First off, where did I say I was ok with defense of the patriot act? let alone them reading EVERY message etc?

secondly, we have the same seizure laws regarding driving of course. Even then we do have some who will not go to a doctor for fear of losing their license to drive. But going to a doctor when you have a seizure is one thing, you are kind of forced to do so! Mental instability is another animal now isn't it? Going to see a psychologist is (usually) a personal decision, if your seeing one leads to losing certain rights and/or the government poking their nose into your business (especially in the mind of someone who is already unstable!) may very well lead to them not seeking treatment!
I myself have no big problem with such required reporting but to claim this isn't an issue is foolish to say the least! And to force states to comply with such a law tramples over the states rights as well.

There are probably millions of mentally unstabel people who already own guns anyway.

I must say I find it hard to get too bothered about these kind of trivial proposals for gun control. I mean yes, obviously they do make sense and I think they ought to happen, but I don't kid myself that a) they will happen, or b) that it'll make much difference if they do. A complete ban on handguns is what America needs. That would solve almost all of the gun-related problems. Not overnight of course, it would maybe take a generation or so, but eventually it would be effective. I grow tired of arguing for it though because it's clearly not going to happen. Steve has clearly given up as well because his arguments now entirely consist of "yah boo, go ahead and change the constitution then", which is no kind of argument at all if we're discussing the rights and wrongs of the issue. Both of us from our differing perspectives realise that this is not an issue that's ever going to be resolved.

and we almost agree! I would love a ban on all handguns myself. But I also know this would never happen, the constitution is strong and not easily altered. But I also know this utopia of having no hand guns is folly, there are just so damned many out there and to make them illegal would simply be empowering the thugs, especially in already violent urban areas as I mentioned before. Keeping a big section of society so vulnerable for so long (it would take at least 20-30 years to start to make a dent) just isn't smart and is no real answer.

So while the liberal part of me (yes I do have a part of me on that side) would love this ban, I am not ready to actually side with any such proposition due to the actual realities of the situation at hand.

It could be made to work fairly easily. Obviously a ban on handguns would be accompoanied by a ban on the sale of ammunition and very stiff legal penalties for use of illegal guns. Over time the risk/reward calculation would swing strongly away from there being much benefit for criminals in using guns against ordinary citizens. Besides which, I'm not really sold on the idea that mass gun ownership is much of a deterrant in the first place.

Like I said, I have no doubt in my mind that a ban on handguns could be made to work. The problem is a political one. It could never pass Congress in the first place and an attempt to change the constitution would certainly fail. Even in the very unlikely event that it passed though, every incident of gun crime thereafter would be a rallying cry to opponents of the legislation. It would have similar emotional force to that which is currently deployed by gun control activists when one of these tragic mass shootings takes place. I just don't see how there'd be the political will to keep going for long enough for it to start working.

Sassenach wrote:It could be made to work fairly easily. Obviously a ban on handguns would be accompoanied by a ban on the sale of ammunition and very stiff legal penalties for use of illegal guns. Over time the risk/reward calculation would swing strongly away from there being much benefit for criminals in using guns against ordinary citizens.

There are already very stiff penalties in most states for committing crimes with guns. Doesn't seem to really deter them all that much. Criminals get illegal guns--they've done it since gun control was enacted.

If you (or anyone) believes the government can stop the flow of weapons, you've not been paying attention to our "War on Drugs." It can't be done. It's too easy to move them in via ports and across our lengthy borders.

Like I said, I have no doubt in my mind that a ban on handguns could be made to work.

If you mean, "handguns could be taken away from law-abiding citizens," you're right. There's no doubt that could be done. After all, we obey the law.

I don't think those who are already bent on robbery, mayhem, and murder would turn theirs in. That could be a problem.

The problem is a political one. It could never pass Congress in the first place and an attempt to change the constitution would certainly fail.

Because most Americans don't agree with our British and Canadian friends. We're different. We like freedom of speech. We also, rightly or wrongly, believe in a degree of individualism that many others do not. When it comes to guns, I think that is the one thing that could bring about a genuine rebellion.

Seeing as the latest tragedy will bring the question of guns back into the spotlight, I wondered about the belief that prevails in many Americans that having a gun makes them safer:

Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed

Overall, Branas's study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.

And what happened in DC? The shooter apparently shot and killed an armed guard and took their weapon.

Not being able to see Branas's data, I have to ask:

Does his data include suicides?
Does his data include accidental shootings?

To be fair you must compare data of a criminal facing a citizen with a gun, against a citizen who does not have a gun.

There are studies from both sides of the issue supplying supportive data.

I tend to doubt that the data includes accidental shootings. Hard to see how that could be a factor unless it turns out that owning a gun means that somebody will be more likely to accidentally shoot you with your own gun through some bizarre freak of chance. Even if that is the case though, it doesn't invalidate the data. If anything it strengthens the point.

Sadly, this is a mental health issue. He legally purchased a shotgun. It was not an assault rifle, but a shotgun. Are the progressives trying to outlaw shotguns now?

As I recall, I was saying that the assault rifle ban is not the end game for the gun control advocates. I am beginning to see that I was right. Deal with mental health, not gun ownership. There lies the problem area.

Cross-posted with Sass:
All I wanted was some verification on the data.

bbauska wrote:Not being able to see Branas's data, I have to ask:

You could have looked for the report yourself. Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault. Here is part of the abstract which is easily available (the full report can be obtained at a cost).

Methods. We enrolled 677 case participants that had been shot in an assault and 684 population-based control participants within Philadelphia, PA, from 2003 to 2006. We adjusted odds ratios for confounding variables.

So...

Does his data include suicides?
Does his data include accidental shootings?

No to both. The 677 shooting victims is made of of people shot in an assault.

To be fair you must compare data of a criminal facing a citizen with a gun, against a citizen who does not have a gun.

Criminals are citizens, generally. Sometimes vice-versa.

What this does is look at the victims of crime (so of a criminal), and work out how many of them were armed and how many were not. Which is similar to your asserted 'fair' way to do it.

There are studies from both sides of the issue supplying supportive data.

Can you show that Branas is of a 'side'? Can you provide one of the studies that you can show supports the opposite?

It doesn't really make a lot of sense to use individual incidents as a basis for policy anyway. They're useful as a way of sparking debate, but ultimately the circumstances of one case are never likely to mean much in the overall scheme of things.

Banning shotguns would a step too far even for me, and I'm about as pro gun control as you're likely to get.

bbauska wrote:Sadly, this is a mental health issue. He legally purchased a shotgun. It was not an assault rifle, but a shotgun. Are the progressives trying to outlaw shotguns now?

I think it is not 'mental health', so much as general screening (both for obtaining a gun of any kind, and for access to a US Navy site).

The guy had no real criminal record, but a history of complaints of gun violence over the years.

As I recall, I was saying that the assault rifle ban is not the end game for the gun control advocates. I am beginning to see that I was right. Deal with mental health, not gun ownership. There lies the problem area.

I don't advocate the banning of shotguns either (as I have said before, my uncle works on guns and in particular shotguns). But between an outright ban and a free-for-all is proper control of who can and cannot own and carry firearms legally.

Whether Alexis was mentally ill or not is not the issue so much as that there were plenty of signs out there that he should not have been trusted with a firearm, but background checks did not pick them up.

Sure, he should have been treated for PTSD (assuming that was the root cause of his anti-social behaviour) - but of course who pays for that treatment?

And until he gets it, let us not allow him (or people like him) easy access to deadly weapons.

The link for me did not work. I would have looked if I could.

I agree that background checks need to be STRICTLY enforced. I am all for that. I am not for the restriction of any firearm for any person not prohibited by their actions (Prior criminal, Mental issues, minor, et al.)

a shotgun was used, a hunting gun! Maybe those in Europe or Japan, places that are much more crowded than we are don't see the problem of eliminating all guns? Take deer for example, in a local town where I live they have a terrible deer problem, no natural enemies and no hunting (it's a suburb) means they grow out of control, they eat everyones gardens, they run into hundreds of cars causing lots of car damage plus the occasional loss of human life. Luckily in this particular suburb, they allow special bow hunting permits to cull the heard every year or three. But in rural areas you simply can not keep the deer population under control through bow hunting alone, same with pheasant, turkey, etc. We NEED to allow hunting with guns and this situation being a shotgun, nothing that is being suggested does anything to stop this mad man.

and the claim that being armed yourself is no answer because a guard was shot, REALLY? You want to go there? That whole having everyone armed solution is weak at best but you are only helping them with this statement. Yes we had one armed man killed, the only armed man who was easy to sneak up on and surprise, then bingo ...nothing but helpless sheep to fire upon after that one was gone. If the others were armed would the death toll be as high as it was? That is a pretty certain NO not to mention, would this coward have done the shooting if he knew all others were armed? I bet he would not have done so then either.

bbauska wrote:The link for me did not work. I would have looked if I could.

Google is your friend.

I agree that background checks need to be STRICTLY enforced. I am all for that. I am not for the restriction of any firearm for any person not prohibited by their actions (Prior criminal, Mental issues, minor, et al.)

To strictly enforce them means national federal registry really.

And for undiagnosed mental problems, or people who don't get convicted but have a history of arrest...?

Do you think the existing laws are tough enough, bbauska?