Discussing The Colorodo Shooting & Gun Laws

[Philippa]

This is the real reason the American Bill of Rights recognized the right to bear arms. I am sure this will get me labelled as a nutcase by most of you, but the right to bear arms is about the people being properly armed so as to redress their grievances with government if given no other alternatives. Yes, this seems incredibly naive and obsolete in a country that keeps voting for the same two choices of who they are told to vote for, but thats the reality.

I spoke with a fellow I know from Arkansas who was in Afghanistan during the war, and he said that what you are saying about the real reason for the right to bear arms, isn't too far away from becoming a reality, after so many soldiers started to work out that they were being used and killing innocent people for an agenda the government did not let them in on whilst there.

I think that is the real meaning behind the word Patriot. Someone who stands up to whoever jeopardizes the integrity of his/her country, even if that is the government.

Its also very easy to think such an idea is archaic and unnecessary in today's civilized world but the truth is the world really isnt that civilized, even if you ignore the actions of lone crazy people, the government is not necessarily your friend.

It isn't. We are barely more than monkeys in suits, and just because we can talk on an iphone and fly to africa for a holiday, doesn't make us civilized. It's the way we treat each other that determines that, and so far, we've fallen way short on that front...as a species, I'm not speaking about individuals. Of course there are many people who strive to be better.

THAT is why americans are allowed to own guns without any justifications of self defense or sporting purposes. Yes it seems crazy and foreign but in america the people own this country and the government serves at our pleasure, we arent subjects like australians or brits.

Actually, people everywhere are, in reality, employers to their government...it's only because we've all been so brainwashed into thinking it's the other way around that they get away with so much.

 

[Philippa]

And lets be honest here... if you want to be technical, isn't PTSD a mental illness?

It's considered a mental illness in the world of psychology, but I think the word 'disorder' implies that the trauma has caused the mind to become out of order, or that the person is no longer able to have any sense of order in their mind, and it has disintegrated into chaos. I can't make up my mind if that is the same thing as an illness?

 

[intothelight]

Okay, for those who have guns (for other than hunting) - when or where would you use a gun?

After my divorce, I was raped by my ex, stalked, and the house was broken into many times. I hit a point where I got a permit to carry concealed, practiced on the range, learned about gun safety; but I also learned what type of hand gun was best for me to carry, which one had the greatest accuracy and with bullets were the most deadly. My motive was self protection; and yes, I would have used it without reservation. I drew it a few times when I was followed in the car until I could get an officer to come and try to intercept him.

Before I totally cracked, the gun afforded protection for me and my family against a predator. This predator had his own weapons, was motivated to cause me harm, and no respect for the law. But as you said, PTSD is a mental illness and I did plan to use this same gun on myself, when I executed a suicide plan.

Now there is no hand gun. My ex is in jail and I do not need it. The risk of it remaining in my home, is too great as I am now my own worst enemy. So in my case there is no clear cut answer. I had a need to have a gun for protection; but ultimately it became a risk to me.

So I have no clear cut answer and I don't know if there is one. I completely understand having a gun for self-protection; but I also know how dangerous they are in the wrong hands.

 

[Innordinate]

Please provide source... stating "all countries that have decent gun laws" are trying to loosen such restrictions for people to get guns.

I believe that is total nonsense. There is always a faction in a country who believe gun laws should be relaxed, however; that does not make it a country majority asking for such nonsense.

I'll edit that one sentence to make it more understandable. "all countries that have decent gun laws have people who are trying to ..." Nothing in the original statement mentions a majority...

The nonsense is everywhere. It's unfortunate.

 

[BloomInWinter]

Gun violence is a public health issue which must be addressed through evidence-based public health policy.

Rhetoric makes for interesting discussion, but is not a part of investigating nor solving of any public health problem. Solid epidemiology is.

A simple equation is this:

gun + ammo + angry person + access to victim = gun violence injury

Increase the guns, ammo, and number of victims = increased gun violence injuries

Remove the guns from this equation...

No guns + no ammo = no gun violence

Bans are an example of dealing with this via public policy. Yes, people can get around bans...but not nearly as easily.

The epidemiology has been clear for decades. Decreased access to guns decreases the risks, increases safety, increases feelings of safety.

I'm for assault weapons bans. Anyone who claims to need one for hunting is no sportsman. Anyone who claims to need one to fend off the government is fooling themselves. The Branch Davidians had an arsenal but still couldn't fend off the government.

Other than bans, most NRA members agree. "NRA members support many regulatory proposals.

We analyzed data from a national random-digit-dial telephone survey. National Rifle Association (NRA) members are similar to other gun owners in many respects, but they are more likely to own six or more guns. Unlike the NRA leadership, both NRA members and non-member gun owners support waiting periods and mandatory registration of handguns.

Weil, Douglas S; Hemenway David . I am the NRA: an analysis of a national random sample of gun owners. Violence and Victims. 1993; 8:353-65. See also Weil DS, Hemenway D. A response to Kleck (NRA). Violence and Victims. 1993; 8:377-85." Source: [DLMURL]http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/public-opinion/index.html[/DLMURL]

When individal rights supersede public safety, we have to draw a line.

People used to believe they had the 'right' to drive anywhere in the road they chose. Enough tragedies later, a simple system of painted lines has greatly decreased the risk that thinking and behavior cause.

People used to think they had 'the right' to dump any animal waste into any pond/stream/lake/groundwater which ran through their property. Many choleria & poisoning deaths later, it is against the law.

I have no problem with hunters and sportsmen, and generally, they have no problem with reasonable protections, education, and common sense public policy. The rhetoric (talking points) people relay as fact (though as with many public health issues, t is anything but) is part of an effective marketing campaign by gun show dealers & manufacturers to further their brand loyalty and increase deman for their products. I can't blame them.

But a business's marketing points have no place in public health policy.

I have dealt with and been traumatized by gun violence. My doctor & friend, a gun show enthusiast, was shot in the face at point-blank range with one of his own guns by a mentally ill man with a criminal history. ...and some of you know a bit of my history growing up with a right-wing gun enthusiast who also happened to be seriously mentally ill.

This issue is very personal to me.

I'm glad we're able to discuss this difficult issue. We must.

A person's right to swing their fist ends at the tip of our noses.

Much info refuting the gun show/gun manufacturer talking points is available at:
[DLMURL]http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use/index.html[/DLMURL]

 

[BloomInWinter]

Putting the 'self-defense' myth to rest is a literal mountain of epidemiological research, some of which is available here - [DLMURL]http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use/index.html[/DLMURL]

Guns for self-defense for women...not only a myth, but a guarantee of increased peril...

"In 1998, for every time a woman used a handgun to kill in self-defense, 101 women were murdered with a handgun."

"In 1998, for every time a woman used a handgun to kill an intimate acquaintance in self-defense, 83 woman were murdered by an intimate acquaintance with a handgun." Source: Dead Link Removed

A 1 in 83 chance of survival? I wouldn't play those odds.

 

[BloomInWinter]

The "they'll just use something else' myth debunked - "the circumstances of gun and knife assaults are quite similar: They're typically unplanned and with no clear intention to kill. Offenders use whatever weapon is at hand, and having a gun available makes it more likely that the victim will die. This helps explain why, even though the United States has overall rates of violent crime in line with rates in other developed nations, our homicide rate is, relatively speaking, off the charts."

Source: Dead Link Removed

 

[Nicolette]

I can't make up my mind if that is the same thing as an illness?

Seems like it is semantics to me

Source: health.gov.au

 

[Philippa]

Ah true.

 

[Sasha]

Guns would not disappear, even if they were illegal. Just as drugs are illegal and they are still being sold and used. Therefore, the only people who would have firearms would be criminals. I believe in the right to carry although I do not have an interest in carrying.

There are quite a few stories of a maniac shooter being stopped in their tracks by an unexpected law abiding citizen who was carrying. The cities with some of the highest crime rate are cities that have the highest restrictions on firearms - such as NYC and DC. I'm sure there are gun owners with permits who went to the movies that night. However, there are restrictions in CO saying that no one can carry in a venue where there is admission. Therefore, all the law abiding people left their weapons at home, while the criminal brought his arsenal. Not one law abiding gun owner was able to shoot back and stop him because they didn't have their weapon with them.

Unfortuantely, I do not think it is the gun that is the problem, but the person/s. Recently, a few teens in Chicage randomly approached an innocent senior and punched him till he died. Again, it is the person.

I would hate to think the only people who have guns are the cops and criminals. Calling 911 in the middle of an attack - well it isn't going to work. I'd like to think that people have the right to defend themselves. It is one of the rights given to us by our founding fathers. And unfortunately we do not live in a very safe or kind world. It never will be. So, I think it's in the best interest of a persons right to allow them to be able to defend themself against this type of person.

 

[Sasha]

I just want to point out that the event that is being discussed in this thread...the recent mass murder at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado...was carried out with LEGAL weapons. All of his guns, extended magazine, ammunition, etc were purchased legally.

Yes, his weapons were purchased legally. However, it was illegal to take a firearm into the movie theater. That is why he was the only one with a firearm.

 

[anthony]

@Bloom... wish I could like your post a hundred plus times.