Steve Breen for January 12, 2013

OMG!! They want to talk about the …. you know! The R word!! Noooooo. Not that word! Anything but the R word!!! Hurry Ma, give me my guns! Give me my ammo!!

I’m a perfectly law-abiding citizen, but being transsexual is kinda sorta still considered a “mental disorder” (until the DSM-V comes out in May), and still used to discharge trans* members of the military. Even though I have no real intention of buying a gun any time soon, a “people who are seeing a mental health professional” could wind up on the “list.”-It’s a touchy subject, especially if someone has been diagnosed with something that may cause depression and anxiety (I’m the happiest I’ve ever been in my life now, but even 2-3 years ago, I was a wreck behind closed doors).

Nixon was pretty weird, and he had control of a lot of guns.

And what’s the conservative rationale? That they need 30 round magazines and easy-to-buy ammo for when the Commies invade?-Just remember, the Second Amendment was put in because they expected all white males 18-45 to be part of the militia, and the militia was to be used for repelling invasions, stopping Indian attacks, and putting down rebellions. The Second Amendment is to defend the government, not to keep it in check.

Automatic weapons already require a FEDERAL background investigation on the buyer. Educate yourself before you complain.

You are exactly correct!

I like the cartoon, and the ones aiming at Rationality are the extremists on the left who want a ban on all guns and the extremists on the right who believe banning cop killer bullets and M4 rifles is an intrusion on their Constitutional rights.The all or nothing approach from either side is senseless.What has, or has not, been done in the past is no longer the topic of conversation. I would like to hear from those from the right on this issue. I know I won’t be surrendering my shotgun, rifle, or pellet gun to anyone on the extreme left view. It is the ones who are most against gun laws to whom we must ask the questions – 1 – What are we going to do to reduce the number of mass murders, and, if possible, gun deaths in general. The former is doable, the latter more complicated for many reason.2 – Who will pay for measures taken?3 – How many more mass murders are willing to tolerate a year before taking further actions? How much is ENOUGH?Until these questions are answered, “Liberals” really don’t need to add to the conversation beyond asking the questions I’ve listed.Gun extremists are as irrelevant to the conversation as Anti gun extremists. This is a conversation for the “adults” in the middle who, like in the early days of the anti drink and drive movement, want to lower the number of people killed each year.I suggest that if you are totally unwilling to change the status quo, then you will be guilty by “association” for the deaths that occur. I pray no more will die like the children in Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, Columbine, et al., but humans are violent and unkind and willing to do bad things in response to perceived hurts.Edmund Burke said all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Do not allow evil to triumph. Do not do sit by and do nothing. If you are willing to allow this kind of evil to keep happening just so you can own a weapon of mass destruction, you stand behind the next shooter. But you’re not stopping him, you’re helping himSadly,but Respectfully,C.

“He starts to see a shrink for suicidal tendencies and paranoia. Should the shrink report him immediately?”

I was involved in drug and alcohol counseling for teenagers that were arrested for drug/alcohol related crimes. There is a very clear statute on the books that defines the “mandate” that a treatment professional is bound to report when the feel the patient threatens a real and present danger to themselves or others. Unfortunately many don’t, for a number of reasons. In the case of the latest school shooter and the Colorado theater shooter they were both known to the psychiatric community and the Colorado therapist said (after the fact) that he probably should have been reported.

The counselors often fear they will violate the doctor-patient confidentiality relationship. Or they are sometimes afraid of legal liability at a later date.

The “clubs and hammers” argument is a distraction for many reasons- including the amount of “firepower” and the potential for killing innocent bystanders.*I was never personally threatened with a gun, but visited two factories where others elsewhere in the building were threatened. Fortunately no one was injured. In both cases, a young male left the building during work hours, went home and came back with a gun. And in both cases, it was because another guy at work was seeing his girlfriend.*I realize that these are just 2 data points out of 11,000 per year, so they don’t lead to any statistical conclusions. But I would not have been in any danger had these guys returned with clubs or hammers.

“What do you think is the correlation between mental illness and gun violence? And what is the source of your information.”

A thought provoking question to be sure. I just read a Harvard study that referenced several others regarding this question. The recent cases at Sandy Hook, New York firefighter shot, Aurora theater all point to individuals that had at one point or another been in the “mental health system.” I think these people (as most mass murders) all easily fail the “rational man” concept of the law (and mental health standards of rational behavior).

You once posted about a neighbor you had who was shooting in his back yard. I consider that the height of irresponsibility but that doesn’t mean they’re mentally ill (stupid, sure). Obviously you are not looking at rational individuals. But once again you are looking at a miniscule statistic compared to the number of people who might be considered mentally ill. The vast majority of people considered mentally ill are not violent. How to try to isolate these people? Difficult at best and I have no quick answers.

http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/billofhealth/2012/10/05/good-news-and-bad-news-about-gun-laws-mental-illness-and-violence-part-1/

I agree with Dr. Canuck (okay, I’m Canadian as well), C Downs (I always seem to agree with him/her) and skipcarlsen. .It’s a complicated subject and there is so much over reaction from both sides that any rational discussion is being completely drowned out. Limit the size of clips? Sure, if that makes you sleep better at night, but you may want to look up the “mad minute” where Canadian and British soldiers can get off 30 rounds with a bolt action rifle in one minute. .Mental illness? Again, great idea, but how do you implement it? Especially with the DSM-V and their pro pharmacy “pre conditions”. Anyone who has ever thought they heard a voice in another room and went to check, or has seen movement and looked to see nothing, will now be considered “pre schizophrenic” and need anti-psychotic medication. Damn, even my dog sees things (he’s still convinced the pheasant over the fireplace has been playing possum for the last 10 years. .Guards in every school. Well it’s been pointed out that in a lot of cases there have been guards, also if governments aren’t willing to pay teachers, why would they want to pay for guards? Anyway, when I was in school, guys would bring their hunting rifles during hunting season and nobody was ever shot. .I don’t know what the answer is, but slamming through regulations without thinking the whole thing through and demonizing each other isn’t going to work.

The best thing about the discussion on mentally unfit gun owners is the increasing number of people who, at the very least, are pushing for 100% background checks. Increasing penalties for straw buyers is another option gaining popularity. I wonder how “mental illness” is to be defined for purposes of barring a gun purchase. Will a vet with PTSD or anxiety issues from service overseas be barred? Targeting the “mentally ill” in the age of Zoloft could be more restrictive to gun ownership than simply limiting high capacity clips or the amount of ammo one can buy.I’ve read many good ideas, but I repeat the questions I asked of gun owners before.1 – What are we going to do to reduce the number of mass murders, and, if possible, gun deaths in general. The former is doable, the latter more complicated for many reason.2 – Who will pay for measures taken?3 – How many more mass murders are willing to tolerate a year before taking further actions? How much is ENOUGH?Anyone can make a stand, but we need people willing to offer solutions.I’ve read so many good ideas. I’ve also read some ideas, banning all guns for instance, that just hammers the wedge into the issue. But instead of talking about hammers, or what happened over the last X years, let’s talk about two of my three questions at least.What will you accept as a reasonable way to reduce gun violence, and in particular, mass murders?How do you recommend paying for it?Had a great reply to these same questions in another forum, I’d like to hear from some folks in this one.SincerelyC.

Yep, and Communists are everybody that disagrees with your particular mind set!

European have just as many “rights” as we do (and to some Christians far more than they should have). For one thing on many beaches in Europe a pretty girl can walk down the beach totally buff, and not only is she not raped, she is basically ignored by everybody from children up to the elderly. Try that one on ANY public beach in the US and see what happens.

The only freedom they lack is the easy availability of weapons. As a result the total number of hand gun related deaths from all causes in the UK last year 8, the total number for the US? Over 10,000!

Of course, I must admit that it might also be that Europeans have been killing each other literally by the millions in organized military action for the last two thousand years or more. Might it just be that they have grown tired of “defending” themselves with such as guns?

And that brings up the bigger question that is it already too late for honest peace loving people in the US? Or do we really (as seemingly advocated by the NRA) need to be armed to the teeth, living in armed enclaves? Where every fender bender becomes a potential fire fight, with blood running like water down our streets and freeways?

I for one, am no longer certain, but dear Lord I Hope NOT!!!!!

Pavlov( and others making the "hammer claim) From the FBI; in 2005 (last totals, but average out over the years) Homicides by: Handgun-8,478 Other guns-2,868 Knives-2,147 Blunt objects (hammers, clubs, etc.) 671 Other weapons (like ropes, piano wire, poisons, fists, feet, and cars)- 2,524

Sorry, but there’s no way hammers and clubs kill more people in homicides than “guns combined”.

sorry, hit the submit too quick, that was aimed at rifles and shotguns combined, but still not even close.

So banning automatic weapons = disarming law abiding citizens. You’re comment is exactly the point of the cartoon..You don’t read much do you? It shows in the ignorance of your posts.

Rational statement. We need to discuss limiting some assualt rifles and large clips.Irrational response. They’re comming to take all our guns away, quick buy more guns and bullets!.Another uninformed post. Thanks again to you libs for not reading the legislation being proposed.