How can guns be kept out of the hands of psychotics?

[ProgressiveEconomist]

.IMO, there are at least two types of Americans: those who want nothing to do with guns, and those who want and often insist on having firearms.

I'm the first type of American. I've never held a gun, and would sooner burn all my money than spend any of it on a firearm. I find it hard to understand those who want guns.

But I'm willing to tolerate millions of them, as long as they don't pose a threat to me or to anybody I know. And I suspect that many gun-owners think they need a firearm as a kind of security blanket, to be tucked away in a closet for years, never to be used except in case of an extremely unlikely "emergency".

To keep firarems out of the hands of people like the English senior from Fairfax whose fingerprints were lifted from the Virginia Tech massacre weapons, I'm willing to entertain the notion that thousands more gun-lovers should be armed and perhaps even permitted to carry their weapons with them everywhere. But, in return, those gun-lovers must agree to be screened, trained, licensed, and regulated. And at the same moment they get their carry-permits, it must be made extremely difficult for anyone else in the State to get a gun more lethal than, say, a 22-caliber hunting rifle.

IMO, we may need more "good guys" with guns, just the way we surely need fewer armed "bad guys". Unlike any other country in the world, the USA affords INDISCRIMNATE access to guns and high-capacity ammo clips. This allows psychos in many states to buy guns easily and legally and then go out and shoot strangers days later. MSNBC reported that the Va Tech mass murderer had a two-day-old gunstore receipt in the pocket of his bullet-proof ammo vest. Apparently, that's how the police identified him!

Right-wingers like to point out that guns in the hands of thousands of "good guys" scattered throughout the populace would enable them to "take out" bad guys and sickos before they can get off too many rounds. For example, a survivor of the Texas cafeteria massacre whose record (23 killed) Cho Seung-Hui obliterated said that she had a handgun in her car out in the parking-lot, and just wished she had brought it inside with her. Rightwingers then go on to argue that there should be FEWER restrictions on gun access, not more restrictions.

I could be persuaded to agree with the right wingers, but only up to a point. IMO, thousands of "good guys" well might be armed and spread throughout the populace. But they all would have to be screened carefully, trained in negotiation and violence prevention, licensed, and regulated. Loosening gun restrictions would allow more "god guys" to get guns more easily, but the trouble is, more "bad guys" would get easier access too. And then we'd see more Virginia Tech-type massacres, not fewer.

IMO, the advent of some kind of police auxiliary organization that would provide status, screening, and training for thousands of people who won't misuse handguns could be the sugary-sweet syrup that would allow rightwingers, NRA sympathizers, and so-called "sportsmen" to swallow the medicine of permanent gun licensing and registration this country sorely needs.

What do you think?

[Squatch]

1. How big of you

To "tolerate" my activities.

[Totally Committed]

2. A good start would be to stop electing them.... n/t

TC

[CaptainRant]

3. You're absolutely right

Only the government should have guns. There is no reason for the average person to have that right.

[Xenotime]

4. Agreed.

[CaptainRant]

6. If only the government had all the guns, then...

we could collect more in taxes to pay for more police protection for everybody, including the poor and minorities. Seems like the only way to make things safer at this point.

[TnDem]

12. Yeah....

tell that to the thousands of Jews that were disarmed in Nazi Germany..

If you read the "Federalist Papers", One of the prevailing reasons for the second ammendment to the USC is to keep tyranny by our government in check.

[CaptainRant]

17. Enough with the conspiracy theory nonsense already

We live in a democracy where the people vote on leaders. There is NO chance they would turn the guns on us and anybody who says otherwise is lying. What we have to do is stop compromising with the looney right and watering down our principles. At some point, we'll have to take a stand. The time is now to say it MUST STOP.

[TnDem]

20. I suggest...

That you take a class on civics and consitutional history...

You have no clue about your own Constitution nor why it was written the way it was.

[CaptainRant]

34. I've read it. It was written in a different time...

and should be either updated or amended to reflect the reality of today instead of 1783. Things change. If we don't adapt, we'll continue to die. That, my friend, is the truth.

[TnDem]

43. While we're at it then...

Let's update the 1st ammendment and the 4th and the 5th too....After all we are in a different "time" now..I am sure the pugs would love to help you rewrite to Bill Of Rights.

No, the US Constitution is a remarkable document that transcends time and applies in all situations both old and modern.

[Richard Steele]

51. Could you possibly be more distanced from reality?

I don't know what "democracy" you live in, but
it sure isn't the USA circa 2007. Not from that
description.

Your democracy sounds really nice- can I move there?

[hogwyld]

35. Quit regurgitating

NRA talking points. If you want to take the Federalist papers literally, confiscate all of the modern fireamrs, and reissue flintlocks...

[TnDem]

59. OK, on that train of thought...

Let's confiscate computers and cell phones because they were not in use at the time of the 1st ammendment...

HooBoy...On and on we go, where we stop nobody knows.

[hogwyld]

76. What a weak argument

Last time I checked, words didn't kill 33 people in VA.

[karlrschneider]

16. Did you forget the sarcasm smiley?

Or do you really want this government to have -all- the guns?
:eyes:

[CaptainRant]

18. Sarcasm?

We just had the largest mass shooting in US history. Somebody needs to say something.

[karlrschneider]

24. Something intelligent, preferably.

...

[CaptainRant]

27. I'm sorry. But I'm mad...

And I just don't think people are taking this seriously and continue to beat around the bush. I'll continue to take the arrows and don't mind it, but somebody must say what we all know needs to be done.

[karlrschneider]

31. You still haven't proposed any solution.

All you're doing is bitching that people own guns.

[CaptainRant]

36. Outlaw guns...

Give rewards to people for reporting the possession of guns by others to the government. I don't like it any more than anybody else, but drastic times call for drastic measures.

[hogwyld]

39. I agree

Idiocy is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result. Time to get draconian and attempt something radical. It surely can't be worse than our current situation.

[TnDem]

60. Try it....

After all we tried it in 1994 and lost both houses of congress and in 2000 and helped to lose the presidency to Chimp.

Yeah, go ahead and get draconian...Just don't bitch when it all falls down and we have nothing again.

[karlrschneider]

40. You can try to get mine. You won't succeed.

I guarantee it.

[JuniperLea]

58. Pipe dreams generally never work

You'd never, ever get all the guns. Never. Ever. Nice fantasy though.

[hogwyld]

37. I'll take some of those arrows with you

I propose banning anything that holds more than 6 rounds. Hell, if you can't hit a deer or robber w with that many, you don't deserve to have a gun.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Richard Steele]

55. It's not every day we get to meet someone who is such a 2-dimensional cliché.

We should enjoy this moment while it lasts.
Special people, special memories.

[karlrschneider]

57. True dat.

:eyes:

[CaptainRant]

61. I'm not here to make friends...

I'm here to make change.

[Richard Steele]

69. You might want to start with the smaller denominations, and work your way up.

I love it when a metaphor comes together.

[meldroc]

78. Would you trust * and Cheney with guns?

Cheney already shot a man in the face, Bush shoved firecrackers up frogs' butts, and the whole administration is just plain cuckoo, to the tune of 655,000 dead in Iraq. Give them a monopoly on weapons? I don't think so.

[mainer]

5. Most mass murderers aren't psychotics. They're just angry men.

The common thread among them seems to be anger, and shooting people is how they deal with it.

[Cetacea]

67. Bingo.

The discrimination against the mentally ill is appalling, even amongst "progressive" thinkers.

[slackmaster]

7. My bullet points, short and succinct as possible

- Better access to mental health care so people who have problems can be identified and treated early.

- Strict enforcement of the requirement for people who are under restraining orders for domestic violence, to divest themselves of firearms. This is not enforced at all in most states.

- Tougher prison sentences for people convicted of violent offenses. Make room for them by ending the War On (some) Drugs.

- Gun safety education in schools - Every child deserves the chance to learn how to safely unload the most common types of firearms.

- Make the National Instant Check System (NICS), which is used to check the backgrounds of people who buy guns from (federally licensed, i.e. all lawful) dealers, available to the public so that people who wish to sell used guns can check up on their buyers.

- Tough prison sentences for anyone who provides a firearm to an unqualified person.

- National shall-issue concealed weapons licenses for anyone who meets a set of strict objective criteria and really wants one. Require classroom instruction in the legal and moral aspects of the use of deadly force, and demonstration of shooting proficiency. Annual recertifications to renew.

- Eliminate most "gun-free" zones like college campuses. If someone can qualify for the permit, that person should be allowed to carry at work unless there is a really good reason not to e.g. fire or explosion hazard.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

9. slackmaster--Thanks for your comment. You seem to be exactly

the kind of person I wanted to open up a dialog with.

There has to be some kind of compromise that will prevent the Dylan Kliebolds and Cho Seung-Huis of the world from perpetrating more Columbines and more Virginia Techs.

Folks who want guns and are willing to be responsible can be accomodated. But do groups like the NRA really want to permit INDISCRIMNATE access to guns? That's what the "Second Amendment" rhetoric I hear from them all the time demotes to me.

[slackmaster]

15. Thanks, I am always open to mature dialogue free of personal attacks

But do groups like the NRA really want to permit INDISCRIMNATE access to guns?

I don't believe so. Most NRAers are, or at least talk, very tough on crime.

Gun owners have good reason to be horrified by yesterday's incident. Every time something like that happens, OUR freedom is threatened by the understandable backlash.

That's what the "Second Amendment" rhetoric I hear from them all the time demotes to me.

I try to avoid 2A discussions because they end up circular and go nowhere. Militia arguments notwithstanding, we do have the Ninth Amendment which IMO clarifies that anything that has not been prohibited by due process is permitted. I think it's redundant because that is the basis of our legal system - You have all rights save those which has been curtailed by consensus.

OTOH the state militias do still exist. Here is mine:

MILITARY AND VETERANS CODE
SECTION 120-130

120. The militia of the State shall consist of the National Guard,
State Military Reserve and the Naval Militia--which constitute the
active militia --and the unorganized militia.

121. The unorganized militia consists of all persons liable to
service in the militia, but not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

122. The militia of the State consists of all able-bodied male
citizens and all other able-bodied males who have declared their
intention to become citizens of the United States, who are between
the ages of eighteen and forty-five, and who are residents of the
State, and of such other persons as may upon their own application be
enlisted or commissioned therein pursuant to the provisions of this
division, subject, however, to such exemptions as now exist or may be
hereafter created by the laws of the United States or of this State.

123. Whenever the Governor deems it necessary, he or she may order
an enrollment to be made by officers designated by the Governor, of
all persons liable to service in the militia. The enrollment shall
include any information that the Governor may require. Three copies
thereof shall be made: one copy shall be filed in the office of the
clerk of the county in which the enrollment is made, and two copies
in the office of the Adjutant General.

124. Enrollment shall be made upon such notice and in such manner
as the Governor may direct. Every person required by such notice to
enroll who fails or refuses so to do is guilty of a misdemeanor....

Basically the Governator has the power to call us up for public service in a time of emergency, and we can go to jail if we refuse to comply.

That's part of our social contract. In return for that, one of our perks is the right to keep and bear arms in our own defense. Or so I see it.

Reference: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=mvc&group=00001-01000&file=120-130

[karlrschneider]

13. I sure wish I could recommend a reply.

Well done.

[Richard Steele]

41. I certainly couldn't put it any better.

:applause:

[barb162]

50. this point

"Better access to mental health care so people who have problems can be identified and treated early."

I doubt if the guy would have been IDed. He was a "loner" as far as I know so far. That describes a lot of people. I'd like to see psych tests by the states before any one could purchase firearms or other weapons.

[slackmaster]

54. No conceivable system is going to be able to stop every potential murderer

I'd like to see psych tests by the states before any one could purchase firearms or other weapons.

Good luck devising one that is culturally unbiased, reliable, valid, accurate, and sellable to the general public.

I'm open to the idea, but haven't seen any psych test that comes anywhere close to what would be required. Predicting future behavior is always problemmatic.

[barb162]

63. i agree with everything you wrote. It's almost impossible

but I think a group of psychiatrists could come up with something where they could get at least some of the nutters out of the gun-buying system. Just like driving tests make sure there is some minimal level of driving skills, maybe we could do the same with guns

[TahitiNut]

8. Perhaps they shouldn't have a driver's license either?

After all, driving a vehicle into a crowd can take many lives. :shrug:

While we're at it, why not just criminalize mental illness?

[CaptainRant]

10. Not the same...

Everyone needs a car to get around. Nobody needs a gun. Yesterday taught us that.

[karlrschneider]

14. Nobody?

Are you sure about that?

[TahitiNut]

19. Who's talking about 'everybody'?? I thought the subject says 'psychotics'.

I guess it's never 'the same' when it might affect one personally. :shrug: How conveeeenient.

[CaptainRant]

21. Are you willing to risk the lives of innocent children...

on your ability to determine who is psychotic and who is not?

[karlrschneider]

26. Some people might say anyone who thinks only the government should have guns

is psychotic.

[CaptainRant]

28. Again with the loony right conspiracy stuff...

Do you honestly believe that would be a bad thing? We rely on government to provide things everyday and often advocate a bigger role for them in the name of justice. Why should this be any different?

[TahitiNut]

71. Propagandistic demagoguery

Figures. :shrug:

Every time tragedy strikes, the "issue opportunists" come out of the woodwork beating their carapaces and peddling a ready-made agenda. Rather than engage in intellectually honest discussion, I hear the same emotion-laden terms and thinly-veiled personal attacks and smears. (Yeah. Right. I hate "innocent children." Just like anyone who disagrees. Self-righteous horse shit!)

[Richard Steele]

75. I can think of 33 people who REALLY needed a gun yesterday.

Don't tell us what yesterday means- you're clearly
not qualified to draw conclusions.

[TnDem]

11. OK except...

You lost me when you started advocating maximum allowable calibers like .22's.

First off, it wouldn't matter because there are already 200 million + guns out there. Secondly, it would never pass congress or further nor should it.

And most importantly, it would doom us to minority party status just like in 1994. We are just starting to climb out of the abyss on this one.

Propose all you want about carry permits, training, qualification, but leave the hyperbole about "NRA sympathizers, and so-called "sportsmen" somewhere else. All that does is show your lack of understanding and patronization of guns and the people involved that own and use guns, including up to 50% of DU members.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

22. On what gung-ho gun advocacy postures are you willing to COMPROMISE

in the interest of prevening the next Cho Seung-Hui from easy, legal access to firearms?

Sounds to me like NONE, if I'm reading you correctly.

Responses like yours lead me to want to advocate making all unregistered firearms contraband whose possession would be a felony.

[CaptainRant]

23. Exactly. You see what compromise on this issue has...

gotten us...more dead. Until somebody starts advocating what is truly just, the killing will continue and the blood will be on the hands of those who didn't have the moral fiber to take a stand.

[TnDem]

32. Try that....

And we will go from a almost 50/50 Dem/Pug split in the US, to us with a 30% minority party standing with two more decades of Chimp clones making our policy.

Is it worth it to you?

And just to note....standard firearms are currently not "registered" per se..The only registration is done at the dealer's office when you fill out a form 4473 upon purchase of the weapon. That 4473 form is kept at the dealer's place of business, (for as long as he is in business), and has to be produced for inspection by BATFE if requested. This data is not transmitted to some central database to be collected and searchable.

Congratulations! You have just made 100 million people felons.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

44. I repeat the question I asked in reply #22: What COMPROMISES do you offer?

You seem to confirm CaptanRant's assessment of the situation in Reply #23:

You offer no compromises whatsoever, only a gung-ho "Call your Congressman, and tell him, 'I want my GUNS!'" "Or I'll hold my breath!"

[TnDem]

52. The compromises I like...

Are the ones that you alluded to about allowing a broader carry permits with plenty of training and screening.

Where you fail is that the dislike and venomous hatred for guns spills ut of every word in your post. You can't hide your attitude. That immediately shows me that we could probably never reach a so-called "compromise" because you want to start limiting caliber choices, types of weapons and other such bullshit. I would NEVER agree to that and I would venture to say that neither would Slackmaster.

There are no reasons to limit me from purchasing anything currently available legally. When you start talking about limiting anything beyond a .22 caliber, it makes me laugh because, (gun owners aside), you have just lost 50% of the nation's votes not to mention all the south and midwest. That shows your lack of understanding of gun owners, guns in general and what is politically within the scope of possibility.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

64. Those aren't COMPROMISES; theiy're CONCESSIONS from the other side.

A compromise consists of concessions from BOTH sides.

[TnDem]

70. It'll never happen....

Because getting compromises from ardent gun owners is like getting compromises from ardent pro-choice folks.

The issues are FAR too strong for any bending. Gun owners are so in tune with facing the next onslaught of bullshit laws that we have a terminal case of "legislative PTSD"

Again, you are probably scratching your head and wondering what's up with gun owners?

That very questioning and dismissal by you shows a total lack of understanding of how I and millions of others that own guns feel about the issue and how STRONGLY we feel about it.

[piedmont]

74. None whatsoever.

[karash]

25. .

Oooh, I really like that idea. Then, instead of the killer finishing himself off, we could have been treated to a shoot-out on campus. The killer could exchange fire with several other armed students across the food court, down the mall and into the library. He's holed up behind the reference desk! Grenade, grenade! Shrapnel flies, and justice is done with a smoking hole as proof.

It is clear that the solution to gun problems is simply more guns. Any negative gun situation could be solved by adding more guns to the other side of the scale. Boom!

[karlrschneider]

29. So what's your solution? Are you under the impression that millions of

responsible gun owners are just going to "turn them in" to the nearest cop shop?

[ProgressiveEconomist]

53. What you fantasize actually happened during the 60s in the Texas Tower

massacre at UT Austin. Before a police sniper took out the deranged student, ordinary Texans came on campus and exchanged rounds with him.

There's an unintentionally hilarious reel of a very serious documentary about the situation. Maybe one of the cable channels will show it this week, to help fill the gigantic "newshole" that's openeded up in Blacksburg.

They've got to fill it with material that won't upset contemporary sympathizers with the gun lobby, somaybe they'll open thier vaults from the 60s. I watched all three national newscasts last evening, and only ABC World News mentioned easy access to guns as a precipitating factor for the massacre.

[Holly_Hobby]

30. No one can protect me but me

The cops can't, the gun bans can't, nobody can protect me but me.

Look at all of the drugs that are banned - they can still be had nearly anywhere. The War on Guns won't work either.

I can't even have a professionally-trained dog to protect me, for fear the dog would be deemed "vicious" and confiscated.

[leftofthedial]

33. I think we need to overcome the unamerican stigma attached to gun crime

we should just accept gun deaths as a natural part of American life. In fact, we should *encourage* gun crime. Thanks to the gun lovers, America is so awash with lethal weaponry that there is no controlling the situation. Rather than taking drastic measures that might offend someone's misinterpretation of our militia rights, we should just make arms freely available to all and change the laws so that it is okay to kill people, as long as you use a gun to do it. What's more, if you use a great American gun to kill someone, you should immediately come into full legal possession of all the dead person's stuff. As for self-defense, we should combine the bush doctrine with the new promotion of gun death and allow anyone to shoot and kill anyone they even think might someday try to shoot them.

After about 48 hours of that, we'd reduce America's gun problem to only a few remaining individuals. That should be an easier problem to fix.

[valerief]

38. Just ban the bullets and everything will be fine.

edited to add
:sarcasm:

[karlrschneider]

45. Then ban meat and eggs. Poof, cholesterol problem solved.

:eyes:

[valerief]

48. You forgot the cheese eaters. nt

[ProgressiveEconomist]

49. The late Senator Moynihan suggested a federal tax of $1 a bullet,

but that plan would seem to me to worsen the situation.

To save money, the apparently sane gunowner would be less likely to have ammo in the gun on the rare occasion when it might be needed. But violent psychos' demand for ammo would be much less sensitive to price, and armed criminals would simply pass the price increase along to their victims!

[piedmont]

66. Ammunition can be made easily in a basement with a little chemistry and metalworking.

[bobthedrummer]

46. A good start: impeach Richard Cheney n/t

[barb162]

47. Your 6th paragraph

has that interesting point which can't be refuted. There is also a point about just about everyone in Switzerland being armed (home militias or whatever) and they don't have a lot of gun crime, if any. I also don't think what you opened that paragraph with was a right wing idea, especially in yesterday's context.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

62. In Switzerland, Israel, and some other places, universal military service makes

just about everybody part of the Army. They've got substantial firearms training, and a command chain to weed out psychos.

The US couldn't be more dfferent. All but a few of those who advocate "Second Amedment gun rights " and their children want nothing to do with US military service, except to advocate that tens of thousands of poor people's lives and limbs be sacrificed by the US Army to ensure plenty of fuel for right-wingers' SUVs.

[JuniperLea]

56. You can't

Even if you gave all prospective gun owners a litmus test, someone would slip through.

I'm sure NASA is very thorough in their testing of people they send into space. Wouldn't be prudent to send a potential nut job up there... yet they did, and her diaper enhanced cross country trip will live on in history.

[moondust]

77. LOL! It's true!

And the astronaut population is tiny! :rofl:

[piedmont]

65. You already must be screened, trained and licensed to carry a concealed weapon.

The problem is that these folks who have CCW permits are forbidden to carry in some places like schools and workplaces.

[cgrindley]

68. Absolutely

I think all school teachers and professors should be allowed to carry if properly trained and certified.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

72. "The problem is gun-free zones"

To YOU it's a problem. To me, it may be an opportunity.I don't like firearms. I don't like the idea of infantile obsession with ever-more lethal offerings from right-wing politically Made arms merchants, running guns to gangs to make inner cities unlivable just the way thiy've made third-world countireies unlivable, for cold cash.

But I recognize that many people who agree with me on many other issues disagree with me on this one. Some of them desperately want to carry guns into places they currently cannot. But instead of admitting just what it is they want, they revel in overblown "Second Amendment gun rights" rhetoric that if taken literally would allow a Cho Seung-Hui the same access to guns as a Texas politician.

For example, Texas Democratic US Senator Lamar Smith just gave DC Voting Rights the coup de grace, by tying a bipartisan plan for a DC vote in the House to eliminating DC gun control laws. Why didn't Smith just introduce a bill to allow Members of Congress and their staffs permission to carry firearms within DC? Why did he have to keep hundreds of thousands from escaping "Taxation Without Representation"?

To get expanded carry rights for screened elites, maybe gunlovers would be willing to sacrifice indiscriminate gun possession for millions who currently face no permanent, centralized regulation of firearms. Many like myself who don't like guns may be willing to grant compromises (but not one-sided concessions) to the other side.

[piedmont]

73. I see absolutely no reason to give one for the other.

Want to possess a firearm for personal protection at home or for hunting or target shooting? Ok, as long as you're over 18 and not a felon.
Want to carry a concealed firearm in public? Sure, as long as you are a responsible adult (NOT necessarrily an "elite"), have some training, and pass the background checks.
Abolish the "gun-free zones" and you would no longer create a situation where the law-abiding population of that zone is less-armed than the attacker who simply ignores the law.


edit to add:
"To get expanded carry rights for screened elites, maybe gunlovers would be willing to sacrifice indiscriminate gun possession for millions who currently face no permanent, centralized regulation of firearms. Many like myself who don't like guns may be willing to grant compromises (but not one-sided concessions) to the other side."

Do you not understand that this an incredibly authoritarian sentiment, and would be an incredibly dangerous action for our society to take? You want to only the "elites?" How the hell would THAT be decided? Would you allow the Bush admin to make that decision?