Change Brady to a charity, or give it away for free.

[Sepia and Dust]

When there is not supervision and one-on-one assistance, these people get into trouble, don't take their meds, and de-comp which puts a strain on other systems like law enforcement, fire departments, and can lead to situations that put others in danger as we've seen. If you want the mentally ill to be less of a threat, then pay attention when budget cuts are being made and don't whine about how much of your tax dollars is being spent on assisting them in programs that have been proven to work. Tell your legislators to reconsider those cuts.

Once again, amen!

Which still boils down to the access and availability of guns being the common factor in innocent people being killed by mentally ill patients who have become delusional and possibly violent.

I think that the common factor is violent, mentally ill people not getting the treatment they need.

[Todash]

look at countries with less guns (Canada, UK ). Crime rates are not higher. Definitely murder is not higher. Absolutely mass murders are not higher. These things do happen here, but rarely. And a mass shooting here was two dead (more injured).

Yep, those are the stats I have seen. Which makes sense, but of course sometimes things work out differently from how we would expect, which is why statistical analysis and the scientific method are important.

[jay1799]

Not to mention the simplistic understanding of mental health issues. First I want to say that not all mentally ill people will become violent and harm others. The major reason why so many mentally ill people are not receiving help has nothing to do with their being committed. There are many including paranoid schizophrenics who do not have to be institutionalized if they're receiving proper care. It has to do with the erosion of funding for services starting with the Reagan administration. The best way to help these people is by early intervention and continued treatment with oversight by trained professionals such as adult mental health social workers. Why are they not doing that? Take a look at some of the first items that are being cut in state and federal budgets and you'll see it's assistance for these sorts of programs or the rules for who and what is covered are changed so that people no longer qualify for assistance which clears the path for cutting them from the system. And who gets cut when budgets are reduced--it's not usually the managers, it's the people on the front line who actually perform the services. When there is not supervision and one-on-one assistance, these people get into trouble, don't take their meds, and de-comp which puts a strain on other systems like law enforcement, fire departments, and can lead to situations that put others in danger as we've seen. If you want the mentally ill to be less of a threat, then pay attention when budget cuts are being made and don't whine about how much of your tax dollars is being spent on assisting them in programs that have been proven to work. Tell your legislators to reconsider those cuts.

I dont disagree with anything you said here. I was not advocating a 'lets lock up anyone that has a mental disease' approach. That would also be a violation of peoples civil rights. And I like to protect peoples civil rights...all of them.

But, there needs to be alot more done. And one must realize that by protecting the civil rights of the mentally ill, you may end up with some on the extreme side, that maybe should not be out in society...as being out in society.

It is the same thing with out criminal justice system. We try our best to make sure someone is innocent before proven guilty, and that the burden of prrof of someones guilt is on the state...not a burden of innocence from the person. This invariably leads to 'bad guys' not going to jail. But in our society, we recognize that we would rather have more bad guys not go to jail, with the hope that it prevents innocent people from being incarcerated.

Again, it is a trade off of protecting people's civil rights vs the safety of the rest of society.

These are the principles that a free society is based on.

It also does not take into account those who have not yet been diagnosed and until they are would fall through the cracks and could still have access to guns because they would pass a background check. If they had a psychotic break during that time that would lead them to wanting to harm others with a gun, the system would not catch them.

Of course it does not. You can not find someone guilty....for a thought crime. We do not live in the 'Minority Report'.

But, this is where society needs to step up to the plate. Friends and family especially need to notice that someone 'has slipped thru the cracks' and society needs to make sure that there are places where those friends and family can turn to, to get the person help.

Which still boils down to the access and availability of guns being the common factor in innocent people being killed by mentally ill patients who have become delusional and possibly violent.

I think the common denominator is the mentally ill not getting the help that they need. If a felt a family member of mine could not be trusted with a firearm, I would be equally concerned about that person having access to my kitchen knives or my car, or my propane tank, or anything sharp, pointy, or dangerous to himself or others if used improperly. I would not want the person to get near my gas tank for my lawn mower and a pack of matches.

But we as a society....protect the rights of people that do not cause harm. That is the way it always is and always shall be. We go after the bad guys, not the good guys. We do not violate the rights of the many, to stop the few. That is what a free society is based off of, and that is the way it always should be.

[jay1799]

I do disbelieve your claim that more guns equals less crime or that there are statistics to back that up that could not be disputed. And, yes, I've seen the statistics that gun violence has gone down as sales have gone up. But the other piece of this is that the number of gun owners has also gone down--it's just that the people who already own guns are buying more of them. And yet you are trying to convince me that there isn't a fear mentality among the more vocal gun rights advocates and that it's something liberals are making up. If the punchline wasn't in such bad taste, it might make for a good joke a la how many _______ does it take to screw in a lightbulb--how many guns does it take to make a gun rights activist feel safe?

I'd also like to point out that you have joined the SKMB with the only reason being to protest your belief that Stephen's full disclosure that his share of the 99 cent purchase price (he doesn't get all 99 cents) of "Guns" will be donated to the Brady Campaign is keeping people (although logic says that would only be those who are opposed to that organization) from debating the topic of gun rights vs. gun control and yet here we are at over 140 posts in this thread alone related to the essay. And if you've still stuck to your gu....errr principles, you haven't any firsthand knowledge of what Steve actually discussed in his essay. He wrote the essay giving his opinions about the issue after having done research, realizing that there would be some who would never read it because they'd already formed an opinion for one reason or the other about his motives or conclusions, but hoping there could still be discussions. I'd say he's accomplished his intention.

As far as the guns are being bought by the same gun owners. In some cases, that is true. In many more cases, that is simply not true. New gun ownership is on the rise. New members to the NRA is on the rise. I have met so many new gun owners in the past few years. Yes, definitive statistcs on this are difficult to come by(and I like it that way, but that is a different story).

But, a good place to look would be gallup. Their polls are typically some of the most unbiased.

PRINCETON, NJ -- Forty-seven percent of American adults currently report that they have a gun in their home or elsewhere on their property. This is up from 41% a year ago and is the highest Gallup has recorded since 1993, albeit marginally above the 44% and 45% highs seen during that period.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/se...hest-1993.aspx

So, while you may think all the new guns are being bought by the same people, I think that belief would be incorrect. There are many new gun owners out there.

As far as SK accomplishing his goal. I disagree. I have not read the essay, soley because of who he sent the money to. I wanted to read it...but I wont purchase it.

I ask you, would you be so supportive of SK's decision, if he came out and said...all you anti-gun people just need to grow up. Peoples rights are their rights. Stop trying to take their civil rights away. And then donated all the proceeds to the NRA.

While I would certainly agree with those beliefs, I would think SK would have been just as wrong if he did that, while at the same time saying 'he just wanted to open a discussion'

As far as me still being around talking about this? Well, I tried to keep the thread on topic(where the money was going to) but I am a pretty vocal person. Not the type to just write a letter, post it somewhere and then go quietly into the night. That would be cowardice and not really standing behind ones beliefs. In my opinion, if I am going to come here to state my opinion, I may as well back it up and stand behind my opinion when it is being called into question. But again, I am a vocal person. /shrug

[jay1799]

So, not to be so simplistic in the face of such overwhelming intellect, but 1799, you seem to have a laundry list defending the ownership of the magazines and gun types. Let's, of argument's sake, remove the problem you have with being so oppressed by limiting these things. Let's pretend that you will never need to fight off the guv'ment (though, it is coming any day now). And finally let's admit that those types of guns aren't really for hunting.

Now if you have cleared your mind of these preconceptions and hang-ups you have, think very hard. Now give us ANY reason why these things are necessary. How does it actually diminishes your rights to not be able to have them? I am not interested in the"chip away" argument or any debate on the 2nd Amendment. I am asking why these types of guns/magazines are necessary to the point they require constitutional protection.

Well, first off. I have hunted with semi automatic rifles with what you would call 'high capacity magazines'. It is perfectly legal in my state on private land. And even encouraged when hunting feral hog. They are a non native nuisance creature which do a lot of damage to peoples property and crops...as well as can be dangerous to people. So, no. I wont admit that these guns 'arent really for hunting' ...millions of semi automatic rifles are used for hunting and pest control in this country every year.

An AR15 is just one type of semi automatic rifle. Mechanically, it really is no different than a ruger mini 14 ranch rifle or even a ruger 10/22. I dont know if that means anything to you, but to someone that understands firearms...it should.

As far as 'needs'. First, let me say. Be leery with changing the 'Bill of Rights' to the 'Bill of Needs'.

But, from a self defense standpoint? Particularly an AR15 with a standard magazine(to me, a 20 or 30 round magazine is standard) is lightweight, easy to maneuver in tight places, easy to maintain on target for follow up shots, reliable and accurate. What else would someone want in a self defense firearm?

If I was the victim of a home invasion, there is no other firearm I would rather have in my hands. Can you guarantee that I will always be faced with one attacker? What about someone living out in a rural location, where the police maybe 20 minutes or more to get there(not to mention that even in an urban area, the police wont typically get there in time except to put you in a body bag and write up a report).

If you think home invasions never happen, you simply need to look them up. I wish this father of two had an AR15 in his hands when 4 armed thugs broke into his home.
http://www.wtsp.com/news/topstories/...vasion-murder-

Or how about this fairly famous story. At least it was in Florida. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders...lanie_Billings 7 armed men invaded the home. SEVEN. How many bullets in a gun is enough in your opinion in such a situation?

Ill ask you a question. Say you were at my house, and I had a revolver and an AR15 with a 30 round magazine in my bedroom. And we were sitting there watching a movie when say 4-7 armed men broke in. Which gun would you rather me run to...to protect you in such a situation? My revolver holding 6 shots, or my ar15 holding 30?

[Sepia and Dust]

How many bullets in a gun is enough in your opinion in such a situation?

Generally, just one is sufficient.

[hossenpepper]

And with that folks, I rest my case. Fear, pure and simple. No other real reason. Did anyone else notice that a simple question was asked and a rambling revisit of the same nonsense was given?

If you are much over 21 years old I would be shocked (if you are, I shudder). Your immaturity shows through in your views. That, plus your inability to answer a simple straightforward question with a simple straightforward answer. Most likely because the simple answer is there is no reason to have these things besides " 'cuz " and that certainly doesn't support your incoherent nonsense you try to pass off as some sort of wisdom.

Weren't you here to tell everyone that all things King are off your radar now? Yet you're still here...? Hmmm...

But, please, list some more neocon skewed websites (getting those clicks up hopefully) that list "facts" that happen to be your opinions too!! Golly, how quaint!!

[hossenpepper]

But I will try again.

These arguments are stupid and meaningless and should be removed from the debate entirely:

1. These are hunting guns. No discussion necessary. If you need more than one shot, you suck at hunting and shooting.
2. Irrational fears: the government is coming to get you, there are roving bands of home invaders coming for you while you watch Harry Potter and The Hunger Games. The actual real numbers of home invasions are so low, you should fear the lightning strikes here in Florida more. Most invasions that are classified as such occur when no one is home because BURGLARS DON'T LIKE CONFRONTATIONS. So you're down to the very rare rapist and even more rare kill for pleasure death squads. The shootings you hear of here are more "stand your ground" crap used to justify some questionable shooting over actual self defense, in the home, by random selection.
3. The 2nd Amendment is being chipped away in a huge conspiracy. Why? So we will stop attacking the police daily, hungering for justice for the little guy? Man this argument is just dumb and in no way reflects the simple reality that f the US COULD get the citizen soldiers to turn their guns on their families and friends, I don't give flying f@ck how many guns you got, ace, your a$$ is toast!
4. This time I also reject any answer that includes "Because I want to have them". That doesn't justify jacksh!t. Your selfish take on what "rights" are was kinda disgusting and made me gag a little. It's just embarrassing that we tell the world how great we are and here, where others from around it can see people like you being so gluttonous with the sacrifices many races and people made so the US could be here, just so you can satiate your desires to hear something go "boom" real loud and shout out "yee haw" after.

So again, since you couldn't do it the first time, and instead went on another rant trying to argue why you can't let go of those points, try to answer this simple question: Why (not factoring in anything listed above) do you need these guns/ammo clips, etc.?

[not_nadine]

jeeze

[Patricia A]

What is it about 20 dead babies, riddled with bullet holes that is so hard to understand? The time has come to stop arguing and start changing the way we care about each other. Seriously.