Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety

[Fresh_Start]

deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

In what sick mind is giving up guns an essential liberty.

I would argue that going to first grade or going to a movie theater is the essential liberty that is being given up
in order for the gun nutters to have the temporary safety of their phallic substitutes.

[MrDiaz]

1. well

the constitution gives us that right. In order to change the law, we must change the constitution. Once you start letting the government take certain things away from you for your own safety, where will they stop?

[Fresh_Start]

2. Being able to move in our society

is an essential freedom.

The 2nd amendment does not rise to the same bar.

It is absolutely possible to live an entire life without a weapon and thus the weapon is not essential.
It is not absolutely possible to live an entire life without interacting with other members of humanity: thus freedom to live in society is essential.

And if you want to talk about temporary safety...is there any safety more temporary than a weapon.
There is someone who can disarm you.
There is someone with a bigger or more weapons than you.
There are other weapons which make your weapon equivalent to a happy meal toy in effect.

Guns are the temporary safety.
And the behavior of gun nuts requiring more and more weapons prove that they only give a sense of temporary safety.

[MrDiaz]

5. Nobody is stopping you

from living in a society. People carry weapons the ones who do so legally do not commit crimes.

[99Forever]

6. "...the ones who do so legally do not commit crimes."

Until they do. Then there are dead children. Lots of them.

[Fresh_Start]

11. You really need to look at some statistics

lots of legal gun owners are killing their families, coworkers, young black men with skittles in their pockets and themselves.

You are lying to yourself if you don't understand that legal gun owners are also the perpetrators of violence.

[MrDiaz]

15. lots? really

compared to the number of guns owned in this country you can not logically use the following statement "lots of legal gun owners are killing their families, coworkers, young black men with skittles in their pockets and themselves. "

check out this link and tell me why the states with lower gun ownership are the states with higher crime?



http://www.datamasher.org/mash-ups/crime-vs-gun-ownership

[Flabbergasted]

34. Actually that map says nothing. What it does is take violent crime per 100,000 and divide it by the

percentage of guns per household. If you give it a tiny bit of thought obviously the states with more guns per capita are going to have a lower ratio. In case you still don't get it take Louisiana and Tennessee which have high crime rates but also high gun rates. Proportionally it is about 750 to about 10% which is always going to give you a lower proportion than Massachusetts which has a bit over 400 but only 1% with guns. Massachusetts is number one but it's an utterly meaningless and misleading metric. In actuality Tennessee and Louisiana have more violent crime despite and possibly because of having more guns. It actually makes perfect sense. More guns = more violent crime but frankly considering how the author consciously attempted to mislead, everything in the table has zero credibility. Sorry to burst your bubble.

[jody]

16. No our Constitution does not give us that right. Rights exist with or without words on paper.

Our Constitution does obligate government to protect those rights among which is the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

[nadinbrzezinski]

35. Dependent clauses is not your strong point

Is it?

You can have your infantry battle riffle as long as you guarantee the free state within the well regulated militia. So when are you reporting for drill?

I think Hamilton, who mentioned individuals zero times in Federalist 29... Had a good clue as to original intent...

[HereSince1628]

3. But it's not giving up "our" freedom...it's giving up THEIR freedom for OUR security

See what I did there?

Great, glad you do

On edit: You don't think it's going to stop at guns do you? People won't be happy until they can go on line and learn who in their neighborhood has a "mental illness" so they can run them out and make the neighborhood 'safe".

[Zoeisright]

9. Grow up.

Your stupid slippery slope argument is asinine.

What you "did there" was fail in logical reasoning.

buh-bye.

[HereSince1628]

10. So bye then.

[Mojorabbit]

27. There is always a market for banned substances and items. nt

[treestar]

13. Nope, not afraid of that

Some of the shooters are not mentally ill.

Guns can be registered, licensed and restricted. It's been proven by this incident for once and for all that the freedom threatened is our freedom to go about our business.

If you're in a rural area, fine, have a gun for possible break ins. If in a city or suburb, you'd be better off calling 911 anyway. In the meantime, untrained and irresponsible people don't have guns and crazy people can't get hold of them.

[HereSince1628]

14. Among the things being proposed

is linking national criminal databases and health records.

Now, what could possibly go wrong?

[treestar]

18. That is not a big problem

People with mental health issues shouldn't have access to guns.

I have a relative who is an NRA type and he's been violent in the past (more threats than action, but no one knows when the line will be crossed). He then had treatment for his anger issues. This person should not have guns. He may never do anything. But his family has been afraid of him for ages. I just really don't care about his rights to have a gun. I don't think it would impinge on his freedom not to have one - it impinges on his family's freedom if he could get hold of one.

I might not qualify myself for a gun under that proposal.

If there is a legitimate dispute, it can go thorough regulatory appeals or the courts.

[HereSince1628]

21. In your mind it's not a big problem.

Previous violence is the best predictor of violence, not a diagnosis of mental illness.

Substance abuse/intoxication is the next best predictor of violence (accounting for an estimated 35% of violent crime), not a diagnosis of mental illness.


Best estimates suggest that something near 8% of reported violence in society is associated with mental illness...


That doesn't mean that reducing that violence of the mentally ill wouldn't be beneficial to society. A three percent reduction wouldn't be sneezed at by criminal justice. But it means if government is ham-handed about it, it will simultaneously act against over 90% of people who present no risk.

I'm all for keeping guns out of dangerous peoples hand's. But I'm also for doing that in a way that respects all individuals. It surely can't be done targeting groups too broadly defined.

There is a preponderance of such general statements being thrown around. Mostly very similar to what you used "People with mental illness shouldn't have access to guns".

That suggests the people stating such things believe the risk of violence from all mental illnesses are equivalent. They aren't. Anyone who seriously claims such a thing is blowing smoke.

I think everyone knows that overly broad definitions will fail It would be a shame to have to wait until people are harmed so that challenges can be made all the way through the court system.

[treestar]

22. Adam Lanza had no previous history of violence

Most of the people who commit these suicidal shoot-outs don't.

There is no reason for the mentally ill to have guns. They can be as dangerous as criminals - that's why we have an entire defense of mental health issues - John Hinckley should never have a gun either - and he was deemed not criminally responsible.

Other people have the right not to be killed by people who are mentally ill - once you are dead, you don't care whether it was a criminal or a mentally ill person.

[HereSince1628]

25. You say generically "mental illness" do you mean many / any MI should disqualify a person?

Last edited Wed Dec 19, 2012, 03:16 PM - Edit history (2)

When policy about risks is made, I think most Americans expect it to be based on actuarial risks based on empirical evidence from samples from which general statements can be drawn

The ridiculous notion that we could or should make a law based on the suspicions, hunches, or prejudices towards possible contributing causes of a single incident is downright irresponsible.

The ridiculous notion that we should discriminate against a vast majority of people who, actuarially, represent very minimal risk of social violence is equally irresponsible.

And, I feel the same way about broad-brushing gun owners, drivers (some of whom are drunk), impoverished people (who as a class have very high crime rates), post office employees (an industry with a HIGH rate of violence) etc etc etc

[treestar]

30. Certainly anyone who has been institutionalized

or has attempted suicide - would be too dangerous to trust with guns.

[HereSince1628]

31. I'll take that as meaning NOT every person with mental illness,

and I think that's a good start.

BTW, some people who are institutionalized in mental clinics are also people who can't adequately care for themselves, not because they are intentionally suicidal or dangerous to others...I'm thinking about some eating disorders. Also some in-patients in such facilities are detoxing and undergoing supervision as part of treatment of substance abuse disorders and also may not be suicidal or a danger to others.

If we can see the need to narrow focus toward those truly identifiable as persons who, in their and society's best interest should not have weapons, we are on the right path.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

26. Please don't give them any more ideas.

There's no doubt that one or more police agencies with too many resources and too much time on their hands are already tracking mental-illness types. There's no doubt that someone would think of posting it.

[hobbit709]

4. That went away with the Patriot Act.

[reformist2]

7. Nobody is talking about people "giving up" their guns entirely. I hope.

[TheMoreYouKnow]

23. Many

People here are calling for just that.

[Lizzie Poppet]

32. That's simply not true.

There have been dozens and dozens of such calls on this board alone.

[Posteritatis]

36. Have you been reading a different DU or something? (nt)

[RegieRocker]

8. If you don't understand

you never will. You can't be helped.

[MrYikes]

12. the sale or purchase of a firearm shall be at a brick and mortar ffl.

any other sale or purchase shall be illegal and punishable.

[Lizzie Poppet]

33. Might not be a bad idea.

Private individuals can both go to a brick-and-mortar FFL and run the required background check in order to make the sale. this is already what has to happen with online sales: the recipient has to have the gun sent to a gun shop, where the background check is conducted (and any additional local requirements satisfied). The gun shop charges for this, but it's not an inordinate amount. This could act as another impediment to criminal purchase (and perhaps to arming the mentally ill, although to do that properly would require expansion of the mental healthcare data available to the NICS system). It could also act as a measure of security for buyer and seller by making the sale occur in a public place (with an armed staff).

[Patiod]

17. I don't have kids, and was horrified

to find out that school children all over America practice hiding from shooters. They have classroom drills about what to do if a shooter gets into their school.

That's not my idea of a free country.

[treestar]

19. Far worse than the civil defense drills we used to have

I remember as a kid being scared of nuclear attack - by the Russians/Soviets! We did drills for that in school. But this kind of drill is so much scarier, because it actually has happened.

[rugger1869]

20. I will gladly give up all of my guns...

Just as soon as everyone, to include the cops, do.

[TheMoreYouKnow]

24. Who is giving up going to school or movie theaters?

Both still seem to attract large crowds daily in my area.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

28. How ironic! But you probably don't recognize the irony.

That seems to be a common problem among authoritarians.

[Spike89]

29. It isn't an unlimited right to bear any arms

It doesn't actually say "for defense" and it certainly doesn't cover all arms. Fully automatic machine guns, grenades, rocket-launchers, these are all small arms and these are all banned and although there is a small amount of trade in illegal military-grade weapons in the US, there certainly isn't an epidemic--when was the last mass shooting involving a fully-automatic machine gun, a grenade, etc.?

No one seems to have a problem with rocket launchers being banned, but of course the same constitution that protects your .22 single-shot squirrel rifle should allow us to bear any arms, right? No, we've long ago decided that full machine guns and such are not covered. It is not unreasonable or any more anti-constitutional to examine whether the bar needs to be set to prohibit large (more than 10 rounds?) magazines, and other technologies that tip the scale from hunting and reasonable personal protection to mass murder and mayhem.

The fall-back argument that we need the weapons to oppose tyranny are especially silly--you aren't going to win against tanks, drones, F-15s, fully equipped and armored marines in a fighting vehicle, or a bomb you never see coming.

Gun control and regulation is not prohibited by the constitution. There is no slippery slope.