What are we gonna do about white people and all their guns?

[arkirk]

I would like somebody to tell me why we seem to want to have everybody carrying a gun. Guns are dangerous and kill people. It is hard enough to stay alive and healthy already. Why do we want to keep people interested and excited about guns? in our cardboard cities with paper thin walls, guns kill people not even involved in gunfights between the police and gangs and others.

The problem is not just the crazies. it is really a sort of statistical thing. The more dangerous things we have in close proximity to large numbers of people, the more mishaps there will be. There is an insane rush of people to buy guns. Prices are through the roof. What is so desirable about owning one of these things anyway? You have to keep it locked up and can't use it hardly anywhere but a gun range.

The real situation for the average person is that guns are next to useless in their lives. Fear mongering and war mongering are the main things keeping the guns for everybody ideal alive. Let us grow up and recognize the reality and the total impracticality of an armed citizenry. I am not saying it should be particularly harder to get guns. I am saying we have made them practically a religion to some people.

 

[Archimedes]

Hey, look, facts:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States

If I have this right, data for shooter in "mass shootings":

White 66%
Black 16%
Asian 9%
Hispanic 6%

Data for general population:

White 64%
Black 12%
Asian 5%
Hispanic 16%

Blacks and Asians seem to be far more overrepresented than whites.

This is officially a racist thread.

Shall I alert the mods for possible bannings?

2/3 of the problem solved if we eliminate white people.

100% of the problem would be solved if we got rid of everyone!

 

[bigfield]

The way to stop white guys with guns is black guys with guns.

 

[TV and credit cards]

I would like somebody to tell me why we seem to want to have everybody carrying a gun. Guns are dangerous and kill people. It is hard enough to stay alive and healthy already. Why do we want to keep people interested and excited about guns? in our cardboard cities with paper thin walls, guns kill people not even involved in gunfights between the police and gangs and others.

The problem is not just the crazies. it is really a sort of statistical thing. The more dangerous things we have in close proximity to large numbers of people, the more mishaps there will be. There is an insane rush of people to buy guns. Prices are through the roof. What is so desirable about owning one of these things anyway? You have to keep it locked up and can't use it hardly anywhere but a gun range.

The real situation for the average person is that guns are next to useless in their lives. Fear mongering and war mongering are the main things keeping the guns for everybody ideal alive. Let us grow up and recognize the reality and the total impracticality of an armed citizenry. I am not saying it should be particularly harder to get guns. I am saying we have made them practically a religion to some people.

I thought it was just me.
Do I, should I not have the right to walk around in public, live in my home without the threat of your stray bullet hitting me? Does not this right to reasonable safety trump your right to bear arms? My safety is being willfully degraded.
Further, one can argue and justify a rifle or shotgun for hunting but the primary purpose of a handgun is to kill another human. For this, it should be outlawed.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I think the answer to all the gun violence in the US is more about cultural change and paranoia than it is about guns.

 

[Celldweller]

All the mental health screenings and background checks won't make a lick of difference so long as there remains a vast, black market for buying guns in this country. If sociopathic revolutionary wants a gun, then sociopathic revolutionary will find a gun.

We can all have our weekly dose of faux shock about yet another school shooting but IMO, all the arm-chair quarterbacking of gun regulation will continue to have little impact. "Fixing" the gun issue has become the tragic sibling of the War On Drugs- where has that gotten our society?

 

[ksen]

All the mental health screenings and background checks won't make a lick of difference so long as there remains a vast, black market for buying guns in this country. If sociopathic revolutionary wants a gun, then sociopathic revolutionary will find a gun.

Yep, and he can probably get one from a government agent trying to do a sting operation!

 

[fromderinside]

Equip all public places with a network of active denial systems that can be engaged whenever a weapon is detected.  Active Denial System

Yes, it will increase the rate at which non-metalic guns are developed. But that can be countered by adding networks of heat projection systems (lasers) to the ADS networks.

We need a technological solution for gun control so let's get about it.

I'm pretty confident the constitution will be shown it doesn't protect an american's right to posses either an ADS or a laser weapon.

A second approach would be to privatize public buildings, roads, sidewalks, etc. So such as arms bearing could be constrained on private property.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

What are we gonna do about white people and all their guns?

Come to an agreement that background checks, including medical history (mental health), for all prospective gun owners, white, black, yellow or whatever, is a necessity?

The logistics involved with "including medical history (mental health)" would be extremely complex and I suspect that mental health care providers would be reluctant to dismiss HIPAA while also compromising confidentiality between patient and health care provider.

To add that even if the above were somehow workable, mental health based data would include ONLY individuals who were assessed/ evaluated by a mental health care professional. Leaving out non diagnosed individuals.

As to any suggestion that all potential gun owners be directed to a mental health care provider to get a clearance, mental health care professionals do not just conduct an assessment of their client/patient mental state based on one sole consultation. Meaning several consultations and ...at what cost? Who would assume payments for the rendered services?

I tend to think that the majority of NRA members are responsible gun owners and could play an important role in developing a sponsorship program where they assume the necessary liability in "clearing" potential gun owners.

I suppose it is possible, that people seeking to purchase a firearm be made to undergo an exam by a therapist working in the employ of whatever agency will conduct these background checks. That is not a good thing, but it is a way to do what the OP wants. But that leads to an interesting question, which is also what the OP would want. Suppose you have a therapist who rules that the desire to own a firearm proves that one is mentally unsound and therefore that individual should not own a firearm?

These therapists would be different people from whatever therapist a person might normally see. I'm sure we'd have therapists willing to take the job, because we have medical doctors performing 12 hours of colonoscopies and forced enemas because a cop think that maybe possibly the guy being medically raped might have drugs.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Handguns are spectacularly ineffective against rabid grizzly bears. Therefore, if the government were to release hordes of rabid grizzly bears in populated areas, people wouldn't feel like handguns are much protection and start leaving them at home.

Problem solved.

 

[Sabine Grant]

What are we gonna do about white people and all their guns?

Come to an agreement that background checks, including medical history (mental health), for all prospective gun owners, white, black, yellow or whatever, is a necessity?

The logistics involved with "including medical history (mental health)" would be extremely complex and I suspect that mental health care providers would be reluctant to dismiss HIPAA while also compromising confidentiality between patient and health care provider.

To add that even if the above were somehow workable, mental health based data would include ONLY individuals who were assessed/ evaluated by a mental health care professional. Leaving out non diagnosed individuals.

As to any suggestion that all potential gun owners be directed to a mental health care provider to get a clearance, mental health care professionals do not just conduct an assessment of their client/patient mental state based on one sole consultation. Meaning several consultations and ...at what cost? Who would assume payments for the rendered services?

I tend to think that the majority of NRA members are responsible gun owners and could play an important role in developing a sponsorship program where they assume the necessary liability in "clearing" potential gun owners.

I suppose it is possible, that people seeking to purchase a firearm be made to undergo an exam by a therapist working in the employ of whatever agency will conduct these background checks.

Background checks are legal and not protected by HIPAA nor do they compromise patient/health care provider confidentiality. Anything that has to do with a person's medical history is heavily protected. "therapists" of what sort? To my knowledge diagnosing of any mental disorder listed in the DSM relies on the long term duration and observation of a series of specific symptoms related to each disorder. The suggestion that a "therapist" would be tasked to conduct such MEDICAL assessment while following the guidelines listed in the DSM based on an "exam" is one I can only disagree with. Further, how do you suppose such "therapist" would eliminate from the conclusion of their "exam" the variety of personality disorders and borderline personality disorders? Considering how complex their diagnosing is.

That is not a good thing, but it is a way to do what the OP wants. But that leads to an interesting question, which is also what the OP would want. Suppose you have a therapist who rules that the desire to own a firearm proves that one is mentally unsound and therefore that individual should not own a firearm?

For starters licensed therapists do not "rule". Secondly, mental health assessments need to be conducted by professional health care providers with the necessary license credentials issued by the State where they practice. I must ask again, what sort of "therapists" do you have in mind? Licensed psychologists, psychiatrists, neuro psychiatrists?

These therapists would be different people from whatever therapist a person might normally see.

Again, what type of medical license do you have in mind for those "therapists" who would somehow be tasked via an "exam" to accurately assess the mental health of prospective gun owners? Do you believe that via an "exam" they can actually assess accurately whether their client/patient is affected by any of the mental disorders listed in the DSM? Let alone personality disorders of an acute order such as psychopathy.

I'm sure we'd have therapists willing to take the job, because we have medical doctors performing 12 hours of colonoscopies and forced enemas because a cop think that maybe possibly the guy being medically raped might have drugs.

Actually, I seriously doubt that licensed therapists would find it realistic that they be expected to make accurate mental health assessments based on an "exam". This is not an episode of SVU where the character Dr. Huong is going to emit a diagnosis based on mere observation of a suspect while he/she is being questioned.

As to this claim :

because we have medical doctors performing 12 hours of colonoscopies and forced enemas because a cop think that maybe possibly the guy being medically raped might have drugs

Cop in question would have to get a court order to render any medical treatments/procedure/ test legal when they are rejected by the patient. Meaning that licensed physicians would know better than just engage in an invasive procedure of any type because a cop asks for it to be done on a person suspected of "having drugs".The moment any certified, licensed or registered health care worker/personnel engages in any medical procedure/treatment/ test, the person becomes a patient. Every patient under the Patient's Bill of Rights has the right in the US to refuse any treatments/procedures/tests.

 

[Nexus]

Meaning that licensed physicians would know better than just engage in an invasive procedure of any type because a cop asks for it to be done on a person suspected of "having drugs".

I guess you missed the news about doctors forcibly doing invasive procedures against suspected drug mules despite not having valid warrants. As a bonus they bill the suspects for the examine unless they sign a consent form after the fact.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Sabine, you forget a couple of very important point.

What is legal is whatever the government says is legal. HIPAA was written by the government, HIPAA can be rewritten by the government. If a measure like this were to pass, mandating a mental health examination for anyone wanting to purchase a gun, I can assure you that the writers of the bill would carve out a special exemption from HIPAA and any other laws that might interfere.

Also, the New Mexico example shows how absurdly easy it is to get a warrant for the police to do whatever the hell they want, without regard for sense, reason, morality, or ethics.

HIPAA won't matter at all, because it is a law and laws can be changed. The moment the prospective gun buyer walks in for his gun buying mental health evaluation, his doctor-patient confidentiality would be the big exception to HIPAA. The law is what the lawmakers say the law is. That's why you shouldn't count on them to protect you from them.

 

[pegasus8]

News Flash; heroin is cheap, plentiful and more white kids are hooking it up in suburban America!

Meaning that licensed physicians would know better than just engage in an invasive procedure of any type because a cop asks for it to be done on a person suspected of "having drugs".

I guess you missed the news about doctors forcibly doing invasive procedures against suspected drug mules despite not having valid warrants. As a bonus they bill the suspects for the examine unless they sign a consent form after the fact.

Heh I thought that all those Mexican/Hispanic mules can be easily identified by their calves being the size of cantaloupes? I saw it on Fox News interviewing some racist Congressmen. It was very informative about "those" kind of people.

Peace

Pegasus

 

[AthenaAwakened]

If our news covered our own people the way they cover other people

http://www.ericgarland.co/2013/04/2...an-culture-the-way-we-cover-foreign-cultures/

“
DATELINE APRIL 21, 2013

IT HAS HAPPENED AGAIN, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:

Yet another massacre has occurred in the historically war-torn region of the Southern United States – and so soon after the religious festival of Easter.

Brian McConkey, 27, a Christian fundamentalist militiaman living in the formerly occupied territory of Alabama, gunned down three men from an opposing tribe in the village square near Montgomery, the capitol, over a discussion that may have involved the rituals of the local football cult. In this region full of heavily-armed local warlords and radical Christian clerics, gun violence is part of the life of many.

Many of the militiamen here are ethnic Scots-Irish tribesmen, a famously indomitable mountain people who have killed civilized men – and each other – for centuries. It appears that the wars that started on the fields of Bannockburn and Stirling have come to America.

As the sun sets over the former Confederate States of America, one wonders – can peace ever come to this land?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I think the answer to all the gun violence in the US is more about cultural change and paranoia than it is about guns.

They're linked, however. If they had the same culture and were just as paranoid but were armed with knives, the violence resulting from their culture and paranoia would be far less extreme. It's also a lot easier to limit the availability of a product than it is to reshape a culture or to have paranoid people stop being so fucking crazy.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Remember that the burglars in the neighborhood were black. It's not that Trayvon was black, it's that he was the same race as the bad guys that had been spotted.

That supports what I wrote, because the Martin was black - the same race as the alleged burglars. You seem to omit the cacophony of character assassination of Martin based on purple "drank", his hoodie and drug use, and Zimmerman's own words. Hard to imagine his race was not driving some of that bs (if not all of it). It is unbelievable that anyone would even attempt to argue that Martin's race was not a factor.

You're focusing on race when that's not the right factor.

The important factor was that he looked like the bad guys.

And his drug use is most definitely relevant--most burglary is to get money for drugs.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Remember that the burglars in the neighborhood were black. It's not that Trayvon was black, it's that he was the same race as the bad guys that had been spotted.

That supports what I wrote, because the Martin was black - the same race as the alleged burglars. You seem to omit the cacophony of character assassination of Martin based on purple "drank", his hoodie and drug use, and Zimmerman's own words. Hard to imagine his race was not driving some of that bs (if not all of it). It is unbelievable that anyone would even attempt to argue that Martin's race was not a factor.

You're focusing on race when that's not the right factor.

The important factor was that he looked like the bad guys.

And his drug use is most definitely relevant--most burglary is to get money for drugs.

zimmerman could see martin's drug use?

 

[DBT]

I think the answer to all the gun violence in the US is more about cultural change and paranoia than it is about guns.

They're linked, however. If they had the same culture and were just as paranoid but were armed with knives, the violence resulting from their culture and paranoia would be far less extreme. It's also a lot easier to limit the availability of a product than it is to reshape a culture or to have paranoid people stop being so fucking crazy.

Do both: limit the availability of the product, within reason (allowing sporting shooters and hunters the means to pursue their interests), while working hard at reshaping the overall Gun Culture of America?

 

[dx713]

I think the answer to all the gun violence in the US is more about cultural change and paranoia than it is about guns.

They're linked, however. If they had the same culture and were just as paranoid but were armed with knives, the violence resulting from their culture and paranoia would be far less extreme. It's also a lot easier to limit the availability of a product than it is to reshape a culture or to have paranoid people stop being so fucking crazy.

Do both: limit the availability of the product, within reason (allowing sporting shooters and hunters the means to pursue their interests), while working hard at reshaping the overall Gun Culture of America?

Actually, one could help cause the other.
If it becomes illegal to be carrying a handgun or a semi-auto/automatic rifle, except disabled and locked while on your way to the shooting range, then gun displays in the overall society will necessarily decrease.

But this would require a shift in thinking that I'm not sure the US society is ready to make. Gun ownership has something very appealing to it, it's that it's empowering. When you relinquish use of violence to a state monopoly (i.e. the various police forces), you also accept a loss of control about your defense against violence. If some bad guy who doesn't care for the laws pulls a gun on you, you're done. It doesn't matter that your actual chances of that is statistically lower than the chance of owning a gun bringing you in trouble, you feel the loss of control. It's the same phenomenon that makes people feel safer while driving their own car than while sitting in an airliner, facts be damned.

Add to that the US culture of "frontier", large dangerous country where authorities aren't available and you have to organize your own defense, and the US culture of distrust of the government (I don't mean we trust our politicians in Europe, but we still hope to be able to restrain them by legal means), and I'm pessimistic about such a change happening one day...
Although Australia does have that "frontier" culture (IIRC) and you made it - I'm curious about the difference. Is it being part of the commonwealth?