Gun laws that help stop gun violence

1. 60

   Jo_Goldsmith11posted 11 years ago

   Are we growing quiet to what happened 112 days ago?  The local media believes we have become lost in the current news.  Washington seems to be gearing up for another election cycle and trying to bring into focus other things that are not as important.
   
   Why do you think the outrage is but a second thought?
   
   Please share your thoughts on how you feel about this subject.

   replyreport
   1. 57

      retief2000posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      No gun law will do a thing to stop a determined individual from finding a way to kill whom ever they wish.  The interesting thing about universal background checks is how it would automatically conflict with HIPAA privacy regulations.  The ACLU, hardly a gun rights organization, has significant reservations about Universal Background Checks.
      
      Connecticut already had strong gun control laws, including an "assault weapons" ban.  Laws do not prevent those who are willing to break them but rather punish those criminals after the commission of a crime.  There is no way of perfecting the world without stripping everyone of nearly all freedoms.  It is better to insist that criminals be punished reliably and thoroughly, to the point of not choosing to break the law again.
      
      We have moved away from holding criminals accountable to holding everyone accountable for the aberrant behavior of a decreasing proportion of the population.  There are nearly 290,000 legally owned firearms in the United States, yet gun crimes have been declining at the same time gun ownership has been rising.  To strip the general population of the right to gift a firearm to a friend or relative without government intrusion is an over reach.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Jo_Goldsmith11posted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Hello,
         Thank you for your insightful comment. I respectfully disagree about the HIPAA. The medical providers are to ensure the person is not a danger to her/himself or others. This is to protect the possible victims and the person who has lost all control. I am pretty normal mentally for the most part.
         I wouldn't want to own a gun and the times in my life when I have had those awful fantasies about hurting those who inflicted pain on me or my family to have them pay some how. I thank God there isn't a gun in my home so the times I had those feelings, there wasn't something around to use to act impulsively. Studies need to be conducted on personalities that could be considered dangerous. As far as the enforcement of the laws all ready in place. The semi automatic gun ban expired. This should be a permanant law. Thank you again for sharing your views. take care.

         replyreport
   2. 59

      kateperezposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I sometimes wonder if outrage it appropriately directed.
      
      The Sandy Hook tragedy proves that mental illness is not properly treated or considered.  The Aurora, Co movie theater shooting was also the result of a mentally ill individual.  The police officer in California who shot fellow officers and others was mentally unstable, and the man who shot and killed people in Arizona (and shooting Gabby Giffords) is also mentally ill.
      
      The outrage should not be directed toward individuals who own guns.  It should be the limitations that insurance companies are putting on true mental health care of those who truly need it.  In the case of the Aurora, Co shooting, it even turns out that psychiatrists had warned the police--who chose to not investigate the reports. 
      
      Where should the outrage be placed?  It should be placed at inadequate mental health care, and complacent police officers.  Most people who have handguns or rifles are not using them poorly or illegally.  Most people will be punished for being law-abiding citizens of rational minds and thought.
      
      The outrage should be directed toward mental health care limitations, not gun owners.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Jo_Goldsmith11posted 11 years agoin reply to this

         You have made some excellent points about the *stigma* that is attached to mental health illness. You said "where should the outrage be placed"?
         Would you agree that most of the persons who are not in their *right minds* shouldn't have access?  In the case of Adam Lanza. His mother obviously missed warning signs. We don't really know what kind of person she was except she encouraged the thrill of shooting something. The videos games he played were violent and he had another source of acting out his thoughts that ended in tragedy resulting in the death of 26 innocent people
         My feeling is when  *normal*  people get pushed to that breaking point, they act out and people get hurt.

         replyreport
         1. 89

            wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            I doubt that Lanza's mother, or other people around him, missed the signs of mental illness.
            
            They just didn't act on them - they ignored them and treated him as if he were sane, and that's the problem to be solved.  As Kateperez says, you can take away all the guns in the world but as long as we allow the insane free access to the world around them they will kill as the impulse takes them. 
            
            Stealing guns from the competent owners is not a solution that will have any positive effect at all.  Even background checks taking away the rights of the insane to own guns won't help much - if they want one they will get it.  Remove the insane from society and treat them and you will see a positive effect - the only question is how?

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Jo_Goldsmith11posted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Hello wilderness,
               
               The scary part of treating the mentally disturbed is some go for treatment and the treatments don't work. Guns are used for suicide too. Case and point, our military heroes who harm and kill themself. The police are confronted with criminals with bigger and more lethal arsenal than that of
               the law men. How do we prevent our peace officers from becoming another statistic? It is horrible that sheriff and District Attorney was shot down.
               
               It all boils down to the ones who are mentally sound to come up with something.  How we do it, this is something we should be focusing on as well. Thank you for your thoughts and I appreciate you for chiming in. take care.

               replyreport
               1. 89

                  wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  You're right, right down the line.  There is a serious problem with the way we handle mental illness and I for one have no answer at all.  It just isn't acceptable for society to go around declaring this person or that is unstable and needs "treated" or locked up, but doing nothing isn't going to help the violence problem, either.  We have to do something, but what?
                  
                  I just know that taking guns from the sane isn't the answer.  It hasn't worked anywhere in the world and there is absolutely no reason to think the US will have any different result.  Doing the same thing time after time, thinking the result will be different, isn't exactly a mark of sanity...

                  replyreport
                  1. 78

                     Express10posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     I fully agree with you. Altering lawful and sane citizen's rights to guns and ammo is not the answer. Albert Einstein was right! When are lawmakers and citizen's going to acknowledge the fact that laws only deter the lawful and there are people who don't care about laws?
                     
                     For example, if my law abiding father didn't have a gun to shoot the burglar that broke into one of our homes, we may not have survived. Many times people fend off others with guns but the majority of people have nothing to say about these cases such as the little Oklahoma girl who was about 12 who shot a burglar who broke into her home. She is a smart and tough little cookie who defended herself. What would have happened had she not been able to defend herself?
                     
                     As for the horrific Lanza case, there were many people that saw warning signs and didn't act. Too often this is the case, people see signs and ignore them until it's too late. Further, his own mother was an enabler which lead to her very own death by her son. As for mental illness, there is no one size fits all solution but bystanders have a variety of ways to address or report it before it gets to the level that it did in the Lanza case. Lanza's own barber said the boy never spoke to him or looked him in the eyes during five YEARS of monthly visits.
                     
                     Obviously, something was severely wrong. Lanza recoiled at the touch of several people and everyone made excuses and what not. There was clearly something wrong and no one who witnessed these behaviors (including the mother) did anything to address or report them or any of their resulting concerns. Keeping quiet about oddities, outrageous behaviors, and severely off behaviors does no one any good.
                     
                     I am pro-gun, have been since I was a little girl and I fully agree with universal background checks. What is really needed is a real and consistent effort to get guns out of criminal's and mentally ill person's hands, not sane and law abiding citizens.

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        Jo_Goldsmith11posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        
                        
                        You are a Miracle!  Thank God you and your family are okay!  I agree we ignore way too many things we notice and see in our communities. We need to be engaged and observant of our surroundings and the people in and around us on a daily basis. I watched 60 minutes tonight (Sunday) and
                        I found myself in tears once again. I wanted to leap through the television and embrace ever one of those parents.   Tomorrow they will be back in the Capitol and there is to be a up or down vote. One parent mentioned the "straw law". This is for those who are mentally sound and gift the guns to the ones who shouldn't have the access. I hope each of you that have been so gracious, insightful and responded will light a candle with me tomorrow. I hope you will agree with me in prayer that at least these parents get some of the things that can help. The next step as mentioned earlier. We have to ensure the laws are enforced. The laws should protect law abiding mentally sound persons, not criminals or mentally disturbed individuals. We must speak up about erasing the *stigma* of mental illness.
                        
                        On a little more personal note. In my community, about 10 miles from my home. A young man at the age of 18 shot himself after he shot his 8 year old sister and it was horrible.   The young man self isolated and there was no warning, and no one noticed when he was out and about. It goes back to my belief that if the population could be a little nicer, compassion and empathy. If we could just feel like we are not drowning in our daily troubles. We would have people in better frame of minds and their hearts wouldn't grow cold and the evil wouldn't set in.  Each of you get a candle. I pray the darkness doesn't reach you, your community or anyone you may know.
                        Thank you everyone.
                        
                        

                        replyreport
                  2. 60

                     Jo_Goldsmith11posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     wilderness,
                     Actually in Australia a horrible tragedy happened 17 years ago and they banned the guns that were used. Their statistical research has found a decrease of gun violence by removing semi automatic (military war weapons) out of the public mainstream. I also would like to be known about the documentary "Sicko" with Michael Moore. He discusses this in his documentary as well. How other nations see that we are a country that is in a perpetual  "war" and there is very little peace.

                     replyreport
      2. 60

         Jo_Goldsmith11posted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Please explain how "Most people will be punished for being law-abiding citizens of rational minds and thought."  Do you feel that it is okay to gift someone you know a gun if they are mentally ill or have anger issues?
         On the 60 minutes program. One of the Newtown parents is a family therapist. She said that "If people would notify" when they see warning signs and through education of seeking help for an anger issue or a person who has mental health issues is something she is in support of.
         The peace officers should hold themself accountable for not preventing these kind of tragedies once they are informed of it.
         
         The limit to the magazine was a big one of discussion. Why not limit to 10 rounds?  I blame the NRA Mr. La Pierre.  He believes the more rounds in a gun the better. With it stated earlier. It is about the money the NRA gets from selling, promoting and almost *glorifying* the capabilities a semi automatic gun with 30 rounds can do. This is the head of the snake. Which in my opinion needs to be cut down. I pray every night that God will do just that. Thank you so much for your thoughts. take care

         replyreport
   3. 75

      Shyron E Shenkoposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I think gun makers/sellers/runners are having a field day, they care nothing about what happened as long as their money god keeps the dough rolling in.
      Something has to be done, at the very least background checks.

      replyreport
2. 78

   Express10posted 11 years ago

   I am all for universal background checks and the like. I could never condone anyone of any age, race, etc. being murdered no matter where they are or the time of day or night. I don't think that things have gone quiet, there is still much talk about ways to prevent these types of murders from happening again.
   
   However, what is not being talked about is that criminals and the insane do not follow laws. Laws are only for those who choose to abide by them and this is why millions of Americans such as myself prefer not to have our current rights whittled away leaving us more open to these types without a decent level of defense.

   replyreport
3. 81

   Wayne Brownposted 11 years ago

   I think anyone looking upon needless slaughter or suicide feels a sense of outrage no matter their position on guns and gun control.  At the same time, what if an airline captain decides to crash his airplane into downtown Los Angeles at high noon potentially killing hundreds if not thousands of people.  Can we blame the airplane or do we look at the mental condition of the pilot and the reasoning that would drive him to the decision.  As rational people, we have trouble grasping his logic but we quickly see the potential danger of a large airplane under human control.  The media only cares about the sensational aspects of the crime.  Sensationalism sells soap and once the thrill is gone, just like buzzards on a carcass picked clean, they move on.  Columbine would not have been so much a gun issue if the original plan of the two students had gone off without a hitch.  The two propane bombs they placed in the cafeteria would have probably killed or maimed most everyone in the vicinity including them had they exploded as planned.  Deranged minds will always find a method to carry out their maddness.  Mental illness is difficult to identify unless people are submitted for observation.  In our country, the legal ability to do that lies primarily with the parents and that only extents to age 18.  Once a person becomes a young adult, all bets are off unless they turn themselves in for treatment.  Sure, we can point them out to the police but they fall into the same bin as the "wife-beater'...until they commit a crime, the police cannot do much with them.  While grabbing all the guns appears to be an easy solution, it really is no solution at all as it does not guarantee the occurrence of more violence carried out by an illogical mind.  It also does nothing to deter the desire to carry out the violence.  As for our military, given its size, such a large statistical population will always contain some sampling of people who will commit suicide.  Taking guns away from the military is certainly not an answer nor will the lack of guns remove the desire to carrry out the suicide.  Just a footnote here, the media has also left Fast N' Furious in the dust as well as the senseless death of four Americans in Benghazi....I don't see you beating a drum about those issues.  ~WB

   replyreport
   1. 78

      Express10posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Amen!

      replyreport
   2. 60

      Jo_Goldsmith11posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Hello Wayne,
      Yes, the Benghazi tragedy has been silenced. We had a hearing and the results are not good enough. Thank you for sharing. I always enjoy reading your thoughts. They are sound and make sense. Wishing you the very best and you are always appreciated for your amazing insightfulness.

      replyreport
4. 95

   LongTimeMotherposted 11 years ago

   I am an Australian gun owner and I wrote a couple of hubs about how the gun laws work here, and the likely implications if the US was to follow the Australian gun control model. My gun hubs are still getting hits, although nowhere near the number they were.
   
   I know a lot of Americans claim that the laws in Australia were unsuccessful, but that's not supported by the data or the sentiment here in Australia. Once the outrage died down and enough years had passed for the laws to take effect, it certainly has made a difference to gun violence in this country.
   
   There was no instant quick-fix, and we still have unregistered/illegal guns on the streets of course, but I suspect we'd have a lot more problems if we didn't have our current laws. In Australia if you are a responsible gun owner, you can still own them.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Jo_Goldsmith11posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Hello!
      Thank you so much for sharing! I am glad you stopped by and I promise you to start promoting your hubs! I hope the USA will see your country's example. Blessings from USA to you.
      
      

      replyreport
   2. 89

      wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I looked at the data following the gun buyback in 1996 - no change in homicide rates for 8 years.  I think that's just too long to attribute it to the buyback that took place over just one year.
      
      You say gun violence decreased - what has violence in general done?  Has there been a large decrease in the general homicide rate that can be attributed to gun policies?

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         I am not trying to push any agenda on this issue since I am undecided myself but I do have some experience of the Australian laws it is worth noting that the gun buy back was not expected to reduce gun violence very much if at all, it was what came after that was. As in now that guns were illegal police could confiscate guns and put people in prison for illegal gun ownership and soon the number of guns in Australia spiraled and more importantly the number of guns in criminal hands dropped significantly thus reducing gun violence significantly.
         
         I also don't buy the other weapons will be used instead argument, sure one can club a person to death, but it is harder and takes more determination and nerve than shooting them so in my book less gun violence equals murders averted.

         replyreport
5. 63

   prettydarkhorseposted 11 years ago

   http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article … id=1661390
   
   I need to see the whole report and write up, but this summary of the research I can bank on.

   replyreport
   1. 89

      wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Bank on it, maybe.  But be prepared to bank on exactly what it says and nothing more. 
      
      From the link: "As our study could not determine cause-and-effect relationships, further studies are necessary to define the nature of this association."  It is entirely possible that gun legislation does NOT cause a drop in gun violence.
      
      In addition, everything in the article addresses gun deaths; nowhere is there the faintest indication that total violent deaths are lower with higher legislation or lower gun ownership rates.  This is exactly what I found in my own research (written up and published) - that there is zero correlation between gun ownership rates and homicide rates in general.  Obvious conclusion: killers that can't find a gun will use something else to kill with.  Guns are NOT the cause of the enormous homicide rate in the US.
      
      I did not research it at all, but I strongly expect there is a strong correlation between suicides and gun ownership.  The question then becomes one of cost/result; is the cost (in terms of freedom, monetary, anger - everything put together) worth the small number of lives saved by lowering suicide rates.  A reasonable question; we can cut vehicle deaths (and by more than total suicide deaths) any time we want to but aren't willing to pay the cost of reducing speed limits even 10 MPH.

      replyreport
      1. 63

         prettydarkhorseposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         It is not a causal study it is associative and this is what they found out :
         
         "Compared with the quartile of states with the fewest laws, the quartile with the most laws had a lower firearm suicide rate (absolute rate difference, 6.25 deaths/100 000/y; IRR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.48-0.83) and a lower firearm homicide rate (absolute rate difference, 0.40 deaths/100 000/y; IRR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.38-0.95)."

         replyreport
         1. 89

            wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            I do believe that those are exactly the problems with the study that I pointed out.
            1)  There is no indication of causality; removing guns may or may not reduce the homicide rate; indeed, it may not even reduce the gun homicide rate.
            
            2)  There is no correlation or association between the number of laws or guns and the homicide rate at all.  Without a correlation, there cannot be a causal effect between the two; adding laws or removing guns will NOT reduce the homicide rate.  No lowering of the rate = no reason to either make more laws or remove guns.  While the study does not concern itself with overall homicide rates, it takes that stance for the very good reason that there is no correlation; showing that will ruin any argument for more laws or fewer guns and that is most definitely not the purpose behind the study.

            replyreport
            1. 63

               prettydarkhorseposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               --
               
               "It is not a causal study it is associative and this is what they found out :
               
               "Compared with the quartile of states with the fewest laws, the quartile with the most laws had a lower firearm suicide rate (absolute rate difference, 6.25 deaths/100 000/y; IRR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.48-0.83) and a lower firearm homicide rate (absolute rate difference, 0.40 deaths/100 000/y; IRR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.38-0.95)."
               
               Correlation is associative meaning the two variables are associated. It does not cause the other, proving that is a daunting task just because there are lots of other factors to consider behaviorally. There is also no evidence showing lax in firearm regulation indeed prohibit homicide.

               replyreport
6. 53

   ocbillposted 11 years ago

   what do people opposed to background checks to own / buy a gun have to hide?
   Why so vehemently against it ?
   If you own a deadly weapon, background check plain & simple. I don't care if you believe it violates your rights or the criminal will find a way. It is a deterrent. Just like no drinking and driving is a deterrent. Just how many guns do you or your friend need to buy w/o a background check?
   With a background check, at least he/she may not get easy access to kill 15 people in less than 20 seconds. I know guns can be modified and the criminal can pay some honest joe to buy a gun but it will decrease crime. In some cases, the friend will report the ex-con wanting to buy a gun and get him/her off the street. This is what the local police and society wants.
   
   Do you agree times have changed since 200+ years ago? We have cars, cell phones, computers, etc. Laws & rights needs to keep up with today. No wonder this country keeps lagging, you have people wanting to live by 200 year old laws that should never be amended.
   
   So, only financial industry professionals, airport baggage handlers, cashiers, and others should have background checks done but not your everyday joe who wants to buy a gun.
   
   IDK, but say the no background check is upheld,  you have a guy buying tons of guns with no checks. kills your friends nearby. If a check was done against that person, it likely will have never materialized.
   
   BTW - it has nothing to do with background checks but http://news.yahoo.com/boy-4-accidentall … 26525.html

   replyreport
   1. 89

      wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      "If you own a deadly weapon, background check plain & simple. I don't care if you believe it violates your rights or the criminal will find a way."
      
      While I do understand that you care nothing for the rights of others, and only about what you want, the question becomes one of "why"?  Are other people nothing more than ants to be stepped on and crushed in your headlong rush for what you want?  Are you so egocentric that you think you have all the answers without any actual knowledge, study or experience?  Do you view yourself as a God on earth, someone that everyone else must obey?
      
      You've made a lot of statements and declarations that background checks will reduce the number of murders as an excuse for controlling others, but have provided no evidence that it is true at all.  Can you do so, or does everyone just have to accept your statement as ex-cathedra from God?

      replyreport