Remember the executive order for the CDC to study gun violence?

[TomServo92]

The CDC released the study back in June but we haven't heard a peep from the anti-gun crowd. Perhaps that is because the results run counter to many of the gun grabber talking points used to justify tighter gun laws. Some highlights:

 

- Defense gun use is much higher than estimated by gun control advocates (although lower than the number estimated by gun rights people)

 

- People who use guns in self-defense suffer far less evere injuries than those that use other self-defense methods (kind of blows the "you're more likely to be killed by your own gun" argument out of the water)

 

- Most gun-related deaths are the result of suicide rather than murder (goes back to argument that we have a mental health issue not a gun issue)

 

- Mass shootings are a tiny fraction of gun related crime

 

- By far, most crimes are committed with hand guns (why are we trying to ban "assault rifles" again?)

 

Read more here including link to CDC study

[Langston Hughes]

Most gun control advocates include suicide as a reason for gun control and advocate for restrictions to firearms for those with mental health issues.

[TomServo92]

Most gun control advocates include suicide as a reason for gun control and advocate for restrictions to firearms for those with mental health issues.

 

Wouldn't it be better to actually address the mental health issue? Restricting access to guns isn't going to do anything to help the person suffering from depression, schizophrenia, etc. The pain doesn't go away with the gun. I'm not advocating that gun restrictions be lifted for the mentally ill. Using a gun to end ones life is just a symptom of the real problem.

 

Perhaps all the money being spent on the campaigns for gun control would be more effectively used on mental health studies and solutions.

[FiredMotorCompany]

Most gun control advocates include suicide as a reason for gun control and advocate for restrictions to firearms for those with mental health issues.

So they get in a car and drive head-on into oncoming traffic. Or commit suicide-by-cop. Or other methods.

We'll never stop a motivated suicide victim. And many threats are cries for help, and not real threats. Those intent on committing suicide will find a time, place and method.

 

My daughter threatened it to manipulate me in my choice in new wife after her mother died. Nothing but attempted leverage.

 

However, an acquaintance tried once, was foiled, got treatment. Then a year later succeeded in a tree in the local park. Messy divorces should be illegal.

[Langston Hughes]

Wouldn't it be better to actually address the mental health issue? Restricting access to guns isn't going to do anything to help the person suffering from depression, schizophrenia, etc. The pain doesn't go away with the gun. I'm not advocating that gun restrictions be lifted for the mentally ill. Using a gun to end ones life is just a symptom of the real problem. Perhaps all the money being spent on the campaigns for gun control would be more effectively used on mental health studies and solutions.

That would be nice but when faced with real world budgets mental health has fallen by the wayside as has states actively reporting and following law about gun access to people with mental health access. I would prefer to see the same thing you would, that people receive help and that we don't have to put huge restrictions in place but no one is serious about taking the small steps.

[TomServo92]

That would be nice but when faced with real world budgets mental health has fallen by the wayside as has states actively reporting and following law about gun access to people with mental health access. I would prefer to see the same thing you would, that people receive help and that we don't have to put huge restrictions in place but no one is serious about taking the small steps.

 

So we have a broken mental health system. What is it going to take to change the conversation to addressing it?

[NickF1011]

Those intent on committing suicide will find a time, place and method.

There are a couple bridges near me that could tell stories if they could talk. Tight gun control laws in MD sure aren't stemming suicides. :shrug:

[Langston Hughes]

So we have a broken mental health system. What is it going to take to change the conversation to addressing it?

 

Finding some moderation in the current discussions about guns, welfare, abortions and everything else.

[Langston Hughes]

There are a couple bridges near me that could tell stories if they could talk. Tight gun control laws in MD sure aren't stemming suicides. :shrug:

 

I figure that all the ill's in this world are like Micheal Jordan. You can't stop him, you try to limit the damage he does...

[NickF1011]

I figure that all the ill's in this world are like Micheal Jordan. You can't stop him, you try to limit the damage he does...

Yeah, restricting access to guns to prevent suicides is like starting to guard Michael Jordan's right side closer. He's just going to go to his left instead.

[Langston Hughes]

Yeah, restricting access to guns to prevent suicides is like starting to guard Michael Jordan's right side closer. He's just going to go to his left instead.

 

Yet we should do something and restricting weapons to those with long term mental health or during short term bouts may help them and their loved ones. I realize that murder/suicides won't stop but we can be honest about how easy it is to happen with a gun versus without. At what point do we not accept that even a drop of 10 to 20 percent is a good thing? What is the cut off for you? How many do we need to stop or slow down before you might agree with some mental health restrictions, or deeper restrictions I should say?

[NickF1011]

Yet we should do something and restricting weapons to those with long term mental health or during short term bouts may help them and their loved ones. I realize that murder/suicides won't stop but we can be honest about how easy it is to happen with a gun versus without. At what point do we not accept that even a drop of 10 to 20 percent is a good thing? What is the cut off for you? How many do we need to stop or slow down before you might agree with some mental health restrictions, or deeper restrictions I should say?

If you can demonstrate that there would even be a drop off at all then you might be on to something. I don't see how it's any easier to shoot yourself than it is to hang yourself, jump off a bridge, drink drain cleaner, etc.

 

How about instead of blanket implentation of gun control on law-abiding citizens as a solution, we actually go after the root problem itself: identifying and treating mental illness.

 

I don't think anyone here is saying that people with diagnosed (and untreated) schizophrenia should have unchecked access to any weapon he/she desires.

Edited July 12, 2013 by NickF1011

[NickF1011]

And I say it is blanket implementation because there is no way to enact an enforceable law that doesn't give somebody (police, a judge, a doctor, etc) arbitrary and sole control over who is allowed to own a gun. In the end, it could be used to control anyone.

 

You asked about thresholds.

 

What's the threshold of "mental illness" that defines when you're no longer allowed to own a gun? Someone who took anti-depressants 20 years ago when they were a teenager? Someone with multiple personalities and paranoia? Someone who tells a co-worker they don't feel happy?

[BlackHorse]

Finding some moderation in the current discussions about guns, welfare, abortions and everything else.

 

 

Red Flag!!!!

 

 

Whenever a liberal uses the words "moderation" or "cooperation" or "bi-partisan" or "compromise" what that really means is "Do it our way or we will call you all kinds of ugly names."

Edited July 13, 2013 by BlackHorse

[Langston Hughes]

Whatever, dude!

[Langston Hughes]

Nick, any threshold could be consistent with whatever state laws already say. My personal threshold would not include restriction for people suffering from past depression or even low level current depression. My instinct would be for those receiving current treatment to have their mental health professional discuss ownership and to make the suggestion to the state if they felt there was an issue. Could we agree that individual cases would be best? That puts a large responsibility on the part of the mental health system/worker but it might be much more fair.

 

Would the mental health system feel secure in taking that role and would it effect if people went to get help are two issues that need to be looked at further.

[NickF1011]

Nick, any threshold could be consistent with whatever state laws already say. My personal threshold would not include restriction for people suffering from past depression or even low level current depression. My instinct would be for those receiving current treatment to have their mental health professional discuss ownership and to make the suggestion to the state if they felt there was an issue. Could we agree that individual cases would be best? That puts a large responsibility on the part of the mental health system/worker but it might be much more fair.

 

Would the mental health system feel secure in taking that role and would it effect if people went to get help are two issues that need to be looked at further.

The problem is that the vast majority of mental illness is undiagnosed and therefore unknown and untreated. There needs to be changes at the very root of the health care system to change that before anything else will really make a significant impact.

[LDB415]

Can we restrict speech because certain speech can be a catalyst to mentally ill? Can we restrict religious services and observation? Can we suspend the right preventing self incrimination? Can we edit and censor all news media? Or is it just the Second Amendment some of you are willing to restrict and infringe?

 

Just think what might have been the outcome if James and Sarah Brady weren't ignorant fools, if they had spent all that money and all that support on mental health instead of against an inanimate object.

 

Why are the PRO's (Pelosi/Reid/Obama/Feinstein et al) so hard against "assault" (sic) weapons again? Because the current regime is all about control, power and dictatorial rule and they think they have a chance to achieve it. It's all about control and nothing about Newtown or Columbine or anything else. They eagerly await the next massacre just to further their agenda.

 

You solve crime by making the consequence too severe to risk the act, whether it's a kid dipping into the cookie jar or a felon using a weapon (weapon, not just firearm). For the former it may be no TV for a week. For the latter it should be capital punishment. That will as much as possible eliminate the crime. Adding more laws against inanimate objects to the scores of thousands already on the books and further penalizing the law abiding citizens will do nothing. That is a fool's solution.

[NickF1011]

For the latter it should be capital punishment.

Welcome to Texas: You kill us and we'll kill you back!

[FiredMotorCompany]

Welcome to Texas: You kill us and we'll kill you back!

It seems to work there. How's it going in Chicago, btw?

[NickF1011]

It seems to work there. How's it going in Chicago, btw?

It seems to work there...except when it doesn't. I used to support the death penalty, now, eh...I'm not dead set against it, but I'm swaying the other way. When even one person is wrongly executed I have to wonder about the merits of it.

[FiredMotorCompany]

It seems to work there...except when it doesn't. I used to support the death penalty, now, eh...I'm not dead set against it, but I'm swaying the other way. When even one person is wrongly executed I have to wonder about the merits of it.

If there were little to no opportunity for review, I could agree.

 

But how is it just to see virtually 99% of death row cases drag on for 20-30 years. Years the victim was denied. While the defendant grasps at straws to disqualify the findings of the court and juries.

 

It's not a perfect system. But it beats every other one.

 

And I certainly have more faith in the jury system than I do of the "Lynch Mob" we see rearing it's ugly head today. It's all good as long as the public opinion gets what it wants....or there will be blood.

 

Call for Zimmerman to not live a year? Threats to the jury or witnesses? Threats to mow down innocent whites?

 

Yeah. That's a much better way.......Like hell!

[NickF1011]

It's not a perfect system. But it beats every other one.

What would be less perfect about it by instituting life imprisonment instead of capital punishment? Only difference to me is that in the first scenario you have a 0% chance of ever executing a possibly innocent person. Yes, there are countless appeals for capital cases to minimize the possibility of such a scenario, but it has still happened.

 

I just don't think capital punishment is any kind of deterrent because, as you said, those cases typicall drag out for another couple of decades before the sentence is actually (if ever) carried out.

 

About the only times I would say I'm not entirely against it is if there is completely damning physical evidence with corroborative testimony from multiple eyewitnesses, but that's a pretty complicated standard to clearly legislate.

 

And I certainly have more faith in the jury system than I do of the "Lynch Mob" we see rearing it's ugly head today. It's all good as long as the public opinion gets what it wants....or there will be blood.

 

Call for Zimmerman to not live a year? Threats to the jury or witnesses? Threats to mow down innocent whites?

 

Yeah. That's a much better way.......Like hell!

There's quite a leap between eliminating capital punishment (who said anything about eliminating the jury system?) and what you describe there.

Edited July 15, 2013 by NickF1011

[FiredMotorCompany]

What would be less perfect about it by instituting life imprisonment instead of capital punishment? Only difference to me is that in the first scenario you have a 0% chance of ever executing a possibly innocent person. Yes, there are countless appeals for capital cases to minimize the possibility of such a scenario, but it has still happened.

 

I just don't think capital punishment is any kind of deterrent because, as you said, those cases typicall drag out for another couple of decades before the sentence is actually (if ever) carried out.

 

About the only times I would say I'm not entirely against it is if there is completely damning physical evidence with corroborative testimony from multiple eyewitnesses, but that's a pretty complicated standard to clearly legislate.

 

 

There's quite a leap between eliminating capital punishment (who said anything about eliminating the jury system?) and what you describe there.

How is a death penalty that takes 20 years to implement different functionally different form life without parole. No wonder it has no effectiveness. Criminals all but die of old age with housing, food and healthcare to boot! Edited July 15, 2013 by FiredMotorCompany

[NickF1011]

How is a death penalty that takes 20 years to implement different functionally different form life without parole. No wonder it has no effectiveness. Criminals all but die of old age with housing, food and healthcare to boot!

Exactly my point. Why even keep it if it takes so long for it to be carried out anyway? If there was a way to speed up the appeals process without losing its effectiveness then maybe I'd look at it a little differently. The court system as a whole, however, is woefully overburdened which makes any signficant reforms unlikely.