Urban planning community

Poll results: Should Gun Regulations Be:

Voters
19. You may not vote on this poll
  • Extremely More Restrictive (only cops and military)

    1 5.26%
  • Substantially More Restrictive (Permit hunting rifles and shot guns only)

    1 5.26%
  • Moderately More Restrictive (CCW type training & registration for everyone who buys any gun)

    6 31.58%
  • Slightly More Restrictive (Registration of all guns and CCW type training for handguns)

    8 42.11%
  • It is good how it is (Background checks on handguns and assault rifles)

    2 10.53%
  • Slightly Less Restrictive (Sign a form and a waiver to buy a gun)

    0 0%
  • Moderately Less Restrictive (Waiting list and CCW to get automatic guns)

    0 0%
  • Substantially Less Restrictive (Buy Automatic guns at Wal-mart, no background check)

    0 0%
  • Extremely Less Restrictive (it is my 2nd amendment right to own a bazooka)

    1 5.26%
+ Reply to thread
Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 5 6
Results 126 to 143 of 143

Thread: Should gun laws and regulation be increased or decreased?

  1. #126
    Cyburbian DetroitPlanner's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Where the weak are killed and eaten.
    Posts
    6,100
    Quote Originally posted by Whose Yur Planner View post
    Yeah, pointing the finger at the mentally ill/mental health facilities is the popular thing to do right now. However, I think few people are willing to really look at the issue of mental health and it's implications. If we are looking for an easy, feel good solution, it's not there.
    I agree its not a feel good solution at all. However one only need to go back about 17 years or so to see what happened when there was an assault rifle ban was going on and the mental health system was being dismantled. The probability of dodging a bullet in a room sprayed with fire is much better than what these folks endured. No chance. Folks hell bent on killing will find other ways.

    It is clearly not an easy problem to fix, but there are lots of issues, not just gun control. We can't ignore the elephants in the room.
    We hope for better things; it will arise from the ashes - Fr Gabriel Richard 1805

  2. #127
    Quote Originally posted by DetroitPlanner View post
    I agree its not a feel good solution at all. However one only need to go back about 17 years or so to see what happened when there was an assault rifle ban was going on and the mental health system was being dismantled. The probability of dodging a bullet in a room sprayed with fire is much better than what these folks endured. No chance. Folks hell bent on killing will find other ways.

    It is clearly not an easy problem to fix, but there are lots of issues, not just gun control. We can't ignore the elephants in the room.

    Another elephant in the room nobody talks about (or maybe nobody knows about) - the dysfunction at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF). They haven't had a full time director in 7 years. Is it coincidental that we've seen an uptick in mass shootings in the same time frame that the agency responsible for enforcing federal gun laws has been starved of resources and manpower?

    New gun control laws? Apparently the ones already on the books aren't being adequately enforced.

    http://www.npr.org/2013/01/08/168889...have-been-tied

  3. #128
    Cyburbian Linda_D's avatar
    Registered
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Jamestown, New York
    Posts
    1,635
    Quote Originally posted by giff57 View post
    Jazzman is on to something here. It became clear to me when discussing the issue with a grad school classmate over Facebook. Other than college in Iowa, he has always lived in urban areas. Rural people and urban people view guns in a fundamentally different way. I have had a gun since I was 12 years old. I don't need them for protection or for gathering food, although that could be the root of the culture. I view guns as a tool. To my friend they are only good for killing. It's a difference in how and where we grew up. I don't own an AR-15 but if I did, I don't care if I can only have ten round mags, that's enough for me. The large magazines are just low hanging fruit right now, you can change mags in less that a second, so limiting them does almost nothing to solve the problem. The time,money and effort needs to go to mental health reform not gun control. If we do some of the suggested background checks, and make sure these mentally ill people don't fall through the cracks it helps a lot. ]In these mass shooting, the signs are there we need to learn to recognize them and act.
    Sorry, but banning large ammo clips is a more effective means of possibly limiting mass murders than pretending that background checks to screen out "the mentally ill" would have stopped Adam Lanza from murdering 26 people in Newtown, CT. Lanza wasn't in the mental health system. He wasn't allowed to legally buy guns because he didn't want to wait the 3 days or whatever that's mandated. Instead, he took his mother's guns.

    What would have been the most effective means of preventing the Newtown massacre would have been if Nancy Lanza hadn't had those guns in her home at all, particularly the Bushmaster rifle. It's access to firearms, particularly high-powered, rapid fire semi-automatic, that facilitate mass murders. That's reality.

    Quote Originally posted by Whose Yur Planner View post
    Yeah, pointing the finger at the mentally ill/mental health facilities is the popular thing to do right now. However, I think few people are willing to really look at the issue of mental health and it's implications. If we are looking for an easy, feel good solution, it's not there.
    I totally agree. The mentally ill have become the easy targets for the entire "don't ban assault weapons" crowd. Obviously, they would rather have every person whose behavior could be described as "odd" or "eccentric" locked up in a mental institution than take one assault rifle off the street. The basic rights of all American citizens, especially the most vulnerable, count for more than the rights of gun owners to maintain arsenals of high powered weapons that sole purpose is to kill people.

    The excuse that assault weapons can't be defined is BS. Create a general definition. Then create a panel of experts from the military and law enforcement to create a list of prohibited weapons. Every proposed new model that fits the general definition can't be manufactured in the US or imported into this country unless the panel determines it's NOT an assault weapon but a sporting one. We've done this with various drugs and vaccines for decades. We also do this with foods, with cars, with all kinds of things.

    Oh, and for the people who believe that "guns don't kill people, people do", none of these guns were apparently fired in anger, but 5 people got hurt: 5 Injured at gun shows in 3 states
    If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. -- John F. Kennedy, January 20, 1961

  4. #129
    Quote Originally posted by Linda_D View post
    Sorry, but banning large ammo clips is a more effective means of possibly limiting mass murders than pretending that background checks to screen out "the mentally ill" would have stopped Adam Lanza from murdering 26 people in Newtown, CT. Lanza wasn't in the mental health system. He wasn't allowed to legally buy guns because he didn't want to wait the 3 days or whatever that's mandated. Instead, he took his mother's guns.

    What would have been the most effective means of preventing the Newtown massacre would have been if Nancy Lanza hadn't had those guns in her home at all, particularly the Bushmaster rifle. It's access to firearms, particularly high-powered, rapid fire semi-automatic, that facilitate mass murders. That's reality.



    I totally agree. The mentally ill have become the easy targets for the entire "don't ban assault weapons" crowd. Obviously, they would rather have every person whose behavior could be described as "odd" or "eccentric" locked up in a mental institution than take one assault rifle off the street. The basic rights of all American citizens, especially the most vulnerable, count for more than the rights of gun owners to maintain arsenals of high powered weapons that sole purpose is to kill people.

    The excuse that assault weapons can't be defined is BS. Create a general definition. Then create a panel of experts from the military and law enforcement to create a list of prohibited weapons. Every proposed new model that fits the general definition can't be manufactured in the US or imported into this country unless the panel determines it's NOT an assault weapon but a sporting one. We've done this with various drugs and vaccines for decades. We also do this with foods, with cars, with all kinds of things.

    Oh, and for the people who believe that "guns don't kill people, people do", none of these guns were apparently fired in anger, but 5 people got hurt: 5 Injured at gun shows in 3 states

    Just because a gun isn't fired intentionally doesn't mean it fired itself. It was still the direct result of human action (or human error in that case).

    The previous assault weapon ban was in place from 1994 to 2004. There were a rash of school shootings in the late 1990s (including Columbine). Some involved prohibited weapons, some did not. Either way, the assault weapon ban did not prevent mass shootings back then.

    Also, there's ways around the high-capacity magazine bans. Let's say the limit is 10-rounds, the number everybody likes to throw out there. I could just come in with two loaded pistols with 10-round magazines apiece and kill 20 people before I have to reload.

    A human being can kill somebody without a gun, but a gun can't kill anybody without a human being. It's not an argument or a matter of ideological perspective, it's just how guns work. They don't fire themselves.

    Why do people blame the gun and not the shooter? Those guns at Adam Lanza's mother's house didn't kill anybody until Adam Lanza picked them up and used them. Obviously, the responsibility lies with him and him alone. You could put the exact same weapon in my hand right now, and I guarantee you I won't go kill a bunch of innocent children. Why? Because I'm not a psycho.

    Now personally, I don't give a damn if so-called assault weapons are banned tomorrow or not. I don't own any, and don't care to own any. I won't be protesting or anything of that nature. As a matter of fact, I don't own any guns at all. But let's place blame exactly where it belongs - on the shooter. No, I don't have any sympathy for a psychopath who guns down dozens of innocent people at a movie theater or an elementary school. Yes, they should be locked away because they're a threat to society. Period.

    This asshole who shot up the movie theater in Colorado is getting ready to plead not guilty on the basis of insanity, and you know what? He'll probably win his case. He probably won't do any jail time, despite shooting dozens of innocent, vulnerable, defenseless people and in spite of the home-made booby traps (complete with explosives) that he laid out in his apartment that was designed to kill anyone who entered into it (most likely law enforcement). Does that make you happy? It's not about picking on the mentally ill, it's about making sure that people who obviously shouldn't get a hold of firearms or other deadly devices don't do so. Same thing goes for criminals.

  5. #130
    Corn Burning Fool giff57's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 1998
    Location
    On the Mother River
    Posts
    4,512
    Like I posted earlier, I don't write about the mental health system because it is easy. I discuss it because I have more intimate knowledge of that system than I ever wanted to have. We can argue the rest, but that system is broken. My mother and I are co-guardians of my niece. It's been an over 20 year struggle to get her proper treatment. She could certainly do something to hurt people if mom and I didn't continually fight to keep her in an institution. Fixing that system is not easy or cheap but a vital part of this problem,

    So don't get me wrong, I really don't care if the assault weapons ban is reinstated, or if they ban 30 round mags. I know that either or both does very little to get people from killing people. I know, and don't care it I ever convince anyone that doesn't know why that is. That is a pointless, endless argument that just keeps mentally ill people from getting the treatment they need. The pro gun wackos do enough damage on their own. Stupid arguments that their AR-15 does anything against missile armed drones and tanks is just stupid.

    Let's talk about HIPPA. While well intentioned, keeping violent peoples mental health records from authorities is not the right idea. I fully understand the problem with deciding when that line is crossed, and have no answer for it. I would hate to see the record system abused and non violent people discriminated against. Its a problem.
    “As soon as public service ceases to be the chief business of the citizens, and they would rather serve with their money than with their persons, the State is not far from its fall”
    Jean-Jacques Rousseau

  6. #131
    It's not that I don't care about the well being of the mentally ill. All (or even most) mentally ill people are not violent mass murderers or would-be mass murderers. But I just can't stand the thought of ANYBODY, regardless of their mental health status, background, circumstances, life story, etc. getting away with slaughtering innocent, defenseless people. That sickens me.

    Just as Linda D feels like the mentally ill are an easy target, I feel that firearms are an easy target. What about all of the guns you don't hear about or see that are never used to commit a violent crime? They don't make the news because there's nothing newsworthy about them. There are an estimated 200-300 million guns in this country. If all (or even most) of them were used to kill people, wouldn't we all be dead by now? Wouldn't we have a lot more than *only* 12,000 murders a year? (I hate to say *only* because I know that 12k is way too high, but I think you get my point).

  7. #132
    Cyburbian Planit's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2005
    Location
    In a 480 square foot ex baseball nacho stand
    Posts
    6,932
    I hope you saw the Daily Show opening segment for January 16, 2013. It is a very good piece on the gun laws and blocking legislation.
    "Whatever beer I'm drinking, is better than the one I'm not." DMLW
    "Budweiser sells a product they reflectively insist on calling beer." John Oliver

  8. #133
    moderator in moderation Suburb Repairman's avatar
    Registered
    Jun 2003
    Location
    at the neighboring pub
    Posts
    5,200
    Quote Originally posted by giff57 View post
    Let's talk about HIPPA. While well intentioned, keeping violent peoples mental health records from authorities is not the right idea. I fully understand the problem with deciding when that line is crossed, and have no answer for it. I would hate to see the record system abused and non violent people discriminated against. Its a problem.
    Mrs. 'Burb Fixer works as a health information manager for a local hospital with psych treatment. She never tells me specifics--only that there are an awful lot of people that can & should be considered dangerous that do not receive adequate treatment and lack access to resources outside of the hospital setting. Like you though, I agree that simply "blaming the mentally ill" and talking a big game about fixing the mental health system is really just a distraction in the context of the current debate because no politician is willing to actually do something about it. Treatment of the mentally ill and just who gets access their medical information is a very complex problem--one I would argue is more complex than the gun control issue. I've seen how other countries view something as simple as taking a mild anti-anxiety medication in adoption proceedings; it isn't a big leap to see that type of discrimination (or worse) here. There are no easy answers.

    "Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

    - Herman Göring at the Nuremburg trials (thoughts on democracy)

  9. #134
    Cyburbian ColoGI's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Colo Front Range
    Posts
    2,353
    Quote Originally posted by Planit View post

    hope you saw the Daily Show opening segment for January 16, 2013. It is a very good piece on the gun laws and blocking legislation.
    About 2-3x/week the better half and I lament the fact that Americans get their best analysis from comedy shows.
    -------
    Give a man a gun, and he can rob a bank. Give a man a bank, and he can rob the world.

  10. #135
    Cyburbian Plus Whose Yur Planner's avatar
    Registered
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Dixie
    Posts
    5,713
    Quote Originally posted by Suburb Repairman View post
    Mrs. 'Burb Fixer works as a health information manager for a local hospital with psych treatment. She never tells me specifics--only that there are an awful lot of people that can & should be considered dangerous that do not receive adequate treatment and lack access to resources outside of the hospital setting. Like you though, I agree that simply "blaming the mentally ill" and talking a big game about fixing the mental health system is really just a distraction in the context of the current debate because no politician is willing to actually do something about it. Treatment of the mentally ill and just who gets access their medical information is a very complex problem--one I would argue is more complex than the gun control issue. I've seen how other countries view something as simple as taking a mild anti-anxiety medication in adoption proceedings; it isn't a big leap to see that type of discrimination (or worse) here. There are no easy answers.
    I agree with all that you posted. Mental illness is being used as a scapegoat/diversion on this issue. It also plays to some of humanites deepest fears. There should be a real discussion about how we treat mental illness and the mentally ill. However, this knee jerk reaction and looking for something/someone to blame is going to cause more harm than good. This includes providing the funding and not have the funding cut off during some austerity program when the memory of what happened wears off..
    When did I go from Luke Skywalker to Obi-Wan Kenobi?

  11. #136
    Cyburbia Administrator Dan's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 1996
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Posts
    14,514
    Blog entries
    3
    Growth for growth's sake is the ideology of the cancer cell. -- Edward Abbey

  12. #137
    Cyburbian ColoGI's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Colo Front Range
    Posts
    2,353
    Lots more of that in the future. Unfortunately.
    -------
    Give a man a gun, and he can rob a bank. Give a man a bank, and he can rob the world.

  13. #138
    Cyburbian Linda_D's avatar
    Registered
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Jamestown, New York
    Posts
    1,635
    Quote Originally posted by ColoGI View post
    Lots more of that in the future. Unfortunately.
    As an employee of a community college, this hits close to home. Allowing guns on any campus is an open invitation to allow more bullying/intimidation/violence than already happens but especially on community college campuses where many of the students are NOT well-mannered middle class kids but kids/adults with unsavory backgrounds who would never be admitted to four-year schools because most community colleges have open admissions policies -- if you breathe and are NOT a felon, you can get admitted. Sometimes even felons are admitted.

    Our "security" people (ie, director/assistant director of building and grounds and the HR director) are armed with cell phones and have the Jamestown police on speed dial. The last thing we need on this campus is guns.
    If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. -- John F. Kennedy, January 20, 1961

  14. #139
    Cyburbian imaplanner's avatar
    Registered
    May 2004
    Location
    Snarkville
    Posts
    6,587
    Quote Originally posted by ColoGI View post
    Lots more of that in the future. Unfortunately.
    I think some states have passed laws allowing anyone to bring guns on campus. I know Texas is in the middle of trying to pass one if not already on the books. As far as more of that in the future, I'm hearing that if you are concerned about it then you need to stop being such a pussy. If you are afraid of being shot by a gun-weilding nut-bag(um... Patriot) then maybe you should move pal.
    Children in the back seat can cause accidents - and vice versa.

  15. #140
    Cyburbian ColoGI's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Colo Front Range
    Posts
    2,353
    Quote Originally posted by imaplanner View post
    I
    As far as more of that in the future, I'm hearing that if you are concerned about it then you need to stop being such a pussy. If you are afraid of being shot by a gun-weilding nut-bag(um... Patriot) then maybe you should move pal.
    Only a stinkin' lib'rulllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll would say that. If there's a shooter, I'm running right at the hail of bullets, because I'm a hee-row and in the movies that's how we gain our fraydum.
    -------
    Give a man a gun, and he can rob a bank. Give a man a bank, and he can rob the world.

  16. #141
    Cyburbian Planit's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2005
    Location
    In a 480 square foot ex baseball nacho stand
    Posts
    6,932
    Quote Originally posted by Planit View post
    I hope you saw the Daily Show opening segment for January 16, 2013. It is a very good piece on the gun laws and blocking legislation.
    Quote Originally posted by ColoGI View post
    About 2-3x/week the better half and I lament the fact that Americans get their best analysis from comedy shows.
    I don't know if this was a slam or not, but it sure seemed angled that way. I do get some of my news from the Daily Show, as well as CNN, USAToday, NYTimes and others. So to better make my point I wrote a synopsis of the opening segment referred to in my posting. It really points out the who's tail is wagging the dog in this case.

    Jan 16th Daily Show opening on Gun Control
    • NRA has been very clear they will meet any attempt to put limits on gun ownership with great resistance and sparing no expense in getting the message out.

    • NRA has an advertisement about President Obama’s kids having armed escorts in school, but he is skeptical about putting armed guards in public schools (Are President Obama’s kids more important than yours? Advertisement).

    • Obama – “I believe the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms. I also believe most gun owners agree we can respect the 2nd Amendment with keeping an irresponsible law breaking few from inflicting harm on a massive scale.”

    • President Obama’s proposal wants to limit magazine size, restrict assault weapons (which must be approved by Congress), expand background checks and provide money for an increased school security program (which the NRA says he won’t do).

    • Jerry Henry (ED, Georgiacarry.org) – “All these things he (President Obama) suggest will only affect a law abiding few. We have over 20,000 gun laws on the books, we need to enforce those gun laws.”

    • Former Representative Todd Tiahrt (R-Kansas) – “When crimes are committed or a dealer selling guns illegally, we have an organization that goes after them 24/7 everyday called the ATF.”

    • So what does the ATF Director have to say about this? Michael Bloomberg Mayor of NYC – “We have not had an ATF Director in 6 years.” Kenneth Melson Former ATF Director“ - We don’t have an ATF Director.”

    • The current acting director commutes from Minnesota. He is the US Attorney for Minnesota as well as the Acting ATF Director, B. Todd Jones.

    • Interestingly the Senate won’t confirm anybody to fulfill the job as ATF Director and why does the Senate get to confirm this position (It’s not a Cabinet Level position)...because Wisconsin Senator Sensenbrenner (sp?) inserted that provision into the Patriot Act in 2006, He also accepted the Defender of Freedom Award from the NRA that same year.

    • Still there are ATF agents, right? Yep in 1972 there were 2500 ATF agents, in 2012 there are 2500 ATF agents who must also enforce alcohol and tobacco regulations as well as firearms. BTW - there are over 100,00 gun dealers.

    • 18 years ago a professor analyzed ATF tracking data which showed a tiny fraction of gun dealers – 1% - were the original sellers of a majority of gun seized at crime scenes – 57% (Washington Post)

    • Makes sense ATF should create a federal registry of these transactions to trace them back to the bad dealers and those dealers be stopped. However the ATF is prohibited from creating a federal registry of gun transactions (NYTimes).

    • ATF is allowed to inspect dealer inventories for discrepancies only once a year but in reality are only done at an actual rate of once every 17 years. Self-reported inventories from dealers are better than nothing, right? However he ATF was barred from requiring dealers to take inventories (Washington Post).

    • Why is this? 10 years ago a congressman stuck an amendment into a non-related Federal spending bill the severely restricted the ATF’s ability to do what the NRA says they want them (the ATF) to do which is to enforce existing gun laws. The amendment allows dealers to ignore police requests for assistance, it denied Congress from formally requiring gun crime data, it ended oversight of used firearm sales, it required the destruction of background checks within 24 hours. Who stuck this amendment in? Former Representative Todd Tiahrt (R-Kansas). The intent he said was to protect those who protect us. He also said recently, slow down on gun control, the ATF can handle this.

    • That amendment was written by the NRA. Tiahrt assured his colleagues the NRA had reviewed the language and approved it.
    "Whatever beer I'm drinking, is better than the one I'm not." DMLW
    "Budweiser sells a product they reflectively insist on calling beer." John Oliver

  17. #142
    Corn Burning Fool giff57's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 1998
    Location
    On the Mother River
    Posts
    4,512
    Quote Originally posted by Whose Yur Planner View post
    I agree with all that you posted. Mental illness is being used as a scapegoat/diversion on this issue. It also plays to some of humanites deepest fears. There should be a real discussion about how we treat mental illness and the mentally ill. However, this knee jerk reaction and looking for something/someone to blame is going to cause more harm than good. This includes providing the funding and not have the funding cut off during some austerity program when the memory of what happened wears off..
    It may be knee jerk to some, but for me, I've been working this issue for 20 years.
    “As soon as public service ceases to be the chief business of the citizens, and they would rather serve with their money than with their persons, the State is not far from its fall”
    Jean-Jacques Rousseau

  18. #143
    Cyburbian imaplanner's avatar
    Registered
    May 2004
    Location
    Snarkville
    Posts
    6,587
    Pretty amazing that the gun nuts decided to dishonor MLK Jr by staging a gun appreciation day sponsored by a white supremacist group (American Third Position) to protest about states rights and socialist obama and then a bunch of em all shot themselves and were transported to the hospital on the taxpayers dime by state troopers (teh socialist gubmint!!).

    If only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun, did you ever wonder who can stop a moron with a gun? Well it turns out the moron can stop himself with his own gun.
    Children in the back seat can cause accidents - and vice versa.

+ Reply to thread
Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 5 6

More at Cyburbia

  1. Replies: 36
    Last post: 13 Sep 2013, 9:41 AM
  2. Replies: 10
    Last post: 22 Mar 2013, 11:30 AM
  3. Replies: 10
    Last post: 06 Jan 2007, 9:03 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last post: 11 Feb 2005, 11:39 AM