Discussing The Colorodo Shooting & Gun Laws

[Girl3]

Okay, for those who have guns (for other than hunting) - when or where would you use a gun? Do you think that in a position of defending yourself (adrenaline etc) you have the skills to make a good judgement call and would be confidently be able to shoot to protect by injuring the other person and not kill?

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

I understand how many who do not own guns feel about them. Just like I cannot abide motorcycles, because I have seen too many young people killed or terribly maimed by them. ATV's are even worse - and because children ride them, I find them even more objectionable. I have seen far more terrible damage inflicted upon people by such vehicles, than I have seen with guns. (And I used to work in one of the high-crime cities and do trauma.)

As for defending myself: I defended myself sucessfully with a knife when an attacker broke into my house a few years ago - the person nearly died and spent a week in the ICU after surgery to repair the heart. I had been sound asleep when I was attacked.

I target shoot frequently and am very comfortable with my various guns. The state where I grew up is full of wild game; due to our relative poverty growing up we hunted. I have always had guns. My daughter has her own gun that she uses for hunting and target practice. She understands the lethality of weapons, takes the same gun safety course I take to renew my concealed weapons permit, and has a very healthy respect for guns.

Guns have always been a large part of America - it is our right under the Second Amendment but with stipulations about gun ownership. Therein lies the problem: most of the gun deaths in the US are NOT related to legal gun ownership. The high profile cases in which legally obtained guns are used are played out in the media here because of the anti-gun sentiment of the left.

There real issue is crime and the underlying societal themes that create it. Gun ownership in the past was nearly universal in the US, but people were raised to respect others, respect the laws, respect life. Now people think that whatever they want is their right to have. They think that everyone ought to respect them without them having any respect for others. "Dissing" is all about a person thinking that HIS wants and needs supercedes anyone elses.

As for PTSD being a mental illness, I realize that for now it rests in the DSM-IV as such, but Alexander Neumeister, MD feels that it is an altered physiology the way pregnancy is an altered physiology. The brain changes to meet a neurophysiological challenge in order to survive just like a woman's body changes to allow survival of both she and the fetus. His research is intent upon finding the root of those changes and developing receptor-based therapies that will allow the brain to return to normal - just like a woman's body eventually returns to normal when the placenta leaves, taking it's hormonal milieu with it.

PTSD is not a mental illness the way schizophrenia is or even Bipolar disorder. People do not get schizophrenia because of a trauma. They are born with the problem. And while some mental illnesses may predispose one to developing PTSD (like Borderline Personality Disorder), those are co-morbidities.

Nor should everyone own a gun - just like not everyone should drive a car or a motorcycle. But I don't want a government to decide that I shouldn't own a gun, just like I don't want a government to decide most aspects of my daily life.

 

[Philippa]

Totally agree about the way people think they are entitled these days to whatever they want without considering anyone elses wants and needs, since theirs are all that matters. It seems to just be getting worse Girl3. My whole family are like that.

Society encourages Narcissism.

 

[BloomInWinter]

Here is an interesting story about our Arizona - "Arizona Has Turned into a Gun Lover's Paradise -- and That's Why It Ranks Among the Highest in Gun Deaths
Arizona is a mecca for gun-lovers, but having lots of heavily armed citizens running around has made it a more dangerous place to live."

Source: [DLMURL]http://www.alternet.org/news/149502/arizona_has_turned_into_a_gun_lover's_paradise_--_and_that's_why_it_ranks_among_the_highest_in_gun_deaths/[/DLMURL]

 

[BloomInWinter]

"Regions and states with higher rates of gun ownership have significantly higher rates of homicide than states with lower rates of gun ownership.8

Where guns are prevalent, there are significantly more homicides, particularly gun homicides.9"

Source: [DLMURL]http://smartgunlaws.org/category/gun-studies-statistics/gun-violence-statistics/[/DLMURL]

I worry about my kids' safety.

In Indiana, the Tea Party legislature has created this nightmare for all - "Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels signed a measure on March 20, 2012 that allows the use of force to resist law enforcement entry into one’s home or car if a person reasonably believes entry would be unlawful. The new law even allows deadly force against law enforcement in some situations. The bill is a response to a ruling by the Indiana Supreme Court which held that force may not be used to resist police entry into one’s home. Law enforcement in Indiana voiced strong opposition to the bill. Domestic violence advocates are especially concerned about the new law since police often need to enter homes where domestic violence has occurred to check on the safety of the victim."

Source: [DLMURL]http://smartgunlaws.org/extremism-in-action-indiana-general-assembly-votes-to-allow-citizens-to-use-force-to-resist-law-enforcement/[/DLMURL]

This law will result in more violence, not less. I feel sorry for anyone who loves an Indiana police officer. The much higher risk will be more stressful even if no problems happen.

 

[BloomInWinter]

The high profile cases in which legally obtained guns are used are played out in the media here because of the anti-gun sentiment of the left.

I must respectfully disagree. Not all people on the left are anti-gun.

I'm not anti-gun. I grew up with guns and I enjoy shooting targets. I am allowing my kids to learn about weapons at ranges. I was a legal gun owner for over 20 years.

I am for decreasing risks to public health and safety. I am for common-sense gun laws.

I do believe our federal, state, & local governments have a responsibility to enact and enforce laws which provide the greatest possible protection, minimizes risks, while not unduly burdening our citizens.

Not being able to legally purchase assault rifles does not constitute a burden, especially when compared to the risk to society...not from the responsible gun owner, but from the weapon which can be stolen, traded, and trafficked.

I don't believe that the media only covers these senseless preventable human tragedies simply to pander to one audience. Nor should they, no matter what the political leanings are.

When a legally obtained weapon kills innocent people, it is newsworthy because it a discussion of the law that failed to protect the innocent and needs to be evaluated. Just as when legally manufactured cribs were killing babies, it was news because it was a human tragedy that was preventable. When legally made automobiles were having exploding gas tanks, it was news because those were preventable human tragedies. All laws which fail to protect the public must be evaluated and updated as necessary to reflect new scientific evidence and changing culture.

 

[intothelight]

It is funny how the "gun" issue seems to be put into two camps by the media, with the extremes of both the right and left chiming in. Actually, most of us who are "moderate" would probably agree to the following:

1. Ban on assault weapons.
2. Mandatory waiting period and better back ground checks.
3. A national registry for hand guns.
4. Some type of basic gun safety course with completion required during the waiting period.

Realistically, no one is ever going to get guns banned in this country. But the waiting period can cool off the hot head; the registry helps to track guns that may have been stolen on an interstate basis; and a basic gun safety course would substantially cut down on accidental gun deaths. Criminals that want a gun will always be able to procure them.

In Indiana, the Tea Party legislature has created this nightmare for all - "Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels signed a measure on March 20, 2012 that allows the use of force to resist law enforcement entry into one’s home or car if a person reasonably believes entry would be unlawful. The new law even allows deadly force against law enforcement in some situations.

Actually, the Indiana Supreme Court was upholding a ruling made by the Supreme Court in the 1920's, but found the defendant in the case did not have a valid claim in regard to "unlawful entry" and denied his appeal. I have included the page of the ruling, and it is not what the media painted it to be. There were no "new laws" that permitted a police officer to be legally shot.

Although Indiana does have very liberal gun laws, this case has been blown out of proportion. However, the police are not allow to enter a person's house without probable cause, and this law is there to protect common citizens from unlawful entry and seizure by the police or military. The ruling goes on to clarify that reasonable resistance can be used, such as closing the door.

 

[jimmy-joe]

Catjudo, please don't take two of my sentences and say that I'm thinking in terms of black and white, especially when you just took one sentence out of context. That is black and white thinking itself.

Whoever said they think guns in self-defense doesn't work, you may have clarified that you're only talking about yourself, but either way, that only works for YOU. There are tons of people... And I'm willing to bet money that if you went and got trained on the use and safety of firearms, then you wouldn't be so uncertain with them.

So far no-one has brought up a viable argument to take firearms away from law-abiding citizens.

Also, on the massacre, this is the U.S., I doubt that he had the class 3 rifleman's permit or w/e it's called that makes it legal to own Automatic weapons. Thusly, when he opens fire into a crowd with a fully automatic weapon(that's what I heard, haven't checked it out) he's not using a LEGAL weapon. It is ILLEGAL.

Also, the vast majority of legal gun owners do NOT commit crimes with them.

Do you know who mostly commits crimes with firearms? Criminals using illegal or stolen(also illegal) weapons.

And I never once said that they should relax gun laws, in fact I think they should make them stricter... I just don't see the point of taking away from the majority when it's the minority that abuses it, and will abuse it even if they are banned lol.

Thank you for reading.

 

[BloomInWinter]

Whoever said they think guns in self-defense doesn't work, you may have clarified that you're only talking about yourself, but either way, that only works for YOU. There are tons of people...

To clarify, I don't just think this, the epidemiology & social sciences place firm evidence that owning a gun solely as 'good self-defense' - for anyone - is a great marketing selling point for the gun industry, but in no way does it reflect the actual use of guns.

While there are exceptions but they are very rare....not 'tons'. It is a public disservice for agencies to perpetuate this dangerous myth (rare exceptions non-withstanding.)

"The opportunity for a law-abiding gun owner to use a gun in a socially desirable manner--against a​

criminal during the commission of a crime--will occur, for the average gun owner, perhaps once or never in a lifetime. It is a rare event. Other than self-defense, the use of a gun against another human is socially undesirable. Regular citizens with guns, who are sometimes tired, angry, drunk, or afraid, and who are not trained in dispute resolution, have lots of opportunities for inappropriate gun uses. People engage in innumerable annoying and somewhat hostile interactions with each other in the course of a lifetime. It should not be surprising that inappropriate, socially undesirable "self-defense" gun uses by people who believe they are law-abiding citizens outnumber the appropriate and socially beneficial use of guns.6​

​

Although most of the reported self-defense gun uses from Approach 1 surveys seem more like criminal​

uses, even if one believed they were all genuine socially beneficial uses, the number of criminal gun uses would still vastly exceeds the number of self-defense gun uses in the United States. No survey using similar methodology to determine both criminal and self-defense use has ever found otherwise."​

Source: [DLMURL]http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/files/Bullet-ins_Spring_2009.pdf[/DLMURL]

For the sake of all the innocents who will be terrorized, injured, or killed by guns purchased 'for self-defense', I hope this false marketing tagline eventually stops being perpetuated by otherwise good-hearted, thoughtful people.

 

[jimmy-joe]

Bloom you misinterpret what I'm saying. With the "tons of people" I was talking about on the planet, literally. I was pointing out how one person or one group or one sort of character(personality) type's actions/desires/capabilities should not be taken to represent the whole.

That being said, I already mentioned earlier that a legal and responsible firearm owner(I said it for concealed weapon permit holders, but it applies to all civilians), will most likely fire one, maybe two shots at another person, IF EVER, in their lives. I mentioned this to point out that it isn't like a gun is NECESSARY, but it is a viable line of defense for a responsible person.

Like girl3 mentioned, if a single concealed weapon holder had shot that guy when he started firing, it's very possible that no-one or far less people would have been hurt. In fact, at ANY of these public shootings, all it would have taken to prevent the mass casualties is one decent shot with a pistol.

So what about that? Because there are people who violate the responsibilities of a gun owner, does not mean that they should be taken away completely.

I'm completely for tougher firearm laws(such as registering ALL firearms)... I mentioned that earlier too(but said "AT LEAST pistols and semi-auto"). Which would likely increase the prevention a little bit, given as then all untrackable weapons would be illegal then, giving the tired/irate/low self-control peeps another check, considering how it will be easier for them to be caught. Just thinking in animal terms there.

I just don't think that they should all be taken away like so many people think is the solution. Because it's not. Just because some organizations do studies on reported crimes, does NOT mean that they have an accurate representation of the situation. They may have a decent view, but take a wild stab in the dark as to how many crimes go unreported/bought off vs. reported and accurately worked cases. OR lol even just unreported vs. reported, forget the solve rates...

Also, I've been in favor of mandatory classes/training/psych testing/etc to purchase a firearm since I was in the skeet shooting(shotgun) league when I was twelve.(I'm sure I thought of it later on, but was in it 12-16, just don't remember when I was thinking about that.)

 

[BloomInWinter]

Thanks for the clarification, Jimmy-Joe. Sorry for the misinterpretation.

I think we're a lot closer in agreement than either of us realized on most of this. :>

I am a trained community health educator, and hence my opinions here are based upon viewing gun violence as a public health issue. Not as a right/left politics issue, but a public health issue that concerns all of us. Discussions on gun violence is not a black/white issue to public health professionals. It's not 'either the gun's fault or the shooter's' but rather a complex problem with many enabling issues which can be addressed by public policy.

Hence, a three pronged approach. The user, the instrument of violence, & and environment.

"

The public health approach emphasizes prevention and focuses not only on the gun user but also ​

the instrument of violence

and the environment.​

These articles summarize the public health problems caused by firearms, and the public health approach to reducing firearm injuries."​

Hemenway, David. “A public health approach to firearms policy” in Mechanic, David; Rogut, Lynn B; Colby, David C; Knickman, James R. eds. Policy Challenges in Modern Health Care. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers U Press, 2005. pp. 85-98.​

Hemenway, David. The public health approach to reducing injury and violence. Stanford Law and Policy Review. 2006, 17:635-56. ​

The theoretical 'hero in the crowd that saves the day' is just not anywhere close to the likely scenario. It is great for movies, but does not play out in real life.

Nor does the vast sum of public health statistics support using this extremely rare, unlikely occurrence as a part of any valid public policy approach.

Criminals just aren't shot by 'armed citizens in self-defense.

​

"

Criminals who are shot are typically the victims of crime​

​

Using data from a survey of detainees in a Washington D.C. jail, we worked with a prison physician to investigate the circumstances of gunshot wounds to these criminals. ​

We found that one in four of these detainees had been wounded, in events that appear unrelated to their incarceration. Most were shot when they were victims of robberies, assaults and crossfires. Virtually none report being wounded by a "law-abiding citizen."​

May, John P; Hemenway, David. Oen, Roger; Pitts, Khalid R. When criminals are shot: A survey of Washington DC jail detainees. Medscape General Medicine. 2000; June 28. www.medscape.com "​

Source: [DLMURL]http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use/index.html[/DLMURL]

I understand the desire to believe that a rescuer can save us. But good public health policy must be based on good science. Effective public health policy helps mitigate the known risks as much as possible until we never again tell our citizens to count on that 'mythical rescuer.'

 

[jimmy-joe]

Similar end results maybe, but different methodology.

The "mythical rescuer" actually happens, not all the time, but yes, just someone in the right place at the right time. Not just with guns either. There have been stories about them, but I would imagine many of them(myself included) would not want their interference made public, for fear of further repercussions.

One thing many people appear to repeatedly fail to take into account is that someone who is already breaking the law, with the exception of getting what they want with less possible consequences, is not interested in public safety. They aren't interested in the right or wrong. They aren't interested in honor, respect, dignity. They are interested in getting what they want.

I haven't checked the facts on this, so it's just conjecture, but it seems like if we are talking about public safety we should increase the force assigned to that, not try to place more restrictions on the general public. Considering as the majority of criminals aren't concerned with that beyond getting caught.

I'm trying to get across the message that sure, there are a lot of idiots with legal guns who shouldn't have them, but the vast majority of criminals are not constrained by the law except to avoid punishment. I was raised as an animal lol, I'm not a criminal but I have a small knowledge of the mindset of someone who doesn't care about morals so much as gain.

OK and why do people keep using college and government and detention system stats? If you want a real knowledge of it, go down on the streets and find out what is going on... It's one thing to sit up here and do internet research, but even if the source is legitimate, LOL convicted felons(i assume, I've skimmed pretty much the entirety of this thread :p), don't really have much moral obligation to tell the truth. I'm not saying that the data isn't accurate, but is definitely, um, fallible. Not only that, that's talking about people who get tried and convicted, not the general scum currently on the street, maybe that robbery was while they went through another gang's neighborhood? Maybe they tried to rob the other person and got shot instead and said that they were the victim.

I'm not saying these statistics and studies are wrong, but by the very nature of the situation, they are far from a complete assessment.

P.S. Not only talking about gang activity, but can't be denied that that is a major problem in the U.S., and I wonder how many of the gun crimes are gang-related lol

P.P.S. and on a serious note, we should have gaming tournaments as opposed to warfare to decide matters, but w/e lol, too legitimate, people want to take what they want whether it hurts the other person or not.

 

[Nicolette]

Wow... isn't this an interesting debate. I honestly thought I would have been slaughtered by the US members but am pleasantly surprised with responses and the manner in which everyone has conducted themselves in this discussion. It hasn't turned personal or defensive so well done to all who are participating. :tup: