FlaviusAetius

Probably the majority of Americans believe that proper gun control involves holding the weapon with both hands. There are 300 million guns in the hands of the citizens, so taking them all away is out of the question - and that's without addressing the 2nd Amendment. The cities with the strictest gun control laws, i.e. Chicago, DC and NYC, have the highest, or among the highest, rates of shooting deaths. And almost all those gun deaths are with handguns, which are not the target of the "ban assault weapons" and "ban >20 round clips" crowd led by Senator Feinstein.

Piers should focus on the fact that mass killings are usually done by disturbed people. He should invite guests (and treat them with a modicum of respect) to propose that America needs streamlined procedures to get them into institutions where they can be treated - or at least where they're off the streets permanently. They would remind us that America also needs to treat ANY crime involving the use of any weapon - handgun or rifle - as an enhanced crime that would earn the perp many additional years in prison. They would urge that material false statements on gun purchase applications are a federal offense and should be prosecuted. Finally, since nuts with access to semi-automatic weapons will still mop up pupils in our schools, they would say that there is a need for armed guards there to protect the children.

Of course, this would mean he'd have to invite people from the hated NRA, which has laid out these common-sense and effective measures that could very well make the country safer from the surfeit of high-powered guns and hordes of screwballs we have floating around in this country. But he's not interested in seriously discussing solutions, only in exposing to ridicule people who don't share his views. An unfortunate trait he shares with Bill O'Reilly of Fox News, by the way. Hard to take him seriously.

Steerpike

I hear this a lot, but the logic is flawed. These cities had the highest rates of shooting deaths before strict gun control measures were enacted; the laws were an attempt to reduce the rate. It MAY be possible to claim that the laws were ineffective, but it CANNOT be claimed that the rates of shooting deaths are a result of the strict measures.

So with the Republicans (who are more likely to support the NRA) falling over themselves to cut govt. spending, in this case we expect them to suddenly do an about turn and fund healthcare for the mentally unstable, and to fund guards at schools - the very schools they won't pay for teachers and supplies for ... The problem with mental health has been a serious one for a long time, and has been made worse by government cuts over the decades.

kimilseung

Seen via Colbert.......I think on NBC news

'Cambridge University over in London'

SATX John

So they NRA arguing for more school security officers, that the admin agreed with it that is bad? Seems they are coming to the same conclusions " To defeat a bad guy you need a Good Guy, with a gun." Oh, Congress yes the "r's" passed that too.

Fund or put them in a data base, which is what the D's propose. Reference Mental Health: Did you look at your last prescription meds? The side affects are .....

The goal of stopping a lone psycho shooting people is a false flag. Just like stopping criminals from breaking the law, they just do not do it.

It is horrible when it happens, but why would you deny rights to 99% of the population because of 1%???? or .005% How does that logic flow ?

Adam Lanza did not own any weapons he used in his attack. He stole them after killing his mother. He was denied owning a firearm during his background check, as was Mark Kelly.

Psycho killers have no logical base hence Bundy, Dahmer, Green River Killer did not use "assault" guns but had more victims.

How do you we propose to stop them? Mass killers, whether they use a gun or a knife? and what impact is that to the vast majority of people who do not?

Steerpike

I am not only focusing on stopping a lone gunman performing a mass killing; I'm also interested in reducing gun deaths overall. Getting guns out of circulation is my personal long term goal. I don't think you can argue with the conclusions drawn from statistics that compare gun deaths in England or Japan to the US.

Your right to bear arms is not meaningfully impacted by background checks, registration, licensing, training requirements, etc. Very simplistically, I think guns should be no easier to use than cars ... have a test, have a license, track the VIN of the car you own, require insurance, etc.

I would also drastically increase funding for mentally unstable individuals - get them off the streets, give them care, rehab them if possible. But that would be socialism, of course, and we can't have that ... so let's just all run out and buy a gun so we can feel safer and accidentally shoot someone ...

Beaverstate

Until the 1970's the mentally unstable weren't on the streets, it was the democrats who did away with the instituitionalising of the err...mentally unstable, not the anti-socialist republicans.

Steerpike

That I can believe (I have no idea either way but it wouldn't surprise me) but - who today would be wanting to take care of them? I suspect not the republicans.

scrubbedexpat099

I believe it followed a court case by the ACLU.

Some stuff you can not make up!.

Beaverstate

I grant you the republican viewpoint would be more getting them of the streets, rather than treating them. Still possibly cheaper, and better for society to commit and attempt to treat, than imprison. So I partially agree, but most republicans I've known would prefer 'them' off the streets.

Pulaski

IMO how a country treats its most vulnerable citizens is one of the best measures of how civilised it is. The US does not score highly in this regard.

I am generally against "big government", but the incidents at Aurora, Sandy Hook, Fort Hood, and Virginia tech, among thousands of lesser incidents prove that everyone has a vested interest in properly funded mental healthcare.

scrubbedexpat099

Here you are from the ACLU web site:

Spearheaded by the New York Civil Liberties Union's (NYCLU) Mental Patients' Rights Project, the shuttered world of people confined because of mental illness and developmental disabilities was one of the next major enclaves targeted for legal action. Bruce Ennis, Director of the Project, was a prime participant in several landmark cases that became the highpoint of the civil rights movement for people with mental disabilities. In Wyatt v. Stickney (1972) and Wyatt v. Aderholt (1974), Ennis challenged the conditions of hospitalization for those with mental illness and developmental disabilities, leading to significant reductions in the institutions' populations; major increases in expenditures for mental health and rehabilitative services; improvement in psychologist-patient ratios; significant reductions in the abuse of patients; and the adoption of the then-innovative concept of specific treatment and rehabilitation plans for each individual. The principles argued for by Ennis, and included in the judge's final order, were subsequently adopted by 35 other states. Another significant result of the Wyatt litigation was the formation of the Mental Health Law Project (MHLP), now the Bazelon Center in Washington, DC.

SATX John

I applaud you for your honesty on the agenda and that you have a proposed solution, although I disagree with it.

To achieve your long term goal, confiscation of certain types and bans on certain sales are required. Any other course of action the current on hand quantities would not be inoperable for several decades.

Why not focus on getting the guns out of the hands of the criminals? vice the law abiding? This is due to the resources required, criminals are a smaller population than legal gun owners. Just the phrase guns off the street? What street is that? because I would be by there in a minute, with a trailer.

Your last point sounds like Jim Carey, which is a fallacy. Accidents happen, but using that as a basis fails, far more accidents with cars (which you mention) occur causing many more injuries and deaths than firearms. More people fall off ladders and die, that are accidentally shot and killed by a gun owner, I would bet.

Agreed, minus FT Hood, that was terrorism. Hassan's behavior was not mental related it was threat related.

Also, the other thousands of incidents that do not grad headlines show, the majority of mental health related "murders" generally do not involve firearms, Post partum depression cases as an example. As we have both stated many times, the weapons that are proposed for ban or restriction are involved in the smallest fraction of murders in this country.

Leslie

The phasing out of lunatic asylums was necessary and humane. The type of institutions that (as you claim) democrats allegedly (bit of revisionist history there) single-handedly did away with, were cruel and abusive. They criminialized, stigmatized, and often tortured the mentally ill. They were also vastly abused insofar as they were a handy way for people to get rid of family members and spouses whom, though maybe not mentally ill at all, had become inconvenient.

The tragedy is that the system wasn't replaced with a more caring and holistic approach to mental illness. It was basically replaced with nothing and that you can lie firmly at the feet of conservatives who think that any kind of social safety net is socialism and/or welfare - God Forbid.

SATX John

Wow, something we can absolutely agree on to a point. Part two "blame" is incorrect, both were at fault since the "system" and "abuse" was primarily during democrat administrations during that time. Also, the fact that mental illness was not recognized by either party or the general public as an illness. Many of those institutions were closed during the Reagan administration, but with a democrat congress. It was also thought at the time it was more humane to not subject someone to life in a hospital full time. This was the same in the UK also.

Very good topic and post, since no one in our current government seems to addressing this issue.

scrubbedexpat099

WASHINGTON — Democratic Rep. Diana DeGette drew national criticism Wednesday for remarks made at a public forum in which she said banning high-capacity in ammunition magazines would be effective in reducing gun violence because "the bullets will have been shot and there won't be any more available."

For years in Congress, DeGette has been the prime sponsor on a federal ban on high-capacity magazines.

http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_229424...ce=most_viewed