The Great ILX Gun Control Debate

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (3246 of them)

http://www.606studios.com/bendisboard/images/smilies/new6-05/jackoff.gif http://www.606studios.com/bendisboard/images/smilies/new6-05/jackoff.gif http://www.606studios.com/bendisboard/images/smilies/new6-05/jackoff.gif http://www.606studios.com/bendisboard/images/smilies/new6-05/jackoff.gif http://www.606studios.com/bendisboard/images/smilies/new6-05/jackoff.gif http://www.606studios.com/bendisboard/images/smilies/new6-05/jackoff.gif http://www.606studios.com/bendisboard/images/smilies/new6-05/jackoff.gif http://www.606studios.com/bendisboard/images/smilies/new6-05/jackoff.gif

― félix pié, Friday, 20 April 2007 20:08 (seventeen years ago) link

Weren't 20-something people killed at the Olympics by a bomb that consisted of low-grade explosives plus NAILS?

― milo z, Friday, 20 April 2007 20:08 (seventeen years ago) link

many, many, xposts.

Here is a section of an article written in 2002 about the reason it is so difficult to find information on the mentally ill and firearms:

Title: Guns and the mentally ill., By: Cannon, Angie, U.S. News & World Report, 00415537, 4/1/2002, Vol. 132, Issue 10
Database: Academic Search Premier

Records gap. The FBI's database currently contains records for about 89,570 people who should be prohibited from buying guns because of mental health problems--though the government estimates that as many as 2.6 million people have been involuntarily institutionalized in the United States. Almost all of those mental health records in the FBI database come from people who were institutionalized in federal veterans hospitals. Only six states provide mental health records to the FBI database, and they provided a total of only 41 individual records.

That frustrates the FBI. "We're constantly working with the states in an effort to get more records into our system in this category," says spokesman Steve Fischer. "In most cases, it takes legislation within respective states for that to happen. That's one reason why there has been a delay."

Very few people are denied guns because of mental illness: They account for fewer than 1 percent of all denials from Oct. 1, 2001, to mid-January, according to the FBI. About 90 percent of the denials are due to previous criminal history, while fugitives make up the next biggest group of denials, 2.8 percent. "Untold thousands of people could be slipping through the cracks," says Matthew Bennett, a spokesman for Americans for Gun Safety, a moderate gun control group. NRA lobbyist Baker says his group wants states to provide records to the background checks databases. "Every time we talk about the need for these records to be in the system, civil liberties groups come unglued," he says. "We believe those records should be in there for all prohibited groups." By whatever standard, the system falls short.

I also found an article from the New York Times (but in 1999) that stated that the majority of those who proved to be mentally ill and used a gun to cause harm, were committing suicides, not committing murders.

Just thought I'd throw that out there for you. Tis a slow day in the library.

― Caledonia, Friday, 20 April 2007 20:08 (seventeen years ago) link

Yeah, but you live in a world where you can break seven dudes' noses in a Hulk-style group fight, so getting all Steven Seagal Zen-wisdom on us isn't very enlightening.

-- nabisco, Friday, April 20, 2007 2:54 PM (11 minutes ago)

I specifically allowed for the possibility of being sent to the intensive care unit, if you read carefully. I never said I'd 'break seven dudes' noses,' I merely said I'd hit as many as I could, allowing the kid to hopefully escape getting beaten up.

Have you never been in a fight, nabisco?

Now, had these seven white kids been KILLING this little guy, or TRYING to, well....that's a very different story.

― Manalishi, Friday, 20 April 2007 20:11 (seventeen years ago) link

Weren't 20-something people killed at the Olympics by a bomb that consisted of low-grade explosives plus NAILS?

-- milo z, Friday, April 20, 2007 4:08 PM (3 minutes ago)

are you talking about atlanta? 2 ppl died, 1 from a heart attack out of shock

― and what, Friday, 20 April 2007 20:12 (seventeen years ago) link

plz stop with the hypothetical scenarios, they're really obnoxious and add nothing to the debate

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 20 April 2007 20:13 (seventeen years ago) link

yeah, Atlanta. 2 dead, 111 injured. I thought the fatalities were much higher.

― milo z, Friday, 20 April 2007 20:13 (seventeen years ago) link

Our librarian thread has given us a little more information to go on. I'm curious about that FBI database. If I'm mentally ill, can I currently be prohibited from buying a gun?

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Friday, 20 April 2007 20:14 (seventeen years ago) link

depends what state you're in.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 20 April 2007 20:14 (seventeen years ago) link

and if you've been forcibly committed (which requires that a judge find you a danger to yourself or others, I believe)

― milo z, Friday, 20 April 2007 20:15 (seventeen years ago) link

xpost Rog you forgot the part about the stuffing! But don't worry, dude, I was goofing on you, no need to debate it.

xpost Mostly it seems like people use bombs for impersonal political purposes (like McVeigh or suicide bombers), and use guns for personal/emotional ones, where they actually want the experience and "power" of being there, going on the rampage. I'm not sure it's worth arguing either way: the methods and impulses aren't totally interchangeable, but of course plenty of people will just skip to the next means of hurting people.

― nabisco, Friday, 20 April 2007 20:15 (seventeen years ago) link

From the same 2002 article:

The 1968 Gun Control Act narrowly bars people from buying or possessing firearms if they have been adjudicated mentally "defective" or have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution.

has this changed since 2002 though? not sure.

― Caledonia, Friday, 20 April 2007 20:16 (seventeen years ago) link

It has not.

― milo z, Friday, 20 April 2007 20:16 (seventeen years ago) link

What is the current working definition of "mentally ill" w/r/t arms sales? What do people currently have go through to buy a gun? What do people currently have ot go through to get a conceal and carry permit. What are people with said permits actually allowed to do?

Would a mandatory polygraph test prevented any of the recent school shootings?

― Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows, Friday, 20 April 2007 20:17 (seventeen years ago) link

Well, what really struck me from the excerpt was this:

"Only six states provide mental health records to the FBI database, and they provided a total of only 41 individual records."

Probably more states have started to contribute, but not all . . .

― Caledonia, Friday, 20 April 2007 20:18 (seventeen years ago) link

What do people currently have go through to buy a gun?

Depends on the state. Some require permits, some require waiting periods, some have limits on the number of purchases in a month or week.

In Texas, all you have to do to buy from a gun shop is fill out the standard ATF form (4473) and get an immediate response from the federal database. To buy from an individual, no background check or correspondence with the state is required.

In California there's a ten-day waiting period and a one-per-month limit on new handguns, I think.

― milo z, Friday, 20 April 2007 20:22 (seventeen years ago) link

there is a one per month limit in VA, also.

― Mr. Que, Friday, 20 April 2007 20:23 (seventeen years ago) link

Lots of concealed carry info: http://www.packing.org/

― Kerm, Friday, 20 April 2007 20:25 (seventeen years ago) link

Oh, this reminds me of another thing: do criminal background checks pick up juvenile convictions that have been sealed or expunged?

― nabisco, Friday, 20 April 2007 20:26 (seventeen years ago) link

Please discuss my solution:

Rifles = OK
Handguns = BAN

― Spencer Chow, Friday, 20 April 2007 20:32 (seventeen years ago) link

There was a lot of talk about that upstream.

― Caledonia, Friday, 20 April 2007 20:34 (seventeen years ago) link

xpost Haha Spencer we went over that at length upthread. Evidently you'll at least have to clarify "single-shot bolt-action non-assault rifles" for the first line.

― nabisco, Friday, 20 April 2007 20:35 (seventeen years ago) link

The law bars felons from possessing firearms and from getting gun permits and gun eligibility certificates. But, under the law, a person whose felony record is erased is no longer considered a felon. Thus, he is not disqualified from owning, carrying, possessing, buying, selling, or transferring firearms, in the absence of some other disqualifying condition. Nonetheless, the official authorized to issue gun permits must determine that an applicant wants firearms for a lawful use and is a suitable person to receive a permit. If the official knows of the conviction, he can deny the permit on suitability grounds.

An applicant may appeal the denial to the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners, and he may appeal the board's decision to Superior Court.

- source

That's in Connecticut. I'm guessing it's like that in most if not all states.

― Kerm, Friday, 20 April 2007 20:35 (seventeen years ago) link

Nabisco, actually I don't mind heavier weapons, it's just the size. I feel like rifles are still useful for hunting, but also for those keepin'-the-gubmint-in-check types.

Sorry I haven't read the whole thread.

― Spencer Chow, Friday, 20 April 2007 20:38 (seventeen years ago) link

Spencer: Handguns are much more convenient and lighter than rifles when carrying a gun for self-defense. Irrelevant?

― Kerm, Friday, 20 April 2007 20:43 (seventeen years ago) link

I'm totally in favor of keeping sealed records sealed, but it'd sure be nice if some kind of non-specific, time-limited mark could go in the purchase database for violent crimes and gun crimes. (This would have more effect on a few everyday criminals than mass murderers, obviously, but it's sure strange to think someone convicted of a gun crime at 16 might be able to go out and buy one a few years later without even a general "high-risk" warning popping up.)

― nabisco, Friday, 20 April 2007 20:50 (seventeen years ago) link

I got the impression most of those kinds of crimes don't get sealed/expunged.

― Kerm, Friday, 20 April 2007 20:54 (seventeen years ago) link

Depends on the state. I think a lot of them converted to treating practically everyone as an adult back in the crack era, but I'm sure there are still some where juvenile records are sealed as a matter of principle.

― nabisco, Friday, 20 April 2007 21:00 (seventeen years ago) link

Kerm, handguns are also much more convenient if you're a nut and want to sneak a gun into someplace.

― Spencer Chow, Friday, 20 April 2007 21:02 (seventeen years ago) link

So make it inconvenient for the vast majority of gun owners to carry protection so that a tiny minority of criminals can shoot them unarmed?

― Kerm, Friday, 20 April 2007 21:30 (seventeen years ago) link

But those 'nuts' hardly ever have concealed carry permits, and hardly ever use guns that were purchased legally, so what's your point?

― Manalishi, Friday, 20 April 2007 21:31 (seventeen years ago) link

Vast majority of firearm deaths are from accidents

― Catsupppppppppppppp dude ‫茄蕃‪, Friday, 20 April 2007 21:38 (seventeen years ago) link

That packing.org site scares me...

Primary Gun
The first pistol you draw when a firearm is needed. Typically loaded with medium to large caliber rounds.

― Ned Trifle II, Friday, 20 April 2007 21:38 (seventeen years ago) link

Why is that scary?

― Manalishi, Friday, 20 April 2007 21:43 (seventeen years ago) link

"Vast majority of firearm deaths are from accidents"

Uh, no. Only 3% are unintentional, 57% are suicides, 39% are homicides and 1% are undetermined.

They age group with the highest share of unintentional deaths is Children under 14, and that's still under 20%... unintentional and suicides combined for that age group is under 40%...

― Kerm, Friday, 20 April 2007 21:44 (seventeen years ago) link

err you right!

― Catsupppppppppppppp dude ‫茄蕃‪, Friday, 20 April 2007 21:48 (seventeen years ago) link

Jeez, why can't our government step in and keep all these people from killing themselves??

― Manalishi, Friday, 20 April 2007 21:54 (seventeen years ago) link

well they did put Kevorkian behind bars already

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 20 April 2007 21:55 (seventeen years ago) link

Jeez can't our government step in and stop high school students from blowing their faces off and using our tax dollars for their long term care?

― Catsupppppppppppppp dude ‫茄蕃‪, Friday, 20 April 2007 21:57 (seventeen years ago) link

^ happened to a student of my mother's

― Catsupppppppppppppp dude ‫茄蕃‪, Friday, 20 April 2007 21:57 (seventeen years ago) link

Children under 14 shooting each other/themselves shouldn't really be classified as accidental, more "adult gun owners being negligent cockfarmers".

― onimo, Friday, 20 April 2007 21:59 (seventeen years ago) link

Well, it seems pretty clear to me, judging by those statistics, what we need is Suicide Control. Ban suicide, or at least make those who are thinking about leaping off a bridge submit to intensive background checks, and ask them to please wait 6 months before doing the deed. Buying the farm in California, New York or Massachussetts is ONLY allowed with express written consent from Michael Bloomberg and the New York Yankees, and you have to apply for a permit first, which is usually only available to retired civil servants on a first-come-first- served basis. If you're jumping from a building, the building can be no more than ten and no less than five stories high. Those who resist the poison and Carbona fluid tax will be held accountable and could face up to a year in prison.

I think this can work.

― Manalishi, Friday, 20 April 2007 22:03 (seventeen years ago) link

you are not funny

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 20 April 2007 22:04 (seventeen years ago) link

How come libertarianism has failed more completely than stalin-style socialism at achieving any political footing? how come?!?!?1

― Catsupppppppppppppp dude ‫茄蕃‪, Friday, 20 April 2007 22:07 (seventeen years ago) link

ugliness

― RJG, Friday, 20 April 2007 22:08 (seventeen years ago) link

too weak and poorly armed to beat up other rival political philosophies

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 20 April 2007 22:08 (seventeen years ago) link

Debatable and highly dubious claim. But I think the answer is because people seem to have grown accustomed to sucking at the teet of the government, and real conservatives have little recourse in a two party system so they continue to vote 'NOT DEMOCRAT' despite the sheer terror that is the corporation-fondling Republican Party as we know it today.

― Manalishi, Friday, 20 April 2007 22:17 (seventeen years ago) link

Too individualistic to organize effectively. Anarchists + morals.

― Kerm, Friday, 20 April 2007 22:18 (seventeen years ago) link

"teet of government" (dood don't you work for the DMV??)

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 20 April 2007 22:21 (seventeen years ago) link

maybe I'm confusing you with someone else

― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 20 April 2007 22:21 (seventeen years ago) link

Skipping 3146 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.