# Is gun violence a social disease?



## texasgal (Jul 25, 2008)

I would buy that VIOLENCE is a social disease. Guns are just one of the many choices used by violent people that have no regard for human life.


----------



## faye (Oct 13, 2010)

hand guns and carrying arms in public is illegal here in the UK, heck even carrying a knife in public is illegal.
We have relativly few shootings and when we do they hit national headlines.
I have never ever feared walking down the street, going to the movies, sitting in the park, getting completly blotto in the pub and then walking home with equaly tipsy friends.

We do have knife crime and it is a problem, however you have a much higher chance of sustaining a non lethal wound from a knife then you have from a bullet, Also killing rampages are not of the same scale and you get one maybe 2 people injured rather than the entire contents of the cinema.

Personaly I see it is an endemic problem in countries where guns are legal. you've got very little chance of solving the problem unfortunatly, from what i've seen your average american doesnt want to get rid of thier guns because the criminals have them, however the general public having guns makes it incredibly easy for criminals to get thier hands on it, catch 22 situation.


----------



## wetrain17 (May 25, 2011)

More like go get a job instead of killing people and taking what they have. If America wasn't so upside down and made it harder to live with out a job, people would be a little more motivated to find one and then have less time on their hands.


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

I don't buy their premise that it is a disease on the basis people are shot any more than driving is a disease because there are accidents.

Without the _enforcement _of traffic laws , there would be far, far more traffic fatalities - guardrails or no guardrails. Murders are ordinarily committed by people w a prior arrest record. If current laws were enforced, there would be far fewer murders. You can not control people's thoughts, but you can control how they behave, by and large, w punishment for criminal behavior. If criminals actually paid their debt to society, not caused society to go into debt....I am sure it would change the behavior of most of the criminal minded.


----------



## SouthernTrails (Dec 19, 2008)

.

The "Disease" is a lack of respect and caring for other people.

.


----------



## boots (Jan 16, 2012)

SouthernTrailsGA said:


> .
> 
> The "Disease" is a lack of respect and caring for other people.
> 
> .


Utter selfishness.


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

Yes I think it is.
A lot of violence in our country is related to alcohol, drugs, and mental disorders.
This issues are rampant and generally go untreated.
a disease is somethng that is lifethreatening, has symptoms, and can be treated.
IMO gun violence fits that description to a T.
A gun cann ot fire itself but the person that pulls that trigger unless it is in selfdefense is not in his or her right state of mind.
Shalom


----------



## kitten_Val (Apr 25, 2007)

Can you still buy the gun legally if you have mental issues (by that I mean you are under treatment or is on a list in mental facility if there is such a thing)? Or it depends on state?


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

Your medical records are private.
Unless you have been court ordered the public has no right to know your mental status.
There is no way to protect a patients medical history and disclose such information for gun registraion purposes. Shalom


----------



## kitten_Val (Apr 25, 2007)

dba, but here is what MD law said (I remember I've seen it in past):

*It is unlawful for any person to sell or transfer a regulated firearm to a person whom he knows or has reasonable cause to believe:* 


 Is under 21. 
 Has been convicted of a disqualifying crime. 
 Is a fugitive from justice. 
 Is a habitual drunkard. 
 Is addicted to a controlled dangerous substance (habitual user). 
 Suffers from a mental disorder and has a history of violent behavior against himself or another. 
 Has been confined to a facility for more than 30 days for the treatment of a mental disorder.
.....
How one can check the last 3 then before selling the gun?


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

A therapist or medical doctor or only allowed to disclose anything in your medical records if you are deemed to be dangerous to yourself or others.
It would take a court order by a judge todenote something o a state issued ID.
I myself would like to have someone perhaps take a blood test for illegal or prescription drugs.
However where would we draw the line?
A recreational drug user is not going to be a danger to anyone like a daily user of hard street drugs or prescribed ones.
The courts , therapist and medical drs would be tied up in endless paperwork.
1 in 10 people will suffer fro a serious mental disorder at some time in thier lives.
I do not think you can have a list of persons that are undergoing treatment without violating the patients civil rights.
good question .
It will take someone smarter than I to figure it out. Shalom


----------



## kitten_Val (Apr 25, 2007)

^^ I know there is HIPPA and all, that's why I was surprised to see the law. On other hand the pharmacy clearly shares your prescriptions with all possible insurances (even though I'd assume it's a violation of privacy). So who knows...


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

KittenVal there is no way to enforce that law,
It looks good on paper but niether I nor any other therapist that I ahve worked with has ever reported any for using anti depressants.
Or for being severely depressed, pyshcotic, or any other mental disorder.
Until they threaten to harm themselves or any one else there is nothing for us to report.
It is a law without teeth or a way to enforce it. Shalom


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

Of course, in order for a background check to even be performed a gun has to be purchased legally. Hence, it is the laws already on the books that pertain to illegal sales that need to be enforced. 
Vehicle related deaths in the US 2009, nearly 34000, homocide gun related - around 9000. Are cars just one large "Christine" like virus in our midst? Should our broke nation fund a multi-million dollar study to find out?

What stats don't tell you is how many deaths guns _prevented. _The concept of live virus vaccine wasn't mentioned in the article...which renders it - inane. Which, in the current climate means...funding will be dumped into any related "study".


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

dbarabians said:


> A recreational drug user is not going to be a danger to anyone like a daily user of hard street drugs or prescribed ones.


Well, I disagree with that. A person with judgment so poor they use recreational drugs is not a person I want toting a gun. "Recreational" drug use is a stupid term to begin with. That's like making a distinction between a girl that has sex for money once in a while because it is fun and a full time hooker. Both are hookers, just as any drug user/abuser is a druggie. The degree or frequency of the offense is irrelevant - at least to me. A scumball is a scumball...


----------



## Foxhunter (Feb 5, 2012)

As a Brit who has travelled in many states of the US, I find it hard to believe that more or less anyone can purchase a gun. 
I also find it hard to believe how gun happy many cops are. Yes, I can see that they are often in danger but there are many times when an incident could be ended without anyone being harmed. 

WHat frightens me is how it is the 'norm' for young children to play violent video games. If they get killed in the game they just start again. Although it is obviously not logical to think this happens in real life, I am sure that many grow up thinking it could be so. 

An experiment was held in the UK. A group of boys, all the same age were allowed to play video games. One group played a soccer game whilst the others played a violent one. 
Individually they went into a room with a teacher who knocked a pot of pencils off his desk. Very few of the violent game players helped him to pick them up whereas majority of the soccer players did. This was after an hour of their game playing - what happens when it is many hours?


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

Faceman everyone who drinks and occasionally gets drunk is not an alcoholic.
Most people who abuse drugs do not become addicted.
People over indulge in many things to make them feel good or to escape the real world.
Most of these people will not rob or kill anyone and are experimenting or partying .
They are a danger only to themselves when using unless they are driving.
Impaired judgement does not make one a scumbag Faceman.
Shalom


----------



## SouthernTrails (Dec 19, 2008)

.

Is someone that smokes marijuana once or twice a month more likely to commit a crime of violence than someone who gets drunk every Friday and Saturday night? or worse is an alcoholic and stays drunk 7 days a week?

I always heard people that smoked pot were fairly passive, never heard that about drunks.

When you buy a gun or get a CWP, they inquire about drugs, but do not remember them asking about drinking, how odd.

We are much more stringent on gun ownership than we are on Driving a Car or getting a Drivers License and as was mentioned previously, Cars kill a lot more people than guns.

It is the attitude about not caring about life that causes the problems with any tool ie. Gun, Knife, Car, etc.


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

STG it all depends on the individual how they react to any mind altering chemical. The degree of impairment can vary widely from individual to individual.
Pot however does not seem to encourgae aggression in most people.
STG IMO it is far too easy to purcahse a gun in this country.
There is little oversight unless the individual has past criminal history.
Someone who is paranoid, severly depressed, or psychotic can go years before they become dangerous to soceity.
That is the problem with our current system.
No way to weed out those with mental disorders until it is too late. Shalom


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

People use cell phones and not smoke signals. Technology changes. Prior to the arrival of the gun people were still murdered. After its arrival, where laws were not inforced, there were lots of murders. A free attorney and a slap on the wrist doesn't seem to be much of a deterrent to those that obtain guns illegally.


----------



## kitten_Val (Apr 25, 2007)

dbarabians said:


> Most people who abuse drugs do not become addicted.


I assume it greatly depends on drug. Advil is the drug too in principle, but I haven't heard of addiction. Cocaine or heroin on other hand seem to be extremely addictive (from what I've heard and read).


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

dbarabians said:


> Faceman everyone who drinks and occasionally gets drunk is not an alcoholic.
> Most people who abuse drugs do not become addicted.
> People over indulge in many things to make them feel good or to escape the real world.
> Most of these people will not rob or kill anyone and are experimenting or partying .
> ...


That is your opinion. I have mine. Impaired judgment does not make a person a scumbag, but knowingly impairing one's judgment does. A person that drinks, smokes dope, or otherwise takes drugs to purposely alter their mind is weak in character, irresponsible, is exercising poor judgment, and/or has mental issues. Irresponsibility is irresponsibility, whether it is a glass, a joint, a needle, or a gun in their hand.

It is one thing to have a cup of coffee in the morning, or a cold beer on a hot afternoon or with dinner, but quite another to get drunk or stoned for "recreation". And do not tell me they are only a danger to themselves "if driving". Over 300,000 people have been killed by drunk drivers in the last 20 years. 300,000...:evil: In addition, thousands have been killed in drunken fights, domestic arguments, and while crimes were being committed. 10% of all arrests in the US are due to alcohol abuse, which is a huge burden in taxpayer dollars and resources. Recreational drugs OBVIOUSLY promote drug traffic and dealing, which anyone that doesn't have their head in the sand knows is a huge problem in the US and in and of itself causes killings and crime. Recreational use of drugs feeds the drug industry...while a particular person may not have an addiction problem, their usage fuels the industry. Incarcerations for selling and possessing drugs, including for recreational use, again costs taxpayers billions of dollars every year.

I am both appalled and disgusted that anyone anywhere would choose to rationalize or defend the use of recreational drugs, or sweep it under the rug as some minor issue of no consequence. 

Do a little googling and cipher up how many children are killed, maimed, orphaned, live in broken homes, or otherwise have been negatively affected by "recreational" drugs every year. It makes me sick even to think about it.

Everyone has their soapbox. This is mine. Drug abuse is a scourge to our society and those that abuse drugs are the dreggs users are the dregs of society...


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

to explain addiction simply if you put 100 people in a room and force fed them alcohol for 30 days you would ahve 10 alcoholics when they emerged.
If you did the same with cocaine or herion after 30 days you would have 100 addicts.
that is not saying that someone who abuses drugs randomly say once a week for life will become addicted.
Addiction is both physical and mental .
Your brain craves cocain and the high that it enjoyed while using it.
However when used daily you must use more and more to attain that high.
There is no way to prevent the occasional user from purcahsing a firearm.
Shalom


----------



## Lockwood (Nov 8, 2011)

Holy Smokes, Face. Finally something I agree with you on …100% !!

It was such a shock when I moved from a deeply conservative area of the US to one of the most liberal areas. This was one of the biggest differences in mindset and the one thing that was so hard to discuss with the people from that area.


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

dbarabians said:


> to explain addiction simply if you put 100 people in a room and force fed them alcohol for 30 days you would ahve 10 alcoholics when they emerged.
> If you did the same with cocaine or herion after 30 days you would have 100 addicts.
> that is not saying that someone who abuses drugs randomly say once a week for life will become addicted.
> Addiction is both physical and mental .
> ...


db, you don't have to explain addiction to me, any more than I have to explain to you how alcohol impairs the brain - remember who you are talking to. But addiction is not relevant to the issue of poor judgment by people who have access to handguns - or to being impaired in general. Drugs and alcohol are, but one does not have to be addicted to be impaired. Yahoos run around all the time impaired, but are not addicted.

I realize you work with many people who are druggies and alcoholics, but those who are addicted represent a small percent of those who are impaired, and thus the whole addiction sidebar is irrelevant...


----------



## Lockwood (Nov 8, 2011)

Missy May said:


> People use cell phones and not smoke signals. Technology changes. Prior to the arrival of the gun people were still murdered.
> *Yeah, but a whole lot less of them.*
> After its arrival, where laws were not inforced, there were lots of murders. *There are still plenty of murders where laws are enforced.*
> A free attorney and a slap on the wrist doesn't seem to be much of a deterrent to those that obtain guns illegally.


Missy- replies in bold. (Please don't shred me with your reply :lol

All- (Just my ramblings here... bear with me)
So I’m wondering…. Why can’t there be turtle laws/safeties with guns. There are with nearly everything else.
(Turtle laws/safeties = things like -a warning with a hairdryer “Do not use hairdryer while bathing or taking a shower” [ because you know someone did exactly that at some point] 
And of course, seatbelts being made mandatory because people wouldn’t use them even though it saved lives.)

I have no idea what these turtle laws could be, but I’m somewhat surprised how ridiculously easy it is to purchase guns. Not a whole lot harder than buying shoes. The article mantions what has been done in other areas od safety, why aren't guns held to the same safety levels?

Since cars were mentioned… at least one needs to take a test to get a drivers license.
Yeah, cars contribute more to fatalities than guns, and the strides that have been made for car and driving safety have been extensive, since no way in heck people will give up driving cars, so why can’t something be done about guns and the lack of responsibility of many of the people who own them. (Note I said many, not all.)

As mentioned in other posts, lack of respect is a huge issue and yes it is. 
But if one is too stupid (sorry ignorant) or unable (for reasons not having to do with intelligence) to pass a drivers test, well that really affects their ability to work, get the things they needs and function in our world. 
I know many will say that people (in the US anyway) have the right to own guns and defend themselves, but being able to support oneself and function is of really high importance too, but guess what…. You no pass test you no get DL. 
Why should guns be so different?

It is unsafe to turn loose someone with DUI convictions or the inability to follow driving laws to be on the road. So why is it so easy for such people to carry around a weapon that can so easily cause bodily harm with no training, screening, or testing what-so-ever?


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

Lockwood said:


> Holy Smokes, Face. Finally something I agree with you on …100% !!
> 
> It was such a shock when I moved from a deeply conservative area of the US to one of the most liberal areas. This was one of the biggest differences in mindset and the one thing that was so hard to discuss with the people from that area.


Haha...we agree on lots of things. I just try to hide it...:rofl: Plus, on those things we do agree on by the time I find the thread you have already said what I would have said anyway. But we disagree on a lot of things too and I have full confidence that you will come to your senses one day...:thumbsup:


----------



## Coffeejunkie (May 17, 2012)

Even if we can pinpoint those that have a potential will to act violently and prevent them from purchasing weapons from reputable sources, they will purchase them illegitimately or take them from a friend/family member behind their backs. Some of these people know exactly what they're doing, and others may think they're on mars. Anyone who is not of sound mind while committing a crime like this is obviously sick (likely physical changes in neurotransmitters/brain function, TBI etc). I think calling it a "social" disease is a cop out for them not being able to type and prevent future events.

No good way to word this. If there's a will there's a way. 
If people involved in others lives, no matter how big or small of a role, stopped saying "oh they'd never do that," and stepped up to acting on a red flag prevention may rise..


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

Faceman I am not rationalizing anything nor am I condoning it.
As a therapist I have seen up front how many careers, marriages, families, and lives have been destroyed by someone using a mind altering chemical.
In past threads you havde accused me of using emotional reasoning and neglecting logical evidence.
Now I can reverse that charge.
Lockwood do not be surprised at our friend Faceman.
He is not some rigid right winger i can assure you.
He says what he believes and says it withourt apologizing.
Would you have it any other way?
You will always know where he stands. Gotta respect that. Shalom


----------



## kitten_Val (Apr 25, 2007)

Sorry for the ignorant question, but what ARE "recreational" drugs? Heroin and such or something else? I've only heard the term "street drugs".

Both - alcohol and (street) drugs - are addictive and break lots of lives (kids as well as adults). I don't think one should underestimate either. Also from what I know (personal experience with some friends) it's very hard (if possible) to break the addiction.


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

Lockwood said:


> Missy- replies in bold. (Please don't shred me with your reply :lol
> 
> All- (Just my ramblings here... bear with me)
> So I’m wondering…. Why can’t there be turtle laws/safeties with guns. There are with nearly everything else.
> ...


I just have to say, it is the per capita rate that matters, not the number. While more people might be murdered today, I honestly don't know if the percentage is higher since the "beginning". 

While people are required to obtain a license to legally operate a car, the requirement does not prevent them from operating one w/o a license. It also doesn't prevent them from driving while under the influence of drugs including alcohol. And, they do it all the time. I do not want to impose laws such that no civilian can drive in order to ensure only licensed drivers do.

There is virtually no gun that is legally sold and manufactured in the US that does not include a safety. If not, there are "safety accessories" to lock it out. A revolver has safety built into the design. Vehicles safety? Safety was not a concern until tens of thousands of people died. Now car safety testing is a costly "science". The concept of impact and momentum were worked out long before cars were common. In otherwords, it was not ignorance, it was money. Seat belts became mandatory at the behest of insurance companies, not car companies. 

The guard rail thing - ditto. Installation of guard rails and other safety measures is also a matter of blood and money. If enough people die...they will build one. In many cases, it does not matter how "evident" the risk is or was before they took action. 

I have absolutely no problem with specifications - such as a gun (including its safety mechanism) must meet or exceed x, y or z specification. Of course, neither do most gun manufactures...and they advertise it. I have a problem w people looking for ways to get money to study something this far out in left field. If one wanted to actually contribute to solving the problem, they would start w something like - what are the penalties and how often and to what degree are they enforced for illegal sale and purchase of weapons? And, how effective is it? This is obviouse. People that intend to use a gun to commit a crime do not ordinarily purchase guns at the local gun shop b/c most of them have a previouse conviction. So long as people ignore the fact that in order for laws to be effective they must be enforced....the "gun" will be blamed before the lack of responsible governing and a functional justice system is blamed.

I don't know what mechanism would make a gun, car, knife, or can of drano "irresponsible and stupid -proof"....cement? The nation would be far better off funding research for such a mechanism to be installed in every seat in congress.


----------



## SouthernTrails (Dec 19, 2008)

kitten_Val said:


> Sorry for the ignorant question, but what ARE "recreational" drugs? Heroin and such or something else? I've only heard the term "street drugs".
> 
> Both - alcohol and (street) drugs - are addictive and break lots of lives (kids as well as adults). I don't think one should underestimate either. Also from what I know (personal experience with some friends) it's very hard (if possible) to break the addiction.


Cigarettes
Alcohol
Legally prescribed Narcotics

Many consider Marijuana as a recreational drug, thus so many push for legalization.

I am sure there are a few that consider things like LSD, Ecstasy and similar Designer Drugs, etc as recreational, maybe even prescription narcotics.

Anything harder than that like Cocaine, Heroin, Crank, Meth, etc. I would not think anyone would ever consider those recreational, but you cannot tell they way some people think.

.


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

kitten_Val said:


> Sorry for the ignorant question, but what ARE "recreational" drugs? Heroin and such or something else? I've only heard the term "street drugs".
> 
> Both - alcohol and (street) drugs - are addictive and break lots of lives (kids as well as adults). I don't think one should underestimate either. Also from what I know (personal experience with some friends) it's very hard (if possible) to break the addiction.


For some reason your post made me smile. b/c a I had to think about it although one hears it all the time and assumes they know what it means.  I thought it is "reacreational use", but maybe it is "rec drugs". 

B/c most all perscription drugs and alcohol make me ill, some to the extremes, I have a built in "firewall" to "drug" addictions. But, I was once addicted to cigarettes, and I am here to tell ya, an addiction is pure evil and he** to break.


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

kitten_Val said:


> Sorry for the ignorant question, but what ARE "recreational" drugs? Heroin and such or something else? I've only heard the term "street drugs".
> 
> Both - alcohol and (street) drugs - are addictive and break lots of lives (kids as well as adults). I don't think one should underestimate either. Also from what I know (personal experience with some friends) it's very hard (if possible) to break the addiction.


Without trying to be snide, just saying it like it is, "recreational drugs" is a term coined by liberals to try and justify the use of pot. That is not to say all liberal use pot or support legalizing it, because all of them don't. They even incorporate caffeine into the term to try to lessen the rammification of pot, which is truly mind and judgment altering, whereas caffeine is simply a mild stimulant. I smoked pot 45 years ago in college, and know very well what its affects are - it is not a simple stimulant. It is a drug, and impairs one's judgment, coordination, and ability to think and function normally. While I don't know that anyone actually gets addicted to pot, it impairs one nonetheless. Pot is not physically addicting to my knowledge, however can be mentally addicting as I'm sure db can tell you, because just like food or anything else that provides comfort or mental contentment it can be addicting...


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

Lockwood said:


> As mentioned in other posts, lack of respect is a huge issue and yes it is.
> But if one is too stupid (sorry ignorant) or unable (for reasons not having to do with intelligence) to pass a drivers test, well that really affects their ability to work, get the things they needs and function in our world.
> I know many will say that people (in the US anyway) have the right to own guns and defend themselves, but being able to support oneself and function is of really high importance too, but guess what…. You no pass test you no get DL.
> *Why should guns be so different?*


Because in the United States, the right to bear arms is a Constitutional right. Driving is not...


----------



## Lockwood (Nov 8, 2011)

Missy May said:


> I just have to say, it is the per capita rate that matters, not the number. While more people might be murdered today, I honestly don't know if the percentage is higher since the "beginning". *I have no proof either, but I tend to think so.*
> 
> While people are required to obtain a license to legally operate a car, the requirement does not prevent them from operating one w/o a license. It also doesn't prevent them from driving while under the influence of drugs including alcohol.
> *No it doesn't, but I was mostly speaking within the confines of laws and rules.*
> ...


Replies in bold... again.


----------



## Lockwood (Nov 8, 2011)

Faceman said:


> .... I have full confidence that you will come to your senses one day...:thumbsup:


Ha! I'm pretty set in my ways. 
Pretty sure you will come to the light long before I embrace the dark side.:wink:


----------



## kitten_Val (Apr 25, 2007)

Lol! Thank you for explaining, folks! (I guess I'm addicted too per FM - I drink coffee and tea (with coffein) on daily basis  ).

As far as I know marijuana is not addictive, but I'm not an expert in any way. I don't think cigarettes impairs anything, but pots definitely do from what I've seen (there were several people in barn I used to go while back smoking them).


----------



## Lockwood (Nov 8, 2011)

Faceman said:


> Because in the United States, the right to bear arms is a Constitutional right. Driving is not...


Thanks for the lesson. FYI, there weren't cars back then in case you forgot what it was like. :twisted: 

Seriously though, times have changed.
Our world is so much different than it was when the constitution was put together and yet we are still able to make so many great strides in other areas of rights, liberties, and safety.

Public transport is great IF you live in an area where it is available. Not here and not in many many rural areas. But folks still have to get to work to make money to live, buy life sustaining groceries, and keep a roof over their head. Back then people grew or barted for such things and were able to build their own homes. 
Lets not forget paying taxes either. 
Only a handful of people can live money free and off grid now a days.


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

Kittenval there is nothing stupid about your question concerning recreational drugs
the term applies to any drug not used for medicinal purposes or the manner it prescribed for.
Pot is not physically addicting.
However it is a depressant and you do go through a withdrawl stage.
Does the recent number of mass shootings not warrant a closer look at how easy it is to buy and sell firearms?
I do know if I purchase a firearm from Faceman as a private citizen he does not have to do a backgrund check.
He is not a dealer and would have no way of conducting the check.
That is an easy way for anyone to access guns
I have had patients that have threatened to do harm to themselves or others.
If you check yourself into a mental hospital you can check yourself out.
A Dr may prevent you from doing so only for a couple of days then a judge must order you held.
You can be held indefintely however very few are held longer than a few days or weeks.
Then they are free to do as they please for the most part. 
This is a great discussion. Shalom


----------



## kitten_Val (Apr 25, 2007)

But you still have to (re?)register a gun when you buy from private party? Or not necessarily? I never owned one, so I don't know how the whole procedure of buying/selling works.


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

Lockwood, I am not sure what you personally are advocating. Research into gun safety mechanisms, more gun control, or ??? 
BTW, there is little that isn't covered by the constitution. Unconstitutional laws are written, and some are challenged. So, not all laws are constitutional nor do they need to be unconstitutional in order to address safety. 
If I say so and so is too stupid to own a gun, maybe I can say so and so it to stupid to have a kid, and since _I _would be in a position of power w the only gun, who is going to challenge me? Next, I will be singing on the radio b/c I can...whoa, talk about a safety risk!!!

The constitution has zero affect on the human gene pool, hence "human nature". And until human nature changes, there is no better document to protect people from the extremely high safety risk associated w tyrants.


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

You do not have to register a gun in the State of Texas.
Probably not any state in the South. 
The shooter in Colorado purchased over 15000 $ worth of guns and ammo before he shot up the theater.
Even the staunchest gun rights advocate should see something wrong with that. Shalom


----------



## Lockwood (Nov 8, 2011)

kitten_Val said:


> But you still have to (re?)register a gun when you buy from private party? Or not necessarily? I never owned one, so I don't know how the whole procedure of buying/selling works.


I couldn't remember so I grabbed this off google real quick from the New England Journal of Medicine.....
MMS: Error
The link has the whole article.

" In 2007, a total of 12,632 people in the United States were murdered with firearms, and it is estimated that another 48,676 were treated in hospitals for gunshot wounds received in assaults. Guns are frequently used to commit crimes in the United States, partly because they are so easy to get. This ease of access, in turn, is partially attributable to the fact that there are two systems of retail gun commerce in this country, one involving licensed gun retailers and the other based on private-party gun sellers, and only the former of these systems is regulated. Some 85% of all guns used in crimes and then recovered by law-enforcement agencies have been sold at least once by private parties.

To buy a gun from a gun dealer or other federally licensed gun retailer, you must show identification. You must certify on a lengthy form that you are buying the gun for yourself and that you are not a member of any of several classes of people (including felons and persons under felony indictment, fugitives, domestic-violence offenders, controlled-substance addicts, persons “adjudicated as a mental defective,” and certain others) who are prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms. A background check will be conducted. In more than 90% of cases, the check is completed within minutes, but if there is uncertainty you may wait up to 3 days to get your gun. The retailer must keep a permanent record of your purchase. If you buy more than one handgun from that retailer within 5 business days, the retailer must report the details of your purchase to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF).

However, under federal law you can also legally buy as many guns as you want from a private party, and none of those procedural safeguards will apply. Private-party gun sales can be completely anonymous and undocumented. Private sellers are not required to see identification or keep records, and they cannot initiate background checks. A brief negotiation over price, an exchange of cash, gun, and a handshake, and your purchase is complete. "

EDIT: Not sure why the link says error, but it works.


----------



## Lockwood (Nov 8, 2011)

Missy May said:


> Lockwood, I am not sure what you personally are advocating. Research into gun safety mechanisms, more gun control, or ???
> BTW, there is little that isn't covered by the constitution. Unconstitutional laws are written, and some are challenged. So, not all laws are constitutional nor do they need to be unconstitutional in order to address safety.
> If I say so and so is too stupid to own a gun, maybe I can say so and so it to stupid to have a kid, and since _I _would be in a position of power w the only gun, who is going to challenge me? Next, I will be singing on the radio b/c I can...whoa, talk about a safety risk!!!
> 
> The constitution has zero affect on the human gene pool, hence "human nature". And until human nature changes, there is no better document to protect people from the extremely high safety risk associated w tyrants.


Not advocating anything. Just muse-ing on different ways to split the atom.
While we don't tell people they cannot have kids, we do take them away in certain situations. Yeah, often it is deemed for the good of the child so I'm not arguing that. 
There are plenty of times when a person's liberties or rights are trod upon, but none seems to garner the angst or stink as this.

For me, the article didn't make me think of my constitutional rights (or infringement upon) as much as the lack of planning or ways to deal with the problem, like we have for so many other problems and whatever pc name we would like to give the problem.

Oh yeah... I think I can hear the dogs howling now! 
BTW, a duet with me would make you sound MUCH better!


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

dbarabians said:


> Kittenval there is nothing stupid about your question concerning recreational drugs
> the term applies to any drug not used for medicinal purposes or the manner it prescribed for.
> Pot is not physically addicting.
> However it is a depressant and you do go through a withdrawl stage.
> Does the recent number of mass shootings not warrant a closer look at how easy it is to buy and sell firearms?


That definition makes sense, I guess. 

Does the decades old flood of illegals not warrant a closer look at the borders, and what kind of weapons they carry in or out? 

Planes are rather primative, so are hand guns when it comes to a real threat. What should we do? Declare marshal law until earth is as it is in heaven?


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

Missy May to protect its citizens from random attacks the State of Israel took very drastic measure to stop the violence. They were successful.
they did indeed shut thier borders and you cannot go anywhere without passing through a metal detector.
Yet Israel has one of the most heavily armed populations in the world.
Everyone over 18 is either in the army or on reserve status. until age 45.
The weapons are heavily regulated and their access is still available.
In case of war.
IMO no one has any use for a semi automatic weapon unless they are in a war zone. Or on the way to one. Shalom


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

dbarabians said:


> Missy May to protect its citizens from random attacks the State of Israel took very drastic measure to stop the violence. They were successful.
> they did indeed shut thier borders and you cannot go anywhere without passing through a metal detector.
> Yet Israel has one of the most heavily armed populations in the world.
> Everyone over 18 is either in the army or on reserve status. until age 45.
> ...


Well, its nice Israel cares about their citizenry - which enjoy a common culture, language, and protected borders in a country smaller than vermont. 

Ya know, db, you shouldn't think the worst of all people. For example, I don't think all people that golf are disgusting enemies of the environment that fantasize about torching off the redwoods simply because most golf courses are an insult to the environment, have a huge footprint, displace little animals, and use up too much water. And, I don't think people that enjoy target practice should have to use single action. You should try to see the good in your fellow man once in a while.


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

Missy May I do look for the best in all of humanity.
If I have failed to convey that in my post then I need to improve my communication skills
I do not think everyone is out to take advantage of others or are looking for thier next victim.
Life is too short to think like that .
There is goodness in all of us.
However I do not see the world thru rose coloured glasses. Shalom


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

Missy May said:


> Well, its nice Israel cares about their citizenry - which enjoy a common culture, language, and protected borders in a country smaller than vermont.
> 
> Ya know, db, you shouldn't think the worst of all people.* For example, I don't think all people that golf are disgusting enemies of the environment that fantasize about torching off the redwoods simply because most golf courses are an insult to the environment, have a huge footprint, displace little animals, and use up too much water. *And, I don't think people that enjoy target practice should have to use single action. You should try to see the good in your fellow man once in a while.


 
Aren't they? (lol!)


----------



## kitten_Val (Apr 25, 2007)

I guess most of people participating in thread watched "Bowling for Columbine" movie. I remember I was somewhat shocked by the statistics he provided: there are more guns/person in Canada than in US yet the gun violence rate is hugely higher in US than in Canada. If the statistics is correct it's not so much about guns then.


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

Kittenval it is not about guns.
A gun by itself is harmless. Place it in the hands of a person with soe very serious mental issues and you have a murder waiting to happen.
Guns are second only to bombs when it comes to the amount of destruction they can inflict. Shalom


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

dbarabians said:


> Kittenval it is not about guns.
> A gun by itself is harmless. Place it in the hands of a person with soe very serious mental issues and you have a murder waiting to happen.
> *Guns are second only to bombs when it comes to the amount of destruction they can inflict.* Shalom


Well, you are close. On the destructionometer developed by Cal Tech, bombs cause the most destruction, followed by liberals and then guns.

I couldn't resist...:lol:

KV, I wouldn't watch a film by MIchael Moore if you paid me...


----------



## kitten_Val (Apr 25, 2007)

Faceman said:


> KV, I wouldn't watch a film by MIchael Moore if you paid me...


Why? (just curious) That's the only one by him I watched I must confess, but it was quite informational.


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

kitten_Val said:


> Why? (just curious) That's the only one by him I watched I must confess, but it was quite informational.


Michael Moore is a radical wacko liberal that is so biased I wouldn't believe him if he said the sun would rise tomorrow. He is as much a wacko on the left as Michael Savage is a wacko on the right. People like that aren't worth listening to - you can get facts and information from far better sources.

Honestly, I don't watch politically biased exploitation films anyway. I think there is a place for objective documentaries, but using a tragedy like Columbine for exploitation and to promote a political philosophy is disgusting to me...


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

kitten_Val said:


> I guess most of people participating in thread watched "Bowling for Columbine" movie. I remember I was somewhat shocked by the statistics he provided: there are more guns/person in Canada than in US yet the gun violence rate is hugely higher in US than in Canada. If the statistics is correct it's not so much about guns then.


I don't have to watch the film to know the statistical data was not broken down in a similar manner, by use of accepted statisitcal techniques, etc., as they are/have been by any unbiased, half way intelligent analyst. The whole truth does not ever support his agenda.


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

Missy May and Faceman you would be surprised at the films lack of political slant.
It is rather hard on the NRA but they are big boys and can handle it.
Do like I do about Hannity or beck go to best buy and purchase thier books so they do not receive any credits or income from the sale.
I think Faceman posted that all the proceeds go to charity.
My issue is that the more they sale the more they can write,
Bowling for Columbine and the Documentary about detroit are really great works. Shalom


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

Honestly, db. I don't watch tv..so I don't care what some commentator does or doesn't do w their procedes. What difference does that make?

The importance of fact might be easier to appreciate if micheal moores of the world were responsible for the development and preparation of vaccines. The inability to be objective is always dangerous.


----------



## kitten_Val (Apr 25, 2007)

dbarabians said:


> Missy May and Faceman you would be surprised at the films lack of political slant.
> 
> Bowling for Columbine and the Documentary about detroit are really great works.


I agree with dba here. It's been quite a while since I watched it, but I don't remember any political stuff in the movie (BTW, I very much dislike politics-oriented documentaries, shows, etc.). Mostly just the tragedy discussion, reasons that caused it, and so on. 

I _believe _his other movie (about 9/11) was indeed very politics-oriented (I never watched it though, just heard comments). Don't know about other ones.


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

Come on, guys...if it didn't have political rammifications, Michael Moore would not have made it in the first place. That is what he does, for Heaven sakes. Has he made a documentary about the lives that have been saved by the brandishment or use of guns? Of course not - and he won't, because as Missy said, it does not advance his agenda.

If Sean Hannity made a documentary about welfare, would you expect it to be unbiased and apolitical?...


----------



## kitten_Val (Apr 25, 2007)

Faceman said:


> Come on, guys...if it didn't have political rammifications, Michael Moore would not have made it in the first place. That is what he does, for Heaven sakes. Has he made a documentary about the lives that have been saved by the brandishment or use of guns? Of course not - and he won't, because as Missy said, it does not advance his agenda.


But the statistics in his documentary does say different, FM. If there are less guns here than in Canada still much more violence and shooting (as we can see, especially lately) the problem is not the guns really. 

I don't know any documentary about saving lives with guns! May be you have to offer the idea to this guy! :grin:


----------



## kitten_Val (Apr 25, 2007)

Faceman said:


> If Sean Hannity made a documentary about welfare, would you expect it to be unbiased and apolitical?...


I'd be curious to see one. Not a documentary, but at least a really good statistics. I don't remember seeing a really good and trusted gov site that would publish that.


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

Faceman if Hannity made a documentary I would watch it only if I could do so without putting any money in his pocket.
I would just like I watch his show from time to time to see how distorted some of the things he says can be. How he and the rest of the host especially O'rielly bully thier guest that have differing view is very troubling to me. If they were so secure in thier views someone that thought differently would be given a chance to rebut anything they said without being interrupted.
I would not watch Beck though.
Faceman you get a show I would indeed watch you. Shalom


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

Here is the problem: If I prepared a "documentary" on modern day heroin use in the US, and only included the statistic of number of addicts in the US- what have I "documented" that the US taxpayer hasn't already paid big bucks to be "documented", and couldn't look up in less than 30 seconds? Zip. With few exceptions, heroin use is ordinarily taken to mean humans administering to themselves. The key word: humans. One MIGHT want to add _what_ humans are taking it and _where_, _who_ is selling it, _when_ it was made illegal, the punishment for user and seller, the purity, etc., etc., etc.,. Otherwise, you might as well do a "documentary" on how many grains of sand, size unspecified, are in a cc.

Same thing w guns - regardless of what country it is you are discussing. I am taking a wild guess here....Moore didn't look south in his "documentary"??


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

dbarabians said:


> Faceman if Hannity made a documentary I would watch it only if I could do so without putting any money in his pocket.
> I would just like I watch his show from time to time to see how distorted some of the things he says can be. How he and the rest of the host especially O'rielly bully thier guest that have differing view is very troubling to me. If they were so secure in thier views someone that thought differently would be given a chance to rebut anything they said without being interrupted.
> I would not watch Beck though.
> Faceman you get a show I would indeed watch you. Shalom


Never happen...my thought process is too logical to have a political commentary show. Whether on the right or the left, you pretty much have to support insanely illogical positions or nobody watches...that's why we don't have any really objective mainstream news sources. Heck, I'm not totally convinced we have any objective secondary or tertiary news sources.

Actually, O'Reily is what I would term relatively objective with conservative leanings. I have seen him highly critical of conservative postions. It is hard to watch him though, because as you say he doesn't let his guests talk. I hate when reporters do that - ask a question and then interrupt so constantly that the guest never has an opportunity to answer. They all do it, but O'Reily is about the worst.

Even though you are a wacko liberal, he would rate you as a Patriot rather than a Pinhead though...I think...maybe...well, it is within the realm of possibility...when the devil gets frostbite...and when that animal you won't touch flies...:rofl:


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

Faceman sadly you are right about the extreme views get the air time.
O Rielly has apologized for being wrong and handled the interview with Pres Obama very well I might add.
He showed a lot of respect for the Office Obama holds and tempered his attitude to comply.
I do find his show and his books boastful and self serving. His ego is hugely over inflated.
Until both parties come togehter and work on a solution to all this gun violence none will ever be resolved. 
Sadly more lives will be lost because of partisian polotics. Shalom


----------



## kitten_Val (Apr 25, 2007)

Missy May said:


> Moore didn't look south in his "documentary"??


I don't know.  I watched that movie 10+ years ago, and I only keep the facts I found interesting in my memory.


----------



## EmilyJoy (Dec 30, 2011)

People have been killing each other for years. If not a gun it would be something else, spears, sword, poison, boiling water, sharp stick...whatever. The bad guys will always find a way to have weapons...In my opinion it would be far better, to arm the common people instead of taking their defense away. And giving then proper lessons in how to use the gun...


----------



## wetrain17 (May 25, 2011)

I will say this. Romans used to watch people each other in coliseums. Bare Knuckle boxing has been around in every culture. Hunting has always been a big part of human nature. We aren't getting more violent nor is society collapsing, The difference is these days violence is more socially unacceptable leading people to freak out when it does happen.

I'm not saying it is okay to going around killing people, but I dont think its a new trend.


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

wetrain17 said:


> I will say this. Romans used to watch people each other in coliseums. Bare Knuckle boxing has been around in every culture. Hunting has always been a big part of human nature. We aren't getting more violent nor is society collapsing, The difference is these days violence is more socially unacceptable leading people to freak out when it does happen.
> 
> I'm not saying it is okay to going around killing people, but I dont think its a new trend.


I do not disagree with you in part. Most often is the case that trends are dependent on more than one factor. How people behave overall in any given civilization is a function of the laws, and how well those laws are enforced. IMO, we do not need more gun control, we need the laws already on the books enforced.


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

Missy May the laws already on the books cannot be enforced until something happens.
There are people that should never have access to a gun.
Most have never committed a crime. The potential is there however.
These recent mass shootings did not just happen.
Something triggered these men to act out against soceity.
Notice how all mass shooters are men? Shalom


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

dbarabians said:


> Missy May the laws already on the books cannot be enforced until something happens.
> There are people that should never have access to a gun.
> Most have never committed a crime. The potential is there however.
> These recent mass shootings did not just happen.
> ...


Yeah...guns aren't violent enough for women...



> Lizzie Bordon took an axe
> And gave her Mother forty wacks
> And when the job was nicely done
> She gave her Father forty-one


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

Women only commit 10% of the murders in this country.
There are over 5 million men who are incarcerated.
Only a little over 500,000 women are imprisoned in the USA. those are very telling statistics.
In other words Faceman Lizzie borden was quite rare. Shalom


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

dbarabians said:


> Women only commit 10% of the murders in this country.
> There are over 5 million men who are incarcerated.
> Only a little over 500,000 women are imprisoned in the USA. those are very telling statistics.
> In other words Faceman Lizzie borden was quite rare. Shalom


Women are just too smart to get caught. All these old men that croak off aren't really dieing of old age. Have you not seen the movie "Arsenic and Old Lace"?...:rofl:


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

Good point Faceman. I agree. Shalom


----------

