was banned in 1986.  People have to buy a used 25 year old weapon, and ones for sale are getting harder to find.  Like I said, I don't see much use for a full-auto weapon for self defense, but I stand by someone's right to own one (one who has passed the background check and paid the fees).  

 

If we pass a semi-auto weapons ban all it does is increase the cost for a used one, and even if you went door to door to collect them there would be hundred of thousands out there in the grey and black market to be used in crimes.  If the ban was stricter and people were required to turn them in but didn't, you would have normally law abiding citizens become statutory criminals, for no reason other than from defiance of an unconstitutional ban.  Note - The Clinton ban lasted 10 years and didn't do anything to help reduce violent crime, and when it ended we still saw crime rates drop.  

 

Prior to the ban they sold 10 years worth of assault weapons in just a few months (I bought 4 at the time), proving that people wanted these firearms for self defense (and to stockpile for their children, or make a profit), since there was no 10 fold increase in gun crimes to match the 10 fold increase in sales.  Just the threat of a ban has me wanting to go out tomorrow and order a second AR-15 that I otherwise wouldn't want or need or afford.

 

In regards to closing the "gun show loophole" - I'm not totally against a background check for all sales of firearms by private individuals, if there were assurances that the records wouldn't be saved to be used to round up and collect a persons firearm collection in the future, should they be banned completely by an over-reaching government.  The biggest argument people use for allowing private sales to continue unmolested is that the buyers and sellers don't want government keeping track of whose door to knock on when "big brother" decides we no longer deserve our rights.  I still think that banning the private sale of firearms without a background check is an infringement of our rights, but not as severe as taking away our choice of guns or magazines.

 

And, as for locking up firearms to keep them safely away from the deranged neighbors and family - I keep all but one or two locked up in a gun case or small rapid access safe, and the ones that are left out are kept close at hand in case of need for self defense.  But we don't need the government mandating that it must be locked up, rendered inoperable, and unloaded away from ammo, which renders it useless for self defense.  That would mean every time I take off my pants I have to unload my .38 or 9mm from it's pocket holster, take it apart, and lock it up; or be forced to keep it in my pajamas - I'm not doing either.

 

In my house everyone is trained in the use of firearms, and I would feel safe if none of the firearms were locked up.  But, in the event of a home invasion I don't want a stranger using our firearms against us.  But if any of my family were acting the slightest bit mentally unstable I would at a minimum change the lock combinations, but more likely put them in a more secure heavy safe that can't be opened with a hacksaw.

[catscratch]

http://news.yahoo.com/texas-town-allows-teachers-carry-concealed-guns-081017416.html

 

Looks like you're not alone in your thinking Larry.

[grawk]

http://kontradictions.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/why-not-renew-the-assault-weapons-ban-well-ill-tell-you/

[blessingx]

Transcription from the NRA's 'meaningful contribution' today.

[Grahame]

^hmm, grow the base? special interest group furthers own interests?

 

EDIT: Also "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"

Edited December 21, 2012 by Grahame

[skullguise]

http://kontradictions.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/why-not-renew-the-assault-weapons-ban-well-ill-tell-you/

 

What a great article!  VERY informative, especially for a gun-ignorant person like myself....

[aardvark baguette]

Transcription from the NRA's 'meaningful contribution' today.

 

 

A dozen more killers, a hundred more? How can we possibly even guess how many, given our nation’s refusal to create an active national database of the mentally ill?

 

How convenient for the NRA to momentarily take issue with the lack of a government database 

[Knuckledragger]

LAPIERRE: And here’s another dirty little truth that the media try their best to conceal. There exists in this country, sadly, a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells and stows violence against its own people. Through vicious, violent video games with names like “Bullet Storm,” “Grand Theft Auto,” “Mortal Combat,” and “Splatterhouse.”

And here’s one, it’s called “Kindergarten Killers.” It’s been online for 10 years. How come my research staff can find it, and all of yours couldn’t? Or didn’t want anyone to know you had found it? Add another hurricane, add another natural disaster. I mean we have blood-soaked films out there, like “American Psycho,” “Natural Born Killers.” They’re aired like propaganda loops on Splatterdays and every single day.

1,000 music videos, and you all know this, portray life as a joke and they play murder -- portray murder as a way of life. And then they all have the nerve to call it entertainment. But is that what it really is? Isn’t fantasizing about killing people as a way to get your kicks really the filthiest form of pornography? In a race to the bottom, many conglomerates compete with one another to shock, violate, and offend every standard of civilized society, by bringing an even more toxic mix of reckless behavior, and criminal cruelty right into our homes. Every minute, every day, every hour of every single year.

 

Gee, didn't see that coming.  Ban all the games!  Censor all the films!  Make those rapper hooligans say nicer things!

 

The NRA has not existed to serve the interest of gun owners for over 3 decades now.  Their main goals are self-perpetuation, increasing profits for gun manufacturers, buying politicians and then in turn selling said bought pawns to the base that they have worked into a fervor of paranoia and rage.  

[CarlSeibert]

I just took a look at the New York Times story. "Angry and combative"?? Blame society, video games and everybody but...? Ya think maybe this LaPierre guy needs a little refresher in crisis PR? What a fucking moron. I'm dumbstruck. The NRA is supposed to to be the slickest lobby since the invention of slime. This is schoolyard stuff. Unless there's some secret, common sense defying new set of parameters and I missed the memo, these guys are doing a huge disservice to their constituency.

[swt61]

Gun loving liberal? You my friend are as rare as the homosexual republican.

[Dusty Chalk]

Maybe he meant out homosexual republicans.

[Audiojunkie]

Gee, didn't see that coming.  Ban all the games!  Censor all the films!  Make those rapper hooligans say nicer things!

 

The NRA has not existed to serve the interest of gun owners for over 3 decades now.  Their main goals are self-perpetuation, increasing profits for gun manufacturers, buying politicians and then in turn selling said bought pawns to the base that they have worked into a fervor of paranoia and rage.  

 

Japan, the UK and Canada all have the same movies, video games and rap music and yet far, far less gun violence. Nice try NRA, but that argument doesn't hold any water. 

[HeadphoneAddict]

I probably shouldn't have wasted so much time on my missive about the subject this AM...

[MoonShine]

Words to live by.

[swt61]

Maybe he meant out homosexual republicans.

 

 

oh.

Exactly!

[Absorbine_Sr]

We have a good friend who is a gay Republican. With all of the right wing anti-gay rhetoric during the last election cycle, Debbie and I sat slack jawed as he tried to convince us we should vote for Romney. We love the guy dearly but he confuses the shit out of us.

[Knuckledragger]

 

Remember the victims, not the shooter.

[Grahame]

Q. How many members of the NRA does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: More guns