Gun discussion do-over? by SIGNYM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Hey Frem,

I think the problem with your proposal (actually I don't think there's a damn thing wrong with it), anyway, the problem is that it does nothing to satisfy anyone's need for control. This entire debate is about controlling the uncontrollable. It's about making A FEELING (helplessness) go away.

Anything which folk who want their feelings to go away end up doing is gonna be as reactionary and as ill-advised and ill-starred as our war in Iraq in reaction to 9/11. It's like going on a three week brender when your girlfriend dumps you. It's gonna be overkill and ultimately ineffectual as hell, creating “unforeseen” new problems by the truck load.

Ayep, and my awareness of that causes a moral dilemma and forces me to stand in the middle of the road with a STOP sign even as everyone else tries to stampede down it, KNOWING they will drag out the flamethrowers when I try to point this out to them, cause what little conscience I possess will allow me to do no less.
Doesn't mean it's any kind of pleasant though.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 21, 2012 1:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:

Magons:
Quote:
Arming oneself as you go about your everyday life seems to be something quite particular to Americans. Would you feel the need to carry a weapon in your car? On public transport? Do you take weapons into restaurants, movies, if you are walking in the park?

It's just a tool to me, a small one which weighs little, and I carry for the same reason I carry my little bone wrench, rocketdriver, or spinlight - might come in handy, not lookin to need it but it's there in case I do.
Same essential principle behind spare tires, fire extinguishers, emergency generators, etc etc.

Ironically I do not carry a firearm while on duty - cause I am suited up, well geared and mentally in "condition orange" with homefield advantage, severely so, since all I need do is blow my whistle or shove a car (thus setting off its alarm) and half the damn neighborhood here will rush to my aid if needs be, so my little spring baton is entirely sufficient.

Now off alone in an unfamiliar place which might be a little unsavory, it's just one more card in my deck of options, not the WHOLE deck, mind you - cause there's plenty of ways to avoid or get out of trouble without resorting to it, but it's there if needed.

Oh, and....
Quote:
I'm not sure if the Daily Mail is the most rational source of information...

I would say, as whole... probably not - so far my assessment of them finds them every bit as guilty of sensationalism, distortion and yellow journalism as the worst of american media, although on a rare occasion they'll wind up the only coverage of something happening here that the american press refuses to cover, so it's definately grain-of-salt coverage.

-Frem

Bonewrench - this is a bicycle wrench with multiple sizes which is just enough to put leverage on, extremely useful and inexpensive enough to be disposable if you have to damage it getting the job done.
http://www.suntekstore.com/goods.php?id=13002518

Rocketdriver - This is a multi-bit screwdriver with extra bits in the handle, phillips, flat, torx, and some smaller not/bolt bits, VERY handy.

Spinlight - This is a crank powered light with a belt clip.
It is hands-down the very best of all that I have tested, extremely durable, and you can just clip to your belt and forget till you need it, cheap too.
http://www.amazon.com/Energizer-Weatheready-3-LED-Carabineer-Rechargea
ble/dp/B002MFK7BS]

Got to love the swiss army knife http://www.belindajanes.com/products/Victorinox-Swiss-Army-Knife-Handy
man-Red.html

I especially love the toothpick

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 21, 2012 2:17 AM

MAL4PREZ

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Quote:
Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

However scary my life is (or has been), I am proposing a path to a better world.

By trying your hardest to be as heavily armed as the police? We can see how well that has worked.

Hello,

I don't understand your difficulty. My proposed solution would solve the problem of mass-murder that we are trying to solve.

You seem to want police to deploy prohibited weapons for no reason I can identify.

Aren't they dangerous? Prone to misuse? Prone to theft and subsequent misapplication?

So I'm proposing to get rid of them. Actually and honestly rid of them.

And you give me the shakey head dissapointed face.

I'm not sure what you want.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

I've been here in short spells this week, and it appears that I've missed the details of your proposed solution. Limit weapons to everyone equally, maybe? I like that conversation. I certainly think the police could have less than they do, but they absolutely do need to access to heavier guns when they are facing something other than daily patrols.

That is a different conversation, one that should be had. But I'm glad to see that you are in favor of some sorts of limits.

Frem, I haven't had time to get your post. I can see nothing wrong with requiring training. In fact, I think this has been often proposed by gun control proponents. You know, that line about how it ought to take as much training to own a gun as drive a car. But I've seen this line of reason rejected completely by NRA-ers.

I'm little surprised you present it is as something new that no gun control advocate will listen to. Perhaps we're in shock because that's something we've always wanted. But I have to read your post again. There were probably details in the implementation that I missed, since I glanced through everything really quickly last night.

If the world still exists tonight, I'll get back to it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 21, 2012 3:07 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:

So Geeze, are you with the 99% club? Firearms as well as economics? We arm because we feel oppressed? But we vote mostly war mongers in?

I arm so I can make small holes close together in pieces of paper far away. Also so that if I am again threatened with robbery, I can again respond.

My view that allowing the Bush tax cuts (except maybe AMT, now that I think of it)to expire down to incomes in the $75,000 range would be all right doesn't align me with either party.

And unless Libertarians have turned into war mongers while I wasn't watching, I didn't vote for any war mongers.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 21, 2012 3:35 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
I've been here in short spells this week, and it appears that I've missed the details of your proposed solution. Limit weapons to everyone equally, maybe? I like that conversation.

Hello,

What? You gave me the disappointed shakey head face without even reading what I've been writing?

Bah.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 21, 2012 5:10 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Sometimes people do experience danger outside their homes. Even in civilized nations.

Yes, sometimes shit happens. Nothing will ever be perfect. But is it possible to reduce the "often" to the "rare"?

Quote:
This entire debate is about controlling the uncontrollable. It's about making A FEELING (helplessness) go away.

Indeed. Why is one of the reasons why I hope this conversations focuses on facts and statistics, and away from how people FEEL. Most pro-gun people, when discussing their feelings, sooner or later express the "cornered rat" syndrome. They develop a picture in their minds, whether it is being confronted by angry black urban youth or the fascistic police state, whether or not it is probable or even likely. Then, to assuage that feeling of fear, they mentally reach for a gun. It's like rappy and his terrorist jihadist WMD-toting boogeymen, or (back in the day) AIDS-carrying gays. Perception of risk is usually not accurate, especially when it's amped by dread.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 21, 2012 5:15 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
Sometimes people do experience danger outside their homes. Even in civilized nations.
Yes, sometimes shit happens. Nothing will ever be perfect. But is it possible to reduce the "often" to the "rare"?

Hello,

I hope so. I think reducing violence requires a lot of social programs and has little to do with guns.

But we are discussing reducing death and mass slaughter, particularly in relation to firearms, of which I think we have excellent proposals on the table.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 21, 2012 5:20 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Yes, many proposals.

And now, on this day of the Mayan Apocalypse, I have to go interview a bunch of job candidates and unshovel my desk. I hope to read this thread through later. Thanks so far for the input, everyone.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 21, 2012 7:20 AM

NRA: Hey let's infringe on every right EXCEPT gun ownership to solve the problem pfffft

This isn't a problem that passing laws can solve. It's an inherent problem where we exacerbate the problems of the mentally ill to the breaking point. It's a problem where deep down, we're all terrified and don't understand what is wrong with the world, and don't know where we fit in this world, or how to live in it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 21, 2012 12:13 PM

And I guess I still need to challenge the assumption that people who commit mass murder are always mentally ill, will always benefit from treatment.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 21, 2012 12:16 PM

MAL4PREZ

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Quote:
I've been here in short spells this week, and it appears that I've missed the details of your proposed solution. Limit weapons to everyone equally, maybe? I like that conversation.

Hello,

What? You gave me the disappointed shakey head face without even reading what I've been writing?

The shakey face was over all the shit that guns have done in the past decade. Can't I be unhappy over that?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 21, 2012 12:29 PM

MAL4PREZ

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
And I guess I still need to challenge the assumption that people who commit mass murder are always mentally ill, will always benefit from treatment.

Seems last week would have gone a lot better if a certain young man's mother had been successful in her bid to get him institutionalized.

No one will ever know what's in the head of people who do things like this, but I'll wager that making it easier to get unbalanced people into treatment is the better way to go. For all of us.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 21, 2012 12:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
Frem, I haven't had time to get your post. I can see nothing wrong with requiring training. In fact, I think this has been often proposed by gun control proponents. You know, that line about how it ought to take as much training to own a gun as drive a car. But I've seen this line of reason rejected completely by NRA-ers.

I'm little surprised you present it is as something new that no gun control advocate will listen to. Perhaps we're in shock because that's something we've always wanted. But I have to read your post again. There were probably details in the implementation that I missed, since I glanced through everything really quickly last night.

Reason for this, Mal4 - is that their variation on the proposal has always included direct Government involvement in the training cert process, which is both too close to it to satisfy Second Amendment requirements, and has been a proven failure in the past.

There was not long ago a big legal fracas over the words "May Issue" versus "Shall Issue" because Jim March and many anothers proved rather soundly that the police forces set in charge of issuing those permits were simply flat out refusing to do it whenever the language was "May Issue", or in some cases only issuing to personal friends, or people who paid a bribe, or people of certain race/income/social status - this actually came to a head in Flint Michigan while I was residing and working there as a cab driver, the (Democrat, might I point out) Governor changed it to "Shall Issue" and the Flint police chief, one David Dicks, who was well known to be a seriously racist jerk, simply ignored it and still refused to issue, hiding behind a wall of excuses and stall tactics, at which point she went up there and all but physically put her boot up his arse about it.

THAT solved the impasse rather handily, and as a cab driver servicing low income neighborhoods, I got "word on the street" at point blank range as most of the career criminals response to this was to IMMEDIATELY move to Wisconsin, which was at the time a "May Issue" state with severe restrictions, cause the notion of intended victims being armed did disconcert them quite a bit.
This also resulted in the local crime rate taking a swan dive, to the point where the local police then had to make up stuff to do, like the infamous Baggy Pants Law.

Mind you, I don't consider the notion of equalizing armament to create a balance of power to be THE solution or even a particularly favorable one - what it is, is a useful and undeniably effective stopgap measure while we address the social and economic problems which create the violence in the first place... problem with that is too many people are willing to just slap that bandaid on the problem and hope it goes away, treating the symptoms instead of root cause and to me that's about as useful as treating tuberculosis with nyquil, but sometimes you really do have to mitigate the symptoms to buy time enough to treat a root cause.
So while not "THE" solution, or even a best-case one, I do feel its a necessary step, and become irritated when folks STOP there and fail to address the root problems, as you well know.

Anyhows, long story short, every time the Government has been involved at the training/cert level, and I mean *every* time, they have abused it - they cannot be trusted with it, and this fails the Second Amendment requirement besides.

However, the proposal I over does satisfy it, cause while "Well Regulated" originally meant well TRAINED, it satisfies both that historic requirement, AND the modern interpretation of that term by regulating the INSTRUCTORS with a set of training standards and practices both in general, and specific to the state they are operating in - so you get the training and regulation at a removed step which should serve to limit Government infringes and abuses, but still close enough to operate as a check against "Rogue" instructors that self-regulation doesn't catch, you see ?
Mind, most of them would be run out of town long before that by folks horrified at the notion of someone certifying obviously crazy or dangerous people, the other instructors would have a fit, so forth and so on.

And of course the benefits of using an existing infrastructure cannot be overstated, there's already a process in place that functions effectively, thus requiring no new Government agencies or significant investment of resources, no new taxes, simply a few minor changes and a little expansion which will take place all by itself as folks who know how to perform said instruction see an opportunity to make money on it.

So it satisfies both the Constitutional Requirement at both ends, and the Conservative perspective by limiting Government interference and expenditure, fostering private enterprise, while still satisfying the Liberal perspective of better safety and reduced potential for violence.
Hell, it even satisfies the Anarchist perspective by being as much of a mutual agreement as possible within our current legal system, so what's not to like ?

Also, previously mentioned by HKCav was how to propose/package/market such an idea, although I think he might have been tongue in cheek a bit, I did think on it some and do feel I could "sell" this to the gunbunnies - if naught else by plying their greed and intention to arm everyone in sight by pointing out it opens opportunities for new instructors, yes ?

Just my two penniesworth on it, really.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 21, 2012 12:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
And I guess I still need to challenge the assumption that people who commit mass murder are always mentally ill, will always benefit from treatment.

I dunno...
I think anyone who *IS* willing to do so has some serious issues, whether it be with weapon in hand, or by the stroke of a pen and ordering others to do so, I feel that the will and ability to do this is prettymuch ironclad proof that the person in question isn't all there upstairs.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 21, 2012 12:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
And I guess I still need to challenge the assumption that people who commit mass murder are always mentally ill, will always benefit from treatment.

Seems last week would have gone a lot better if a certain young man's mother had been successful in her bid to get him institutionalized.

No one will ever know what's in the head of people who do things like this, but I'll wager that making it easier to get unbalanced people into treatment is the better way to go. For all of us.

You don't need input mental health services to get in the head of mass murderers, they often leave a ton of evidence, videos, testimonies etc etc.

What goes on inside their heads is well documented if anyone cares to look into it.

To be clear I absolutely support any call for better mental health services, but services, treatment is not a panacea for this kind of behaviour.

Remember, Breivik was assessed as being sane.

Most mass murderers would fall within the personality disorder type, and I guess it kind of depends whether you consider personality disorders mental illness. Regardless of whether you do or not, people with personality disorders can be rational, planned, logical. Treatment for personality disorders is difficult and success rates with conventional methods, ie therapy or drugs is minimal. Most people with PD's do not seek treatment. Many are successful in business, academia and other areas of life.

Anyway, posted this stuff somewhere else.

But yes, it would have made a difference if this young man had been committed. It would also have made a difference if his mother had temporarily or permanently removed accessable weapons from the son she felt needed committing.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 21, 2012 1:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:
I dunno...
I think anyone who *IS* willing to do so has some serious issues, whether it be with weapon in hand, or by the stroke of a pen and ordering others to do so, I feel that the will and ability to do this is prettymuch ironclad proof that the person in question isn't all there upstairs.

-F

well definitely some serious issues, but whether mentally ill. And I guess its how you define mentally ill and whether you think it is treatable.

I suppose I am questioning the mental illness label for people who commit such crimes, although I am not saying it is not always a feature, I question whether it always is, if you know what I mean.

Did the people who flew planes full of people in buildings on 9/11 suffer from mental illness?
There is plenty of documentation regarding the behaviour of soldiers during war time committing acts of atrocity and then going home to wife and kids and leading normal lives.

I believe people can commit heinous acts and be sane. There is something wrong with their thinking, their reasoning, but that may not be mental illness.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 21, 2012 1:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:

I do offer a solution, one that is low cost, immediately applicable, and hedges on the side of freedom while still having good potential to reduce bloodshed - it just gets ignored every time I post it.
Here: Again.
(REPOST)

Cribbed from THIS thread
(which is a good read in and of itself, about use of force, and goes into more detail on this solution)
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=52836
Quote:

Quote:
Mal4 -

CCW is the very basic Carry-Concealed-Weapon cert required to carry a concealed weapon, obviously.
And I firmly think that it would be a damn good idea to hold that level of training as a minimal standard for anyone who wishes to purchase one - alas that it's been proven (See Also: Jim March, Shall-Issue versus May-Issue) that the Government cannot be directly trusted with that decision, but I would firmly support offering indemnity from lawsuit to manufacturers and distributors in exchange for requiring such training as condition of a firearm purchase.

The cool thing is that it costs us nothing, the infrastructure is already there, instructors are inexpensive and ubiquitous, and the training itself is fairly standardized with allowances for the specific state the permit will be issued in.
It's a very sensible solution without adding more Government interference or stepping on anyones rights - although I have issues with revoking peoples right to bear arms for supposed "crimes" which prolly shouldn't be, but we can save that element of topic for later.

I do think the training is very important, for a fact I'd rather someone with the training but no weapon, than a weapon without the training - cause they'd be fully aware of problems like you mention and would very more likely act accordingly, although I think you have some misperception of the NRA and their stance on the matter, although for the record I dislike them as well simply because I feel they have failed to defend rights and become more self-serving than useful.

Worth noting I've brought it up many times, Google: Fireflyfans + Fremdfirma + Indemnity - and you will find quite a few examples.

-Frem

Didn't mean to ignore this Frem, it's one thing that should be done asap.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 21, 2012 3:03 PM

Quote:
Seems last week would have gone a lot better if a certain young man's mother had been successful in her bid to get him institutionalized.

Nope! I'm done. I know that wasn't an attempt to bait me, but as someone who:

1) had threats of institutionalization from my parents to keep me in line
2) knows of how horrible and abusive those facilities can be, and
3) has questions about the mother threatening to institutionalize her son that runs along these lines

I'm afraid that is something I can't have a rational conversation about. Sorry, I'm outta here until this starts to blow over.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 21, 2012 3:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Sorry, I'm outta here until this starts to blow over.

*Throws a virtual hug in*

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 22, 2012 6:29 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
NRA: Hey let's infringe on every right EXCEPT gun ownership to solve the problem pfffft

This isn't a problem that passing laws can solve. It's an inherent problem where we exacerbate the problems of the mentally ill to the breaking point. It's a problem where deep down, we're all terrified and don't understand what is wrong with the world, and don't know where we fit in this world, or how to live in it.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 22, 2012 12:02 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

Concerning committment of the civil variety:

The term "institutionalization" is problematic, all discussions work better without its use. That being said I defend your right to use it, I just don't think its a clear term that is really very helpful or logical currently.

On with committment. Committment comes in two forms regarding adults with mental health differences. There's the kind where the law makes you go to the hospital instead of jail, which depending on the crime committed can be indefinite in duration. And there's the kind called civil committment where someone is made to go to the hospital for a while against their will for up to six months at a time. A civil committment is hard to obtain and can only last six months or less. After six months it must be reevaluated at which time it can be re-upped but that is not common.

This is how it works in my state anyways, I don't know the rules in Connecticut but I'm sure they're similar.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 22, 2012 12:21 PM

Some time ago they closed all mental health institutions here. Yay for civil liberties and an end to abuse. Boo for having somewhere where people can spend some extended period of time when they are not well enough to live in the broader community. They threw out the baby with the bathwater, so to speak and the end result was a lot of very unwell people ending up homeless.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 22, 2012 12:45 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

I agree with Magons, there are plenty of people who kill who don't have mental illness. Just like their are plenty of people with mental health differences who don't kill. Its like a ven diagram, sure there is some overlap, but their are plenty of people in one category, either way, who don't fit into the other. I think people don't want to agknowledge that our society is rutted up, people learn that if it feels good you can do it, instant gratification, do what you want, and people aren't properly taught about cause and affect. Thus we get all these mass killings, oh, and add in our fame crazed mentality and how the media gives mass shooters lots of attention and you've got a recipe for disaster.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 22, 2012 4:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
Concerning committment of the civil variety:

The term "institutionalization" is problematic, all discussions work better without its use. That being said I defend your right to use it, I just don't think its a clear term that is really very helpful or logical currently.

On with committment. Committment comes in two forms regarding adults with mental health differences. There's the kind where the law makes you go to the hospital instead of jail, which depending on the crime committed can be indefinite in duration. And there's the kind called civil committment where someone is made to go to the hospital for a while against their will for up to six months at a time. A civil committment is hard to obtain and can only last six months or less. After six months it must be reevaluated at which time it can be re-upped but that is not common.

This is how it works in my state anyways, I don't know the rules in Connecticut but I'm sure they're similar.

Unless you're a minor, in which case having less rights and legal protection than the average housepet, you can simply be "dissappeared" to one whether there's actually anything wrong with you or not, soley on the basis of a parental consent which is often extorted by threat from the local school or social services, or even overriden entire with the help of a complicit local court.

Byte having bowed out of the conversation and being thus unable to address this point, it falls to me to point out that such threats on behalf of parents using them to enforce compliance of their kids are VERY abusive and cause a great degree of psychological problems in their own right as WELL as making the kid psychologically iatrogenic.

I speak from some experience on this cause one of the things which lead to the relations between me and my sister going from supportive to combative was her attempt to stuff one of my nieces into such a place in retaliation for being called out on her own flaws as a parent (along with forced drug/pregnancy testing done expressly as punishment/humiliation*) and the facility in question tossing my niece out all but headfirst and stating that the "problem" was with the PARENT, not the kid!
(Resulting in my sister going ballistic and escalating the abuse)
Unfortunately after being repeatedly punished on the ASSUMPTION she was using drugs, sleeping around, or being generally malicious - my niece eventually went down the road of if-imma-hang-for-it-anyway... and is on a path to sure self-destruction I can do nothing about.

So there's a factor like that too - such threats can provoke self-fulfilling prophecy, of a sort.

*Note: said tests came back negative, and one of THE most damaging elements of that whole fiasco was how EVERY SINGLE ADULT BUT ME straight up assumed they would not, condemned her in advance, and when it didn't turn out that way just shrugged it off with an ok-maybe-not-THIS-time... kind of fekkin attitude, including my ex - which is one reason WHY she is my ex cause THAT was the day I started packin my stuff.
Some things I will take from NO ONE, even if they ain't directed at me.

Had my niece responded to that by blowing my sister away, I woulda got MY lawyer and had him represent her, mind you.
Not that I woulda condoned that action, but one could certainly see mitigating circumstances there.

Any parent who uses such a threat no longer has any right to be called one.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 22, 2012 4:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:

Any parent who uses such a threat no longer has any right to be called one.

Big yep.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 22, 2012 7:34 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

FREM... I found this at random from one of your other posts, and I wonder if it has a bearing on your idea that training (or at least the threat of it) has bearing on gun licensing. While it's out of context, it's also amazingly apropos.

Quote:
Training alone simply won't do it, there's issues of mentality and nature, general response time and other factors like native situational awareness to consider

Seems inconsistent with your proposal.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 22, 2012 7:42 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

What was he talking about, specifically, when he said that?

What is he talking about, specifically, now?

Are they the same exact thing?

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 22, 2012 8:35 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

TONY: I'm going to let Frem explain how the statements are related (or not). To me, they are of the same theoretical vein (use of force) but maybe not to him

So, now that I have some free time, more or less in order

Quote:
Out of curiosity. If someone proposes something new that hasn't been tried in a particular form before, does that thing get disqualified through lack of statistics?

In this thread, it does, because I asked for FACTS, not suppositions, maybes and might-haves- which have derailed previous discussions into pretty useless flights of fancy, if you ask me.

Now, my FIRST reaction to Frem's proposal was that he was merely threading two pressing, contradictory desires with a theoretical construct. Like I said: not interested in personal boogeymen, nor in magical solutions to them. Frem's posted links have vaulted his proposal into a possibly workable one, because it looks like it may have a real-world effect. (I hope you see where I'm going with this approach.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 22, 2012 9:09 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I would like to address problems and solutions later, but have a couple of points to make about this data.

I would note that the U.S. figure of 10.2 deaths per 100,000 is significantly affected by suicide, which is around 60% of the total firearms-related deaths in the data quoted. The U.S. seems to have an inordinately high rate of such suicides, following only Montenegro. So while this is violence against self, and can hurt others, it is not direct violence against others. -Geezer

Here are the top 20 suicide rates:

Lithuania 31.6
South Korea 31.2
Guyana 26.4
Kazakhstan 25.6
Belarus 25.3
Hungary 21.7
Japan 23.8
Latvia 17.5
People's Republic of China 22.23
Slovenia 17.2
Sri Lanka 21.6
Russia 21.4
Ukraine 21.2
Serbia and Montenegro 19.5
Estonia 18.1
Switzerland 11.1
Croatia 19.7
Belgium 17.6
Finland 16.8
Moldova 17.4

The United States is 38th. Our suicide rate doesn't seem to account for our gun death rate. There's a mismatch in statistics, I think. Can you please double check the calculations and see if our gun-death suicides and overall suicide rate are consistent with these rankings? If not, then at least one set of data is wrong.

Quote:
The best I can figure, widespread gun prevalence is necessary but not sufficient for high gun deaths (homicide, suicide, and accident). In order to have a high gun death, you MUST have a society awash in guns.-signy

Not so much. The countries at the really crazy high end of the gun homicide rate charts (South Africa(12.7 guns per 100 people), Columbia(5.9), Thailand (15.6), Guatemala(around 15)) generally have much lower gun ownership than the U.S.(88)

I think there is a difference between "gun ownership" and "gun prevalence." It might be hard to ascertain formal gun ownership in a society where there are no records for purchasing and license.

Quote:
I might also note that the countries at the high end of the gun homicide table are generally also at the high end of the non-gun homicide table.

Interesting, if true. Statistics?

Quote:
Nationmaster.com has most of this data under their 'crime' category. I had to look up gun ownership in Columbia and Guatemala seperately.

Thank you. Most people are not trying to actually figure this ot.

Quote:
THE USA INCARCERATION RATE IS ALSO STARTLINGLY HIGH.-signy

Unfortunately, much of this rate has nothing to do with violent crime, and too much to do with the "War on Drugs". Only 8% of Federal prisoners and 52% of State prisoners are in for violent crimes. Federal prosecutors rarely bring charges for firearms possession by a convicted felon.-geezer

I think you're mis-perceiving my point in bringing up this statistic. I'm not trying to show that Americans are particularly violent... I think our violent crime statistics do a good job pointing that out already. What I'm trying to say is that despite tossing ppl in jail for crimes at a high rate, neither our homicide rate (nor our drug use- drug sale rates) have gone down much. Maybe incarceration doesn't work.

Quote:
This is a complicated topic for which there are no easy answers. But if we're prepared to have an opinion, shouldn't it be one which is well-researched and fully thought-out?

I agree. However, one must be careful of making assumptions in either direction. It's easy for one to accept data that supports one's position without getting down in the weeds where a slight difference, like between 'death rate' and 'homicide rate' becomes more apparent. I have made assumptions on bad data in the past, and it's made me very wary of numbers that 'prove' anything, unless I go back to the original data and do my own analysis.

Indeed, which is one of the reasons why I wonder what the difference is between gun ownership and gun prevalence.

Anyway, I know you know your way around numbers, which is why I welcome your input.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 22, 2012 9:33 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

My parents have never phrased it like that specifically, but they have used the "if you can't handle yourself/behave then you'll have to do an inpatient program" which makes me try really hard to behave and do my best to hold it together because the idea of going anywhere alone and not being with my family scares me a lot. They haven't said that in a long time though, which is good, and as I recall they never said it when I was under age.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 22, 2012 9:42 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
However, the proposal I over does satisfy it, cause while "Well Regulated" originally meant well TRAINED

Have to disagree here Frem, as the definition of a militia (as discussed in detail in the early 1800s) included insignia of rank, drills (as a unit, not as individuals), chain of command, sanctions for disobedience and so forth. If it sounds old-fashioned, that's bc it was.

Quote:
fostering private enterprise

I don't accept this as a valid goal. It is just another one of those things that you hold more dear than human life.

While I find your proposal for training laudable, it still smacks of you threading two compelling but internally contradictory desires with a theoretical proposal. I have one big question on this, and that is your ASSUMPTION that the gun manufacturers will provide good faith training. After all, if they can avoid liability by providing training, what makes you think they won't shave money off both ends and simply avoid liability BY providing shit training? It's not like business in general can be trusted not to shoot itself in the foot, so to speak. And if THAT happens, and someone buys a gun which is subsequently used in a homicide, how does one check back to see if the training itself was adequate? And if it was laughably inadequate (Here's a gun, this is where the bullets go in, now point and shoot. Here's your license, go away.) what is the remedy? Civil court? Money damages for lost life?

Also, what about gun sales by private owners?

So here I am in the land of "What-ifs", but you started it!

Do you have any data that shows that the system as you proposed would work, particularly the history of the gun industry in self-policing?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 22, 2012 10:02 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:

Nope! I'm done. I know that wasn't an attempt to bait me, but as someone who:

1) had threats of institutionalization from my parents to keep me in line
2) knows of how horrible and abusive those facilities can be, and
3) has questions about the mother threatening to institutionalize her son that runs along these lines

I'm afraid that is something I can't have a rational conversation about. Sorry, I'm outta here until this starts to blow over.

Byte, IIRC, you killed small animals for fun when you were young, correct? You ate strange non-food items, and still eat a deficient diet, no? You have insisted over and over that you're a sociopath. You may not recall, but when a chorus of people insisted that you were NOT a sociopath, I stayed out of it. I take you at your word: you are a potentially dangerous person. How is everyone else supposed to react to you, if not self-protectively?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 23, 2012 4:39 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
I don't accept this as a valid goal. It is just another one of those things that you hold more dear than human life.

Hello,

FOUL. You must prove that this person values free enterprise more than human life.

Quote:
While I find your proposal for training laudable, it still smacks of you threading two compelling but internally contradictory desires with a theoretical proposal. I have one big question on this, and that is your ASSUMPTION that the gun manufacturers will provide good faith training. After all, if they can avoid liability by providing training, what makes you think they won't shave money off both ends and simply avoid liability
BY providing shit training?

You are ignoring that trainers themselves are to be regulated. No assumption of good faith is inherent in that.

Quote:
So here I am in the land of "What-ifs", but you started it!

Foul. You reject the 'what ifs' of others consistently. Then you say you can 'what if' because others started it? Can we all 'what if' now, too?

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 23, 2012 6:05 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I don't accept this as a valid goal. It is just another one of those things that you hold more dear than human life.-Signy

Hello,FOUL. You must prove that this person values free enterprise more than human life.-Tony

OK, then. Back to "what if" land! FIRST OF ALL, in a discussion about saving human lives from gun violence, specifically, WHY would someone even bring up alternate goals?

Here's an example of alternative and possibly conflicting goals having nothing to do with guns: I'd like to save children, and I'm really worried about a Third World contagion, and in addition I like to help the Third World, so my FIRST proposal... one that I will suggest without even figuring out if addresses the most pressing cause of child mortality... is to insist that all children everywhere get all vaccines" OK, maybe it will work. In fact, maybe it will work stellarly. But if one wants to control infant mortality, perhaps one should look at the causes FIRST, try to compare and contrast where infant mortality is lower, and see if factors can be teased out which are more or less important, BEFORE proposing a solution, no? Unless one is Bill or Melinda Gates and owns significant stock in big pharma. As a do-gooder... well, I guess if you have lots of money you're allowed to mess with stuff. But if you were an epidemiologist, you'd suck.

So I reject the goal of encouraging private enterprise. Maybe private enterprise itself is the problem.... after all, drug dealers are private entrepreneurs, are they not?

You're right- I cant prove that Frem wants this goal "MORE THAN" reducing gun death... it is a misstatement on my part. But the fact that he has several alternate motives when he suggests certain solutions indicates that he may have conflicts which prevent him from considering THE BEST possible solutions. And, in this discussion, one is hopefully willing to have one's ox gored.

Quote:
While I find your proposal for training laudable, it still smacks of you threading two compelling but internally contradictory desires with a theoretical proposal. I have one big question on this, and that is your ASSUMPTION that the gun manufacturers will provide good faith training. After all, if they can avoid liability by providing training, what makes you think they won't shave money off both ends and simply avoid liability BY providing shit training? -Signy

You are ignoring that trainers themselves are to be regulated. No assumption of good faith is inherent in that. - Tony

Really? I must have missed that. I thought the idea of using private trainers contracted by gun manufacturers was supposed to get the government OUT of the process. But regulating the training implies, ... well, regulations. Government, laws, courts, inspectors.

Also, what about private sales? Who is going to address THOSE?

Quote:
So here I am in the land of "What-ifs", but you started it!-Signy

Foul. You reject the 'what ifs' of others consistently. Then you say you can 'what if' because others started it? Can we all 'what if' now, too?-Tony

People having been doing it all through this thread! Virtually every single answer here (except GEEZER) has addressed one imaginary point or another.

So, let's pretend we're epidemiologists in this thread. Set aside your fears and prejudices, go into the field (mentally) and let's look into the causes and cures of gun violence in the USA.

----------------------
One of the next questions I was going to pose was whether the mentally ill has much to do with gun violence.

There are about 8500 gun homicides per year. The mentally ill account for roughly 1000 "homicides" per year. but there is no indication of how many GUN homicides can be attributed to the mentally ill. In addition, there is a porous barrier between the mentally ill and guns... it might prove to be enough of a barrier that many of the mentally ill simply would not have the wherewithall to surmount it. So I can't say for sure whether more strict enforcement of regulations would prevent mass shootings by crazy people. The fact that the data is unavailable is extremely telling. You'd think that the various security entities would be all over this like white on rice. I THINK that the mentally ill... while making a big splash on TV... are not a huge problem in terms of gun homicide, altho suicide is another issue and makes up a large part of gun deaths in the USA.

We really should have better treatment programs for the mentally ill. There is a blog called I am Adam Lanza's mother: My son threatens to kill me; I've tried everything; everything is not enough which reads, in part

Quote:
I live with a son who is mentally ill. I love my son. But he terrifies me.

A few weeks ago, Michael pulled a knife and threatened to kill me and then himself after I asked him to return his overdue library books. His 7- and 9-year old siblings knew the safety plan -- they ran to the car and locked the doors before I even asked them to. I managed to get the knife from Michael, then methodically collected all the sharp objects in the house into a single Tupperware container that now travels with me. Through it all, he continued to scream insults at me and threaten to kill or hurt me.

The mother goes on to describe HOW LITTLE HELP is available.

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/opinion/perspectives/i-am-adam-lan
zas-mother-my-son-threatens-to-kill-me-ive-tried-everything-everything-is-not-enough-667485/#ixzz2FtRtVjo2

All you have to do is go to your nearest skid row, overpass, viaduct, or jail and look at the state of our mental health system. Shameful. It may not be the most pressing problem related to gun deaths, but it needs to be addressed all the same.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 23, 2012 10:11 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
So, let's pretend we're epidemiologists in this thread. Set aside your fears and prejudices, go into the field (mentally) and let's look into the causes and cures of gun violence in the USA.

Wow, seems I have to do all of the heavy lifting myself.

Alcohol a factor??? How many gun deaths were committed by people who were drunk?

C'mon guys, put on your thinking caps! I know this is a great oppty to exercise your feelings, but if you really want to solve the problem (DO YOU??) and suggest effective policies, you're going to have to let go of your personal reactions. Or at least acknowledge them and stop letting them fill up your entire horizon!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 23, 2012 12:33 PM

Well it is a busy time of year.

Last few posts for the year from me this morning.

Re the blog on being fearful of one's children, there has been some limited research and some observational musings from practitioners regarding the increasing prevalence of children's abuse towards their parents.

In particular, this fellow has a lot of information.

http://www.eddiegallagher.id.au/

This is some of the reasons he suggests for an increase in young people's violence.

Quote:
I think there are 3 reasons why it is increasing:

1) more women are leaving abusive husbands (this is certainly a GOOD THING overall but leaves them vulnerable to kids mimicing their fathers. I believe we have made some progress in societal attitudes to DV (though still a long way to go!).

2) parents are more indulgent, permissive and democratic - most of the time this is a GOOD THING but for some children it becomes a serious problem. It is possible to be too child focussed and the idea that the more attention, praise and love a child gets the better they will be is naive. You can have too much of a good thing!

3) There have been societal changes that affect almost all children, but exaggerated in some families and for some individual children, and these act along with the other factors. As a society we do not respect age in the way that almost all past societies (and non-Western societies today) do. We are less in awe of authority, a trend which has been developing all last century but sped up in the sixties. We emphasise individualism more than any other society. Our children are exposed to an immersive brainwashing aimed at making them avid consumers. Gadgets and possessions are integral to thier lives in a dramatically new way. These factors lead to children with high feelings of entitlement. The changes in parenting add fuel to this fire. Media culture (playing an incresingly large role in children's lives) encourages kids to be demanding, over-entitled, bratty consumers with little respect for age or authority and a general air of nihilistic negativity. We let marketers spend billions creating demand in our kids so we shouldn't be at all surprised that some become far more demanding! As a society we have handed a large part of our children's socialisation over to people who just want to exploit them for profit!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 23, 2012 1:14 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Alcohol a factor??? How many gun deaths were committed by people who were drunk?

Hello,

We collect information on drunk driving homicides but not, to my knowledge, drunk murder of other types.

Quote:
Wow, seems I have to do all of the heavy lifting myself.

Have you actually made any proposals?

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 23, 2012 1:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:

This is some of the reasons he suggests for an increase in young people's violence.

I was under the impression that violence was going down...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 23, 2012 2:41 PM

Depends which types of violence. I believe the murder rate is down.

Family violence, however, is way through the roof, at least partially due to better reporting and police having to take reports seriously and acting upon them and recording them.

According to Eddie's research, reported violence by children against their parents has increased.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 23, 2012 2:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Family violence, however, is way through the roof, at least partially due to better reporting and police having to take reports seriously and acting upon them and recording them.

Reports in the US are exaggerated now because of the *need* to take reports seriously- many now include merely loud arguments.

Quote:

According to Eddie's research, reported violence by children against their parents has increased.

As expected IMO, so many parents deserve a kick in the teeth now & then. Don't want kids, don't have them- it's a coward's way out to take it out on the kids. And then (irony) expect quiet compliant scapegoats.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 23, 2012 4:23 PM

Okay, gonna take this from the last post, since I am running short on time here...

Siggy questioned this comment.

Quote:
Training alone simply won't do it, there's issues of mentality and nature, general response time and other factors like native situational awareness to consider

Explaination: Simple - not everyone has the same reactions, some folk may be very uncomfortable with the notion of using a weapon on someone else, and slower to react as a result, this is not a character flaw by any means nor do I consider it such, just an objective fact.
Some folk are generally more or less aware of their surroundings than others, also an objective fact.

Training in these cases does help, but neither it, nor possessing a weapon in the first place is a pancea to social violence, there is no one-perfect-solution, and frankly I see the whole issue we're discussing here as a stopgap measure, mitigation of symptoms to buy time to address the root causes of lack of empathy and other social ills which cause the violence in the first place.
Remember, the hellcamps only fell in 2009, which still leaves us with 20+ YEARS of aftermath and the people broken by them self-destructing within our society, and they of course were not the only manner in which people get messed up, there's a LOT of work left to do, oh yes.

Also(Siggy)

Quote:
Now, my FIRST reaction to Frem's proposal was that he was merely threading two pressing, contradictory desires with a theoretical construct. Like I said: not interested in personal boogeymen, nor in magical solutions to them. Frem's posted links have vaulted his proposal into a possibly workable one, because it looks like it may have a real-world effect. (I hope you see where I'm going with this approach.)

Yeah, that's my intention, rather than an impossibly-perfect pie-in-the-sky solution, a form of compromise which is immediately applicable and real world workable - I thought this though a LOooong time before offering it, and vetted it in every possible way I could think of.

Regarding Militia/Well Trained - I was speaking of the militia as the whole body of the people, as referenced in Federalist #46 in another thread, and on the notion of the original meaning of well regulated we will simply have to disagree since that is as far as I can tell exactly what it originally meant.
Of course, that is immaterial to the argument since my proposal satisfies BOTH requirements, and if you stretch it a bit, considering the militia as the whole body of the people, it also services the state requirement to train the militia, right ?

Quote:
>>fostering private enterprise<<

I don't accept this as a valid goal. It is just another one of those things that you hold more dear than human life.

While I find your proposal for training laudable, it still smacks of you threading two compelling but internally contradictory desires with a theoretical proposal. I have one big question on this, and that is your ASSUMPTION that the gun manufacturers will provide good faith training. After all, if they can avoid liability by providing training, what makes you think they won't shave money off both ends and simply avoid liability BY providing shit training? It's not like business in general can be trusted not to shoot itself in the foot, so to speak. And if THAT happens, and someone buys a gun which is subsequently used in a homicide, how does one check back to see if the training itself was adequate? And if it was laughably inadequate (Here's a gun, this is where the bullets go in, now point and shoot. Here's your license, go away.) what is the remedy? Civil court? Money damages for lost life?

Umm, you DO realize I threw that in as a sop to the Conservative end of things as a "selling point", right ?
While yes it does foster private enterprise I find your reaction a little odd, perhaps you don't quite understand that while my regard for human life might come via different standards than your own, I do tend to favor the least-harm-principle, and it's a well known fact I've little love for Corporations and the all but inevitable abuses which come from them.

Also, where in the *hell* did you get the notion that I proposed, or would even want, the manufacturers themselves offering training ?
That's nuts, a conflict of interest waiting to happen for exactly the problems you point out!
CCW instructors are in nearly all cases simply private citizens who've elected to become so, and as such do have a personal responsibility and involvement, which could certainly mean being held liable for training an obvious lunatic, yes.

Gun sales by private owners would have no such protection, they're private sales, that is a matter of individual responsibility in that the seller should make at least a good faith effort to ensure he's not forking it over to a known criminal or obvious lunatic, seems a simple enough concept.

Quote:
Do you have any data that shows that the system as you proposed would work, particularly the history of the gun industry in self-policing?

What "gun industry" ?
Private individuals who are CCW instructors tend to become so for reasons other than self-interest, and honestly, if you were one, would YOU instruct someone with obvious nefarious intent or dangerous mental issues ? I wouldn't!
I think you might have a serious misunderstanding of what I have proposed, here.

Also, you do realize that you are asking for hard data on a proposal which has never been put into action before and therefore cannot HAVE such data, that's a little unfair, don't you think?
All that I can offer is that CCW holders in general have a MUCH lower rate of criminal activity and violence than both the general population and Law Enforcement, and that data is scattered all over everywhere, and often shot through with unsupported claims in one direction or the other.
I can offer Michigans, if you wanna crunch the numbers yourself.
http://www.michigan.gov/msp/0,4643,7-123-1591_3503_4654-77621--,00.htm
l
The supposition can certainly be made that the training itself does offer a reduction potential in better awareness of the legal specifics and consequences, that itself is an obvious conclusion.

That's all I can offer at the moment, but regarding the mentally ill and handguns - I dunno if Maryland still has it, but there was a short bit of time when my home defense weapon was an 1851 Confederate Naval Revolver because I could obtain one no-questions-asked.
(This fell by the wayside after taking a small 9mm pistol away from someone who tried to rob me with it)
Worth remembering I was empancipated at the age of 17 and living in a neighborhood where being unarmed was a freakin death sentence, but anyhows, that particular loophole was something of concern, although not as much as a modern weapon cause a blackpowder cap-and-ball revolver like that is tricky to maintain and use.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 23, 2012 8:49 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Another factor in gun death is gender. In the United States, males are FIVE TIMES (or more) prone to using guns than women. (Maybe only women should be able to own guns?)

Another factor (from this same table) appears to be education. States with higher educational achievement appear to have lower gun death rates, although I will have to go into other tables to get the average educational levels of each state.

One more thing that jumps out at me is religion. The most evangelical states, which may be correlated with poor education, seem to have higher gun death rates.

And finally, poverty jumps out at me too.

http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparetable.jsp?cat=2&ind=114

I think I have found a table of very useful data.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 24, 2012 6:26 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Umm, you DO realize I threw that in as a sop to the Conservative end of things as a "selling point", right ?

Ummm, why???

If we were looking at a pandemic, should we throw anything as a "sop" to ANYONE? Avoid vaccines because some people are afraid of them??? Push vaccines because Bill and Melinda like them? Decide to continue international flights because the President doesn't want the economy to take a hit? Ask that everyone pray because the religions want us to assuage the angry god?

Clarity of purpose, please!

I'm not trying to figure out what is acceptable to the various factions out there, some of whom are corrupt and some of whom are crazy. I'm just looking for clarity of purpose and thought based on evidence and reason. Now, it may be that we reason that the problem is X-Y-Z and the answer is A-B-C, but that they are beyond our capacity to implement. But even if NONE of our proposals have a chance in hell, we will have learned valuable things... we will have learned how to set aside our preconceived and deeply-held emotions, and how to think entirely new thoughts, bravely.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 24, 2012 7:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:

Nope! I'm done. I know that wasn't an attempt to bait me, but as someone who:

1) had threats of institutionalization from my parents to keep me in line
2) knows of how horrible and abusive those facilities can be, and
3) has questions about the mother threatening to institutionalize her son that runs along these lines

I'm afraid that is something I can't have a rational conversation about. Sorry, I'm outta here until this starts to blow over.
Byte, IIRC, you killed small animals for fun when you were young, correct? You ate strange non-food items, and still eat a deficient diet, no? You have insisted over and over that you're a sociopath. You may not recall, but when a chorus of people insisted that you were NOT a sociopath, I stayed out of it. I take you at your word: you are a potentially dangerous person. How is everyone else supposed to react to you, if not self-protectively?

I am responding to this now because this is the first time I have felt like I am able to respond.

Imagine this in what I figure to be the most likely course of events here (acknowledging, of course, that we will never know for sure).

The child and the parent are in an argument, and in a moment of pique, the parent makes this threat, not knowing how deeply felt the threat will be for the child, or how they later will respond. The parent clearly did not act on the threat, so at least at that point the child did not warrant being committed to a psychiatric hospital.

But the parent never retracts the statement, or apologizes, and this threat is left hanging over the kid, festering until eventually the guy is paranoid and feels backed into a corner. One last push, and the kid goes on a mass-murder spree then takes his own life.

While you might have a point about me, threatening to commit a kid when at that time there wasn't a need to follow through, likely just to force compliance from a kid, is terrible. I think I really do get where the kid is coming from.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 24, 2012 7:17 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

In a somewhat good mood, so.

Sword = side arm

"None of you seem to understand. I'm not locked in here with you... YOU are locked in here with ME."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 24, 2012 7:20 AM

Quote:
Another factor in gun death is gender. In the United States, males are FIVE TIMES (or more) prone to using guns than women. (Maybe only women should be able to own guns?)

I find this interesting that men do not use their natural physical strength and violence, instead relying on guns, when women do not rely more on guns because of the fear from their natural infirmity. (THIS STATEMENT IS INSINCERE)

I think the situation is much more complicated than what this statistic would suggest on the surface, and that both men and women are equally capable of violence (physical or otherwise) - rather, I suspect that the justice system goes easier on women guilty of both physical and gun violence, due to biases within the system.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 24, 2012 7:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by WULFENSTAR:
In a somewhat good mood, so.

Sword = side arm

"None of you seem to understand. I'm not locked in here with you... YOU are locked in here with ME."

Aw shit, really? I've been calling the Firefly character guns "side arms" and apparently I'm also wrong calling Zoe's gun a sawn off. But mare's leg sounds awkward and confusing to anyone who isn't familiar with the term. :(

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 24, 2012 7:26 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Clarity of purpose, please!

Hello,

I'm not sure what the purpose of this thread is anymore. I thought it was to propose concrete measures that could be taken to reduce the loss of human life due to firearms.

Quote:
we will have learned how to set aside our preconceived and deeply-held emotions, and how to think entirely new thoughts, bravely.

I don't think this thread is designed to reward new thoughts, bravely put forth. Nor really do I perceive emotions being set aside, or preconceived notions being changed. Have you experienced any revelations of thought or changes in perception?

Frem has put forth his proposals and backed them with what data is available, which is limited because aspects of the idea are new.

My proposals are presumably void because there is no data available for it.

Your proposals...

What are your proposals?

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 24, 2012 7:31 AM