Skip to main content

I wrote two prophetic diaries toward the end of July: Political Rhetoric (4): "Gay-bashing?" "Hate crime?" STOP IT! "TERRORISM," please, prompted by a particularly horrific gay-bashing in Oklahoma (7/25), and Liberty, Civil Rights, and Second Amendment Rights, prompted by the comment threads after Aurora, particularly one that called the idea of any kind of gun limitation "liberty-squashing" (yes, this was from an RKBA member)  Now, after the gun violence at a Sikh gurdwara (temple) in Oak Creek, Wisconsin and the burning of a mosque in Joplin, Missouri, especially with the identification of both as incidents of domestic terrorism, I think it's time to revisit some of what I wrote and to expand on it, particularly since so few of you wanted to discuss these at the time.

First, about domestic terrorism and hate crimes. I wrote (slightly edited):

Here is the freakin' FBI the FBI's page on hate crimes! I only need to quote the first paragraph here:

    Investigating hate crime is the number one priority of our Civil Rights Program. Why? Not only because hate crime has a devastating impact on families and communities, but also because groups that preach hatred and intolerance plant the seeds of terrorism here in our country.

All I have to say after that is James Byrd, Jr. His experience got Rick Perry to sign a hate crimes act in 2001.

Thus, let's just start calling these homophobic, racist, xenophobic and anthrophobic acts terrorism, and, while we're at it, acknowledging that rape is about power, add terrorism to the terms we use to describe that too.

Both Oak Creek and Joplin are being investigated as acts of domestic terrorism. Oak Creek, we all know about by now (the comment threads on the two most most rec'd diaries were depressingly familiar from Aurora), and the three diaries on Joplin (here and hereand here) all observe that this was not the first attempt on the mosque, which definitely raises it to the level of terrorism.

The question becomes why so many right now? The murderer in Oak Creek apparently killed 6 Sikhs and committed "suicide by cop" in the process. We know this was the work of a white supremacist. The arsonists in Joplin? Probably not lone wolves, but like the traditional lynch mob, vanished into the night, somebody caught on a surveillance camera, and the investigation is backing off on the arson charge -- investigators aren't "sure" it was arson. We all know that lynching was terrorism directed at black people. Muslims and people with turbans? Fair game? TERRORISM.

Second, about gun rights, which came roaring back into the DKos discourse the minute anyone suggested that, so soon after Aurora, that maybe something should be done about putting some brakes on the proliferation of firearms in this nation. No liberty-squashing comments, but LOTS of attempts to deflect from the fact the murderer used a gun. Here's a typical comment of that nature:

Things I want to hear from President Obama:

"My fellow Americans; lately we've seen a tragedy occur in Aurora Colorado and less recently, over in Arizona. While I think we should not push for more ineffective gun control laws, I believe this is a good time to address the root causes of crime. It will be slow. It will be hard. It will not fix everything immediately. We start with jobs (insert jobs plan here). We continue with a push for single payer health care that includes mental health. We legalize marijuana and treat it like alcohol or cigarettes. This will have a side benefit of also helping to reduce crime in Mexico, making one of our neighbors happy. We improve our social safety nets. We will hit the root causes of crime and improve life for all Americans."

Attempts to get the commenter to explain what we do in the meantime failed. And diaries like this SHOW that RKBA isn't serious. A LONG list of controls and then the repeal of the Second Amendment is floated.

It's never the gun, is it? That's why Second Amendment rights, which no one wants to admit have been expanded over the past decade, are so sacrosanct. But of course gun owners want to think the FIRST amendment gets more respect than the Second Amendment.  Here's what I had to say about that on the 27th:

Most of the documents I found that referred to an erosion of gun rights were from state chapters of the National Rifle Association, and they contrasted the precarious nature of gun rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment (Mark Sumner makes this emphasis VERY clear in his front page diary today) with the absolute sacrosanct nature of the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.  The problem is that, within the First Amendment, several rights were understood to be limited when the amendments were written and others have been limited since then. For clarity, here's the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
"No law respecting an establishment of religion" appears to be the most sacrosanct. The Supreme Court has itself violated the free exercise of religion when it told Conservative and Orthodox Jewish chaplains that they could not wear the head covering prescribed by Exodus and Leviticus indoors unless they were performing a religious service (Goldman v Weinberger, 1985). The freedom of speech and that of the press are limited by the laws regarding libel and slander. As for peaceable assembly, that right has been eroded most of all by requiring parade permits and in the constant negotiation over public and private property that we saw the Occupy movement dealing with on a daily basis last fall and winter. So I have to wonder why gun ownership under the Second Amendment can't, or shouldn't, be restricted in similar ways.

Let's also remember that when the Second Amendment was passed, a majority of American citizens couldn't even vote, and millions of Americans were owned by thousands of other Americans. The clearest expression of the individual right to own guns before 2008 is, ironically, contained in Dred Scott v Sandford (1856) as an incidental comment in the decision that said black people could never be citizens. In 2008, Heller v District of Columbia found an individual right (it doesn't matter that Scalia wrote the majority opinion, it's still the law) to keep and bear arms, and in 2010, McDonald v. Chicago extended the right to the states (Alito wrote this one).  The decisions didn't discuss whether there were any guns that should be limited the way cop-killer bullets are. But there's one other constitutional provision we have to look at: the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment  

Amendment XIV; Section 1.

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The theory behind the Equal Protection clause is what got all those subaltern people -- black men (15th Amendment), women of all races (19th Amendment) -- the ability to vote, and it's the section of the Constitution that protects the LGBT community in securing our civil rights.

But, of course, it's not that easy. When the American Psychiatric Association decided in 1973 that gay people did NOT suffer from a mental illness, the only state that had decriminalized us was Illinois. We were not thoroughly decriminalized until Lawrence v Texas in 2003, and, even now, we don't have the full panoply of civil rights all of you have. I can be fired simply if someone THINKS I'm gay in 29 states. I have to limit my job search to the 11 states in which my marriage will be recognized. I'd be very happy to have the liberties you have. And I know all about what it's like to have rights taken away from me. The Defense of Marriage Act was a preemptive taking away of rights, and Proposition 8 came close to being the same thing in California (it certainly was for the same-sex couples who want to get married but didn't manage to do so in the five-month window). LGBT people in Maine had marriage taken away from them by referendum too. Nobody attacks me for pointing that out, either.

"Liberty-squashing." Because you can't own a particular type of gun. Count your blessings if that's the only area in which you feel your rights are curtailed.

I still stand by that statement. I'm sorry if you don't like it, but please argue the facts I've presented. If you're a Kossack, you really shouldn't be quoting an organization like the NRA that was taken over by its right wing during the 1990s as if what said organization says is gospel.

Wed Aug 08, 2012 at 6:33 PM PT: Thanks for a relatively polite discussion.  I learned from it, but it mostly confirmed my suspicions about things.  I at least got some of my questions answered. No more replies from this end.

Originally posted to Dave in Northridge on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 08:17 PM PDT.

Also republished by notRKBA, Shut Down the NRA, and Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment (RASA).

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (15+ / 0-)

    -7.75, -8.10; All it takes is security in your own civil rights to make you complacent.

    by Dave in Northridge on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 08:17:02 PM PDT

  •  Well said, well done. (5+ / 0-)

    The hungry judges soon the sentence sign, And wretches hang, that jurymen may dine.

    by magnetics on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 08:21:12 PM PDT

  •  Obama has said that most gun owners support (12+ / 0-)

    "common sense" restrictions on guns, and we do have to work on keeping guns out of the hands of those who are mentally ill.  RKBA also doesn't have a single stance on gun restrictions: some don't like any restrictions, some want restrictions that are not in the laws yet.

    Gun control involves complex sociological and constitutional issues.   I see the 1st and the 2nd amendments as equally important, and both do have limitations since the rights are not absolute.

    And it is never about the guns, it's about the people who use them.

    •  Then how do we keep them (4+ / 0-)

      out of the hands that shouldn't use them?

      -7.75, -8.10; All it takes is security in your own civil rights to make you complacent.

      by Dave in Northridge on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 08:35:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'll be honest, I am unsure of exactly what would (3+ / 0-)

        be the best policy.

        You could try to link being on the "no fly" list to being denied a gun, but I am not very familiar with the "no fly" list itself and how flawed it is.

        Obviously, if you could link state and federal databases to those who have had mandated counseling or obvious mental health issues, that could be a better idea.  

        I hope someone who is an expert in these matters can answer your question.

        •  Thank you (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Glen The Plumber

          This is the first real-world solution I've seen from the gun defenders in a long time.  I hope we have someone here who can too.

          -7.75, -8.10; All it takes is security in your own civil rights to make you complacent.

          by Dave in Northridge on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 09:11:53 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •   the "no fly" list (0+ / 0-)

          Its like Joe McCarthys list of "known communists"
          No known way to be removed once on, fairly or not.
           My guess is there's a govt contract that pays 'per name'

          Our president has his failings, but compared to Mitt Romney he is a paradigm of considered and compassionate thought.

          by OMwordTHRUdaFOG on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 09:41:11 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm late to this thread, but yes, there needs to (0+ / 0-)

            be a way to challenge one's name on that list, ways to correct errors, which surely must occur. Any ideas? Are there any cases in play that address that?

            "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

            by LilithGardener on Thu Aug 22, 2013 at 11:49:30 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not sure, the answer is in the crime data, (3+ / 0-)

        but I think that closing the so called "gun show loophole" would be a start. The term is loaded, only about 2% of guns used in crimes where purchased at gun shows. What it is really about is requiring a NICS check for all purchases.

        Right now I can buy a gun from a coworker (not at work!) with no background check. It is illegal to sell a gun to someone if you "know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law", but how much does a buyer tell you? Changing the law to require a NICS check, provided it is made the responsibility of both the seller and buyer, would close this method for unauthorized people to purchase a firearm.

        A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward. Franklin D. Roosevelt

        by notrouble on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 10:20:06 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  What gun show loophole? (0+ / 0-)

          A private seller is still liable, and potentially criminally responsible, for determining the bonafides of a buyer before handing over the goods.

          An a-okay on a Form 4473 is, at its best, a clear defense against negligence or criminal culpability.  At worst, it's a stupid way to jam up law-abiding citizens over paperwork.  It does not have magical powers to prevent an exchange.

      •  The old fashioned way. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        KVoimakas, OMwordTHRUdaFOG

        By keeping a vigilant watch on those at risk, keeping your records of prohibited persons current, making that data widely available, and taking those who negligently or willfully trade with the proscribed to court.

      •  effective gun control (0+ / 0-)

        ''supply side" gun control borders on
        every gun owner is probably eventually gonna be guilty...
        i tried asking nate silver "how many legal guns would have to be removed from circulation to eliminate 1 crime scene gun" My guess is results similar to bloombergs stop & frisk
        Austin TX keeps gun crimes to a minimum w/ its repeat felony offender task force, similar to this diary
        Hartford CT gun task force
        You cant argue with results

        Our president has his failings, but compared to Mitt Romney he is a paradigm of considered and compassionate thought.

        by OMwordTHRUdaFOG on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 09:37:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Wouldn't go that far. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KVoimakas

      Haven't met anyone in RKBA that reject "any restrictions."  And considering there are plenty of laws on the books, the argument is more about which ones to keep, which ones to discard, and which ones to update or replace.

  •  Seriously? You come at us with this: (5+ / 0-)
    I'm sorry if you don't like it, but please argue the facts I've presented, and don't bring any kneejerk NRA stuff into the comments, please.
    --but you take one off-the-cuff remark about "liberty squashing" by a single gun owner, and proceed to judge us all by that; BUT, by God, don't come back with any knee-jerk statements in return, ginned up by the NRA.

    So cheap-ass potshots and blanket mischaracterizations are okay from the anti-2nd Amendment crowd, but any response in kind is out of bounds. OK, I see it.

    I bet you wonder why there's no real progress on the issue-- you don't even see you're part of the problem. Thanks for playing; bye now.

    •  Yes, seriously (0+ / 0-)

      This shows an inability to reason about the subject.  Just like the inability to respond to the question about keeping guns out of the hands of people who misuse them.  I'll do a small edit to get rid of "kneejerk."

      Also, how have I mischaracterized you?

      -7.75, -8.10; All it takes is security in your own civil rights to make you complacent.

      by Dave in Northridge on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 09:04:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Canis Aureus (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        KenBee, Joy of Fishes, IndieGuy

        had a very reasonable Diary on the subject of Gun Control just the other day.

        The Diary made sensible proposals if I remember correctly.

        I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
        but I fear we will remain Democrats.

        by twigg on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 09:20:54 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I am re-publishing here (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          pistolSO, Joy of Fishes, IndieGuy

          the comment I left in that Diary:

          Right up front I will give you enormous credit (7+ / 0-)

          for accepting the premise that our society needs to take positive action to end the mindless carnage.

          There is some way to go, however, because you still get caught in the old trap of wanting folk to quit branding gun owners as "all the same", yet you accept the outliers on the "gun control" side as typical of the breed.

          This is not a serious criticism, just a point I am making to demonstrate how difficult this is.

          Then we get to the nitty-gritty. The biggest criticism of your proposal is that "it will not work". I say that simply because that is the criticism that is always leveled at any proposals to control gun violence.

          This type of criticism is meant not to provoke a discussion about what will work, it is designed rather to shut the discussion down. It's very easy to say that a well-meaning proposal should be rejected "because it will not work", when you are freed of the responsibility to then suggest something that might.

          The implication there is that we are meant to simply accept the status quo, and more people will die.

          Well I, for one, do not accept that. I'm pleased that you don't either.

          The point here is that there is no single solution to solve America's gun crisis, and crisis it is. Yes, it is! What will solve the problem is an incremental series of steps. We have to start with solutions that, on their own, will not work, because there isn't a solution that will.

          What will work is a change of attitudes, and a gradual reduction in the supply of illegal guns currently floating around. Add to that a refusal to supply guns to those who will use them for illegal purposes (a longer term ambition), and you have the beginnings of a solution.

          What is more, with each incremental step the problem is marginally reduced.

          So I would accept your proposal, get it written down and passed into law. That would be the first step.

          Yeah, I hear them say, the thin end of the wedge!

          Correct, because the ambition is to make it ultimately possible for those who wish to own and use guns free to do so, but make it their responsibility that their guns never become illegal arms, and that we know where every last one of them is. I see no possible complaint about this, other than by those unwilling to help address the problem.

          I want licensing, registration, training. A limit on the type and amount of guns, ammunition and magazines (or clips). Mandatory reporting of theft, and penalties for those who were culpable if they didn't take reasonable steps to secure their guns.

          I want the law to reflect the seriousness, and great personal responsibility in this matter, and I want all decent gun owners to agree. It's not so hard.

          In return, their right to have and use firearms for lawful purposes should be made easy, with no expensive requirements.

          I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
          but I fear we will remain Democrats.

          by twigg on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 09:27:04 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  You wouldn't know by his comment (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          twigg

          Yes, they are reasonable.

          -7.75, -8.10; All it takes is security in your own civil rights to make you complacent.

          by Dave in Northridge on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 09:44:03 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I simply strive for balance (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Dave in Northridge, pistolSO

            in this debate ... but it can be hard to find.

            Your Diary is another good contribution, but it does fall into the same trap that gets us all from time to time .... that of making generalisations that have a ring of truth, but which upset some of the other side of the argument.

            I wish we could simply find the points we agree on, and go from there.

            I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
            but I fear we will remain Democrats.

            by twigg on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 09:48:27 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Since I didn't get any discussion the first time (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              twigg

              I raised these issues, of course I baited a trap, and it seems to have worked.  As for generalizations, maybe, but they are a very small part of what I wrote and they too were supposed to upset the other side of the argument.

              You should know my writing well enough by now to know I'm very very careful with my words.

              -7.75, -8.10; All it takes is security in your own civil rights to make you complacent.

              by Dave in Northridge on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 09:52:12 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  In this debate (4+ / 0-)

                I would argue that "careful" isn't enough, and I agree, you write very well.

                Here is the problem ...

                There is so much mistrust all around, that there isn't an obvious form of words that will work. I think that I now have a decent relationship with many in the RKBA Group, but it was hard won and there was some hurt along the way.

                I am consistent, they know where I come from and we disagree respectfully.

                What I have learned is that many gun owners see any regulation as simply a code for "getting rid of guns". That feeling is perpetuated by the enmity that arises in debate.

                We point to every tragedy, then we point at them.

                What I think we need to do is offer assurances, genuine ones, and invite them to bring their proposals to the table.

                I made a categorical statement that I would not support any attempts to take away the guns that are legitimately held, and lawfully used. They know that.

                What I want in return is control, regulation and a good number of other things that will not hurt legitimate ownership, even if there may be some inconvenience.

                Between us we need to ensure that less and less legal guns end up illegal, and we need to start withdrawing illegal guns from circulation.

                If we have that conversation, both sides will make progress, and feel good about it.

                I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
                but I fear we will remain Democrats.

                by twigg on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 09:59:40 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I'm not that noble (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  twigg

                  I've made the categorical statement about not all guns in the comments, and, beyond that, I'm looking for specific answers to questions (and there's that 'liberty-squashing" thing).  I thought I was getting the runaround in the Oak Creek aftermath when I asked questions, and I'm not now, at least from a couple of people.

                  We'll see what I find here in the morning, I guess.

                  -7.75, -8.10; All it takes is security in your own civil rights to make you complacent.

                  by Dave in Northridge on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 10:12:42 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  When I see something that only stirs (0+ / 0-)

            the pot of discontent, I respond with vinegar; a foolish comment will be met with derision, for that is what foolish comments (and double standards, blanket condemnations, etc) earn.

            On the other hand, in reasonable discussion or debate, I greatly prefer keeping things civilized. But to paraphrase Harry Reid in another recent diary, I can't pretend that people who makes irrational comments have a point, when they don't. It may be emotionally satisfying on some level, but it does nothing to further discourse.

  •  Most of the people I ask about guns (3+ / 0-)

    Want them banned.

    How come the huge number of folks that are sick of the bloodshed have so little political power?

  •  I have yet to see a workable solution to the (16+ / 0-)

    questions posed.  Obviously, no one is going to ban firearms, given the widespread ownership of firearms.  No one even knows how many guns are in private hands, where they are, and who has them.  The numbers run into the millions.  Very few of those who own firearms are members of the NRA.  Many gun owners I know make no bones about hating the NRA and their right-wing political activism.

    Mental health issues have their own special problems.  HIPAA is a law with serious teeth in it and it is being enforced.  There are only two reasons for breaking the HIPAA veil of patient confidentiality.  If a person is an imminent danger to self or others, of if child abuse is discovered.  If a psychiatrist, psychologist, clinical social worker or even family doctor discovers a patient is an imminent danger to some specific person, they must report.  On the other hand, if the report turns out to be false, the patient can sue.  Penalties for HIPAA violations are a $50,000 fine and a year in jail for each incident.  Even if HIPAA rules are changed, the code of ethics of every mental health profession has been incorporated into state licensing laws and violation of confidentiality can result in sanctions and loss of license to practice.  Good faith can be claimed, but even defending a defensible lawsuit is expensive in time and emotional trauma to the person being sued. How much risk do you think your family doctor is willing to take of losing his or her license to practice?

    Another thing. Prohibition never worked in the past and is not working now.  All the 18th Amendment did was create criminal gangs and bring the Mafia into the social fabric of the US.  Just as drugs are doing now with criminal gangs and drug cartels.  Prohibition will not work with firearms.  It is surprisingly easy for anyone with a modicum of machine shop or blacksmiths skills to make a gun.  I have made several, along with some impressive pieces of cutlery.  Same with gunpowder.  It is easy to make with stuff that can be found at farm equipment shops and things you can make at home. Tell people they cannot buy firearms and they will make them.  Even the feared AK-47 was designed and built by a tank mechanic and tinkerer in his shop while recuperating from wounds he suffered in WW-II. It is a simple rifle with most parts made of stamped sheet metal; parts that can be made in even a small home workshop.      

    This may seem off topic, but has anyone noticed that smoking has fallen off dramatically in the past several years.  I live in what used to be tobacco country.  Tobacco fields used to be as ubiquitous as cotton and soybeans are in the Mississippi delta country. Now you don't see a tobacco field anywhere, and the two biggest tobacco warehouses locally have been torn down.

    What happened?  Same thing that made the KKK an organization that is socially unacceptable to join.   Any Social Psychologist can explain the link.  It became unfashionable.  Social pressures changed attitudes and social behaviors.  Telling people they cannot have something is whistling past the graveyard.  Behavioral and Social Psychologists have given society all the tools they need.  Society and activists have been looking in the wrong places.

    Finally, white papers by the FBI and Secret Service show there is no way for society to protect itself from the "lone wolf."  Those papers were developed independent of each other in the wake of school shootings such as the ones at Columbine and Pearl, MS.   Those agencies put their best behavioral analysts on the task of looking for a way to profile potential school shooters.  There is no way do to so reliably.    

    The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand. - Sun Tzu

    by Otteray Scribe on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 09:22:36 PM PDT

    •  Interesting point about tobacco (3+ / 0-)

      But it's not social pressures (I take that as an RKBA dodge) that killed tobacco.  It's the number of people that tobacco and the delivery systems for tobacco killed. Eventually, people were going to shake their addictions to nicotine like I did, and the tobacco companies had to adjust what they made their money from.

      Before I continue, I want to know if you accept that scenario for what happened.

      -7.75, -8.10; All it takes is security in your own civil rights to make you complacent.

      by Dave in Northridge on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 09:34:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No. I know what happened to tobacco. (14+ / 0-)

        Mississippi Attorney General Mike Moore came up with the brilliant legal way to get around the tobacco company's dodge that smoking was a matter of choice.  Mike (who is an acquaintance of mine--I used to do some work for him) came up with the idea of suing on behalf of the state for monies expended for taking care of tobacco related illnesses.  That broke the legal veil the big companies had been hiding behind by taking away their "free will" argument.  

        Employers were encouraged to make work places smoke free, because exposure to smoking was creating a workplace hazard--pressures from their health insurance carriers helped.  

        As smokers found themselves banned to the sidewalk if they wanted to smoke, at the same time they discovered the increasing number of smokers who quit shunning them.  There is no anti smoker like a former smoker.  

        The floodgates were opened when other State Attorneys General got into the act and helped with the lawsuits.  One of my friends was one of the private practice lawyers who participated in the litigation.  Apropos of nothing in particular, when he got his first paycheck from the tobacco settlement, he took part of it and wrote a million dollar donation to his law school alma mater.  There was a boatload of money involved in the lawsuit.  

        People still smoke, but they find themselves social outcasts in a manner of speaking.  We do not hire smokers at our office, just as an example. The main reason is that smokers tend to smell like smoke, and I for one am allergic to tobacco smoke.  Besides, the smell of smoke on a person is just another form of unpleasant body odor.  It is easier to make rules like that now than it was even ten years ago.

        There have been articles written on the subject in professional journals and textbooks in the field of Social Psychology on this subject.  It is both simple and complicated at the same time.  There are many variables in play.  However, as I said, the profession of psychology has given society the tools.  Whether they are implemented gets into politics, money and hidden agendas on the part of the players.  That is well above my pay grade.

        The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand. - Sun Tzu

        by Otteray Scribe on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 09:58:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  ah, well (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Joy of Fishes

          I was trying to make a point about the delivery system.  And since everybody knows that one of the most effective way to kill someone is by using a delivery system for bullets, I suppose the warnings they slapped on the tobacco delivery system wouldn't work on the bullet delivery system.

          It was easy for Mike Moore because tobacco doesn't grow in Mississippi. But how many state attorney generals don't get contributions from the NRA, and how many of them would be able to use a similar tactic?

          And, as I keep asking, yes, changes in society are necessary, but what do we do in the meantime? I don't know that that's beyond your pay grade.

          -7.75, -8.10; All it takes is security in your own civil rights to make you complacent.

          by Dave in Northridge on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 10:05:58 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Dave you miss the point entirely (12+ / 0-)

            The point was not about the delivery system, but a method to control mass behavior through scientific means.  Emotion never got anything done unless that emotion can be harnessed and directed.  You are right that Mike Moore would not have been able to pull that off had he been the AG in Kentucky, for example.  But that is irrelevant.

            The point is, the solution is found in a study of human behavior and an effort to change society through what we know about behavior.  Change happens gradually, not suddenly.  People have a tendency to look at the obvious and not the subtle.  It is human nature.  

            BTW, I have probably seen more dead bodies than almost anyone on this site, with the possible exception of labwitchy.  I know more about violent behavior than I wish I knew.  This has been my life work, not something I dabble in as a hobby.  No one wants to see an end to violence more than I do.

            The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand. - Sun Tzu

            by Otteray Scribe on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 10:14:55 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well, the reason I approached it that way (0+ / 0-)

              is that a lot of what I'm hearing talks about social change, but what I want to know is what do we do to stop the Auroras and Oak Creeks in the meantime. KVoimakas responded to a what do we do in the meantime question yesterday by picking up on a typo I made and saying he didn't know what PKBA was instead of saying "I don't know."

              I don't have issues with most of you, and I hope you know that.  The people I DO have issues with haven't shown up here yet, and I doubt that they will.

              -7.75, -8.10; All it takes is security in your own civil rights to make you complacent.

              by Dave in Northridge on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 10:31:23 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Didn't he say this? (5+ / 0-)
                Finally, white papers by the FBI and Secret Service show there is no way for society to protect itself from the "lone wolf."  Those papers were developed independent of each other in the wake of school shootings such as the ones at Columbine and Pearl, MS.
                Can there be a solution instituted by our created government? I seriously doubt it and not have it run counter to our constitution. How do we legislate belief? We cannot.

                I have a subtle distaste for social manipulation OS has pointed out.  I've seen it my whole life control & destroy many people.  Pressure to conform to varying moral standards instituted by those that cannot fathom the harm it inflicts upon minorities, such as myself, a transgendered woman.

                As far as we've allegedly come, kids are still killing themselves because they are gay. Laughed at, bullied, threatened and ignored.

                It's okay if its used to stop x but not y?  How about we empower our children to be mature responsible adults? Then letting them make their own choices for good or bad and then living with the consequences?

                It's this push to collectivism that destroys human creativity and the human spirit. I do not wish to think and believe as my neighbor and I hope to hell the authoritarians amongst us don't continue to get a free pass to manipulate this topic and these issues we all face.

                Their only "acceptable" solution is to ban everything.  That will not change human nature.  It will not stop the violence.  EDUCATION CAN.

                We don't have to agree but we MUST learn to respect each other throughout this process.

                -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                by gerrilea on Wed Aug 08, 2012 at 04:26:11 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  So, I'm thinking that one way to do it (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Joy of Fishes

          Is to make everyone that has guns buy insurance on those guns, to protect against damages caused by those guns.

          Once the insurance companies are having to pay for damages, they will push for safer guns, and more control over who has them.

          Not only that, the pool of gun owners would be paying for the costs associated with guns. There are medical costs, funeral costs, law enforcement costs, costs to businesses who have to be closed while investigations are ongoing, and costs because of people being afraid to gather in public places.

          I would also like to have open carry. That way people can distance themselves from guns if they want to.

          Women create the entire labor force.

          by splashy on Wed Aug 08, 2012 at 03:01:44 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  When I open carry (4+ / 0-)

            you may be amazed to learn that people are oblivious.

            There I am, full size 1911 on my hip. That's 5 inches for the barrel alone, plus all the rest, plus the bulk of the holster itself. Walking down the aisle of the store with a basket of pasta and sauce and soda and butter and bread in one hand, gallon of milk in the other. Who distances from me? Nobody.

            99/100 of the people are off in their own world, completely oblivious to me beyond "There's a person, don't collide".

            There are videos of people texting and falling into bigass fountains, videos of people texting and walking into walls, and my personal fave is the video of the guy talking on the phone who loses track of his surroundings so much that he walks off the edge of the subway platform!

            You place MUCH too much faith in people's awareness.

            •  Is open carry (4+ / 0-)

              common in your neck of the woods? Here in MI it's allowed, but I never see it. And I would notice...

              "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

              by happy camper on Wed Aug 08, 2012 at 07:12:29 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  It's not unknown. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                PavePusher, gerrilea

                In PA, the basic guideline is 'If you can own it, then you can openly carry it, no license required'. Of course there are a few places where the law varies from that guideline here and there, but that's basically the deal, dude.

                And people would be amazed just what is and is not noticeable. It's not like a video game, where the powerups and items have a pulsing glow about them. The aren't generally a very contrasting color either, plus there's the arm on that side that can obfuscate the view. Not to mention viewing angle combined with what color is the background behind the person, and that's IF the person is motionless. And don't forget lighting.

                People who have done at least hobby photography know the many elements that must go into getting the lighting, angle, focus and composition of a photo just right so the subject is properly captured to film. Real life walking around the grocery store is not at all conducive to the visual frisk job that people think can be done.

                And concealed? HA! It ain't the movies out there. I have family who know I carry, know what size of gun I carry, know where I carry, and haven't been able to tell if I had it on me when they stand at just arm's length away.

                So forgive me if I just don't take people's word for it that they would notice. It's been my experience that 99/100 are too involved in their own personal storylines.

                •  As a supporter (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  PavePusher, gerrilea

                  of RKBA, I tend to notice such things... agreed that a properly concealed weapon is just that--concealed. I shouldn't have said never--now and then I've seen it, but it's rare where I live. The last time I saw it was a pawn shop owner in his store.

                  "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

                  by happy camper on Wed Aug 08, 2012 at 11:46:28 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  The point is that they have the option (0+ / 0-)

              If they want to. It's possible that many notice, and don't care. Just because no one says anything, or is obvious about how they are acting, doesn't mean they don't notice.

              Women create the entire labor force.

              by splashy on Sat Aug 11, 2012 at 01:14:03 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  I have insurance (5+ / 0-)

            It is called homeowner's insurance.  Also, the NRA has insurance up to a million dollars.  NRA membership is relatively cheap and insurance comes with membership.  Do you realistically want millions of people who currently do not belong to the NRA to join?  That is all one has to do in order to get a million dollar insurance policy.

            Costs of insurance have not gone up because the number of gun violence incidents per capita are actually negligible.  

            The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand. - Sun Tzu

            by Otteray Scribe on Wed Aug 08, 2012 at 06:41:02 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Missed this one. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              splashy

              I've never been able to find an insurance policy that covers criminal or negligent misuse of a stolen firearm.  I have both homeowner and business policy that covers against theft, but not accident or negligent discharge.  I've heard conflicting reports about NRA coverage regarding cost, and the reason why I shamelessly pay an adviser to deal with these matters is that I don't know much about how to shop for things like this.

          •  Do remember that (8+ / 0-)

            insurance policies of all sorts generally exempt criminal acts by the insured from their coverage. So even if a James Holmes was required to purchase insurance, the company is not going to pay for the damages caused by a deliberate criminal act perpetrated by the insured.

            They just don't do it.

            "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

            by happy camper on Wed Aug 08, 2012 at 07:11:00 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Excellent point. (5+ / 0-)

              There is no insurance at all that will cover criminal acts.  One cannot purchase such a policy for any price.

              Some policies will provide an attorney if there is a suspicion the allegation is an accident, but if it is adjudicated to be a deliberate act, the insurance will not pay.  In fact, the insurer is likely to bill the defendant for reimbursement for attorney's fees up to that point.  

              The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand. - Sun Tzu

              by Otteray Scribe on Wed Aug 08, 2012 at 08:26:49 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Dave, you miss the point. (7+ / 0-)

        It was social pressure that provided the major impetus for the reason for so many people to quit smoking.  If you want to change behavior of large groups of people, you look to the research done by Social, Industrial and Experimental psychologists.  There are numerous articles on the subject.  Focusing on delivery systems are the equivalent of the kid with ADHD who is distracted by every new shiny thing.

        Tobacco is one of the most addicting substances available legally. No one is going to give it up without some kind of pressure of some kind, however subtle or indirect.  

        Those with a single agenda tend to be like the observation by Dr. Abraham Maslow, "When your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail."

        I have probably seen more dead bodies in my lifetime than anyone on this site, with the possible exception of labwitchy.  No one wants to see an end to violence more than I do.  This is my life work, not a hobby, and I am not some kind of dilettante.  

        The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand. - Sun Tzu

        by Otteray Scribe on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 10:26:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Prohibition has worked in other countries (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dave in Northridge

      Comparing a gun ban to a drug ban is a canard.

      •  We are a nation of that has a history of breaking (9+ / 0-)

        those kind of laws.

        Many of our Founders were involved in smuggling things that the Crown forbid after all.

        Prohibition and The War on Drugs are both examples of failures to reduce the supply of something the government outlawed.   Generally, wars on Ideas don't work and making a gun is basically as easy as making moonshine (and people still make moonshine today).

        •  we're a nation with a history (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Free Jazz at High Noon, KenBee

          of racism, sexism, and classism too.  i guess we should cancel all of those laws too.  

          many of our founders owned slaves.

          etc.

          Ted Kennedy: “The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die…”

          by jlms qkw on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 10:28:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  False analogy there... (6+ / 0-)

            It took us a long time for society to accept that racism is wrong, and most Americans now see sexism as wrong too.  I think we're still working as the classism myself.   I also don't think it's fair to compare socially acceptable anti-discrimination laws that clearly reduce harm to prohibition laws that have tended to target specific substances that tend to be engrained in our culture.

            Also prohibition itself has tended to increase the harm of what it tried to ban(it being illegal means that there is no regulating authority to make sure that it is safe, etc).

            As far as the Founders owning slavery...it took a very bloody civil war to finally end slavery in this country whereas in the UK, slavery was ended peacefully by Parliment(and the UK ended slavery before we did).  And to make sure that we could never go down that road again, three Amendments were quickly added to the Constitution(the 13th, 14th and 15th).

          •  racism, sexism, and classim? (4+ / 0-)

            Despite the laws you claim to have made an impact, we're more of each - now, than we were 4 decades ago.

            It's just (at times) subtle.

            "Oh, I'm sorry... we don't issue mortgages to someone with your credit history.  You've never had an unsecured credit line in excess of $20,000."

            "I'm sorry... as we're within 2 miles of a school, we have a policy against selling condos to anyone with a criminal record.
            I see here you were convicted in 1979 of criminal sale of marijuana."

            "I'm sorry... this job requires you lift up to 70 pounds repeatedly."  
            (while you only see men, working on boxes that weigh in the 5-12 pound range)

        •  That's a dodge, sorry (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Free Jazz at High Noon

          This isn't a war on anything.  It's just trying to figure out how to keep Tuscon and Aurora and Oak Creek from proliferating, and since we can't approach that by saying there are some guns that shouldn't be on the market because someone will scream "slippery slope" I don't know how we DO approach it.

          I'm really looking for answers that work short-term.

          -7.75, -8.10; All it takes is security in your own civil rights to make you complacent.

          by Dave in Northridge on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 10:34:37 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Dave (6+ / 0-)

            None of these shooters were without someone seeing, knowing, hearing - and ignoring the signs.

            At times, people raised the flag, only to have authorities go:
            "no crime, can't do a thing".

            Fix.  THAT.

          •  Instantaneous gratification? (5+ / 0-)
            I'm really looking for answers that work short-term.
            Maybe that's why you can't fathom any solution, gun violence is a symptom of our decaying society, not the problem.  

            Here let me give you an aspirin to mask that migraine you keep getting...forget the fact that it is being caused by a tumor that I didn't take the time to investigate.

            The lawlessness in our government, in business, in our daily lives is splashed across our TV screens and newspaper headlines.   "Cop Beats and Kills Handcuffed Man", "Banks Launder Money for Drug Cartels & Terrorists", "Congress Exempt From Insider Trading", "Military Contractors Caught in Child Sex-Slave Ring, Contract Renewed!"

            Let's talk about how these things effect each and every one of us psychologically, spiritually and physically? What is it doing to the Average American that has come to realize they cannot control their own government? Or the society they exist in?  Or for that matter, their own lives?

            They ignore it and retreat into fantasy, "The Great American Pastime", the tel-lie-vision.  They distract themselves from this reality, they deny it and is it any wonder we are seeing the results of these delusions?

            It took decades creating these conditions and the resulting apathy. Do you really think there can be a short-term solution here?

            I don't think so.

            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

            by gerrilea on Wed Aug 08, 2012 at 04:54:24 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  and you misunderstood me (0+ / 0-)

              How would YOU stop the next Aurora or Oak Creek? That's what  I meant by short term.

              This is not out of hostility to you either.

              -7.75, -8.10; All it takes is security in your own civil rights to make you complacent.

              by Dave in Northridge on Wed Aug 08, 2012 at 11:54:36 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  There may always be a next one, rare as they are.. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                PavePusher

                We must take responsibility for creating this delusional society first before it can be corrected.

                Holmes got his ideas from a freaking comic book character and everyone wants to ban firearms...???? How about we ban the comic book?  He thought he was acting in a movie? Ban violent movies!

                Hey, that's just me... You hate your neighbor because the Bible says to? Ban the freaking bible!

                Dammit, I digress....  ;_)

                The are no simple solutions that will be constitutional. The ones we have at our disposal right now are: EDUCATION.

                Teach our children logic, critical thinking, teach empowerment, teach peace and above all else teach them to respect their neighbor, even if they hate them.

                Turn off the damn TV's, video games and movies that encourage those whom are mentally unstable to see their reality in them.  (Hinckley comes to mind.) Get people off the damn couch.

                Fund mental health services like our lives depended upon it.  

                That's my short list...EDUCATION.


                I touch the future. I teach.

                ~Christa McAuliffe

                -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                by gerrilea on Wed Aug 08, 2012 at 05:41:49 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  I'd like to be a fly on the wall... (4+ / 0-)

        ...as you went door to door collecting them.


        Time travel opportunity. Must bring your own weapons. Your safety is not guaranteed, I've only done this once before. Call 866.555.1212.

        by IndieGuy on Wed Aug 08, 2012 at 07:35:42 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  "Prohibition has worked in other countries" (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gerrilea, KVoimakas

        !!!     Whew.... thanks, I needed a good roll-on-the-floor laugh today.

    •  Nothing can be done: continue the status quo (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dave in Northridge

      I agree that the problem of guns and gun violence in America is a big and challenging problem.  But I reject the thinking that there is nothing we can do, and should therefore do nothing, or simply continue to accept the status quo.

      Here are some other large challenging problems that we as a country faced.  
      - It was once impossible that a small colony of the British empire would win independence.
      - It was once impossible that slavery could be abolished.
      - It was once impossible that women could be allowed to vote.
      - It was once impossible that workers could join a labor union.
      - It was once impossible that black and white school kids could be educated in the same class-room.
      - It was once impossible that women could serve in the military.
      - It was once impossible that a black man could serve as president of the US.

      All these problems were once thought to be to big and complex to solve.  But we somehow found a way to solve all these problems., despite the intrenched interests and the nay-sayers.

      I point out the climate change deniers make the exact same arguments to resist taking action to protect our earthly habitat: the problem is too big; there is nothing we can do to effect the climate; there is no proof that xyz will accomplish anything.

      These are the arguments of the conservative keepers of the status quo.  And if you only do what you have always done, you will only get what you have already gotten.

      Sadly, I must conclude that is the exact thinking of the majority of gun enthusiasts: we already have our guns, and if 30,000+ Americans have to die every year of gunshot injuries so we can contiue to have our guns, then we should go with that.

      And if I am wrong on this, let the gun-owners show us by their actions that I am wrong.

      "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

      by Hugh Jim Bissell on Wed Aug 08, 2012 at 06:49:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The majority already do "show us by their actions" (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        KVoimakas

        Your conflated number of 30,000 is contrary to what is being reported.  Wait, you like to misinform by claiming suicides should be included here, am I right?

         While Gun Ownership Climbs, Murder Keeps Going Down

        There is proof that supply side gun control has not reduced gun crimes, Chicago anyone?

        http://news.yahoo.com/...

        You wrap your dogma in cliches and emotionally manipulative phrasing while demonizing the majority of Americans.  Do you think this is a good tactic to honest discussion?

        It seems the rash of these shooters have been on psychiatric drugs AND at some point in psychiatric care.

        Can we blame the drugs? Their psychiatrists for being lazy and prescribing drugs that they surely get kickbacks from?

        MOST CERTAINLY:

        http://www.bbc.co.uk/...

        http://www.cchr.org/...

        Nay, you want the status quo to continue. You wish for Big Pharma to continue to lie, cheat and steal billions a year while their products create drug induced psychosis and violence.

        It has to be about the guns, it can't be about anything else.  

        How about we ban the movies that inspired these delusions? How about we ban the depiction of violence in everything?

        Oh no, they have their 1st Amendment rights? So you'd have millions bullied, beaten and in many cases killed because of people espousing their right to free speech or their right to their religious tenets? The Bible has killed more people than any gun.  Let's ban it, shall we?

        Dammit, how about we ban all psychiatric drugs that have been linked to increased suicides and violent outbursts from those taking them?

        Darn, that status quo again, Corporate profits are inviolate, right?

        When you want to have an honest discussion on the issues we all face, look me up...

        -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

        by gerrilea on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 02:27:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  God and Guns (6+ / 0-)

    are so deeply embedded in American culture and the mythological history of the United States that it is difficult, if not impossible, to have any conversation in a non-emotional fashion. For rational discussion, we really need some hard data: the NRA has made it impossible to obtain any real meaningful statistics about guns.

    •  I know (3+ / 0-)

      I'm also apparently becoming an expert at the futile gesture. I thought it might be worth a try.

      -7.75, -8.10; All it takes is security in your own civil rights to make you complacent.

      by Dave in Northridge on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 09:35:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thanks for the attempt (0+ / 0-)

        My frustration  comes from the lack of any real data.

      •  Dave, there are so many factors causing (0+ / 0-)

        the violence we are witnessing and all that is ever talked about is the evil gun...Americans want instantaneous gratification, they want their government to solve all their problems NOW!  This type of thinking is a symptom of our materialistic society.

        It's not about the NRA or those of us that believe in supporting the entire Bill Of Rights.  The NRA means nothing to me personally, I don't own any firearms but I do know and understand history.

        I know that Death by Government has killed more unarmed people in the last 100 yrs than all the wars man engaged in previously, 270+ million.

        Do I believe that Americans being armed could stop our Military Industrial Complex today? No, but I do believe it gives them pause.

        We don't need to abrogate said document to address these issues we all face.  But we must face them together.  Let's define the problem honestly. You may be surprised to find that psychiatric drugs meant to curb violence actually increases it.  Let's deal with that shall we?  Hold Psychiatrists accountable for over prescribing these drugs that they most assuredly are getting kick backs from...but that would take a true leader in this country, one that knows that a for-profit health system IS a crime against humanity.

        It would take a commitment from everyone in America to rid ourselves of the sycophants in our Congress and at every level of our government today. Get the corporations out of our business, the business of "we the people."

        You all want the problem to be defined one-dimensionally...gun control...that isn't the answer, Chicago and NYC are freaking war-zones and they have more strict gun control than the majority of this nation.

        Is repeating and repeating "its about the guns" truly productive, when it clearly isn't?  Do we come any closer to solving these problems with this mantra???

        It serves only to divide all of us even further, people digging in and saying shit like, "You can pry my gun from my cold dead hands!" or on the opposite side, "Baby killers!"  Does this do anything for any of us?

        Think about this please, maybe then you'll understand why you keep hitting your head against the wall...

        Insanity: doing the same things over and over again, expecting different results.

        -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

        by gerrilea on Thu Aug 09, 2012 at 02:54:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  there is actually a lack of research (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dave in Northridge

    about gun stuff.  and guess why?  oh, your first 5 guesses don't count.  

    from my sunday night OND:
    NRA & gun/violence research

    Ted Kennedy: “The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die…”

    by jlms qkw on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 10:27:46 PM PDT

    •  That's what Ojibwa said (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jlms qkw

      I just don't know how anyone here can support that.

      -7.75, -8.10; All it takes is security in your own civil rights to make you complacent.

      by Dave in Northridge on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 10:36:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  maybe for the sake of discussion (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dave in Northridge

        replace "gun" with "cereal box" or something innocuous.  see how that works?  

        being nearly a pacifist myself, i have been wondering about the worldwide weapons trade.  it seems immoral to make money that way.  

        Ted Kennedy: “The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die…”

        by jlms qkw on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 10:42:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Alea jacta est (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jlms qkw

          Thanks for the good idea, jen, but it's too late at least in this diary. I have enough "real world " work to do by the end of September (two encyclopedia entries and a paper to present, plus all the classroom stuff) that I think all I'll be writing after this are a few Top Comments diaries, not on anything controversial.

          -7.75, -8.10; All it takes is security in your own civil rights to make you complacent.

          by Dave in Northridge on Tue Aug 07, 2012 at 10:45:46 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Show us the research then (0+ / 0-)

        and in the meantime, maybe you could also address the idea that you losing the opportunity to buy a certain gun is as serious as me being subject to firing in 29 states because of who I am?

        -7.75, -8.10; All it takes is security in your own civil rights to make you complacent.

        by Dave in Northridge on Wed Aug 08, 2012 at 11:52:42 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Any time. (0+ / 0-)

          Here you go.

          To answer your question, I have no idea what your circumstances are but I'm sure you can walk and chew gum at the same time.  Or are you just stringing together non-sequiturs for fun?

          •  naturally, you missed my point (0+ / 0-)

            1) All those, with one exception, are about suicide.

            2) "liberty-squashing" - unless you forgot you wrote that.

            -7.75, -8.10; All it takes is security in your own civil rights to make you complacent.

            by Dave in Northridge on Wed Aug 08, 2012 at 12:19:11 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  How'd I miss the point? (0+ / 0-)

              jlms qkw: "there is actually a lack of research about gun stuff.  and guess why?  oh, your first 5 guesses don't count.  from my sunday night OND: "NRA & gun/violence research."

              me: "That's not true."

              you: "Show us the research then"

              me: "Here you go."

              Open and shut.  Unless you 1530 on firearm-related suicides alone are irrelevant.

              I'm sure you'll provide context for 2) in your own good time.  Or not.  

              •  Figures (0+ / 0-)

                1) first page of the google scholar search page you sent me to: all ten studies were about suicide.  How that's relative to Aurora escapes me.

                2) Try this one, where I took "suicide" out of the search field.  NONE after 2005.

                3) I didn't think you'd answer my second question. I wasn't disappointed.

                I'm done with this now.

                -7.75, -8.10; All it takes is security in your own civil rights to make you complacent.

                by Dave in Northridge on Wed Aug 08, 2012 at 12:56:00 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Really? (0+ / 0-)

                  1. Didn't know we were talking about Aurora.  Thought we were talking about firearm mortality research.
                  2. Remove "suicide" and you get 2970 hits.  That's a lot more than NONE.  Perhaps you missed a quotation mark?
                  3. You didn't have a second question.

                  It's been my pleasure to educate you.

  •  Guns and mental illness (0+ / 0-)

    Creating laws to keep people with a serious mental illness from having guns seems sensible, but please understand that people with a mental illness are no more likely to be violent than anyone else, unless they are untreated.  Even then, people with an untreated mental illness are more likely to be a victim of violence, not perpetrators.  

    What illnesses would disqualify a person?  Anxiety? ADHD? Chronic Low-Grade Depression (which I have)?  What about someone who has recovered - and most people do recover from mental illness?  It's not so black and white.

    Believe me, my twin brother had schizophrenia, and did not have one lucid day in the 32 years he lived with his illness.  I would never have wanted him to have a gun - but it is not so black and white.  

    Also, it seems that Mr. Holmes was in the early stages of his illness and the psychiatrist was just getting wise to how dangerous he might be, but he wasn't in the system yet - so even having some kind of law to keep guns from people like him,  it would not have been effective in this situation.

    What we should do is set up programs in high schools and colleges to identify people who might be in the early stages of the most serious illnesses like schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, so we can intervene with treatment sooner and, hopefully, prevent the kinds of psychotic events that end in violence.   Schizophrenia is known to be triggered by stress and to manifest  during late teens and early twenties.  We know many early warning signs and are learning about more every day.  NIMH is learning new ways to rebuild pathways in the brain without relying on medications.   Cognitive Enhancement Therapy (CET) has brought back some of the cognitive functioning lost from schizophrenia, especially, and many people also regain their insight, which is more than half the battle ("I'm not crazy, the FBI planted a camera in my head and are sending me messages" - something my brother said many times).  

    We can do a better job at treating mental illness, but the mental health system needs to have a major upheaval to make  this all work.  It  would take too long to explain here.  I just joined and will be writing my own diaries, but you can check out my website. I set it up to provide information on a very discriminatory Medicaid law that affects people who need long-term, in-patient treatment for mental illness and/or addiction (from months to  years).  Please  also note that I am not advocating for a return of the gothic state hospitals - but there is a major psychiatric bed shortage - the pendulum has swung way too  far. I will write about it.

    Thank you for your time.

  •  Prophetic, and this was 4 months before (0+ / 0-)

    Newtown.  Thanks for the diary.

    “In keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us that no sign of it appears on the surface, we are implanting it … we are thereby ripping the foundations of justice from beneath new generations.” - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

    by DefendOurConstitution on Wed Aug 21, 2013 at 02:53:03 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site