View Full Version : Newtown, Conn.
Andrew Longman
12-19-12, 07:48 PM
Did they start doing that after Columbine?I don't remember exactly. I was school board President for about ten years ending about 5 years ago. We would get mandates from the state and feds for everything from how often we had to do drills to the amount of floodlights we had to have on all night 365 days a year (BTW the energy cost of extra lighting was nearly as much as a full time teacher).
Much of mandates might make sense in Newark, given the risk, but are braindead for Frenchtown, but we get washed in the same brush.
Anyway, Columbine was a starter for lots of this but so was 9/11 and anytime someone got a bright idea (or an idea how to mandate the sale of a bunch of stuff to schools)
cameraman
12-19-12, 07:59 PM
24 drills a year sounds a bit excessive to me, our schools do fire drills several times a year, maybe once every six weeks.
We never did any such drills when I was in elementary or high school. The occasional fire drill, yes. Lockdown? Nope. I can still recall to this day in April 1974 when the tornado outbreak happened and wiped out Xenia, OH. I spent hours sitting in the hallway that day with my head b/w my knees. Every so often I would glance over @ the glass doors @ the end of the hallway watching it pour. That's as close to anything like Sandy Hook I can imagine. I can only wonder what it was like during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
I sent a note to the girls' teachers, principle and guidance counselor thanking them for what they do on a daily basis.
http://linapps.s3.amazonaws.com/linapps/photomojo/wtnh.com/photos/2012/12/g5492-signs-of-support-in-newtown/110768-hug-a-teacher-today-778a4.jpg
-KevinI was born in '72 and we did drills. I think it was for when the Soviet Union nuked us and we had to duck under our desks. I'm not sure what good that would have done, but that was the drill.
TKGAngel
12-19-12, 08:18 PM
Parents should know that our students and staff have been practicing a variety of fire and security drills with a minimum of 24 drills conducted and evaluated each year.
That seems a bit excessive. My high school fire drills (graduated in 99) were held in spring and fall only. What's also funny is that my high school used answering the locked school door as a work-study job. I have a feeling that probably isn't an option any more.
Racing Truth
12-19-12, 09:04 PM
And we would thus traumatize our children and leave them to live in fear rather than simply protect them with reasonable laws. :shakehead
The "sub-culture" that is rural and gun-loving contains many who already have chips on their shoulders for just about any issue you can think of. So we have to accomodate those attitudes rather than do what it takes to have a better country? If some must be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st Century (or 20th, or 19th), then so be it. Culture change is difficult, but appeasement of dysfunction is not the answer.
Well, if your description of said sub-culture is right (I think we're being far too harsh in some ways), then you answered your own question. Cultural imposition onto groups with "chips on their shoulders," and who think weak, shallow urbanites heap scorn on them (despite, they'd note, having done nothing to them personally) is not likely to be pleasant.
WickerBill
12-19-12, 10:46 PM
"Cold war kids are hard to kill
Under their desks in an air-raid drill"
A couple of 'good' thngs in the wake of this tragedy.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/jeter-special-call-mom-slain-newtown-teacher-article-1.1224130
The mother of slain teacher Victoria Soto received a surprise phone call Wednesday from one of her courageous daughter’s heroes: Yankee Derek Jeter.
The Bronx Bombers captian rang Donna Soto the same day she laid her 27-year-old daughter to rest. The Sandy Hook Elementary School teacher was killed Friday as she shielded her first-grade students from deranged gunman Adam Lanza.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/sports/football/giants-victor-cruz-visits-family-of-boy-killed-in-newtown.html?_r=0
EAST RUTHERFORD, N.J. — As Victor Cruz made the drive to Newtown, Conn., he had no idea what to expect.
Victor Cruz, who had three catches for 15 yards in a 34-0 loss to Atlanta, turned his focus Wednesday to Baltimore.
Cruz had promised to visit the family of Jack Pinto, a 6-year-old who was one of the victims of Friday’s shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School that left 20 children and 6 adult staff members dead.
“I was a little nervous,” said Cruz, who was joined Tuesday by his girlfriend, Elaina, and their 11-month-old daughter, Kennedy. “I just didn’t know how I was going to be received. I didn’t want to go in there and make a speech or anything. I just wanted to go there and just spend some time with them.
-Kevin
Well, if your description of said sub-culture is right (I think we're being far too harsh in some ways), then you answered your own question. Cultural imposition onto groups with "chips on their shoulders," and who think weak, shallow urbanites heap scorn on them (despite, they'd note, having done nothing to them personally) is not likely to be pleasant.
I think what is too harsh is the generalizing of said sub-culture into geographic areas. Yeah, Alabama is a lot worse than New York in this regard, but I know some New York rednecks. I live in Indiana, and even though we are a Northern state, we are largely rednecks in the North and Central part and hillbillies in the South. Yet I live here, and my best friends are all the opposite of that, or they are working people who defy the stereotypes.
In short all of these cultural threads are woven through our society. But our society CAN change. We CAN become more educated. We CAN enact reasonable laws to protect our children. And those who disagree will get over it, as all of us do on some issues all the time.
stroker
12-20-12, 12:34 PM
And those who disagree will get over it, as all of us do on some issues all the time.
You'd be completely wrong on that. Ask a Pro-Lifer.
I think what is too harsh is the generalizing of said sub-culture into geographic areas.
I agree about the false geographic divide. There was a report on the radio this morning about a gun store in the San Francisco Bay Area selling out of certain rifles. The owner stocked up this fall figuring he would have a year's worth of inventory. Now he's worried about not having enough to last the next few months.
IMO, the "sub-culture" label is not accurate since gun ownership is so widespread. It isn't a separate group putting everyone in danger, it is our behaviour and what we consider acceptable. The racing world used to accept driver deaths as a part of the sport. But lately, they are no longer tolerated.
Scum of the Earth.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/20/newtown-charity-scams_n_2333413.html
NEWTOWN, Conn. -- The family of Noah Pozner was mourning the 6-year-old, killed in the Newtown school massacre, when outrage compounded their sorrow.
Someone they didn't know was soliciting donations in Noah's memory, claiming that they'd send any cards, packages and money collected to his parents and siblings. An official-looking website had been set up, with Noah's name as the address, even including petitions on gun control.
Noah's uncle, Alexis Haller, called on law enforcement authorities to seek out "these despicable people."
"These scammers," he said, "are stealing from the families of victims of this horrible tragedy."
:mad: :flame:
-Kevin
Insomniac
12-22-12, 01:19 AM
Well, I was surprised by the NRA statement. Shouldn't have been, but was.
http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/newtown-sandy-hook-school-shooting/hc-full-text-nra-statement-from-dec-21-press-conference-20121221,0,3795861.story
I guess guns will never be any part of the problem.
Maybe the solution is to tax the hell out of ammunition to pay for security in every public place in America. (Or we can solve the unemployment problem and tax it so high that we can get training for everyone to hire as bodyguards/security to protect all of us.)
At least after the bad guy with a gun shoots/kills at least one person, the good guy with a gun will kill the bad guy. Just hope you're not the innocent person who had to get shot first.
datachicane
12-22-12, 01:23 AM
Well, I was surprised by the NRA statement. Shouldn't have been, but was.
http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/newtown-sandy-hook-school-shooting/hc-full-text-nra-statement-from-dec-21-press-conference-20121221,0,3795861.story
I guess guns will never be any part of the problem.
Not so fast- I think he's on to something.
If it costs appx. $250k/yr to employ a police officer, x 130,000 schools, that's a $32.5B price tag. 11 million guns sold per year in this country- a $2,954 tax assessed on each one would pay for those officers. Sounds like a win-win.
Credit where it's due- someone else did the legwork on this.
cameraman
12-22-12, 04:48 PM
Not so fast- I think he's on to something.
If it costs appx. $250k/yr to employ a police officer
I think every cop in Utah would be interested in finding that location where their salary and benefits runs $250K/year as it is much closer to $100K for an experienced cop in Salt Lake...
datachicane
12-22-12, 05:50 PM
I think every cop in Utah would be interested in finding that location where their salary and benefits runs $250K/year as it is much closer to $100K for an experienced cop in Salt Lake...
Salary and bennies only represent a fraction of the total cost to the employer, but, in any case, even @ $100k a $1200 tax assessment would likely have a similar impact.
I wonder if LaPierre knows who Neil Gardner was? Not that it would make a difference to the organization's position...
Tifosi24
12-23-12, 12:41 AM
Salary and bennies only represent a fraction of the total cost to the employer, but, in any case, even @ $100k a $1200 tax assessment would likely have a similar impact.
I wonder if LaPierre knows who Neil Gardner was? Not that it would make a difference to the organization's position...
I figured it out in my head, and for the school district we live it, the NRA's plan, assuming 100k a year in total benefits, would cost roughly $2.5-$3.0 million a year. Granted, that assumes only one officer per high school, which I don't think would be sufficient since the four high schools are huge in size, but I digress. The cost per officer is pretty close to a good estimate for average total compensation for a teacher. If you give me the choice of my district hiring 25 new teachers, or 25 police officers to respond to a very unlikely scenario, I would vote for the teachers. Although, if we are going to put one person in each school in America to counter this problem, it would be a better use of resources to hire a school psycologist.
I wonder if LaPierre knows who Neil Gardner was? Not that it would make a difference to the organization's position...
He's likely aware of all the standard talking points and the appropriate response. Columbine's armed security was certainly no less effective than Connecticut's assault rifle ban. I'm sure he has his own bogus math on the costs as well.
Conventional wisdom on how to handle active shooters has changed since Columbine. Gardner fired a few shots when he encountered the shooters outside but then simply called for backup and waited for SWAT to arrive. The shooters were dead for an hour before SWAT even entered the building.
It's now accepted that active shooter situations call for immediate, aggressive action by the first officer on the scene.
Insomniac
12-23-12, 01:35 AM
I'm sure he has his own bogus math on the costs as well.
When did Math become bogus? :D
You'd be completely wrong on that. Ask a Pro-Lifer.
Old dogs, new tricks. The old dogs are dying off, as they always do. The future America will not reflect their prejudices.
cameraman
12-23-12, 07:55 PM
Old dogs, new tricks. The old dogs are dying off, as they always do. The future America will not reflect their prejudices.
I don't know where you live but there no shortage of extremely conservative 20-somethings in this nation.
I don't know where you live but there no shortage of extremely conservative 20-somethings in this nation.
My name sort of gives away my location.
They are increasingly outnumbered, especially among the youth. Even here.
And you need to get out of Utah once in a while. :gomer: :laugh:
cameraman
12-24-12, 12:00 AM
And you need to get out of Utah once in a while. :gomer: :laugh:
I do, western CO, Oklahoma and Missouri just lately and and they were far worse than Utah:eek:
A rather spooky mashup of oddly rock & roll, ultra inerrant fundamentalist, rabid republican, xenophobic, gun nut, college educated 20-somethings. It was a seriously wtf experience.
I do, western CO, Oklahoma and Missouri just lately and and they were far worse than Utah:eek:
A rather spooky mashup of oddly rock & roll, ultra inerrant fundamentalist, rabid republican, xenophobic, gun nut, college educated 20-somethings. It was a seriously wtf experience.
Well, those places are not really known for book-learnin', are they?
What are you, a mobile home salesman?
cameraman
12-24-12, 01:35 AM
Nope, I was going to several state universities to look at some research work. These were some of the undergraduates I met on my travels...
Insomniac
12-24-12, 02:21 AM
Old dogs, new tricks. The old dogs are dying off, as they always do. The future America will not reflect their prejudices.
That may be the case for some issues, but it doesn't seem to be that way for the majority of them. These issues shift when one of the parties shift. The leaders of the parties can bring unity to a lot of split issues if they can agree, or find a middle ground. Sadly, they don't agree and want winner take all most of the time.
Tifosi24
12-24-12, 07:50 AM
Nope, I was going to several state universities to look at some research work. These were some of the undergraduates I met on my travels...
After going to a non-research state school, I can definitely confirm your observations. Generally speaking, those individuals were confined to the business school and the engineering/engineering tech school, which happened to be where I spent most of my time. Your experiences down South were probably a bit more extreme than what I saw in Minnesota, but times have changed since I left undergrad (in old man voice). Maybe you should be looking further north?
another factor to look at is supreme court vs. demo shifts.
the current & late stages of the preceding court laid much of the groundwork for the present environment in which the NRA has blossomed w/ castle doctrine & carry laws.
demos are shifting, and power balance along with it, as evidenced by the election and the shock of the unsuccessful party afterwards (lulz, old people :D). But that's a different issue altogether when certain legislative measures will be knocked down from the get go, judicially.
Tiptoing around the politics, but here goes.
Fail. I've been patient but you're not tiptoing around anything when you start talking "Ds" and "Rs". I've also about reached my tolerance for your "people who disagree are stupid" comments.
Which leads me back to my original thought. Things change, and the current direction of change is against unlimited gun ownership.
Support for "unlimited gun ownership" has never been significant. That's a red herring that is about as prevalent as support for a complete ban on guns. Support for stricter gun laws had fallen to it's lowest point in 20 years. This tragedy may cause an uptick, but I doubt it will last - especially as people ultimately react against laws that may be passed in the heat of the moment.
Wayne LaPierre must be saying his prayers every night, because another incident like Newtown would surely destroy most of the remaining support for his gun manufacturers' lobby and his million dollar salary.
40% of Americans have a gun in their household. Support for gun rights isn't simply a product of gun manufacturers.
datachicane
12-24-12, 06:33 PM
Gotta say, kudos to all here for keeping this potentially divisive and passion-inspiring issue on the rails for six pages.
Insomniac
12-25-12, 01:44 AM
Support for "unlimited gun ownership" has never been significant. That's a red herring that is about as prevalent as support for a complete ban on guns. Support for stricter gun laws had fallen to it's lowest point in 20 years. This tragedy may cause an uptick, but I doubt it will last - especially as people ultimately react against laws that may be passed in the heat of the moment.
40% of Americans have a gun in their household. Support for gun rights isn't simply a product of gun manufacturers.
There is certainly support for both positions, just not nearly as vocal. The whole spectrum is covered. The climate until now was total fear of any gun law changes. They allowed the assault weapons ban to sunset (even that wasn't established as permanent and requiring a change in law to remove).
From my perspective, it has been the position of the NRA that there be no additional gun regulation, reduction in current regulation and expanded rights to the castle doctrine and concealed carrying. That is in the direction of unlimited/no regulation.
There are others who see other countries with very tough regulation, the accompanying reduction in gun deaths and want to enact more regulation here. That is in the direction of no guns. Following publicized gun tragedies, you hear more of these people. The rest of the time, the government is conspiring to take guns away.
"Gun rights" is too vague a term. The NRA has convinced people that any regulation is taking away rights and a slippery slope to no guns. (That is their job and they do it damn well.)
There are others who see other countries with very tough regulation, the accompanying reduction in gun deaths
Could you expand on this please?
What countries enacted tough new regulation, and had a statistically significant reduction in gun deaths that can be directly shown as a causal link to the laws?
cameraman
12-25-12, 02:05 AM
He didn't say new regulations, he said countries with very tough regulations and a vastly lower rate of gun violence. Examples being every single country in Europe.
He didn't say new regulations, he said countries with very tough regulations and a vastly lower rate of gun violence. Examples being every single country in Europe.
OK, I read "reduction" as an action following "regulation". My mistake.
Some EU countries have fairly widespread gun ownership, without the violence. It would appear to be valuable to understand why.
Andrew Longman
12-25-12, 11:33 AM
This is old but a classic study comparing Seattle and Vancouver - two cities very similar in almost every socioeconomic way but with very different gun laws and very different outcomes in terms of gun deaths. http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1994-10-26/news/1994299044_1_vancouver-gun-violence-gun-laws
The article also points out how tough gun laws in DC reduced gun deaths by about 47 a year while surrounding areas saw no such drop. It did not however reduce violence generally, just deaths.
Insomniac
12-25-12, 12:18 PM
Could you expand on this please?
What countries enacted tough new regulation, and had a statistically significant reduction in gun deaths that can be directly shown as a causal link to the laws?
Cameraman is right. I didn't mean it that way. The UK is kind of new with regulation (1990s?), but I don't know about finding data that far back.
In a country of this size, with the number of guns that we have, no new regulation will show meaningful change immediately. It's not practical to say enact an assault weapons ban and expect them to go away. It could be enacted, and there certainly will be a mass murder using one following it. I think it would be false to say that the ban isn't working because we aren't a nation where the police will be going door to door and searching every home to confiscate assault weapons. Some people would voluntarily turn theirs in, others (including nearly 100% of criminals) would not. Now you're waiting for criminals to commit a crime (not necessarily with the weapon) so that the assault weapon could be confiscated. The cats out of the bag, but that shouldn't be an excuse to do nothing if that is best (or better).
I think the first problem with enacting another ban, which I do expect to happen and have absolutely no effect, is to define 'what is an assault weapon'. G pointed out up thread that the prior law was simply going after cosmetic features.
Has there been enough info to determine if the rifle used in Newtown would have been covered by the previous law? I've read both yes and no.
FYI, I have no guns nor am I a member of any gun organization. I do think the constitution is pretty clear and would not want my right to acquire a weapon interfered with should I chose to get one.
cameraman
12-25-12, 02:19 PM
Has there been enough info to determine if the rifle used in Newtown would have been covered by the previous law? I've read both yes and no.
The Bushmaster didn't exist when the law was written so it was not specifically listed in the law. (Damned space–time continuum) If it had existed it would have included as there really isn't a whole lot of difference between a Colt AR-15, which was named in the law, and the Bushmaster XM-15.
The 30 round magazines he used were banned. The limit in the 1994 law was 10 rounds.
I am pretty sure the Bushmaster was designed to get around the law.
The Bushmaster didn't exist when the law was written so it was not specifically listed in the law. (Damned space–time continuum) If it had existed it would have included as there really isn't a whole lot of difference between a Colt AR-15, which was named in the law, and the Bushmaster XM-15.
The 30 round magazines he used were banned. The limit in the 1994 law was 10 rounds.
Assault weapons weren't only banned by name in the law, they were also banned according to a set of criteria. And large capacity magazines were only illegal if they were manufactured after the date of the ban.
Insomniac
12-26-12, 12:27 AM
Assault weapons weren't only banned by name in the law, they were also banned according to a set of criteria. And large capacity magazines were only illegal if they were manufactured after the date of the ban.
Probably need some type of panel to assess new guns against the intention (as the panel sees it) of any law. I don't know that is the type of thing you want to find loopholes to exploit or have to keep amending the law. We're all familiar with racing, so we know how pointless that is for the rules writers. I also would not like the idea of arresting people "caught" with banned items. Just confiscate them if the opportunity arises. Don't harass law abiding citizens and/or crowd prisons further.
Bushmaster has been making AR-style rifles for quite a few decades, I believe.
Assault weapons weren't only banned by name in the law, they were also banned according to a set of criteria. And large capacity magazines were only illegal if they were manufactured after the date of the ban.
Probably need some type of panel to assess new guns against the intention (as the panel sees it) of any law. I don't know that is the type of thing you want to find loopholes to exploit or have to keep amending the law.
I don't know if I would use the term "loopholes", but then, I don't want to get into a discussion of word definitions (my record hasn't been very good on that lately :laugh: ).
The Fed law, which I assume that CT law was based upon, banned certain combos of features. It was pretty non-sensical, but it WAS spelled out very clearly. If you have a detachable magazine and at least 2 of these other specific add-ons, it was considered an "assault weapon". If it did NOT have more than the mag plus one other feature, it was absolutely legal.
The NYT has a good picture thing, for those of us that don't word so good.
I still don't get why a bayonet lug makes it dangerous... (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/12/17/nyregion/connecticuts-rules-for-purchasing-this-gun.html?scp=1&sq=ar-15&st=cse)
Just cosmetics.
In the meantime, our Fire Marshall friend faces this stupidity:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/25/us/new-york-firefighter-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_c1
:mad: :flame:
-Kevin
Meanwhile, the newspaper I grew up reading - and that serves both of my parents put together a Freedom of Information Act request for all handgun permits in three counties.
Two have produced the lists (coincidentally, my mom lives in one of these counties, and my dad in the other) and the newspaper put them online, in map form.
Does your neighbor have a handgun?
http://www.lohud.com/interactive/article/20121223/NEWS01/121221011/Map-Where-gun-permits-your-neighborhood-
Insomniac
12-26-12, 01:16 PM
Bushmaster has been making AR-style rifles for quite a few decades, I believe.
I don't know if I would use the term "loopholes", but then, I don't want to get into a discussion of word definitions (my record hasn't been very good on that lately :laugh: ).
The Fed law, which I assume that CT law was based upon, banned certain combos of features. It was pretty non-sensical, but it WAS spelled out very clearly. If you have a detachable magazine and at least 2 of these other specific add-ons, it was considered an "assault weapon". If it did NOT have more than the mag plus one other feature, it was absolutely legal.
The NYT has a good picture thing, for those of us that don't word so good.
I still don't get why a bayonet lug makes it dangerous... (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/12/17/nyregion/connecticuts-rules-for-purchasing-this-gun.html?scp=1&sq=ar-15&st=cse)
Just cosmetics.
OK, taking a page out of computer security, white lists. :D
Meanwhile, the newspaper I grew up reading - and that serves both of my parents put together a Freedom of Information Act request for all handgun permits in three counties.
I'm not sure what they'd hoped to accomplish with this but they've just handed the NRA another argument against gun registration. People who dare to exercise their rights shouldn't be listed in the paper like sex offenders. They've just put a target on the backs of innocent citizens.
Instead of harassing law abiding citizens maybe they should start publishing the addresses of every paroled murderer in the area.
cameraman
12-26-12, 03:33 PM
And then you have Utah...
Concealed-weapons instructors are offering free permit courses and mass violence response training to public school teachers, an effort to arm more teachers in the aftermath of the Connecticut school shooting.
Every time there is a shooting somewhere Utah buys more guns
Instructors with the Utah Shooting Sports Council (USSC)will offer Utah’s concealed weapons course to school employees noon Thursday at the Maverik Center in West Valley City. And David Burnell, CEO of OPSGEAR, will instruct teachers on how to respond to an attack and tactics to disrupt an attacker and save lives. Clark Aposhian, chairman of the Utah Shooting Sports Council, said he expects the class to reach its limit of 200 people and more will be turned away.
Take that class and write the state a $46 check and you will have your very own Utah concealed weapons permit.
And the NRA is a bunch of wimps compared to the Utah Shooting Sports Council, our very own 24/7 open-carry lifestyle proponents.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/55524114-78/shooting-utah-teachers-weapons.html.csp
Anytime anyone mentions gun control, I just look around this place and shake my head. I don't like Utah's gun culture at all but they don't give a damn what you or I think.
Anytime anyone mentions gun control, I just look around this place and shake my head. I don't like Utah's gun culture at all but they don't give a damn what you or I think.
How do the stats for murder and violent crime compare to the rest of the country?
Tifosi24
12-26-12, 03:57 PM
How do the stats for murder and violent crime compare to the rest of the country?
Like most statistics and analysis, and I use those terms loosely, thrown about these days, the numbers don't mean anything without controlling for all other conceivable societal and cultural impacts. Gun laws might be why the stats are what they are, or it might be some completely different reason or simply the general makeup of the population.
Anytime anyone mentions gun control, I just look around this place and shake my head. I don't like Utah's gun culture at all but they don't give a damn what you or I think.
That sounds like Anoka County Minnesota on steroids. An inside joke for Minnesotans, but they will understand it.
cameraman
12-26-12, 04:18 PM
How do the stats for murder and violent crime compare to the rest of the country?
They are lower than most. The murder rate is 1.9/100,000 and has been very near that for a couple of decades. The majority of murders in Utah are boyfriend/girlfriend, spouse/spouse murder-suicides followed closely by killing your meth supplier followed by gang on gang shootings. The gang idiots are horrendous shots and expend quite a bit of ammunition but rarely manage to hit anyone:rolleyes:. Utah's gang problems are minor by anyone's standards.
Armed robberies are rare although some presumed meth-head robbed three 7-11s in 45 minutes a couple days ago. That is very rare around here.
The national murder rate is 4.7/100,000. States lower than Utah in 2011 were:
IA @ 1.5
MN @ 1.4
RI @ 1.3
VT @ 1.3
NH @ 1.3
HI @ 1.2
North Dakota historically has been lower than Utah but all the fracking worker influx has more than doubled their rate for 2011.
That sounds like Anoka County Minnesota on steroids. An inside joke for Minnesotans, but they will understand it.
Y'all just arm yourselves against them pesky Badger fans. ;)
-Kevin
The NRA boasts that they have 4.3 million members. The 2012 Presidential Election had about 129 million votes cast.
Do the math. Assuming that every NRA member votes, the NRA represents a little over 3% of the electorate, even though it is estimated that between 40 and 50% of US Households own guns.
The NRA does not respresent gun owners. The NRA represents gun manufacturers. And the public is starting to realize that.
datachicane
12-26-12, 10:16 PM
FYI, I have no guns nor am I a member of any gun organization. I do think the constitution is pretty clear and would not want my right to acquire a weapon interfered with should I chose to get one.
Despite a successful effort by the NRA to promote that particular interpretation of the 2nd amendment amongst the public, that is not at all consistent with how the courts have viewed it. There's those pesky first thirteen words of the amendment to get around, as well as the fact that the authors were in the midst of dealing with the likes of Shay's rebellion- they were clearly not talking about arming the citizenry as a bulwark against their own government.
Despite a successful effort by the NRA to promote that particular interpretation of the 2nd amendment amongst the public, that is not at all consistent with how the courts have viewed it. There's those pesky first thirteen words of the amendment to get around, as well as the fact that the authors were in the midst of dealing with the likes of Shay's rebellion- they were clearly not talking about arming the citizenry as a bulwark against their own government.
Your info requires an update to load properly.
;)
cameraman
12-27-12, 01:40 AM
the authors were in the midst of dealing with the likes of Shay's rebellion- they were clearly not talking about arming the citizenry as a bulwark against their own government.
This is one of the things that really bugs me about the gun rights crowd in Utah. They are always going on about how they need their guns in case they have to defend themselves against the federal government. Excuse me but W.T.F? Their penchant for talking about overthrowing the federal government is the best reason I've heard for extraordinarily strict gun control. What is really nuts is they consider themselves to be extremely patriotic at the same time. You would think that that level cognitive dissonance would be painful.
Andrew Longman
12-27-12, 03:18 AM
Excuse me but W.T.F? Their penchant for talking about overthrowing the federal government is the best reason I've heard for extraordinarily strict gun control. What is really nuts is they consider themselves to be extremely patriotic at the same time. You would think that that level cognitive dissonance would be painful.Thank you
And the line of thinking you describe leads directly to the thinking of the Branch Davidians, Tim McVeih, and others. The triggering event for them in fact is reported to be the assault weapons ban.
WickerBill
12-27-12, 10:29 AM
cameraman, we are taught from very early ages that our forefathers were rebels, fighters against tyranny, over-taxation, and for freedom. While it's just rumbling and barbershop-talk, people feel our government has infringed on our rights and income in much the same way King George's England did 200+ years ago. I see no dissonance in their patriotism (pro-country ideals, NOT pro-government).
This argument all boils down to one person trusting the government above all, the other person trusting the populace and completely distrusting government, and neither one being able to see the other's viewpoint. It's interesting to read your words: "...talking about overthrowing the federal government is the best reason I've heard for extraordinarily strict gun control." Do you hate the idea of revolution (civil war, fighting, etc) or do you love our government? I'm merely asking. I'm a very comfortable man and I wish for peace for my children, so currently my absolute disdain for our system doesn't outweigh my desire to continue down this broken path.
Our political system has devolved in the last fifty years to the point where you almost must be shifty, loud, partisan, and completely beholden to special interests to get elected. Unfortunately, the very people we elect (those shifty types) are the only ones who can change it, and why would they? Unless, of course, there is an overthrow or a revolution.
There are still many, many wonderful and amazing things about this country. I love reading about people from elsewhere marveling at our peaceful transfer of power every time a president leaves office. There are few places on earth who have it any better than we do politically. Perhaps looking back at what I perceive to be true statesmen of fairly recent times -- JFK, Eisenhower, Roosevelt, La Follette, Vandenburg, among many more -- I'm tempted (like others, perhaps, in your area of Utah), to remark "I remember when the frying pan wasn't so hot" -- but that doesn't mean I'm near ready to jump out of the pan and into the fire.
I totally disagree with the above. The Confederates, for example, most certainly committed treason against the United States of America. The imaginary separation between government and country arises because of the "us vs. them" fallacy, which allows us to imagine that the government is some sort of imposition on us rather than an extension of us. So long as the United States Constitution is in place, we the people ARE the government. Any attempt to overthrow the U.S. government is an attempt to impose tyranny.
Despite a successful effort by the NRA to promote that particular interpretation of the 2nd amendment amongst the public, that is not at all consistent with how the courts have viewed it. There's those pesky first thirteen words of the amendment to get around, as well as the fact that the authors were in the midst of dealing with the likes of Shay's rebellion- they were clearly not talking about arming the citizenry as a bulwark against their own government.
No idea how you got that out of my statement. The courts have long supported ' the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'. With some restrictions, we have the right to purchase weapons. The law seems pretty settled on this.
I totally disagree with the above. The Confederates, for example, most certainly committed treason against the United States of America. The imaginary separation between government and country arises because of the "us vs. them" fallacy, which allows us to imagine that the government is some sort of imposition on us rather than an extension of us. So long as the United States Constitution is in place, we the people ARE the government. Any attempt to overthrow the U.S. government is an attempt to impose tyranny.
All of it, or just parts of it? :gomer::\
(I'm just being a dik.)
The Confederates considered the Feds to be committing treason against the States. They actually had a somewhat-valid point, but luckily, that tyrant Lincoln won, and our country is much stronger as a unified assembly.
Your last sentence doesn't make sense.
The NRA boasts that they have 4.3 million members. The 2012 Presidential Election had about 129 million votes cast.
Do the math. Assuming that every NRA member votes, the NRA represents a little over 3% of the electorate, even though it is estimated that between 40 and 50% of US Households own guns.
The NRA does not respresent gun owners. The NRA represents gun manufacturers. And the public is starting to realize that.
Not sure how you make the logical leap from the fact that their membership comprises 3% of the electorate to them actually representing gun manufacturers.
Polls suggest that the number of people who believe that gun laws should be less strict are around 10%. Certainly the NRA represents those people whether they're members or not. Given that roughly another 40 percent of the population believes that gun laws are already adequate, the NRA represents them insofar as they resist any further restrictions.
You'll profit nothing from dismissing the NRA as a gun manufacturer lobby. Their support among the population will only increase as more gun restrictions are proposed.
Despite a successful effort by the NRA to promote that particular interpretation of the 2nd amendment amongst the public, that is not at all consistent with how the courts have viewed it. There's those pesky first thirteen words of the amendment to get around, as well as the fact that the authors were in the midst of dealing with the likes of Shay's rebellion- they were clearly not talking about arming the citizenry as a bulwark against their own government.
This is simply untrue. Courts have generally held that the second Amendment enumerates an individual right. So much so that the question was never truly decided by the Supreme Court until District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008. That ruling stated clearly that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia.
Andrew Longman
12-27-12, 03:25 PM
Courts have generally held that the second Amendment enumerates an individual right.Actually it has been decidedly murky. You can't own an RPG or a bazooka but you can own a 50 cal machine gun with a special permit. You can own an extended clip and unlimited ammo without any restriction but you can be required to have a background check to buy a handgun or semi automatic AR15 so long as the record of that check is destroyed within 24 hours.
If the purpose of all this is to have a well armed militia to defend (or some say attack) the government it certainly doesn't make consistent sense.
And WB our political system is hardly perfect but that is its history. For most of our history most of our of age citizens couldn't even vote because of their sex or race. Rockefeller, Morgan and Carnegie bought the White House for McKinley in a way that would embarrass the Koch Bros. And if you were black or a striking worker it was OK to kill you. In fact the government might even do it.
But IMO the power of the vote is and always should be the most powerful weapon of the people.
Actually it has been decidedly murky. You can't own an RPG or a bazooka but you can own a 50 cal machine gun with a special permit. You can own an extended clip and unlimited ammo without any restriction but you can be required to have a background check to buy a handgun or semi automatic AR15 so long as the record of that check is destroyed within 24 hours.
If the purpose of all this is to have a well armed militia to defend (or some say attack) the government it certainly doesn't make consistent sense.
All of that is dealt with in the ruling. In the Constitution and Bill of Rights prefatory clauses may announce a purpose but they do not limit the scope of the operative clause. Restrictions on types of weapons have been permitted under the same logic as restrictions on free speech. Libel, slander, obscenity - none of these are considered protected speech.
Gun opponents should be careful what they wish for. If they should ever get their wish and have the second amendment interpreted to mean only for the purpose of militia then the States could rightly assert their authority to determine how they want to regulate their militia. Any state could define their "militia" to be all citizens of the state and eliminate any ability of the Federal government to regulate their right to arm themselves.
Racing Truth
12-27-12, 04:14 PM
Despite a successful effort by the NRA to promote that particular interpretation of the 2nd amendment amongst the public, that is not at all consistent with how the courts have viewed it. There's those pesky first thirteen words of the amendment to get around, as well as the fact that the authors were in the midst of dealing with the likes of Shay's rebellion- they were clearly not talking about arming the citizenry as a bulwark against their own government.
See, we've entered a topic in which (and I'm serious here) facts and history don't matter, however Orwellian that may be.
On this issue, our libertarian impulses have won out. To partially answer G.'s question about ownership rates:violence, it's a cultural thing. Even in those nations with high(er) gun ownership rates (Israel & Switzerland), the onus is on the individual to prove to the gov't (and keep proving!) that you should/can own a firearm (Oh, and good luck getting approval for multiple firearms). So, why do you want this, etc? "For fun/target practice" is NOT a good enough reason.
Here, OTOH, it is presumed that, if you want a gun/guns, you should get them. Much like the "presumption of innocence," the onus is always on the feds to show why you should not have one. Unlike the rest of the West, guns are also seen as objects of enjoyment (some might say "toys"), so what right, unless in extraordinary circumstances, does the gov't have to make it difficult on me to buy one, let alone any tougher restrictions?
One of these visions is dystopic in nature. It just isn't clear which one.
To return to dc's post, functionally, then, KLang is right.
Actually it has been decidedly murky. You can't own an RPG or a bazooka but you can own a 50 cal machine gun with a special permit. You can own an extended clip and unlimited ammo without any restriction but you can be required to have a background check to buy a handgun or semi automatic AR15 so long as the record of that check is destroyed within 24 hours.
If the purpose of all this is to have a well armed militia to defend (or some say attack) the government it certainly doesn't make consistent sense.
You're approaching the extreme Right and extreme Left point of view, that there should NOT be any restrictions at all.
Frightening territory. All IMO, of course.
Really, I don't get what you're getting at.
BTW, I think that bazookas and RPGs are in the same category as full auto M2's. If your state allows it, and you get your license and pay your $200.00, you can have grenades, RPG's, etc. There isn't a federal law banning the private ownership of these, but I don't think too many states allow it. Most people don't realize this. (Note - Destructive Devices and full-auto are in the same law, but are different categories. Some states allow full-auto, but not Destructive Devices.)
But IMO the power of the vote is and always should be the most powerful weapon of the people.(I know I'm being melodramatic here, but just a bit.) What ultimately keeps this power intact and available without a complete breakdown into fraud?
The rest of the world's democracies don't always play fair. (many faults with our system, of course.)
All of that is dealt with in the ruling. In the Constitution and Bill of Rights prefatory clauses may announce a purpose but they do not limit the scope of the operative clause. Restrictions on types of weapons have been permitted under the same logic as restrictions on free speech. Libel, slander, obscenity - none of these are considered protected speech.
The whole "well-regulated militia" argument is a relatively new interpretation. The meaning was long understood to be individual rights, but the gun control movement started to focus on the collective right side a few decades ago or so.
See, we've entered a topic in which (and I'm serious here) facts and history don't matter, however Orwellian that may be.
Please explain.
Insomniac
12-27-12, 05:45 PM
cameraman, we are taught from very early ages that our forefathers were rebels, fighters against tyranny, over-taxation, and for freedom.
I learned it was taxation without representation. :)
Insomniac
12-27-12, 05:56 PM
The NRA boasts that they have 4.3 million members. The 2012 Presidential Election had about 129 million votes cast.
Do the math. Assuming that every NRA member votes, the NRA represents a little over 3% of the electorate, even though it is estimated that between 40 and 50% of US Households own guns.
The NRA does not respresent gun owners. The NRA represents gun manufacturers. And the public is starting to realize that.
I think you're doing the wrong math. NRA membership is $35/year. 4.3 million members = $150M/yr. They have other membership levels (https://membership.nrahq.org/forms/signup.asp) for multi-year or lifetime ($1k) so even assuming the lowest of $25/yr, that's still over $100M. They spent < $25M in 2012 according to OpenSecrets (http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000082). The gun manufacturers can do their own lobbying/contributing, so they don't need to fund the NRA further.
This isn't about the number of voters. It's about what the money does.
cameraman
12-27-12, 05:58 PM
Now that I've relaxed... An entire method of government can be changed without the use of any guns, see Poland, GDR, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and the USSR. Using guns gets you a civil war, I'm not interested in living in a Syria or reliving Sherman's march. The use of weapons to change the government would result in mass casualties and burn this country to the ground. It shouldn't even be a remotely conceivable notion. If anyone's reason for owning a gun is to subvert the political process then they above all should not be allowed any type of weapons.
Insomniac
12-27-12, 05:59 PM
This is simply untrue. Courts have generally held that the second Amendment enumerates an individual right. So much so that the question was never truly decided by the Supreme Court until District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008. That ruling stated clearly that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia.
Maybe arms should be defined/interpreted as all weapons in existence in 1787. Let people have cannons. :)
cameraman
12-27-12, 06:01 PM
Maybe arms should be defined/interpreted as all weapons in existence in 1787. Let people have cannons. :)
Actually the cannons were held by the government in the armories. That's what Shay was after.
Insomniac
12-27-12, 06:07 PM
Now that I've relaxed... An entire method of government can be changed without the use of any guns, see Poland, GDR, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and the USSR. Using guns gets you a civil war, I'm not interested in living in a Syria or reliving Sherman's march. The use of weapons to change the government would result in mass casualties and burn this country to the ground. It shouldn't even be a remotely conceivable notion. If anyone's reason for owning a gun is to subvert the political process then they above all should not be allowed any type of weapons.
I don't think it is conceivable. The gov't has Bombs/Missiles/Drones/Nukes. It's nowhere close to a fair/winnable fight. The only way to overthrow the government is to vote and fight any attempt to limit the vote in a way we couldn't overthrow the government with votes. (Although I'm not clear how you overthrow the Supreme Court.)
Insomniac
12-27-12, 06:08 PM
Actually the cannons were held by the government in the armories. That's what Shay was after.
So they were already infringing on our rights? :D
cameraman
12-27-12, 06:20 PM
(Although I'm not clear how you overthrow the Supreme Court.)
1. You wait until one dies and appoint someone who isn't a jerk. Then bring a new case.
2. You amend the constitution and tell the Supreme Court the way it should be.
Maybe arms should be defined/interpreted as all weapons in existence in 1787. Let people have cannons. :)
If the Bill of Rights were only relevant to the technology of the era then free speech would only be protected by voice, handwriting, and printing press.
As far as the right to military weapons, none of the rights set forth in the Constitution have been found to be without limits. Some restrictions are necessary in the same way that libel, slander, or obscenity are not considered free speech.
Insomniac
12-27-12, 07:04 PM
1. You wait until one dies and appoint someone who isn't a jerk. Then bring a new case.
2. You amend the constitution and tell the Supreme Court the way it should be.
I guess you look at it like the House can be overthrown in < 2 years, President in < 4 years (Executive done) Senators in < 6 years (Legislative done), Supreme Court after 5 die (Judicial done). Making that the hardest (likely) to overthrow or the easiest if they were to die/step down sooner.
Insomniac
12-27-12, 07:12 PM
If the Bill of Rights were only relevant to the technology of the era then free speech would only be protected by voice, handwriting, and printing press.
As far as the right to military weapons, none of the rights set forth in the Constitution have been found to be without limits. Some restrictions are necessary in the same way that libel, slander, or obscenity are not considered free speech.
Hmmm. You define speech as the tools to communicate? I'd disagree there.
I agree with the second part, but the argument against limitations to rights in the constitution is generally considered infringement. There also wouldn't be any successful challenge to any regulation as long as part of the right remains, which is not the case.
cameraman
12-27-12, 07:23 PM
As most decisions lately have been 5-4 you don't need to wait for 5 of them to kick it. So it depends on who is in the President's office and how obstructionist the Senate is feeling.
The current lineup tilts right.
Ruth Bader Ginsberg is 79 (Clinton lefty)
Anthony Kennedy is 76 (Reagan mostly righty)
Antonin Scalia is 76 (Reagan waaaaay righty)
Stephen Breyer is 74 (Clinton lefty)
Clarence Thomas is 64 (GHW Bush righty)
Samuel Alito is 62 (GW Bush righty)
Sonia Sotomayor is 58 (Obama lefty)
John Roberts is 57 (GW Bush righty)
Elena Kagan is 52 (Obama lefty)
But if you figure that in the next 4 years Ginsberg and/or Breyer will retire and Obama replaces them - that's a wash. But if Kennedy or Scalia go and Obama replaces either then the court flips to the left. That was actually one of the biggest deals about this past Presidential election that never seemed to make the news.
1. You wait until one dies and appoint someone who isn't a jerk. Then bring a new case.
I agree with the '08 Heller decision almost word for word. If that makes me a jerk, so be it.
But again, I don't think that path is so clear for the anti-gun faction. Almost any re-interpretation will devolve power to the states, most of which have provisions in their constitutions which specifically protect the individual right to bear arms.
2. You amend the constitution and tell the Supreme Court the way it should be.
This is really the only way for the anti-gun faction to legitimately attain their goals. I don't expect it to happen in my lifetime.
cameraman
12-27-12, 07:32 PM
I agree with the '08 Heller decision almost word for word. If that makes me a jerk, so be it.
I wasn't referring to any specific case or jurist.
scalia...
and Citizen's United for which all 5 can rot in hell:D
Now that I've relaxed... An entire method of government can be changed without the use of any guns, see Poland, GDR, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and the USSR. Using guns gets you a civil war.
Only if the government doesn't attack it's own people. Iran, Lybia, Syria...
As for the USSR, I remember Boris Yeltsin standing on a tank as shells were fired into the Russian Duma to convince the communists to GTFO.
I agree that an armed population is no match for the US military, just like the Minutemen were no match for the British Army. But an unarmed populace is much easier to push around. That's why the British went to Concord in the first place: to confiscate weapons.
The Constitution, the Bill of Rights, 3 separate co-equal branches of government, elections, habeous corpus, e pluribus unum...all those wonderful ideas are Plan A.
Plan B has always been the 2nd amendment. Even if it's just a symbolic reminder to those in power not to step too far over the line.
Still, 20 dead kids is a very high price to pay for that Plan B.
Hmmm. You define speech as the tools to communicate? I'd disagree there.
No, I define speech as the communication of information and ideas through any media regardless of whether it was available in the 18th century.
Andrew Longman
12-27-12, 07:53 PM
Really, I don't get what you're getting atSorry. I didn't mean to be obtuse. :)
I don't buy the argument that we need our guns more than ever because the government more than ever is straying from its purpose and more than ever trampling our rights.
The evidence is clear that the rights of ALL citizens have increasingly been protected through our history. We are becoming MORE perfect as a nation in that regard. Too bad if that means some people have somewhat more restrictions if it is needed to give full rights to more. If it were 1860 I would say to slaveholders, "Sorry, you don't get to own people even if it is shame you will lose "property".
As a nation we may be approaching a similar situation where we say, "Sorry, you don't get to own weapons capable of killing dozens of people in a matter of seconds because ALL of us deserve freedom from fear we will be killed by a mass murderer".
Andrew Longman
12-27-12, 07:58 PM
All of that is dealt with in the ruling.I would say it is allowed by ruling. Dealt with? Not so much. The net result is a mishmash that does a confused job of meeting the founders objectives regardless of what you think those objectives are.
Andrew Longman
12-27-12, 07:59 PM
I learned it was taxation without representation. :)Me too.
Andrew Longman
12-27-12, 08:04 PM
(I know I'm being melodramatic here, but just a bit.) What ultimately keeps this power intact and available without a complete breakdown into fraud? simple. The vote.
And btw a vote unencumbered by things like government or party issued identification. ;)
I think our history has proven that our form of constitutional representative bicameral government with three branches sharing power does a nearly perfect job of responding to the will of the people while protecting the rights of individual. Response may not always be quick, but if the need is truly there change will eventually happen. In short the system works plenty well enough without needing the fail safe of armed citizen revolt.
WickerBill
12-27-12, 08:39 PM
Me too.
Surely you learned that the colonies were bent on independence and never actually filed petition to be included in Parliament... right? That "no taxation without representation" was more of a battle cry than a request?
This post and my last one are slight rabbit trails, yet rabbit trails indeed. I will stop.
Andrew Longman
12-27-12, 08:45 PM
Surely you learned that the colonies were bent on independence and never actually filed petition to be included in Parliament... right? That "no taxation without representation" was more of a battle cry than a request?
This post and my last one are slight rabbit trails, yet rabbit trails indeed. I will stop.Yep. I did. Self determination to pursue economic interests, not just to set tax levels for government services, was the key issue. Even if the colonies had a seat in parliament it wasn't going to deliver that.
Racing Truth
12-27-12, 09:24 PM
Please explain.
B/c, unlike yourself and others here, I don't believe the near-absolute right to individual gun ownership has always been the accepted position. It's a recent phenomenon, as THIS makes clear. (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/18/gun-rights-advocates-should-fear-history-of-second-amendment.html)
But the actual history is irrelevant anymore. Recent or not, the absolutist, purist interpretation won out. That's what we evolved into culturally. If that's partially based on a frontier culture that ceased to be operational 120 yrs. ago, well, too bad.
Racing Truth
12-27-12, 09:46 PM
I totally disagree with the above. The Confederates, for example, most certainly committed treason against the United States of America. The imaginary separation between government and country arises because of the "us vs. them" fallacy, which allows us to imagine that the government is some sort of imposition on us rather than an extension of us. So long as the United States Constitution is in place, we the people ARE the government. Any attempt to overthrow the U.S. government is an attempt to impose tyranny.
Right. The notion of armed citizen rebellion being a reason/need for the absolutist interpretation of the 2nd Ammendment only makes sense if the whole "treason" thing is ignored.
And yes, G., nrc, and WB, the notion IS paranoid and undemocratic. (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/18/gun-hoarders-against-democracy.html) It essentially says that some folks wouldn't accept the decisions of a duly-elected civilian gov't b/c they disagree w/ it. Taken to its logical extreme, it gives one group of voters far more leverage than is healthy: They have guns= bargaining power to the point of holding the rest of the nation "hostage" to their views.
Tifosi24
12-27-12, 10:39 PM
I think we need to have the Offcamber forum solve the fiscal cliff problem. This is the most civil conversation on a controversial topic on the interwebs in the history of the interwebs.
Well said, RT. In essence, it is bullying.
Now that I've relaxed... An entire method of government can be changed without the use of any guns, see Poland, GDR, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and the USSR. Using guns gets you a civil war, I'm not interested in living in a Syria or reliving Sherman's march. The use of weapons to change the government would result in mass casualties and burn this country to the ground. It shouldn't even be a remotely conceivable notion. If anyone's reason for owning a gun is to subvert the political process then they above all should not be allowed any type of weapons.
Also well said. Our strength is not defined by our arms.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/27/gun-control-support-poll_n_2370265.html
Interesting results in new polling.
Andrew Longman
12-28-12, 12:16 AM
Well said, RT. In essence, it is bullying.In the case of Timothy McVeigh it is terrorism. Jus' sayin'.
B/c, unlike yourself and others here, I don't believe the near-absolute right to individual gun ownership has always been the accepted position. It's a recent phenomenon, as THIS makes clear. (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/18/gun-rights-advocates-should-fear-history-of-second-amendment.html)
Ouch.
That article is, um,,,, not good.
Read something, RT. Read something else, I guess.
Federalist papers, history books, freakin' wikipedia, for goodness sakes! :rofl:
Putting the gun issue down for a moment.
What can be done about the guy on the trigger end of the weapon? Is it possible to identify and lock-up a mentally ill person who MIGHT be a homicidal maniac?
In San Francisco, the world's largest outdoor insane asylum, there are two problems that leave crazy people roaming the streets. The first is the idea that crazy people have a right to be crazy. If they don't want to take their medication, then they shouldn't have to, even if their behavior is disruptive to everyone around them. The other problem is funding. The lack of permanent facilities means the most that can be done when someone gets out of hand is to place them on a 72-hour psychiatric hold at a hospital. After that they are released back into the wild.
To be fair, most of these folks are only a danger to themselves. But if the current system can't care for them, what hope is there it can contain a dangerous psychotic?
B/c, unlike yourself and others here, I don't believe the near-absolute right to individual gun ownership has always been the accepted position. It's a recent phenomenon, as THIS makes clear. (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/18/gun-rights-advocates-should-fear-history-of-second-amendment.html)
This "recent phenomenon" is explicitly written into most state constitutions.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.