The biggest problem is that people think we have a Democracy here as our form of Government, not a Republic as the founders intended. Democracy's merely become a matter of "Mob Rule" or rule by those with the most money.

I'd like those who are so "anti-anti gun regulation" come up with some suggestions on how to curb the largest problems wer're faced with now and that's the ability for many who shouldn't have guns to legally acquire them.

Don't like what the "Anti's" propose which is typically along the lines of assault weapon bans, hi-cap mag bans, restricted carry laws, ammo limitation legislation, etc, then offer a different proposal.

The whole idea that any legislation is an "infringement" is a lame argument. There are SOME people that just shouldn't have guns. Fix that problem or it will become increasingly difficult for the responsible people to have, or to purchase the same as, what they have today.

Like an old boss told everyone "don't bring me problems, bring me solutions". The solution to getting the anti gun nuts off our case is to keep the dangerous nuts from getting guns.

I posted this yesterday (in this thread), and I'd still like feedback from WAGuns members on whether it's a step in the right direction or not:

This proposal relies on my understanding that a FFL can refuse to sell for any reason (or no reason at all). so if that's not the case, I need to understand what "obligation to sell" a FFL has.

This is a pure semantics thing. There is so much overlap between all definitions of "democracy" and "republic" that it's hardly worth discussing.



Only if you don't believe in natural rights and the freedom of man. If you do, it's a very powerful one.



The problem is that you have been convinced there is a problem.

On the day of the Colorado shooting, 12 people were fatally shot and died (as of the latest from Google, just at a glance). A terrible waste of human life, to be sure, make no mistake.

Just pulling some random stats here and using Microsoft Calculator, I can tell you that while 12 people died that day from the shooting, 1642 died from heart disease. 1555 died from cancer that day. 323 people died in auto accidents, and 102 committed suicide on the same day.

So why are we focused on guns? Even if you make this sort of consequentialist argument, it just doesn't make sense.




That's just downright absurd. You honestly think that people who are anti-gun will EVER get off our cases? As I showed above, they don't give a shit about human life, they just want a disarmed populace. If you want them off your case, you'll be like Neville Chamberlain making a deal with Hitler. Walked right over and have sand kicked in your face for your trouble.

Let's put it in perspective. We've had gun legislation since the 1930s, all designed to stop this thing from happening. We have FFLs, tax stams, the BATF, mandatory background checks, concealed carry laws, licensing, a laundry list of who can't have guns, and so on. None of this stopped Mr. Holms. Why do you think utopia is just around the corner? Do you really think just ONE MORE LAW will make everything alright?

My first reaction was, "Because we're the gun owners and we have the most to lose. If there's a problem, we should attempt to fix it ourselves before (or rather than) waiting until the Government 'fixes it for us' in ways we probably won't like."

But I may be missing the core of your argument - you seem to say that gun access for mentally ill citizens is NOT a problem, or it's a problem too small to be concerned with, so we should ignore it. Is that your position?

I'm not interested in trying to convert staunch anti-gunners, but I would like to keep the reasonable majority on our side. I don't want to see a day when the populace might decide to repeal the 2nd Amendment (the 21st Amendment shows it can be done).

My position is that doctors don't have to defend their profession from people who demand to know why there are so many cancer deaths. Drivers never have to explain to the people why there are so many accidents in order to keep the roads from being shut down.

Your position accepts the anti-gunner's premise, then tries to appease them on their own grounds. Battling from the defensive has NEVER worked for anything.

Yeah, I don't know if that's a good comparison to firearms. Both of those things are highly regulated and enforcement changes at the drop of a hat.....

My position is that keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill IS important enough to address, and we, as stakeholders and experts, need to be involved in developing a solution.

Where I differ with the anti-gunners is on the issue of whether government bureaucrats should, through regulation, be the ones to address the issue.

So let me ask bluntly - do you believe that guns in the hands of the mentally ill is a problem or is not a problem?

And firearms arn't?



I believe it is a problem that is, 1. Very, very, very far down on the list of problems, and 2. Solved enough as it is that any further "solving" becomes a bigger problem than the problem itself.

Got it. Thanks for clarifying.

I hold a very similar position. If "we" aren't involved in developing solutions then we will be forced to take whatever is imposed upon us. To take a position of "any regulation is too much" is just ignoring an important fact. There ARE regulations that aren't going away. Not only that, there will be MORE, like it or not.

There are certainly enough intelligent people in the "gun community" to devise the means to keep firearms out of the hands of those who aren't mentally stable enough. The laws today provide partly for that situation but lack in how those who haven't been through the court system are identified to entities like NICS.

If gun owners don't start thinking in terms of how can we help the process. Again, to just cross your arms and say "no effing way" will just bring on the inevitable, more laws that aren't focused on the real problem(s), but designed to disarm.

Rather than just being bitching spectators, it's time to get to the head of the parade and demand some legislation of our own.

Question for DocNugent

In the world of counselors and "head doctors", aren't there circumstances where patients who present a threat to society need to be reported??? Or is the "privilege" so strong that even someone who reveals a threat to shoot up a crowd protected?

Most of the laws that address this issue are state laws and can therefore vary from state to state. Additionally, I haven't practiced since 1986, and my own understanding may therefore be out of date. Given that, here's a source that's pretty comprehensive and sounds right to me:
> http://www.4therapy.com/professional/research-center/law-ethics/duty-protect/duty-protect-2185

Applying that information, if the client makes a verbal threat to his/her therapist regarding a specific crowd (folks in a particular protest march, for instance, versus some imagined crowd that's not identifiable), and if the threat is believable in the opinion of the therapist, there is a duty for the therapist to warn the intended victim(s) and the police.

Now the question, how many actually do report when they hear threats?

And,

If reported, do the "officials" have any means to prevent these individuals from obtaining firearms? As I understand it, not until they are "adjudicated". No delays are placed in their way at all until they end up being deemed "nuts" by the Court.

Seems like there's some room for improvement there.

There will be more legislation, don't you worry. The issue is whether or not you want to give your consent to injustice or not. The answer IS "no effing way" because frankly, we've had almost a century of gun laws that were supposed to stop Mr. Holmes and failed. How much more do you think will do the trick, short of total disarmament?

Basically, gentlemen, this is how people are convinced to give away their freedom... bit by bit, piece by piece, in hopes of being perceived as "reasonable" by people who don't give a goddamn about them or their beliefs in the first place. I think we live in a world where there ARE lines in the sand that you need to draw, and if that makes you uncomfortable I am truly sorry.

But you need to do it, otherwise you will end up like the gun community across the pond, stammering and pleading and justifying why you need to have a single-shot .410 shotgun and how you're willing to fill out all the proper paperwork of course because you're reasonable and no way will you support handguns being legal in your country because you're not a gun nut... but please pretty please don't take away my .410. Frankly, I hope to never find myself in such a country, but you guys arn't filling me with confidence.

The reason the current law(s) haven't worked is simple. It only deals with the mentally ill AFTER they've become a problem in society. There currently is NO way to get these individuals on any kind of registry that would at least call attention to their attempt to purchase a firearm, much less delay/deny their access. Even after they've clearly demonstrated dangerous behavior and have come to the attention of the authorities in the past. Not even when family members beg and plead to to the authorities to step in.

Of course there are those that want to protect these individuals from any loss of their "liberty" too. They also say "no effing way" when it comes to any legislation that would go a long way in preventing the mentally ill from obtaining firearms.

Stick with your "bumper slogan" logic and see what happens. You'll probably have to put up with the results a lot longer than I, assuming you haven't reached the 7 decade mark yet.

I've never seen a study that would answer your question - doesn't mean one hasn't been done, though.

My understanding of the police response to a reported threat (if they consider it reaslistic) is to contact the person who made the threat, let them know they're #1 on the suspect list if anything happens to the specific group, and make a record of the contact (that could be used in a trial later). Except for the "warning" there is no action. I don't know if those reports end up in a NICS file, but that would be the only way an FFL would learn of anything going on. Is that what you've suggesting - that police add therapist reported threats to the NICS info?