<p>
</p>
<p>And yet, the wazoo lobby is silent about this.</p>
<p>It would be good if people would start reporting things like this more often to the police and if we can get to that National Mental Health database that the NRA proposed </p>
<p>IIRC, an associate of the SB killer had seen the earlier youtube videos (the threatening ones, not the ones that were still up when we all found out about him) and said nothing to the police.</p>
<p>VeryHappy, that’s good policing. It would be even better if that kind of weaponry weren’t available in the first place. </p>
<p>Of course, luckily this boy was in treatment already. So many of them aren’t.</p>
<p>And, so many of them are and the same thing happens. Treatment didn’t help him. Instead , he was turned in because he spilled the beans on himself for some reason. Not all of them do that, though. </p>
<p>This is just musing, not a policy position on my part but it seems interesting that the NRA is so opposed to and “infringement” on their rights through “sensible” limits on some items, universals checks, etc. but willing to infringe on the civil rights of others in the form of mental health data bases of some kind. </p>
<p>It infringes on my right to not be able to walk down the aisle of a Target and know if the person with a gun slung over their back is a good guy or someone about to shoot up the place. It infringes on my rights not to be able to send my kids to elementary school, middle school, high school, college, a movie, church, the mall, or to a local political event without worrying about some nut job with a gun capable of firing a hundred rounds without reloading shooting and killing them.</p>
<p>"here’s another option. After a mass killing in 1996 at Port Arthur where 35 people died and 20 were injured, Australia passed a comprehensive firearms act that didn’t ban guns but placed logical restrictions on them. Despite having a strong frontier gun culture, Australia went from a firearms mortality rate of 2.6 in 100,000 (one-quarter the U.S. rate) in 1996 to under one in 100,000, less than a tenth of the U.S. rate.</p>
<p>The background: National Journal has an extensive rundown of the Australian gun law and why it was so effective, but here’s the nuts and bolts.</p>
<p>In the wake of the 1996 shootings, support for further gun control measures swelled to 90%-95% of the population. Spearheaded by Australia’s conservatives — yes, really — the laws banned rapid-firing long guns and launched an extensive gun buyback program that removed over 650,000 guns from the public. It also tightened laws and regulations surrounding their sale, registration, and storage. The whole package cost about $500 per gun and was compulsory."</p>
<p>Last summer we were in Australia and our guide asked us where we’re from. I knew if we mentioned the town, he would have no idea where it was so I told him that we live about 5 miles from Sandy Hook. He of course knew exactly where that is. He couldn’t believe the gun culture here and quite honestly we couldn’t believe the way US is portrayed on TV - it is a total embarrassment.</p>
<p>Well, we deserve to be embarrassed. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, it’s going to take more than public opinion to change things in this country, since we are just as strongly in favor of at least some gun control as Australia was. For example, [Over</a> 90 percent of Americans support gun background checks](<a href=“http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/07/us-usa-guns-poll-idUSBRE9160LW20130207]Over”>http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/07/us-usa-guns-poll-idUSBRE9160LW20130207). And yet even that obvious change couldn’t be made.</p>
<p>It will happen. It will. I do believe we’re at a tipping point.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Over a year ago the NRA supported a background check bill that is “sensible” so I am not sure what your are talking about.
<a href=“http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/06/graham-introduces-background-check-bill-with-nra-backing/”>http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/06/graham-introduces-background-check-bill-with-nra-backing/</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What specific civil right are you saying is being infringed by having a mental health database that can be used to prevent the mentally ill from getting guns?</p>
<p>Are you okay with the mentally ill getting guns? </p>
<p>Fluffy, are you Ok with 40% of gun sales not being subjected to background checks at all? Of course I’m referring to the gaping gun show loophole and the NRA vehemently, and successfully, objects to that. Wonder why. </p>
<p>Where does the 40% figure come from? </p>
<p>I am fine with private party sales which do not require a background check in my state. </p>
<p>@lasma The 40% number is complete fiction.</p>
<p>The President said “up to”.
The numbers are 14-22% based on a small sample size, so the margin of error is plus or minus 6 points.<br>
Based on a 1994 survey of purchases done 2 years before the Brady amendment went into affect.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/update-obama-claim-on-background-checks-moved-from-verdict-pending-to-2-pinocchios/2013/01/25/59caeca6-672f-11e2-85f5-a8a9228e55e7_blog.html”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/update-obama-claim-on-background-checks-moved-from-verdict-pending-to-2-pinocchios/2013/01/25/59caeca6-672f-11e2-85f5-a8a9228e55e7_blog.html</a></p>
<p>Besides, 10 states require it for any purchase, another 6 require it for handgun purchases, and venues themselves often require it.</p>
<p>Have any of you ever been to a gun show? There are many many LICENSED dealers there selling guns to people who bought an admission ticket. It is a great place to comparison shop and get a good deal. Licensed dealers are required by law to run background checks on buyers - and they do.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Probably not.
People hear scary numbers like the 40% number and just assume it is true…because a politician or an anti-gun person used it…and it fits a scary narrative so it must be true. Critical thinking is not in vogue anymore.</p>
<p>WRT gun shows, your point is correct. But people then here that there are many non-LICENSED dealers at these shows so they get all hot and bothered.</p>
<p>What they are missing is that those non-licensed dealers are not selling guns at the gun shows, but rather things like books, targets, gun vests, etc. Gun shows generally don’t want non-licensed gun dealers selling at the show.</p>
<p>My point was that after Tucson, Aurora, and Sandy Hook in particular the NRA talking points revolved around data bases of people who have had mental health treatment, deflecting any “blame” on the availability of the weapons themselves including large capacity clips and mail order ammo. I am not saying that any one measure will eliminate these incidences, but no package of measure is complete IMO without some additional provisions around the purchase of firearms and associated “accessories” and liability for possession, storage and use. </p>
<p>For what it’s worth . . . I have not shot any kind of gun since rifle range at YMCA camp a million years ago but am married to a hunter.</p>
<p>So far Jared Padgett, the Troutdale shooter, does not seem to have had any mental health issues to speak of. Obviously he was disturbed enough to attack his school but nothing that was previously identified or that set off alarms. He had a fascination with guns (peers described it as an obsession) and had access to unsecured weapons in his home.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.bradycampaign.org/programs/finish-the-job/20th-anniversary-report”>http://www.bradycampaign.org/programs/finish-the-job/20th-anniversary-report</a>
I believe the 40% came from the Brady report and includes online sales and at gun shows by unlicensed sellers.</p>
<p>Without any hope that anything sensible can be done, I have a huge problem with the way gun rights have become absolutist. That is new. It was never in the NRA until recently. It wasn’t part of the popular view of gun ownership by gun owners until recently. </p>
<p>Some things that bother me are older. For example, the NRA has squelched all research into gun safety (on the grounds that analysis of gun safety issues might lead to restrictions or even a registry of gun owners). In 2010, about 19,000 people killed themselves with guns - compared to about 11,000 other people killed by guns. So we have little research even on basics like the steps that could be taken to reduce the number of suicides. Or accidental shootings, let alone deaths. </p>
<p>And of course the absolutism about things like magazine size and assault rifles began on the fringe, mostly with the “militia” movement of the 1980’s, and moved into the mainstream only in the last 10 years or so - and rose rapidly after Obama was elected and after the financial crisis. The widespread idea that government could be the enemy against which you need to arm yourself is not old, though of course it did exist in very limited numbers before because some people have always feared and hated government. </p>
<p>It’s interesting if you go back to the discussion of the 2nd Amendment around the time of enactment. The actual legislative history is limited but it’s clear the main driving force - and Madison’s responses - were the vociferous arguments that Southern whites needed weapons to protect themselves against slave uprisings. In other words, rather than being a way to resist government, guns were a way to oppress people, to maintain the slavery institution. In terms of other Founders, it’s a pretty good guess from history that Washington and Adams would have used the federal government to disarm people they thought might become a rebel force. </p>
<p>@lergnom
"It’s interesting if you go back to the discussion of the 2nd Amendment around the time of enactment. The actual legislative history is limited but it’s clear the main driving force - and Madison’s responses - were the vociferous arguments that Southern whites needed weapons to protect themselves against slave uprisings. In other words, rather than being a way to resist government, guns were a way to oppress people, to maintain the slavery institution. In terms of other Founders, it’s a pretty good guess from history that Washington and Adams would have used the federal government to disarm people they thought might become a rebel force. "</p>
<p>Cite your source for this</p>