- ‹ previous
- 51 of 8902
- next ›
Senate Bill Would Allow "Mentally Incapacitated" Vets to Buy Guns
Major Nidal Hasan, accused of killing 13 people at Fort Hood Army base, has been described by former colleagues as "psychotic." As more details emerge about Hasan's troubled state, gun safety advocates are launching fresh attacks on a Senate bill they say would make it easier for mentally unstable veterans to buy firearms.
Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) says his "Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act" will protect veterans' gun rights. But the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence calls it a "dangerous" proposal that could allow "over 100,000 mentally incapacitated or incompetent persons" to buy guns—people who would previously have been barred from doing so by the Veterans Administration (VA).
With debate over Fort Hood still raging on cable news, one might think that Burr might try to quietly shelve the measure, whose co-sponsors include Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.). Instead, Burr fired back at the Brady Campaign in an interview with Fox News, accusing its president, Paul Helmke, of using the tragedy to "exploit the senseless murder of American soldiers in the quest to secure personal triumph."
Responding to Burr Thursday in an open letter, Helmke wrote, "it is hardly 'exploitative' to have an honest debate" about the proposal, which would cancel out key provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968 and override standards used by the VA for nearly four decades.
Burr contends that, “under current law, veterans who have come to VA for help but who are determined to be unable to manage their own financial affairs are labeled as mentally defective and, on that basis alone, are denied their 2nd amendment rights." Yet even the National Rifle Association disputes Burr's description of the process by which veterans are ruled ineligible to own firearms. As the NRA notes in the current issue of its magazine First Freedom [PDF], "VA records are only reported to NICS [National Instant Criminal Background Check System] if a patient has been 'adjudicated as a mental defective,' a lengthy process that includes opportunities for hearings, appeals, etc." (The NRA's Institute for Legislative Action, which has not issued an official position on the measure, did not respond to Mother Jones' requests for comment.)
According to a 2008 New York Times report, at least 121 Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans "committed a killing in this country, or were charged with one, after their return from war." In addition, as Helmke also points out in his letter, "veterans are far more likely to die of suicide than non-veterans in the general population, with firearms the most common method of suicide among veterans."
Nevertheless, several veterans' organizations favor the measure, citing concerns that the VA might begin providing the Justice Department with the names of veterans seeking help for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. Patrick Campbell, the chief legislative counsel for Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, has said that his organization backs the bill "in the hopes it will quell any fears veterans might have about seeking treatment for mental health injuries."
In the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings, the Brady Campaign joined the NRA to support strengthening mental health background checks. This time around, it has offered to work with Burr's office to find a more precise way to address his concerns about veterans' gun rights. But it staunchly opposes the current proposal. As Helmke noted after the Fort Hood shootings, "this latest tragedy, at a heavily fortified army base, ought to convince more Americans to reject the argument that the solution to gun violence is to arm more people with more guns in more places. Enough is enough."
Rumors...
Rumors say that mentally incapacitated Republicans support this bill.
I thought repugs were
I thought repugs were already allowed to own guns.
Guns
First they have to prove that they can shoot and chew gun at the same time.
Guns for the Mentally Incompetent?
tagged as:- solution
Maybe we could blunt the GOP (Senator Burr's) request to allow veterans with mental problems to carry guns, by allowing them to carry them in the US Senate? It might help thin out incumbents.
What on earth is this guy thinking?
tagged as:- result
People who can't handle their own finances can handle a gun? And of course no "mentally incompetent" people would ever eat their gun.....
Have you ever tried to deal
Have you ever tried to deal with the VA? I wouldn't wade back into that mess without a team of lawyers on speeddial.
Republicans and guns
This all seems typical to me of the current state of Republican thought.
Who cares about real world, practical solutions.
If giving people who have demonstrated that they are likely to use their guns to do violence for themselves and others maintains some airy fairy, idealistic version of the world for these people, having others die is a small price to pay.
Look at the reaction to TARP, their own creation. Supporting this Republican idea has now become the litmus test for being a bad Republican. Yet the party has long valued loyalty, and the ability to make politicians follow in lockstep its highest virtue. They forced Republican lawmakers to pass this law, then excoriated them for doing it.
This list goes on and on and it shows what happens when ideology is driven to more and more extremes by zealots.
It's like the animal rights people. Being vegetarian is not enough, you have to be vegan. Then, suddenly you find out that vegans are savages and if you really love life you will be a fruitarian (people who won't eat plants that have to be killed for food).
When extremism becomes the standard, then qualities like intelligence and experience fly out the window and you end up with leaders like Sarah Palin. As nearly as I can tell Palin knows nothing about anything except the way to the nearest left wing biased media outlet. The people who support her have been driven so far out on the margins that they no longer care about anything but their 2 wedge issues.
As long as the Republicans keep pushing each other farther to the fringes, it will be a party the most American, including me, can't support.
False Analogy
I agree with your statements for the most part, except the comparison between elected Republicans and Animal Rights activists. I have read extensively in the area of Animal Rights, including books by the noted moral philosopher Peter Singer, PETA materials, etc. There are indeed fringe elements within this diverse group, but the movement as a whole has not steadily moved in the direction you claim.
Most of us would simply ask that you educate yourselves to the harsh, institutionalized cruelty of animals that provide your meat and cheese.
But it goes beyond animal welfare issues: factory farming has caused a spike in antibiotic-resistant diseases because most chickens, cows, sheep and pigs live in stalls devoid of sunlight their entire lives, standing knee-deep in their own excrement. Of course it's hard to get all this cleaned off the animal come processing time, so unless you are fortunate enough to be able to afford free-range meat, you're also likely eating fecal matter.
But hey, label us all crazy like those right-wingers. I'm one vegetarian who isn't pushing it on anyone. At least until you lump me in with people who truly have left the building... .
Overall, I agree to your
Overall, I agree to your post, but could you look over the following:
"As nearly as I can tell Palin knows nothing about anything except the way to the nearest left wing biased media outlet."
Don't you mean right wing?
Background checks are good
Background checks are good but if PTSD is found on vets they should be kept from owning guns. We don't want another creepy PTSD shooting like the one that occurred in the Holocaust Memorial Museum in DC: James Von Brunn-veteran, anti-semite with undiagnosed PTSD & part of the birther movement... How did that cretin get a gun? Enough said?
Vets & PTSD
As a veteran with PTSD I find your comment quite offensive.
On behalf of the posts, I
On behalf of the posts, I apologize. The last thing we want to do is insult a Veteran. We have the highest and utmost respect for them. My brother is a Vietnam vet with so MANY medical issues from the agent orange that didn't exist. What we need to do is take care of our soldiers. Giving them guns instead of medical treatment is not the answer.
Firearms and medical treatment are not mutually exclusive.
It is possible for a veteran who suffers from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder to receive adequate medical treatment for the condition while simultaneously retaining the right to keep and bear arms. The right to keep and bear arms should be restricted only through due process, not through an arbitrary declaration of mental unfitness to which the affected individual is offered no opportunity for response or for appeal.
As another vietnam vet with
As another vietnam vet with PTSD, I find those comments on target. Several members of my therapy group scare me enough without guns. Letting them own and carry weapons is asking for trouble.
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder is not a valid criteria.
A diagnosis of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder is not a valid basis for determining that an individual is a "mental defective" and is not a valid criteria for abridging firearms ownership rights. I am aware of no data suggesting that Mr. Von Brunn, whose possession of a firearm was itself an illegal act due to his status as a convicted felon, suffered from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. The firearm that he criminally possessed had been obtained prior to the enactment of the National Firearms Act of 1934 -- as is evident by the lack of any serial number upon the item -- and should not have remained in his possession following his conviction for multiple felony charges in 1983. It is not valid to suggest that a diagnosis of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder would have prevented Mr. Von Brunn from possessing the firearm that he used in his act of homicide in 2009.
Support
The New York Times demonstrates that Iraq War Veterans are between two and five times less likely to commit murder than their civilian counterparts of the same approximate age group and this demonstrates somehow that they are less trustworthy with firearms?
Not to mention the fact that the NYT's figure of 121 homicides included drunk driving vehicular homicide charges that had nothing to do with firearms.
Firearms availability can not be demonstrated to have any effect on suicide rates. Reducing gun availability reduces gun suicides, but those determined to commit suicide just move on to another mechanism. And the contention ignores the fact that many sufferers of PTSD don't seek help for fear of being labeled "crazy" and having their rights and/or careers curtailed as a result.
Can't imagine why they would think anyone would try to label them as crazy or mentally incompetent...can you?
Mental and emotional conditions can be treated and cured and should never be used as an excuse to curtail constitutionally protected rights without due process of law.
Finally, Helmke's claim that Fort Hood was "heavily fortified" is false on its face. US Military bases outside of war zones are typically "gun free" zones, just like most other places that mass killers exploit.
The idea of thousands of
The idea of thousands of soldiers coming home mentally hurt - is a really big concern. If the government behaves as it has in past wars, the VETS are ON THEIR OWN. That's a pretty scary thought. Post traumatic stress syndrome with GUNS.
No surprise, they let one
No surprise, they let one run for President and another mental midget run for VO
Please stay on topic. This
Please stay on topic. This has nothing to do with the POTUS or the VPOTUS - or VO as you call it. There are people here who are actually concerned with the status quo. Please find the correct topic for bashing the president. Thanks.
EVERYONE has a right to life, and a right to self defense.
tagged as:- solution
I can understand the attempt to keep dangerous people from having firearms, but the absolute truth of the matter is that background checks are NOT an effective way of doing so.
The ONLY effect that background checks have is for the seller to know he's not selling a firearm to someone on the arbitrary "prohibited persons" list of Felons, People convicted of Domestic Violence Misdemeanors, people with current restraining orders against them, and whatever passes for "mentally impaired" background checks NEVER HAVE and NEVER WILL stop ANYONE willing to break the law from getting a firearm, ANYWHERE in the world they have been tried.
ANY gun control has been grossly ineffective at doing ANYTHING about violent crime ANYWHERE in the world it has been tried. There is NO direct relationship to the number of available firearms and violent crime, and there is also NO direct relationship to the level of gun control and the rate of violent crime involving firearms either.
In the ineffective attempt of background checks to prevent "dangerous people" from getting guns, it also prohibits law-abiding citizens from exercising their right to effective self defense. If someone who is a "prohibited person" wants to commit a crime with a firearm, they will either use a straw purchaser, steal the gun, or go buy one off the street from the black market or a private seller. You're not even considering those with a CLEAN criminal record and no mental history who can go buy almost any gun they want, anytime, almost anywhere. If someone is a law-abiding citizen and is prohibited from buying a gun, they just go without one, and are unable to exercise their right to keep and bear arms and their right of effective self defense.
You people suggesting gun control is an effective solution have never examined the rates of violent firearm-related crime in countries, cities, or states BEFORE and AFTER the gun control was introduced. If you had, you would see that there's NO CONSISTENT CORRELATION between gun control and violent crime rates. The reason is simple: because GUNS DON"T CAUSE CRIME and because CRIMINALS DON'T OBEY GUN CONTROL LAWS!
If someone is TRULY mentally defective enough to not trust them, WHY are they allowed in public without a custodian, when firearms will ALWAYS be easy to get on the street?
We ALL have the right of effective self defense. The unintended consequences of gun control are they it ONLY effects good people from exercising their right to keep and bear arms responsibily, and does nothing to stop people from abusing the right.
...Orygunner...
firearms could only always
firearms could only always be easy to find on the street because they are manufactured, manufactured for 'self defense' - when they then become available for all kinds of accidental maimings and suicide within the home, from which they are stolen - and end up 'on the street'.
Simple security precautions, a dog maybe, and a big stick would be just as effective as a deterrent - and less likely to be lethal if they fall into the wrong hands.
No-one needs handguns.
"No-one needs handguns."
"Need" is not relevant.
Gun Rights
The idea that Senator Burr thinks it's OK for mentally incapacitated veterans to carry weapons is so outrageous that I simply don't believe we have the whole story. If we do have the whole story as written above, then Senator Burr should be forced to submit to a mental evaluation himself.
2nd Amendment abuses
What is it about "well regulated militia" don't the gun nuts understand? They conveniently leave it out whenever they quote the 2nd Amendment as if it does not exist.
But it does exist, and it is our law. Since the beginning of the US, it has indeed been and still is constitutional to limit gun use and ownership to only those people who can prove their competency and sanity.
Sadly, not enough restrictions throughout the country are the main causes for all of the easily preventable gun deaths in the US.
The reported effect of the amendment is not fully explained.
In fact, the proposed amendment would restore firearms ownership rights to military veterans who had completed a course of treatment and thus were no longer suffering from the mental impairment that had previously restricted their right to firearms ownership. The Brady Campaign opposes this amendment because they continually seek measures to further limit the right to keep and bear arms as a means of furthering their ultimate goal of total civilian disarmament. The omission of this key information is unsurprising, however, as advocates of civilian disarmament are frequently dishonest.
Reasonable objections to this amendment should rely upon a factual demonstration of the claim made by the National Rifle Association that firearms possession rights are preempted only in the event of an individual being adjudicated as a mental defective; if in fact this is accurate then Senator Burr's proposed amendment is wholly unnecessary. However, suggesting that Senator Burr's proposal should be opposed because any individual who has or is currently serving in a military branch who has sought mental health counseling of any kind should be denied firearms ownership rights is fundamentally unreasonable.
You can't fix stupid
Obviously this is a liberal (anti-gun) forum but I'll put my 2 cents worth in anyway.
1) If you didn't notice a woman with a gun ended the Ft. Hood shootings..
2) Guns are kept in the armory on base unless signed out to shoot...
3) The second amendment starts with the reason for gun rights, a well regulated millitia (read every able bodied man at the time) being neccesary for a FREE state, then goes into the law the right to keep and bear arms. Twisting the law seems to be
the only way you can win this argument.
4) The Brady Campaign has 1 agenda to take guns away from law abiding citizens.
5) And most important if the second amendment isn't worth the paper it's written on neither is the first. Think about it!
A Women With A Gun Ended The Shootings
Uh, yeah. She Was A SECURITY OFFICER!!!
Your assertion is not entirely correct.
While Jeanne Assam was operating as a security guard, her position was entirely voluntary, and not a function of any employer. She was, essentially, a private citizen who had volunteered to provide security for the church.
You're right .... you *can't* fix stupid
"3) The second amendment starts with the reason for gun rights, a well regulated millitia (read every able bodied man at the time)"
If you would check a dictionary I believe that you would find that the expression "well regulated" does *not* mean "able bodied".
Congress and Guns
When are they going to allow sane and insane people to enter the US Capital WITH GUNS?
Put up an amendment like that and lets see how fast Richard Burr votes against it.
Define "Well regulated"
tagged as:- solution
Kevin Schmidt needs an education, here it is:
First, "Well regulated" isn't a phrase in common usage anymore, but it was back when the Constitution was written. It does not mean under tight control as in government regulated! It means "properly operating" Google it, and you'll find plenty of resources that support the CORRECT definition of "well regulated"
Second, the first clause of the Amendment, "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state" is not a LIMITING clause, but a clarifying clause, stating the REASON for the OPERATIVE clause, which is "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The US Constitution is VERY consistent. When they mean THE PEOPLE, they state THE PEOPLE. Nowhere else does the Constitution say "The People" when it really MEANT "The States."
The Bill of Rights also GRANTS NO RIGHTS to the people, it protects PRE-EXISTING rights they already knew existed. Since states do not HAVE rights (they have POWERS), how could they be granting rights to states to have armed militias?
It's a pretty big leap of logic to consider that the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms independant of service in a militia. It twists the words and meaning of the Constutution to support the socialist ideas that citizens should not be armed in defense of their own lives and liberty. It goes against all the liberty and freedom the founding fathers built this Republic to protect.
...Orygunner...
"Well regulated" defined
Orygunner, you are a100% wrong simply by the fact that we have had constitutional laws limiting gun ownership and possession since the beginning of the country.
You can try to mangle the meaning of the 2nd Amendment all you want with your irrelevant gun nut propaganda. But the truth is, your definition has never held up in court, especially the Supreme Court. You cannot overcome more than 200 years of legal precedent with your illogical rants.
To deny ALL gun ownership is unconstitutional. But to deny gun ownership to the incompetent and mentally unstable is indeed Constitutional!
END OF STORY!
What history book are YOU reading from, Kevin?
tagged as:- solution
Kevin Schmidt, how thoughtful of you to rewrite history AND decide what is Constitutional! Umm, evidence, please?
There WERE NO gun control laws at the time the Constitution and Bill of Rights was ratified, ESPECIALLY not FEDERAL laws. The FIRST gun control laws were state and local laws aimed specifically at making sure slaves were disarmed and could not dare overpower their oppressors. Which, the Democrat Party was fully in support of slavery and racism up until the 1960's, I might add.
The first FEDERAL gun control laws were the Firearms Act of 1934, which was a TAX law requiring payment of a tax on machine guns, short barreled rifles and shotguns, and sound suppressors for firearms. This levied an outrageous $200 tax on transfer of one of these items. The first challenge to this was a travesty because the first Federal court ruled it was absolutely unconstitutional to levy a restrictive tax on firearms, but when the US appealed, they couldn't FIND the defendant, so US vs. Miller was a lopsided ruling that did not challenge the tax and the prosecution dared to suggest that short barreled shotguns weren't a militia weapon, which the judges did not dispute because there was no defense present to dispute it.
You can't just re-write history to try and prove your point...
I don't do propaganda, I lay out ALL the facts I can find, not cherry picked ones. And the fact is, even people with mental issues have the right to life and a right to self defense, or do you see them as a less than human sub-class that doesn't deserve their inalienable rights?
If you think they don't deserve their rights, what other rights do you think they should forfeit? Freedom of speech or press? Right to own property and right to privacy? Should they give up their right to unreasonable searches and seisures, or how about giving up their rights against cruel and unusual punishment?
You shouldn't just pick and choose what rights you think people deserve and which they don't, or what "types" of people do and don't deserve their rights. That's bigoted and prejudiced. The founding fathers recognized SOME rights were important enough to enumerate in the Bill of Rights, and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is #2.
We're now getting some pretty important cases headed to the Supreme Court, that addresses things like private/militia ownership of Machine Guns (which currently are legal but only manufactured before 1986), State Soverignity for manufacturing their OWN arms outside Federal control (Montana, and a couple other states are doing this), and more.
People are realizing that GUN CONTROL DOES NOT WORK! It never has, and it never will. There's NO evidence that gun control is responsible for making ANY city, state, country, or society any safer.
There's a sweeping tide at getting our gun rights BACK that the Federal Government has infringed upon with unconstitutional restrictions, and you're on the losing end, Kevin.
Thanks for trying though, you make it entertaining.
...Orygunner...
Rights we should pick and choose on
I am starting to think that perhaps there are some rights that we should pick and choose at. I don't know that I believe every person should have the right to procreate at this point. ; )
Guns are not a right, they
Guns are not a right, they are little death machines in the hands of potential killers, if you are not an active duty soldier on the front or police officer on duty then you don't need your gun for protection, you only think you do and without it you are a stinking coward. If you chose to be a target shooter then leave your gun in lockup at the range otherwise you are in favor of yor child being killed by it...there is no way on the planet that any words will ever persuade me otherwise. If you own a gun you intend to kill with it or die by it...peace.
Only in Amerikkka - thank puck!
Lee, you're right. Guns ARE dangerous!
tagged as:- solution
Lee, you're right Guns are a deadly weapon, which not only makes them useful for criminals to commit crimes with, but also make them very useful for self defense. Do you understand that gun control ONLY effects those willing to obey the law, and those willing to break it will ALWAYS be able to get guns when they want them? Your proposed restrictions are silly and useless, and only serve to disarm those who would do GOOD with firearms by defending themselves and their families - the bad guys will not leave their guns at the range.
In your limited experience of your life, you just must not have ever had a reason to have a gun, must never have had violent criminals coming at you or your loved ones, you must never have had someone bigger, stronger, or more desparate than you have a bat or a knife or a gun wanting your money, your car keys, your watch, or maybe some of you're wife's good lovin' while you are helpless to watch because YOU have nothing to defend your life or her honor with. If you HAVE been in one of these situations and survived, and STILL can't see the value of a firearm for self defense, you must not have learned anything from the encounter.
You know what? I'VE never needed a gun before in my life in 30+ years. But I know THREE family members and TWO friends who have used a firearm to successfully defend themselves from violent crime, and HAD a sister viciously murdered who did NOT have a gun for self defense.
Do you WANT to be scared crapless and give them anything THEY want? It's your right to be as ill-equipped to deal with a criminal attack as you want to be. But YOUR Morality choice has NOTHING to do with my right to choose to be armed to protect what's important to me.
WHO is the coward? REAL men respect their tools and are prepared for life's little emergencies. What are you prepared for? Begging for your life? Good luck with that, sheep.
...Orygunner...
I am curious.
Have you any argument that does not rely upon poisoning the well, "ad hominem" attacks, unjustified hyperbole and a declaration of your willful ignorance?
True. My 21 year old nephew
True. My 21 year old nephew got a CCW permit so that he could walk around with a holstered gun that he "accidentally" exposed on occasion to show how macho and cool he was. He didn't live in a high crime area, few murders, robberies, only a few house break ins so he wasn't carrying for self-protection but just for the image. I don't have a gun and yes my house was broken into. My next door neighbor does have a gun and his house was not broken into. Sounds like cause and effect, right? Truth is, I wasn't home and he was. His gun ownership was not a factor in his house being skipped.
Guns for mentally incapacitated vets
If you own a gun you intend to kill with it or die by it. That's it in a nutshell, isn't it. I have mixed feelings about gun control, but your words really nailed it. It's the unintended consequences that really bother me. Innocent kids getting killed and maimed.
What illogic and lies are you using Orygunner?
Orygunner,
Democrats supported slavery up until the 1960s??? Now you discredit yourself with complete nonsense!
You can quibble all you want over exactly when the first gun control laws were passed, which was in fact shortly after the founding of our nation. But that will not change the fact that they are indeed Constitutional as per the beginning of the 2nd Amendment, which you as the rest of the gun nuts refuse to acknowledge.
By the way, thanks for admitting that there are constitutional laws that limit gun ownership! I rest my case!
But gun nuttery illogic aside, you lie when you say gun control does not work and there is no evidence to support gun control. You could just as well argue, unsuccessfully, that speed limits do not work, but we all know that they do work, just as gun control works. In other modern industrialized countries, such as Canada, England and Germany, gun control does indeed work, as evidenced by their readily available statistics showing very few gun crimes per capita.
By the way, why do you support the unconstitutional belief that even the criminally insane should be allowed to own guns, including military weapons?
Why do you hate the Constitution that you would distort its true meaning?
Why do you hate America that you would endanger every man, woman and child with your insane beliefs?
We have the greatest number of gun crimes in the world specifically because there is not enough gun control, and people are fed up with it! The days of the wild, wild west are numbered, whether you like it or not!
There IS no proof Gun Control works.
tagged as:- result
Kevin,
You can't just look at a country's crime rate and say gun control works, because you're cherry picking statistics. You have to look at years BEFORE and years AFTER gun control was instituted to see if gun control had ANY effect.
Look at the violent crime rates for England for the last 100+ years, and compare it to when gun control was introduced, starting with the Pistols Act of 1903. in 1920, 1937, 1968, and 1988, gun control was further and further tightened, until the last major atrocity against the rights of Englishmen, in 1997 almost all handguns were banned. Here's a link to the data, which actually notes, sometimes it went up, sometimes it went down
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/1996/08/international-00028.php
Look at the rate of violent crime and homicides in Washington DC BEFORE and AFTER they effectively banned handguns in 1976:
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm
Australia's gun ban COULD be heralded for stopping mass shootings, because there haven't been any more since their big ban in 1997, but it didn't help the rest of violent crime and firearm-related violence much:
http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html
Last, the number of guns does NOT directly correlate to the amount of gun related violence. Look at the following chart: Columbia and South America have a fraction of the gun ownership rate we do, but firearm related crime rates several TIMES that of the United States. It seems to disprove the idea that more guns = more crime.
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Lists-of-countries-by-gun-owner...
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-f...
We don't have a GUN problem, we have a VIOLENT CRIME problem. Guns are just the tools of the trade for gang bangers and other violent criminals. Since they will ALWAYS be able to get guns when they want them, we can't control them by trying to control guns. Gun control not only doesn't work, it has the unintended consequence of removing or restricting guns from good, law-abiding citizens who are NOT the ones we need to worry about.
There's enough facts for you to chew on... If you'd like to continue, you should really find some PROOF where ANY gun control has EVER worked.
...Orygunner...
Democrats WERE the RACIST party until the 1960's.
tagged as:- solution
Kevin,
DEMOCRATS were the pro-slavery party before and during the civil war, and supported racism and racist laws and policies up through the mid 20th century. The REPUBLICANS took power in the southern states through reconstruction and helped the tide of anti-slavery and anti-racism, until the Democrats seized power in the southern states again and re-imposed strict racism in the south, such as the "jim crow" laws and other laws aimed at keeping blacks from having equal rights.
Don't take my word for it, look it up. I can't do ALL your research for you!
...Orygunner...
The United Kingdom suffers a high nonhomicide violent crime rate
" In other modern industrialized countries, such as Canada, England and Germany, gun control does indeed work, as evidenced by their readily available statistics showing very few gun crimes per capita."
Are you suggesting that it is acceptable for individuals to commit violent crime, so long as they do not use a firearm when doing so?
"We have the greatest number of gun crimes in the world specifically because there is not enough gun control, and people are fed up with it! "
Please justify this assertion. Show that the quantity of firearms in the united states is the primary motivator for individuals who commit "gun crime". Show that a statistically significant percentage of "gun crimes" would not have occurred in some other fashion were more stringent firearms regulation in effect. Explain the high rates of "gun crime" in locales that have enacted restrictive firearms regulation, such as the District of Columbia and Chicago, Illinois.
Dimensio, Please also ask
Dimensio,
Please also ask that they list (with reference) how many of the violent crimes involving guns were committed by guns that were legally purchased and registered vs. illegally obtained weapons.
guns
Maybe we should just issue everyone a friggin gun when they turn 18, no matter what their mental capacity might be. Of course a special effort should be made to ensure every thug and gang banger around DC has at least one gun.
Every gangbanger in DC that wants a gun already has one!
tagged as:- solution
Decrepittex,
You actually made an excellent point. Every gangbanger in DC that wants a gun already has one, just like every one that wants illicit drugs gets those, too.
If you DID issue a firearm to EVERYONE (and give them some training, of course), you would end up with the overwhelming majority of GOOD people would be armed for self defense, as opposed to just a relative few of them. If you pulled such a move, here is what I would predict happening:
1. Accidents would go up slightly, because yes, there's some numbskulls who probably shouldn't have a gun and wouldn't stick to the safety training.
2. Violent crime and property crime against regular citizens would drop by a HUGE amount! Currently, in states that start allowing concealed carry, it doesn't seem to effect the crime rate significantly because criminals just become pickier about their targets, but still commit crimes. If they knew EVERY SINGLE person is probably packing a gun to protect themselves, you would see the hugest immediate decrease in violent crime against good citizens ever seen.
3. Gang warfare would continue, probably unchanged. Those gang-bangers would just not be attacking regular citizens anymore, and keep more to their gang vs. gang crap.
4. The suicide rate would be unchanged.
5. There may be an increase in "road rage" type incidents or domestic violence involving firearms, but it would be an insignificant increase compared to the decrease in violent crime.
Some of this would somewhat depend on how much training was given, what type of firearm was issued, etc. But the truth of the matter is this: MOST people are GOOD people, and the violent criminals and idiots are actually relatively few. If you have more GOOD people with guns than you have BAD people with guns, logic says that more GOOD is going to be done with guns.
And if you think guns can't be used for good, you've got an emotional warped view of the world and should re-check your biased attitude with some facts and reality.
...Orygunner...
Did you read the entire article?
The posts would indicate that many people magically overlooked the cosponsor of the bill and his affiliation. His name is Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.), and Virginia (along with its DC neighbor, although not quite as harsh) has some of the strictest gun laws in the US.
Also, the portion of the base the Maj. Hassan attacked was disarmed by the Clinton administration which made it illegal for soldiers to carry guns in the administration buildings. Perhaps if the other highly trained military personnel who were willing to obey regulation had their sidearms present the casualty count would have been MUCH less. Let's not forget how the Major was stopped - WITH A GUN. I didn't see a ninja drop out of the sky and roundhouse kick him to the head. He was shot. By a woman. With a gun.
The vast majority of veteran's who are considered "mentally incompetent" are those that "cannot manage their finances acceptably". The translation to this statement is the homeless veterans. Now, am I sure I want homeless vets getting weapons? I dunno. It's sounds a bit like it could be a large liability. However, they do already live on the street, and if they really wanted to get a gun, they could easily do so illegally. Would it not be better to allow them to do it legally?
Restoring due process rights to veterans is the right step
tagged as:- solution
Currently, when the Department of Veterans' Affairs (VA) appoints a fiduciary to assist a veteran with managing their financial affairs, VA also deems the veteran mentally incompetent and reports him or her to the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). The Veterans Second Amendment Protection Act would require a judicial body to deem a veteran, surviving spouse, or child as a danger to himself or others before being listed in NICS, which would prohibit the veteran from being able to purchase certain firearms. The legislation is supported by the American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, AMVETS, and the Military Order of the Purple Heart.
A step in the right direction, but still unacceptable.
tagged as:- solution
Although it appears to be a step in the right direction, further clarifying only those that are a danger to themselves to be prevented from purchasing firearms, it's still a rediculous restriction.
If someone is truly a danger to themselves or others, why would we let them out into public without a custodian?
If someone is safe enough to be out in public where they can ALWAYS easily buy firearms ILLEGALLY off the street (no gun control can ever block that), why would we disallow them from exercising their right to effective self defense?
The stated goals and effectiveness are contradicting each other here... Doesn't anyone get that?
...Orygunner...
ugg bailey button boots
The days is gradually cold,I want to buy some wram boots,that I know
UGG Classic boots,
UGG cardy boots,
UGG Bailey Button boots,
Classic tall boots
Button ugg boots,
UGG Classic short boots,
UGG Bailey Button,
UGG Nightfall boots are good warm boots,but I just need one,can you help me?