This similarly relates to one of my bigger soapboxes, as well: mental illness and the way it is treated in the USA.

People always jump on the issue of GUNS when someone goes on a mass rampage, but let me tell you, mentally healthy people don't go on killing sprees, and everyone who lives and works with those people can see them slowly decline.. and CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. In this country, the ONLY way you can force an adult to get counseling & therapy is AFTER they hurt or kill someone or try to kill themselves. That's it. So when you have a coworker you KNOW is unhealthy, all you can do is watch in mute horror until the day comes that they bring an AK to work.


I live in Wyoming. We have some of the LAXEST gun laws in the country. No clip restrictions yet. No need for a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

Know what we don't have? Gun crime. We have murders but 90% of them are stabbings or BFT and the occasional bow & arrow.

I completely agree!

But what's "BFT"?

Blunt-force trauma. Ie, beatin' a guy to death.

Ah. Thanks for letting me know.

I watch too many cop-dramas and true crime shows. XD

Yup, no gun crime in Wyoming, they're only 4th highest in the country for it!

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cr.....te-per-100-000

I'm not going to wade into the rest of the debate here because it's not my country's gun laws but it really helps to actually check the facts now and then.

Deaths =/= Crimes.

By gun crime, I mean CRIME: Drive-bys, robberies, mass shootings.

Most of our gun deaths are hunting accidents, firearms misfires, and suicides.

I agree with your points. Indeed, address the problem, rather than bandaiding a symptom.

Thank you much for taking the time to comment. Much appreciated. :)

Our whole culture seems to have developed this head-in-the-sand attitude of "fix the symptom" and completely overlooks the cause of a particular problem, situation, illness, disease, or event. :/

You're welcome; thank you for sharing YOUR thoughts. :)

I'm not for extreme gun control measures but let me say a pair of things that have bugged me for a while. I'm getting tired of the "only law abiding citizens will follow the law". Yeah, just like only law abiding citizens will abstain from raping a woman and you can make the argument that making laws to protect women will only affect law abiding citizens because it won't stop a rapist from acting. However, neither of these are true. A lot of these laws make it more difficult to acquire weapons if you're a serial rapist for example, and more large scale weapons will be tracked. Some of these laws do not even forbid weapons as people fear. Once again, just so its absolutely clear, I'm not for disarming the public.

The second argument with the "guns don't kill people..." which is so overused. You can not argue that the less rapid-fire weapons are out of check, and yes there will still be black market weapons being sold, the more difficult they will be to attain. Its also much easier to commit a mass murder when you can spray a room of people full of bullets rather than a pistol. I hate that people take this so lightly. For the 3rd time, I'm not for taking peoples guns away, and disarming people, but along with this, there should be a call to people to be responsible with whatever weapons they own so that they don't fall into the wrong hands, like the mother of the man who committed the Newtown Massacre. To begin with (it really depends on which laws where) but some laws are only banning certain types of guns and not all types of guns, and you don't need a bazooka to protect your family.

Lastly, let's be real here, no gun is going to protect you from a hypothetical government takeover. If they want to crush us or imprison us, they will use drones, and they will take us down very easily. People who think they are going to bravely barricade themselves in front of their homes to protect their loved ones have to realize that this will not happen.

So in short, resuming what I just said: I am not for disarming the public and taking away guns, I believe gun control can have an effect on crime and it will vary by region (whether for better or worse), people need to be more responsible when it comes to guns and not just cry about the right to own them, and it won't help you in a hypothetical government takeover.

I am concerned about one part of your post. I really am reluctant to get into this debate, but I am trying to undestand what types of weapons people think "can spray a room of people full of bullets rather than a pistol." I sort of cringe when I hear this, because it seems to indicate a possible misunderstanding of firearms.

Are you speaking of automatic weapons? Because not only are automatic weapons highly regulated and hard to legally obtain, but as far as I know, no mass murders have been committed with automatic weapons in the US. Automatic weapons fire for as long as you hold the trigger down, until you are out of ammunition.

Do you mean semi-automatic weapons? Because many pistols are semi-automatic, as are many hunting rifles and even shotguns. Sadly, the most deadly (in terms of death) shooting in U.S. History as done by a single gunman was done with semi-automatic handguns, which didn't even have "high capacity" rounds. The shooter just had a lot of rounds, and was adept at changing them (as many gun owners are). A semi automatic gun requires one to pull the trigger each time you want to shoot a bullet.

For that matter, I have seen skilled firearm operators work manual action firearms quickly-- not AS quickly as a semi-auto, but quickly to do terrible damage in a crowded situation.

So, I do cringe when I see comments referring to 'spraying bullets' and 'you don't need a bazooka'... which are both somewhat ignorant statements, because there are already bans on weapons such as rocket launchers. No one is angry that the government is 'taking away' their RPGs or their miniguns or their Abrams tanks. They are upset because legislators are taking away their conventional firearms, hunting rifles, and sport rifles. This is happening in my state, and I suspect other states will follow suit.

I agree that the laws should center on responsibility, perhaps education? Imagine if the money spent on anti-gun lobbying was instead focused into public education on safe handling, and safe storage of firearms, or into finding solutions to help those that need help with mental health and double the effort to reduce the amount of negative stigma surrounding mental health (which is why many people will not see it)? There are a lot of options here and I think the focus is in the wrong place.

Sorry, I meant "high capacity magazines", not "high capacity rounds". My mistake.

That's why I said I'm not for every law being passed around right now, because I know there are already regulations. If there are more laws to be passed, I would hope they are regulatory and not banning of weapons. I knew that some states were going too far with it, and like I said countless times over and over, I'm not for extreme gun regulation or disarming people etc etc. Everyone seems to cringe the moment someone proposes that maybe there ARE certain types of guns that should not be on the streets. The reason I mentioned the bazooka is because there are people insisting that there should be no ban on any type of weapon and that anyone should have any type of weapon at any time going along with the claim that its all to protect their families and loved ones, which I find to be extremely unnecessary. Also, a pair of bazookas were turned in when California recently had their gun turn-in event or whatever it was. Now... you talk about an anti-gun lobby but what about a pro-gun lobby? What about the money they've spent fear mongering? Aren't they just as guilty as the anti-gun lobby? and What does the anti-gun lobby get from this? The latter question is not in sarcasm or anything of the like, I want to ask you because I have not heard of any, I believe there might be, I want to know what you know.

Yes... pro-gun lobbists can be just as bad. The NRA used to focus on education (and a lot of their money does still go to firearm safety classes) but they have, sadly, turned into a major player in lobbying, which is why I no longer support them, much to the disdain of my fellow gun enthusiasts.
I do wish that they dedicated more of their efforts and money back into what they used to.

I do not know exactly what gain anti-gun lobbies have, other than I suspect that there is a lot of misinformation and thus uninformed decision making; I actually active watched the process of debates and the discussions leading to the passing of a bill here in NY and sadly a lot of the anti-gun speakers seemed generally misinformed or unfamiliar with firearms. Even the speaker was misinformed on several state laws. So, I think that a lot of them truly believe that they are acting in the name of safety, and that is no small gain. The actuality of it may be different, but the emotional response is strong.
There is also the historical fact that larger governing bodies often took measures of disarming citizens in order to have a stronger control. Is that really happening here in the US? Is that genuinely something that some of the powers in charge are looking to do? I don't claim one way or the other, but it warrants searching deeper if you are curious. There is a lot of speculation.

There is, of course, propaganda on both sides promoting one thing or the other, and swaying the minds of those that don't want to look deeper into the issues. The NRA and other pro-gun advocates have said and done some things that I'd like to smack them for, just as anti-gun advocates have done things I'd like to smack them for. In the end it is easy to feel helpless as to how much influence the people really have in political process. :(

I don't know much about the NRA, so please don't take this as a firm statement of opinion -- but from commentary I hear from Americans, and from news coverage of certain NRA antics in the European press, they seem a lot like a once-constructive organisation that's been taken over by ideologues. Is that a fair description?

I've seen similar things happen to certain organisations that I used to heartily support -- diffusion of amazing compassion and pragmatism into unconstructive and strident political squawking. Always distressing.

First off, let me say that nothing I say here in with the intent of "slamming" you or intentionally trodding on your opinions or feelings. This is not a "rebuttal" of any kind or intended to be such, so don't take it personally or offensively. I am merely wanting to comment based on your own comments. Nothing more and nothing less. Having said that...

While I believe I understand your points and concerns, I wanted to point out a little-known fact related to the "Newtown Massacre". But first, let me state outright: this WAS absolutely a tragedy, and while firearms were the mechanism by which it was carried out, doesn't change the fact it WAS a tragedy. It makes me sad as it is yet another example of the complacency and apathy which now defines our society. We have the power and the means to correct things, but we (as a society) don’t. But that’s a rant for another day.

Back to the fact... The coroner’s report for the victims of this tragedy/crime, of course, listed the various calibers of the bullets which caused the deaths. NONE of them were from the “assault” weapons which were found in the car (which in fact, never left the car, which is how they were found by LEOs). So, in the infinite wisdom of the politicians, there is a “renewed push” to ban “assault weapons”, when the verifiable fact remains, the Newtown slaughter was all hand-type (“pistol”) weapons. This is the type of MISINFORMATION which the politicians, backed up by the media engine, profess to the American populace of Sheeple, and they believe it without even giving a second thought to fact-checking for themselves.

Second Point: there is very little difference, mechanically, between “semi-automatic” to “fully-automatic”. Anyone with access to a flat file and working knowledge of firing pin design can make a few little changes and the proverbial deed is done. Banning “assault weapons” by virtue of their design-engineering does absolutely nothing towards the prevention of their use by those with the intention to do so, or in the prevention of the simple modification to make them fully-auto capable. Once again, it boils down to intent, which you expressed, and with which I absolutely agree.

Third Point: ammunition magazines are designed to hold a particular number of rounds, and such design is part of the original specifications which are all a part of how a “machine” is supposed to function. While I don’t want to go into a design-engineering dissertation here, dramatically changing a magazine design to accommodate less rounds can render the overall mechanism to hold the magazine in-place and properly feed rounds non-functional. Most likely, the magazines will simply be fitted with a “plug” at the bottom, which will prevent the magazine from being filled beyond a certain number of rounds, while leaving the overall design exactly the same. Here’s the problem: the mag is required to be SOLD with the “plug” installed, but anyone with reasonable mechanical ability and desire can simply disassemble the mag, remove the plug, install a new spring, and PRESTO! The mag is back to original specifications. Once again, legislated “solutions” which don’t actually SOLVE anything at all. I don’t want to go into the other possibility that likely BILLIONS of taxpayer dollars will be spent on “enforcement”, which of course, won’t amount to any further “gun control” than we have today.

An example of this is the standard “pump-action” shotgun. Most cannot be sold in the US without a plug in the internal magazine, which restricts the weapon to three rounds: one in the pipe and two in the mag. A couple of screwdrivers and some application of knowledge later, most anyone can take out the plug, and POOF! Now the weapon can hold SIX ROUNDS! (One in the pipe and five in the mag). Who knew?!?

In my humble opinion, Politicians should stick to the subject to which they are familiar (whatever those might be) and let the rest of Americans take care of themselves, as contrary to popular belief on Capital Hill, we CAN (most of us).

Of course, we’re right back to the issue of the people again. If someone is “mentally ill”, then what’s the solution? Is there one? It is one which can be addressed by a political engine? I don’t think so. It goes back to families and accountability within the family unit. When parents are no longer allowed to teach their children right from wrong (or won’t, or don’t), then we have a fundamental breakdown at the most profoundly foundational levels. If the “building blocks” of ANYTHING are flawed, then so shall be the end product, be that a bridge, a building, or a human being. It is an absolutely mathematical certainty.

(Sigh) But indeed, this too, is a rant for another day.

Between the time I typed that post and now, yes I did read about the type of weapons used, so that covers a large portion of your comment. I also don't want to make this respond sound like a personal attack, but maybe as a constructive criticism. You talked about the media and the sheep American people, but yet 90% of what you typed was not your own thoughts about gun control but a repetition of points that I've been hearing several times in the media and in other sites. Again, I don't know how to word it better so that it doesn't sound like a personal attack, but you should rather say that you agree strongly with these points, rather than saying they are your thoughts.

You mention politicians sticking to what they know best; what they know best is what their donors ask them to do. That is why we keep funding and defunding in the wrong places; and as for accountability, I am not sure what you mean exactly by saying we are not allowed to teach children right from wrong. If you are referring to corporal punishment that is one thing but that deos not mean we can not teach them right from wrong, unless of course you mean something else which I am not made aware of yet. You did say it was for another day so maybe I will just wait and let you respond in your own time, and we can discuss it then.

My usual methodology is to conduct research, and then based off that research, formulate my opinions. If I feel strongly enough about something, then occasionally (depending on the forum) I'll express them, which is what I did here.

My opinions, as you pointed out, are not unique. They are not new, or even novel. However, that does not change the fact that i have conducted my own research, and have formed my own opinions based on that research, so my opinions are indeed my own (even with the fact that others share them). Perhaps this is just a perspective differential, and I'm seeing a Granny Smith Apple while you're seeing a Red Delicious Apple, when in the end, and apple is an apple.

Regarding the "...not allowed to teach..." comment, parents, in a very literal sense are not allowed to discipline their children. Obviously, there are many type of discipline, so I'm not equating this with "child abuse" which is its own issue. For thousands of years now, parents have disciplined their children as a means to teach them right from wrong, and how to properly behave in society. In the last 20 or so years, there's been a large-scale paradigm shift in child-rearing, which has effectively eliminated any and all forms of discipline. In the end, I feel that it's a parent's duty to teach their children accountability and responsibility, and the proverbial right from wrong. For the most part, in society today, I do not see either of those happening. I feel this is a foundation cause as to the borderline anarchy which is exhibited today in people of most every age. No sense of right and wrong, and no concept of personal accountability or responsibility really goes right back to a lack of any form of [reasonable] discipline (IMHO).

So, that's the basis for that statement, and touching onto a few of the reasons behind it.

Once again, thank you for your comments, and the time you sacrificed to write them.

You already know I agree with this.

Yes, but even so, thanx for your comments. It's always good to dialog. Communication and the exchange of ideas if what life's all about IMHO. :)

You're welcome! I agree.

Nothing in this comment should be taken as a refutation of your post. I know the complexities of this issue go way beyond a FA journal post, and I'm not about to try and develop a conclusive statement in only a thousand-odd words. *wag* But here are two points in the gun-control debate which I personally think are very important, yet which I seldom see raised, at least not in constructive ways.

Also, a disclaimer: my firearms experience is limited to hunting with shotguns, and I have no firearms combat training (nor experience, thank heavens). If I'm wrong about my beliefs concerning fighting with guns, then I welcome correction from people who're qualified to comment.

I'm also speaking strictly about close-quarters personal-defence scenarios like dealing with burglars. I know my comments don't apply to warfare.

So:

---

The first point is that the decision to use a gun is made completely differently from any other weapon. With every other weapon*, engaging your enemy increases your own risk. A baseball bat or a katana is just as lethal as a gun, but in order to use it you have to get in there and risk a counter-attack. Both parties have a strong incentive to disengage and negotiate.

(* Okay, maybe crossbows and such are similar to guns. But let's ignore the scenario of a home-owner and a burglar facing each other with crossbows.)

If you and your opponent have guns, or even if you think your opponent may have a gun, the calculus of risk is inverted. The incentive is to attack as quickly as possible, to disable the enemy before becoming a target oneself. It's a classic prisoner's dilemma, except with less reward for cooperation.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. But guns give people a whole new reason for killing people. The old slogan is the truth, and nothing but the truth, but it's far from being the whole truth. A lot of people, on both sides of the debate, need to use it with a lot more consideration.

---

My second point is that gun control isn't an absolute issue. Many people seem to think that it's "right" or "wrong", end of discussion. It's not; it depends entirely on culture and circumstances, and this needs more consideration than just Michael Moore pointing at Canada with a big question-mark over his head.

I've spent most of my life in England, with its famously tight-arsed gun control, and in Switzerland, where my colleagues discuss their assault-rifle collections at morning coffee. In England's case, I think stringent gun control is an excellent idea and I'm in favour of removing weapons from my countrymen -- guns are still available, but with difficulty and expense, and I think increasing their availability would foster too much violence to justify the self-defence angle. For reasons outside the scope of this post, I also don't think that the defence-against-the-government argument applies to the UK. And in Switzerland's case, they've clearly found a stable, peaceful social solution which the majority are happy with. Messing with that would just be silly.

I wish I could deeply understand the social drivers behind these differences, but frankly I don't. Waaaay too complicated.

I'm not really qualified to comment on the US but, for what it's worth, my opinions mostly parallel yours. Gun-control legislation goes against the reality of profoundly-held social beliefs; it's futile in the face of widespread legal and illegal gun ownership; and it is probably against the short- and medium-term interests of law-abiding citizens. There might be some role for it in a long-term initiative to change the whole culture of American gun ownership, but what are the chances of that?

Having been around the world probably 16-times in my nearly 19-years of naval service, I realize there are many (some large-scale) differences in culture, which is really about what those cultures see as "the norm" while us yahoos in the US might see "atrocity". So, having said that...

Thank you sincerely for your comments. I think you raise some very valid points, especially when it come to the whole "mental conceptualization" of using some means of deadly force, which is really to say, dealing with the concept of actually hitting someone with something with the possibility (and possibly intent) of killing them.

One of the sad realities of the US is (as statistics also prove) criminals have more rights in the judicial system than their victims. Common Sense doesn't even remotely apply. So, the burglar who breaks into someone's house via the skylight falls, bounces off the kitchen counter, disturbs the butcher knife, which then punctures said burgler's kidney when they all land together in a heap on the kitchen's tile floor. The burgular sues the homeowner (who was on vacation) at the time, and WINS, and the homeowner become responsible for all the burgular's medical bills, and various damages, and subsequently is liable for punitive damages, as a butcher knife constitutes "assault with a deadly weapon". Now, you might laugh at this whole scenario, but it was REAL. This really happened in a "court of law" in the US.

Now, I'm a cynical realist, and my Utilitarian Calculus sub-routine inside my normal mental-function is very black-and-white about things. While I most certain cherish life and hols all life as sacred, I must admit, should I enter into my home (or be awoken in the middle of the night) to fine a burglar there, I would absolutely (without much thought) shoot to kill. I've used weapons all my life, and was military trained besides - yes I earned both my expert marksman for pistol and sharpshooter for rifle - so in all probability I'd hit the mark and said burglar would have broken into their last house. It's sad, yes, as it was a pointless loss of life. But the reality is, where I live there are "castle laws", which means I may use the force i deem necessary to protect my life and property, up to and including deadly force. Secondly, should said burglar live, then he/she could sue me for having "assaulted them with a deadly weapon", I would be liable for every medical bill for the rest of their lives, and would likely lose my house and property paying the court costs, legal fees, and punitive damages. This is just the realities of the legal system in the US, which calling it "broken" is so mildly stated as to be absurd. So, this is a tragedy, but the Utilitarian Calcucus does the magical Einstein List, as arrives at the conclusion that "shoot them dead" is the path of least resistance with the highest probably of survival and least probably of long term repercussions.

So, yet another aspect: the more difficult it is to obtain a weapon (as a law-abiding citizen) then the greater probability that someone, somewhere, with victimize you, and if that's not enough, when you defend yourself, you will then be liable to the perpetrator of that crime for the rest of their life. How's that for a bonus?

Now, I am not recommending or encouraging a blanket policy of cold-heartedly killing anyone who you find yourself in a confrontation with. I'm merely stating that the people who are hurt most in crimes, are typically hurt a second time by the stupid ways the legal system ends up "protecting" the rights of people who Common Sense (if it were to still exist) would say are "criminals". In the end, by barring the homeowner his ability to protect his home, family, and property simply gives a proportion shift in a burgler/criminal the ability to take it all from them. This is the statistical reality of the "gun control" which our politicians are attempting to push through. Is it their intent to further victimize the victims? No. The problem is more that they live in their little plastic bubbles, far disconnected from the Common Man, and pass laws which govern said Common Man, while they themselves are exempt from such laws.

Anyway, probably enough of my ranting. Nonetheless, once again, thank you for taking the time to respond. I appreciate your comments.

I'd like to simply point out, that a growing list of states already have Castle Doctrine laws. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

Texas is one of the foremost here, and I can very easily assure you that it works. We don't go a week in this city without the local news blurbing about some homeowner stopping a home invasion cold by shooting the intruder. Half the time they're likely to be shot dead rather than shot-to-disable by the homeowner, but it doesn't matter either way as long as the owner had reason to fear for his life or that of his family. Doesn't even have to be in the house, as long as they are on their property and protecting their property, such as their vehicle.

What's even more ironic, is that it doesn't do a lot to deter robbers. Instead, they are often just as likely to fire first and be done with it.

It’s great t to see a journal from you after such a long time! (Apparently I missed your last one… I’m sorry things are progressing as they are for you & your cats…)

Gun control seems to evoke the entire range of preconceptions from one extreme to the other, but I think there are valid points to be made on both sides of the argument. Personally, I feel the need for some moderate gun control, but I’d welcome any counter-points to my own. I do apologize for the length as well, it’s obviously optional if anyone wants to actually read all of it but this isn’t exactly a simple subject matter that can be summed up in a few words, and I also feel many of my points tie directly into one another.



I don’t see what is wrong with closing loopholes so that all gun buyers must face a background check, not just a few of them. And if we truly must give people assault rifles, then stricter control such as mental health screenings before one could buy an assault weapon sounds fair enough to me in exchange for the right to own a military-grade weapon. Additionally, a single federal guideline ensures people can’t just buy illegal weapons easier by crossing state borders to where the laws are more lax. That doesn’t stop people from owning guns, but it will decrease the number of unstable individuals, felons, or anyone with a violent history from easily procuring one. Maybe also requiring limits on how an assault weapon can be stored, so relatives can’t simply steal the weapon, murder the owners, then go on a killing spree as is typically how it goes.

What I find incredulous is that people are so vocal about protecting assault rifles and super-extended magazine clips, yet the same people aren’t willing to pay to arm the police with them. What’s the logic in making sure the populace is free to own military-grade assault weapons when our police forces are armed with pistols, nightsticks, and occasionally shotguns? As far as I’m aware only SWAT and high-security protection deployments are issued assault rifles. Yet assault rifles are used in public shootings every single day in the US, usually multiple a day at that. They are also bought en mass by and shipped south of the border, which might explain how they can sustain the costs of two (or more) massive gun shows a month in just about any Texas city.

Literally DAYS after SandyHook nobody on the national news saw a local story about an assault rifle being used to shoot up a fast food restaurant and then a nearby movie theater. Some seemingly normal individual cracked abruptly and went out on a self-perceived personal vendetta. It was only after an off-duty police officer acting as theater security (with just her issued pistol) heard the shots and responded was the guy finally stopped, long before police could arrive.

Something the NRA conveniently ignored is that the Columbine shooting had one armed security guard on campus at the time of the event. All he had was a pistol and a shotgun in his vehicle. A second guard was nearby and soon responded to the call, but he also had a pistol. The guard was unable to prevent the two kids that had an assault rifle and a shotgun from entering the building despite hearing shots outside minutes prior, and was unable (or chose not to) engage them once they got inside. In contrast the Sandy Hook school didn’t have an armed guard, but they had a locked-door policy at the time of the shooting and the guy simply shot the door out with his assault rifle. My point is that leaves just two options, either we can install a guard with a full assault weapon at every single school 12 hours a day, somehow pay for that, and hope it works most of the time… or we could restrict access to or outright ban assault weapons. But what makes an assault weapon so special?

When it comes to mowing down a crowd of people, it only takes holding down the trigger and spraying with an assault rifle until the clip is eventually exhausted. That’s what they (and extended clips) were designed for, after all. But a semi-automatic pistol or revolver can’t do it nearly as fast, the shooter has to slow down significantly and target his victims one-at-a-time, giving some of them reaction time to at least try and stop him or to escape. It was also exactly why Tommy guns were so popular, and deadly, during the 20’s and 30’s.

Except that compared to SMGs, assault weapons offer nearly the same firing speed but with significantly more penetration power and ammo variants than any submachine gun could hope to offer. The common assault weapon will easily penetrate police vests and completely punch through the standard armored police vehicle with ease. (Now we’re back to paying to properly equip & protect our common police forces to handle a much better-armed public)

It’s been said before that gun control won’t stop gun violence. The NRA can’t say it loudly enough, and even Obama admitted as just as much himself. But the point that seems to slip between the cracks (and what Obama focused the gist of his message on) is that controlling access to heavy firepower will, to some extent, decrease gun violence. Even if it saved just a single life, wouldn’t that be justification enough?

It seems like even something as minor as mandating that assault weapon owners must store them in an immobile, secure gun-safe that any pissed off juvenile can’t break into would’ve left many of those killers with less firepower to work with. That, closing the gun show loopholes on background checks, and adding mental health screenings for assault weapons in the very least doesn't infringe anyone's right to bear arms as far as I can imagine.

Hello Kougar! Long time no see/talk. Mostly my fault.

I'm glad to see you chime in here, as a good and educated debate is always fun (IMHO). You've brought up some good points, and for the most part, I think you're right on-point.

Castle Laws) I ABSOLUTELY and wholeheartedly believe in them. Anyone should have the UNDISPUTED right to protect their family, life, and property. I've know a lot of Texas residents in my Naval career, and I knew they had Castle Laws, and even though I'm a Californian transplant to Florida (yes, total culture shock, even though I've technically lived there 11 years now, and am still shocked almost daily), i value and respect the same laws there. My understanding is a lot of the southern states hold such laws to be sacred right up there with the Bible, and I'm glad for it.

Are there "abuses"? Yes; undoubtedly, as there is with any "right" or "freedom". It is, unfortunately, just the nature of humanity (yes, I know I have a poor and cynical view of humanity as a whole) to walk on anyone and everyone else they can, including abuse of rights and freedoms as much as they can get away with it. After all, that's what "crime" is all about. Benjamin Franklin said it the best, I think: "Those who trade freedom for security deserve neither." I find these words to be profound in their meanings and implications. Give people the rights and "freedom" to protect their own, and "security" will handle itself just fine! This, in my opinion, is the very basis and justification fro Castle Laws.

Do Castle Laws prevent crime? Difficult to answer that one. Some statistics say "yes" if one considers the overall crime rates of the states with Castle Laws against those without. Of course, any "statistic" can be skewed in favor of any argument. As a general rule, it would appear as though the Castle Law states have less crime than those without, but there are reasonably an infinite number of variable which may not have been taken into account, such as is the "crime rate" a percentage based on per capita, or per total population. Obviously, such factors can make the numbers look much, much different, and turn what might otherwise be a sound comparison into an "apples" and "oranges" comparison, which is essentially pointless. So...I would say, any mechanism which provides for lethal force would be a sound deterrent to crime (at least some types). Breaking and entering, where an owner might simply put a round through one's forehead and not think twice, might be sufficient for most folks to refrain from their B&E passtime. Of course, one could probably make the argument that such deterrents become a function of intelligence and common sense, and I've met an alarming number of people who have neither. So...

If there is any point of "disagreement" in your comments, it is about paragraph 5, though this word is a bit strong. I agree with your point and the danger-factor of it; however, I wanted to point out that you are describing fully-automatic weapons. I do not know of ANY state (i think this is because of Federal regulation) which allows the sale of fully automatic weapons of ANY kind. Now, I could be wrong and my research and info outdated, but my point here - which goes back to your statement - is that anyone with a working knowledge of firing pin mechanics can take a "stock" legally sold (semi-auto) weapon, and turn it into a full-auto in about 10-minutes. At that point, we're right back to the scenario you described, which is quite accurate. Again, my point being that in reality, NOTHING can prevent someone from making an otherwise lawfully obtained weapon into a fully-auto weapon.

I've been involved in the psycholody field for most of my life, in one fashion or another. I was the "playground counselor" when I was a child and all through secondary schooling, and eventually, pursued a formal education in the subject, specializing in Juvenile Crisis Counseling (which is one step down from suicide prevention). In my experience (reasonably 30-some-years), there is one profound truth which is unavoidable. I hat the cliche, but it's actually profoundly accurate: "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink." In the case of psychology, counseling, and every form of mental health therapy, if the patient/client WANTS "help" then they can BE "helped". If they don't, there's nothing anyone can do about it. The other side of the psychological equation is the lack of any form of reasonable, realistic criteria on which to base a judgement. If everyone had a dipstick by which "sanity" could be checked, then it would all be so very easy. Everyone has their little vices and quirks which to others, make them "insane", up to and including "certifiably fooking madness insane". Take myself, for example. Most every year, I sail away from United States soil on a big, grey warship, placing myself into harm's way, when i am a CIVILIAN! Isn't that what the military is supposed to be for? To protect the US and it's citizens? But there I am. On a more personal note, I walk, willingly, into cages which contain large predators who are 4-8 times my strength, and twice my reflex. Insane? By strict definition, "YES! OMFG YES!". I know people (military and otherwise) who willing jump out of perfectly good aircraft. Insane? By strict definition, yes. Absolutely.

So this really is the rub: by what criteria can someone really be "reasonably" evaluated? "Abnormal Behavior" is assessed based on a "norm" which may or may not be the "norm" for any given person. For myself who hugs a big cat while inside their sovereign territory, most would say that's "Abnormal Behavior" and therefor classify me as Mentally Unfit. For a bunch of my friends who leap with joyous abandon out of aircraft which are not engulfed in flames, most would say that's "Abnormal Behavior". By either criterium, I am my friends would be ruled "mentally unfit" and rubber-stamped with a page-sized red X and couldn't buy or won a weapon of any kind, anywhere in the universe, when the bottom line is, what we do is because we love what we do, and take calculated risks doing those things we love, which isn't "insane" at all, but a reasoned, logical, well-informed choice. This is our "norm". Our "norm" is not someone else's "norm". Most of my skydiving friends think I'm Fooking Whacko for my interests and actions with big cats. My feelings towards them and their skydiving is entirely mutual. Their "norm" would be my "abnormal", and vice versa. In the World of Psychological Analysis, there is NO "one size fits all", which means, in the end, there is no reasonable way to measure someone's mental stability.

Taking this ideal to next level, while there are USUALLY tell-tale signs of mental instability, can we always recognize them for what they are. If someone is "anti-social" and "shows interest in wanton violence", then this accurately describes 90% of the video-game playing teens and twentiers I know today. Fine a video game today which doesn't have one form of violence or another. On the other side of that coin, how about the guy (or gal) who's "social", "well-adjusted", "articulate", who seems the envy of their entire circle of friends? 10% of the folks who have gone absurdly violent and lethal and the guy-(or girl)-next-door, who simply reached a magic threshhold and "snapped". Did it happen overnight? No. Did EVERYONE miss the tell-tale signs? Ayup. Who knew? And then, because of the profound tragedy which follows, everyone wants to play the Blame Game, and "fix the problem" to "prevent it from happening again".

In my line of work, the "disaster" with far reaching implications is the inbound missile we take into the ship broadside. Can we build a ship which can take damage to this extreme and keep up the fight? Yes. Absolutely we can. But that's just a bandaid to the real problem, which ultimately, is "don't give thine enemy a reason to launch the damned thing in the first place". The SOLUTION is to change the way we interact with one another. The SOLUTION is to have respect for others and their customs and courtesies and beliefs. The SOLUTION is to let our neighbors BE our neighbors without trying to subject them to our whims, beliefs, and perspectives.

So, given the state of today's world and society, these solutions are unattainable, because they would all mandate we we worry about just and only our own house, instead of invading someone elses'.

Anyway, forgive my dissertation here, but I'm sure you'll agree that this whole debate topic is just the very tip of the proverbial iceberg, and one small, crystal-lattice-structure in the several billion, which has taken us down this slippery slope to end up where we are today, with the society that we have today. But, politicians will always and forever continue to tell us "all is well!" and "this will make things better!" or my personal favorite "We must think of the children!".

/rant

Actually, I'd agree with ya that Castle Doctrine laws deter some amount of crime. And make no mistake, I'm all for them! I just think it's worth noting the side effects of that law as we've had it around for awhile now. For one thing its probably one of the reasons most home robberies in this city occur during the day now... home invasions in the evening or night, when they do happen, tend to be on the more violent side and more for other reasons than robbery at that. But I'm still all for castle doctrine laws, and I wouldn't hesitate to shoot someone invading my home if I had access to a weapon and they refused to hold still while the cops showed up.

Regarding automatic weapons... most states have limited to minimal restrictions on the sale of fully automatic weapons. You may be thinking about this Federal law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federa.....lt_Weapons_Ban which lasted from 1994 to 2004, but once that expired under President Bush, there were no federal restrictions remaining. It's on a state-by-state basis now, and even in the few states that severely restrict (I believe only a few have outright bans), anyone can acquire them by crossing state lines to get them. There's some sort of national registry, but otherwise I could walk down the street to a bi-monthly gun show and buy one instantly, without any sort of background check or credit check whatsoever.

I was not aware that semi-autos could so easily be converted over! That's a good point to know. But regarding assault weapons, partly what makes them special is not just the firing rate but also the penetration power of just the regular ammo. (I'm going to ignore the specialized ammo types here, as that complicates everything!) That's what differentiates an assault weapon from a submachine gun, is the velocity of the bullets and their destructive potential.

Hehe, I love your paragraph regarding sanity and your examples. I freely admit people have different perceptions and definitions of the word, but that's because they also have specialized knowledge they can use to make a reasonable determination. For example, you know how to read felines and can determine which you shouldn't ever enter a cage with. You also know how friendly and dedicated a few can actually be, as well. Regarding your career you also have some reasonable knowledge there to base decisions on. But I agree, and with all of your points you are making here. (If I'd hand-raised a big cat from a little cat, and said cat had the right personality, enjoyed socializing and knew its limits regarding playing, I'd probably do no less myself)

That said, mental health experts aren't the average counselor, family doctor, or whatever. Specialized mental health psychiatrists have their own training (that I know nothing about). But I do distinctly remember that the Newtown shooter was known ahead of time to have mental problems long before his rampage. Or at least that's what the neighbors reported. Certainly his mother would know better than anyone, yet she was an avid gun collector and kept the assault rifle accessible so her son was able to use it, get ammo, and kill her with it before starting his rampage. Some of the other mass murderers has mental health history that was known about to widely varying degrees. Another example is LINK where the guy told a college counselor that fantasized about killing real, living people. I mean seriously, how many kids and young adults say that out loud to some one else? In a few cases where friends tell the police, it has ended up with the person being arrested with the police finding disturbing evidence such as bombs and guides for mass killing in their residence. But again, a metal health psychiatrist would have more tools and training under their belt to make determinations without people telling them to their face that they fantasize about murdering people.

I admit that mental health screening in itself opens up a nasty can of worms, because as you stated who gets to make such a determination, and who sets the standards that would affect so many people. There probably isn't any system or any kind out there had hasn't negatively impacted people that it was set up to actually protect/benefit, but in a better world I think we could create one regarding assault weapons. With the way our inefficient and bureaucratic government works, I don't honestly believe they could create a single registry to cross-check people that wish to buy assault weapons, but that doesn't stop me from believing in that ideal. In the very least (regarding your one-size-fits all comment, which I do agree with) that we should still in the very least set a low bar that will weed out the obviously unstable. There are reformed hard drug addicts that will tell you outright to your face that they have been clean for 10, 20, or more years, and that they want to stay clean and are better for it... but if their hard drug was left on the counter in front of them that they would still be unable to control the urge to reach for and use it. I think keeping guns out of a mentally unstable, especially violent individual's hands is not much different.... if the gun isn't there, then (just like the reformed drug addict) they are probably not going to go out and get more. But once they already have access to it, the damage is done as it were.

If someone is "anti-social" and "shows interest in wanton violence", then this accurately describes 90% of the video-game playing teens and twentiers I know today.

Guilty as charged on both counts! Although I'm less anti-social, and more just not social in my own opinion! As one of those kids that grew up with videogame violence I have my own strong opinions on that debate... I believe there's a pretty serious leap from videogames to real life and that there's no direct correlation between the two (none has ever been found by reputable sources, except in the case of some that had prexisting mental issues). About your point regarding that 10% of individuals that seemed to have everything going fine and had no signs... the people I mentioned that snapped and shot up the restaurant and theater was one of these, no warning or mental issues whatsoever. Nobody had a remote explanation for his snapping.

In my line of work, the "disaster" with far reaching implications is the inbound missile we take into the ship broadside. Can we build a ship which can take damage to this extreme and keep up the fight? Yes. Absolutely we can. But that's just a bandaid to the real problem, which ultimately, is "don't give thine enemy a reason to launch the damned thing in the first place".

I couldn't agree more. So much of what we have to deal with today was the fallout resulting directly from our own meddling or actions... The Bay of Pigs gave Cuba (and the world) all the evidence it needed to suspect the US of not being altruistic about its word. Or maybe it was Operation Ajax. that we have to deal with countries like Iran today. But now I'm getting off on a tangent. My point was, in addition to not giving them a reason to launch said missile in the first place, I'd also put some phalanx guns and short-range counter-missile missile systems on said figurative ship! Those are preventative (or precautionary) measures, exactly no different than what think a mental health check system would be. Setting a low bar here would help more than hurt prospective gun owners I feel, and still save a few lives by keeping a handful of guns out of the hands of the most obvious people that might decide one day to follow their urges to use them.

Actually, I rather enjoyed your dissertation and it was fun to compose a reply, so nothing to forgive! Sorry for the length on my reply though!

Bah, knew some of that code wouldn't parse. Here was that Operation Ajax link for anyone that didn't know what it was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état