Mass shooting at Naval Yard in Washington DC

[Ant-manic]

They can now determine who's a sociopath with a brain scan.

Shouldn't we just require brain scans to ban those people from guns?

Right now any sociopath with a non-violent history can own a gun. But being schizophrenic automatically means a lifetime ban from guns regardless of past history. Why the double standard?

people are already squeamish about stricter gun laws. are they really going to submit to a brainscan?

 

[Tanin]

Are we going to ban people with Aspergers Syndrome and other high functioning autism disorders next because they have low empathy and social problems as well?

Don't forget Bipolars.... you never know when they will snap.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

My point is that it's knee jerk reaction to ban all schizophrenics from guns regardless of past history.

There are 3 million schizophrenics in the USA alone. How often do we go on killing sprees.

 

[Tanin]

Not very many... since they can't have guns.

 

[Teelie]

It's exactly that kind of question that makes any blanket statement impossible to address. You quickly get bogged down in details, exceptions, waivers and questions of civil rights violations.

That is why there is no quick, easy law to pass. No simple solution. Blanket condmenation of an entire people, be it of any sort (race, gender, belief, mental health, etc) is not something to be taken lightly.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Not very many... since they can't have guns.

Neither can felons.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Plus not every schizophrenic gets a diagnosis before they get a chance to acquire some guns.

Yet schizophrenics killing people isn't a widespread problem whether it's with a gun, knife, baseball bat, etc.

 

[BATZARRO WWD]

Have you noticed, in situations like this,in which a "bad guy with a gun" shows up to shoot everyone, a "good guy with a gun" never shows up? It's like trained proffessionals are really the only deciding factor, and the theorical gun owner hero is a myth.

I think unbonding the subject of firearms from the constitution would be wisest. The wants and needs of society changed, and continue to change, and it seems foolhardy to declare weapon ownership a universal right. I'm not even talking about taking anyone's guns away. I'm saying this subject has no reason to deevolve into constitutional talk everytime we talk about it. Does this make sense? Most everyday civilian Americans aren't fending off Comanches or hunting for food or have any say in defending the land from foreign invasion or quoteunquote keeping America from becoming a tyrany.

The right to have weapons should be nicely covered under all the other "ownership" parts of the constitution. The 2nd Amendment is redundant and needs to go byebye.

Will it stop the next indiscriminate shootout? Not likely. Even Holland gets those. Hell, even if guns were tightly regulated I'm sure this guy would have been able to get one. You can't really REALLY peek into people's minds and figure out which ones are mad shooters(and apparently bloody revenge on everyone one knows is kind of an undercurrent of thought in America. I'm saying this because I live in a pretty violent society and we don't get as many "shoot them all" types of stuff.). No, not even with brainscans.

However, the subject seems serious enought to require fluidity, and not utter entrenchment.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Gun control doesn't work when there are millions of guns in circulation.

If you make it against the law to own a gun, criminals will still find ways to get them since they don't obey laws and there are millions of guns all over the country.

 

[Ghostvirus]

If you have a mental disorder that makes you incapable of making sound decisions, you should not be able to own something that can kill a large amount of people in a second...PERIOD!!!

 

[Tanin]

Luckily not too many weapons can take out a large portion of people in just one second.

 

[Ghostvirus]

Aren't you the clever one.....

You have heard of Machine Guns? They can fire off multiple shots in a matter of seconds.

 

[Tanin]

Edit --

 

[Xeno]

I don't even know why people in America even bother to discuss guns after these mass shootings. Nothing will ever be done to curb the violence because of the attitude that nothing should be done. At this point I refuse to even engage when another slew of people gets slaughtered while going about their daily lives. Another dozen dead? This country shrugs it off, and so will I.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

If you have a mental disorder that makes you incapable of making sound decisions, you should not be able to own something that can kill a large amount of people in a second...PERIOD!!!

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/h...ental-illness-in-gun-control-debate.html?_r=0

This does not mean that mental illness is not a risk factor for violence. It is, but the risk is actually small. Only certain serious psychiatric illnesses are linked to an increased risk of violence.

One of the largest studies, the National Institute of Mental Health’s Epidemiologic Catchment Area study, which followed nearly 18,000 subjects, found that the lifetime prevalence of violence among people with serious mental illness — like schizophrenia and bipolar disorder — was 16 percent, compared with 7 percent among people without any mental disorder. Anxiety disorders, in contrast, do not seem to increase the risk at all.

Alcohol and drug abuse are far more likely to result in violent behavior than mental illness by itself. In the National Institute of Mental Health’s E.C.A. study, for example, people with no mental disorder who abused alcohol or drugs were nearly seven times as likely as those without substance abuse to commit violent acts.

It’s possible that preventing people with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and other serious mental illnesses from getting guns might decrease the risk of mass killings. Even the Supreme Court, which in 2008 strongly affirmed a broad right to bear arms, at the same time endorsed prohibitions on gun ownership “by felons and the mentally ill.”

But mass killings are very rare events, and because people with mental illness contribute so little to overall violence, these measures would have little impact on everyday firearm-related killings. Consider that between 2001 and 2010, there were nearly 120,000 gun-related homicides, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. Few were perpetrated by people with mental illness.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

^^^So maybe people who drink alcohol should be banned from guns since they're far more violent than schizophrenics in general.

I mean, shouldn't public policy should be based on facts and science not irrational fears and outdated stigmas about mental illness?

 

[regwec]

And that's where you completely miss the point. You see it as modest and pragmatic but those who are on the opposite end see it as the government taking away their rights and guns. How many of them do you think will just sit there and take that sitting down? And how many do you think will believe it's time for a revolution and try to form a militia or start a new civil war?

You are not really describing people who want to own guns as the kind of people who should be allowed anywhere near them.

Petulant little boys should have their unsuitable toys taken away.

 

[Teelie]

That's as broad and stereotypical as you can make it without even giving a shred of thought to what it actually means.

 

[regwec]

No, it's a fair reflection on the way that you have described these individuals.

You allege that these individuals think their ownership of guns is a right of comparable magnitude to habeus corpus. You go on to suggest that they will become terrorists if the state attempts to restrict their possession of weapons they don't need.

People who are so immature, paranoid, and potentially violent are of little value to modern society, and they certainly shouldn't be allowed to own guns.

 

[Teelie]

Not what I said exactly... there are those who are what you said but broadbrushing everyone with it is as bad as judging any group by the minority of extremists within it. When you threaten to take away rights, or the perception of rights, those people will justifiably react in a negative way and defend those rights.

Those who would go to actual war against the government, state or anyone who they feels threatens their rights will only cause a groundswell of more followers. The riot effect. Riots are not filled with people inherently willing and waiting for an excuse to rape, pillage and plunder their own neighborhoods and cities.

And since many of these people are already armed, presumably with multiple weapons (including illegal ones), lots of ammunition and a threatened posture from years of being encouraged to believe this is in fact an attack against them, saying we should just take away their weapons is proving their point and giving them the feeling they have no alternative but to fight back.

 

[regwec]

So the sensible majority should refrain from necessary reform for fear of some tooled up loons?

I am not trying to provoke you, but this really does seem to be the thrust of your argument.

 

[Teelie]

Nope, not what I said either. Being deliberately obtuse doesn't help your point. I've even said it many, many times in this thread alone there is no simple answer, no simple fix and your response was literally: "Petulant little boys should have their unsuitable toys taken away." which would cause them to react violently.

That's not to say you are wrong, I've been behind restricting guns from those ill-suited to possess them in the first place but saying take away their guns is no better than saying everyone should own a gun. It only incites those on one or both sides of the debate.

 

[regwec]

Incites to what?

I'm sorry if you feel that I am misrepresenting you, but your successive posts are really rehearsals of the plea that elements of the gun-nut subculture are simply too violent or ill balanced to disarm.

I haven't yet seen us disagree on that substantive point. The difference is that I don't think it is a convincing argument for letting sleepless dogs lie.

 

[Teelie]

I'll rephrase it like this: How then do you propose to disarm the most radical, violent elements of the gun nut subculture?

What I'm saying no one has come up with a believable, realistic way to handle it. You can't walk up to their house, politely ask them to hand over their cache of firearms and expect them to willingly give them away.

The moment someone does figure that solution out, it should be implemented. But just saying "take away their guns" isn't much better than "give everyone guns" as their counter argument.

 

[regwec]

Okay, I understand. I think I was confusing a practical objection with an idealistic one, which was a result of your comparison of the PATRIOT Act and gun control.

I think we broadly agree. All the same, I don't think that a functioning democracy should shun a necessary objective just because it is difficult.