View Single Post
  #57  
Old 12-30-2012, 03:02 PM
noncom23's Avatar
noncom23 noncom23 is offline
Premier Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Big D
Posts: 6,521
noncom23 is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by PersonaNonGrata View Post
Obviously this is an extremely complex problem and I am of the firm belief that it has very little to do with guns. They are just the instrumentality. The root of the problem is the inability of some people to cope with life, their depression, their sorry lot in life, or whatever. It astounds me that someone who is mad at Mommy, or got fired from a job, or just feels like the world shits on them that the response deemed most appropriate is to kill innocents or anyone at all for that matter. Before we even get to the issue of gun control I think the bigger issue is this and more broadly, society in general, and some people's view that responding with unspeakable violence is appropriate.

Mental illness is a tricky thing as far as gun control goes. There have been calls for the mentally ill to be prohibited from owning or possessing guns. Fair enough but first, what exactly the definition of "mentally ill"? Secondly, how is it to be determined that once someone is mentally ill that they not get a gun? There is not currently and possibly no way to integrate mental illness or psychiatric/psychological treatment with a background check. I think there are practical impediments to that as well as federal and state privacy laws concerning medical records. Also, how would it ever be recorded, if it could at all, if someone seeks psychological counseling for dark thoughts? They could go under a false name and unless there was the need for a Tarasoff warning, the psychologist would never report such contact. The bottom line is that creating some kind of database of the "mentally ill" is near impossible. Even being able to keep them from buying guns is difficult and when a mentally ill person can murder the owner and take her guns, access cannot be prevented.

As far as so-called "assault weapons" and high capacity magazines, they are menacing and scary looking but are not the problem. Since the Clinton ban sunsetted and such weapons and magazines were again legal federally (but still banned by many states), there was no increase in crime. In fact, I can tell you as a criminal justice professional that very, very few violent crimes if any are committed with such weapons. I'm talking about the crime that happens every day, not the tragic events like Newtown or Colorado. Furthermore, bans on "assault weapons" and high capacity magazines already exist in many states. As a matter of fact, Connecticut has a ban on "assault weapons".

There are millions of guns and millions of "assault weapons" and even more millions of high capacity magazines in the hands of law abiding owners. It may seem trite but it is true that it must be considered that the vast, vast majority of these guns never kill anything more than paper targets. I know that at moments like now when the world mourns 27 lives lost that even one "assault weapon" seems like too many but the fact that millions are owned without lethal results cannot be ignored. The suggestion to take them way from lawful owners is downright unconstitutional. The United States Constitution forbids uncompensated takings from private citizens, whether it be a gun or your land. Taking in that manner is un-American. Couple that with the Second Amendment and that idea goes nowhere.

"The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." I totally agree with this. I do not envision vigilantes slinging guns all over town looking for a gunfight. The notion of armed police in schools is not new at all. Many schools have "School Resource Officers". It was mentioned that Columbine had such SROs in the schools and that didn't help. Perhaps it did help to prevent even more death. Perhaps if Adam Lanza was confronted by a police officer or other armed person he would have not killed as many people or at all. Perhaps if James Holmes had encountered armed resistance he would have retreated. I have heard from law enforcement sources that the shooter in the mall in Oregon was confronted by an armed citizen whereupon the shooter took his own life, resulting in two tragic deaths but it could have been far, far worse.

The thing that we should all agree on is that these mass killers are cowards. Why else would they do what they do? Why else do they choose the most helpless of victims? Because they are cowards who do not expect resistance, if there was someone there, a good guy with a gun, if nothing else, the killer's focus changes from offensive to defensive. He could be distracted enough to allow for people to escape. He could be forced to retreat in the face of live fire in his direction. He could be neutralized. The notion that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun is stating a simple fact. You do not repel a gun attack with a stern finger wag or good intentions. The simple fact is that to stop a lethal attack requires use of lethal force. If you don't like that, too bad. That's how it's done. It's not nice. It's not pleasant. It is the truth. I have participated in "active shooter" training at schools to prepare for such events. It's an unfortunate reality we have to do this but I can tell you, it is necessary and when you're in the heat of the moment you realize what it takes to end such an attack and it requires enormous violence of action to end.

Don't get me wrong. I am a parent of a little one and every time I hear the news or read of the murders it makes me sick to my stomach and brings tears to my eyes. I am also a gun owner and work in law enforcement. I believe in peoples' rights to keep and bear arms. I see the results of what criminals do to law abiding people. Criminals are not stopped by any rules, waiting periods, or background checks. Criminals do whatever they want and hope that their victims do not have the will or the means to defend themselves.

So what do I think would help? I believe that we do have to have a frank discussion of the issues and chief among them is what our society values and how our society has changed. Is it video games? Movies? Television? I don't have the answer to that but as I stated earlier, we have to address the fact that some people choose to solve their problems with violence. I believe in background checks. It is an overused generalization that there are gunshow loopholes and that you can buy a gun on the Internet without any checks. There are some states that are more lax on background checks but by and large, most states have background checks in place, even at gunshows. Buying guns on the Internet does not mean it arrives on your doorstep. Purchases like this must be completed at a local federally licensed dealer. The Internet seller must ship to the dealer where the buyer will complete paperwork and any background checks. I have made two such purchases. So, I would agree that background checks are a good idea across the board.

The biggest issue is the mental health issue. It seems inevitable that after such a shooting that the shooter is remembered as being "odd" or having some sort of mental instability. Why is it always after the fact? Well, is it realistic to preemptively detain someone because a classmate thinks he is strange and possible dangerous? I don't think we can do that. Mental healthcare is woefully underfunded and too few resources exist in general much less for those who might be prone to a mass shooting. The question would be how we would improve those resources and how we would identify those who need it to prevent shootings. Is it possible? I sure hope so.

For those who do not understand why we own guns, that is not for you to understand just like it is not for me to understand why you like a certain kind of music, food, vacation destination, or the way you choose to vote. Your not understanding why gun ownership is enjoyed does not mean it should be abolished. Saying that there is no purpose to owning an AR-15 style rifle and high capacity magazines is your opinion and I would beg to differ. I find I have many purposes to owning such rifles, the relevance of which you would disagree but none the less, it is my right to own them. Your disagreement is of no consequence to me just as you might dismiss some of my views that do not concur with yours.

One final point: My daughter goes to school. It is terrifying to think that someone would harm her or the other children. That is a reality whether it be a gunman or a kidnapper. The world is a pretty crappy place sometimes. Do I want to go to the school and stand guard? Absolutely! Would I be armed while doing so? Absolutely! If a bad guy with a gun were to visit, a good guy with a gun would try to stop him.
Well put. I totally agree.
__________________
Mike F
Current: 2017 Grand Cherokee HEMI
2017 Kawasaki ZX-14r
2017 Harley RG Ultra
2017 Harley Fatboy S
Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links