Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumThe VA Tells the Truth About Guns. The NRA Can't Handle It.
Vice President, Brady Campaign; Author, 'Lethal Logic'
Posted: 05/16/2012 10:45 am
The Veterans Health Administration launched a public awareness campaign about gun access by dementia patients after an 83-year-old veteran pulled a pistol from his pocket in August 2000 and shot a doctor in a V.A. hospital emergency room in Salisbury, N.C. The agency later found that 40 percent of veterans with mild to moderate dementia had a gun in their homes.
In response, the VA's Office of the Medical Inspector issued an invaluable publication, "Firearms and Dementia," explaining the risks of firearms in the home. Although the focus is on the lethal mix of guns and persons suffering from dementia, the VA underscores the risk to others as well. According to the VA, "[t]he presence of firearms in households has been linked to increased risk of injury or death for everyone in or around the home, usually as an impulsive act during some disagreement," noting that "[t]his danger is increased when one of the persons in the household has dementia."
-------
Of course, this is enough to drive the NRA around the bend. In a statement entitled "Veterans Administration Overdoses on Anti-Gun Prescription," the gun lobby decries the VA pamphlet as "what the taxpayers get when people who know nothing about firearms issues take their cues from people who lie about firearms issues..." Then, intending to inflict on the VA the unkindest cut of all, the NRA suggests "that if one of its pamphleteers isn't related to the Brady Campaign's Dennis Henigan, he or she ought to be." I would be proud to be related to the authors of the VA's publication but, to my knowledge, I am not.
The VA's public education campaign is threatening to the NRA precisely because it was not initiated by gun control advocates, but rather arises from a desire by medical professionals at the VA to take common-sense steps against entirely preventable deaths and injuries to veterans from guns kept in the home. The VA has done nothing more than give sound advice based on the best medical and public health knowledge about the risks of guns. For doing so, it now faces the wrath of the gun lobby.
More: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dennis-a-henigan/the-va-tells-the-truth-ab_b_1521027.html?ref=gun-control
NRA-ILA Statement:
Posted on March 9, 2012
"The presence of firearms in households has been linked to increased risk of injury or death for everyone in or around the home" and "Firearms in the home can increase the possibility of completing suicide." Not only that, while locking up guns is a good idea, "The best way to reduce gun risks is to remove the gun from your home. . . . The safest action is to get rid of the guns."
Sounds familiar, of course. But this time, the anti-gun propaganda isn't from one of the handful of people in the medical field that the Joyce Foundation pays hundreds of thousands of dollars to write up "studies" characterizing guns as too dangerous for private individuals to possess. Instead, it's from a federal government entity whose employees apparently read such stuff and, through some combination of naïveté, ignorance and bias, fall for it.
In this instance, the anti-gun message comes from the Department of Veterans Affairs' Office of the Medical Inspector and Geriatrics and Extended Care Strategic Healthcare Group. The VA's statements appear in a pamphlet called "Firearms and Dementia," which, the name of the pamphlet notwithstanding, is directed at anyone who has a child, in addition to people who are responsible for individuals suffering from decreased mental acuity.
The VA's statements are derived from "studies" that have been discounted or discredited by so many researchers, for so many years, that it hardly bears repeating. Gary Kleck, for example, summed up serious researchers' opinions of the "studies," referring to them as "nonsense" and saying "there is virtually no credible research supporting the skeptical view" that keeping guns at home generally increases Americans' safety risks.
More: http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2012/veterans-administration-overdoses-on-anti-gun-prescription.aspx?s=&st=&ps=
Anyone here want to defend the NRA?
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)I'm sure the next missive will be to remove rope, wire and belts so that the second choice for suicides is made more difficult...
ellisonz
(27,709 posts)HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)denverbill
(11,489 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)randr
(12,408 posts)yet refuse to allow pot users their 2nd Amendment Rights.
This alone shows how much the NRA really cares about the Constitution.
Crazies can carry arms yet peaceful non-violent people have no right to their own pursuit of happiness, let alone own a gun.
All the NRA is is a lobby for weapon manufacturers disguised as defenders of the Constitution.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Say what? Did the NRA say anything on the subject? That was the ATF's call. The only way to reverse that is to repeal federal prohibition laws and maybe amend the Gun Control Act of 1968.
randr
(12,408 posts)My point exactly. When do they not jump up and down defending their precious 2nd Amendment?
Most pot in this country is grown by gun totin red neck mericans and not the street shit from Mexico.
End the drug war and stop the international violence that plagues our southern neighbors, but that may slow down the sales of guns unfortunately.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Most pot smokers I have known are assholes who have a problem with people who are not. When asked, I have yet to run into one who has a problem with their connection blowing people away. They are no different than people who buy blood diamonds.
Scribejohn
(7 posts)If pot smokers weren't allowed to carry firearms then there wouldn't have been many shots fired by US troops in Vietnam.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)Crickets from the gun-religionists usually out to defend their poor widdle self-esteem builders.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)Gun-religionists hate being called that. Faith in metal objects that kill people do things like that to you.
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)bongbong
(5,436 posts)Worship guns, worship the NRA, worship the art of killing, worship whatever makes gun-religionists feel good about themselves.
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)Would I be correct in assuming that "faith" was not the word you intended two posts back?
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)And I think it only underscores your own inability for rational thought and discussion on the topic.
And for the record, I'm an atheist.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)> And I think it only underscores your own inability for rational thought and discussion on the topic.
I think your gun religion underscores your own inability for rational thought and discussion on the topic. Naturally you want to defend your article of faith, your gun. Your faith blinds you. Your gun religion blinds you. Same as any religion. Try to substitute rationality for blind faith & you'll be further ahead
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)That you say these words to me (or the rest of the words in your post) without having any real understanding of my position on the issue in the first place only serves to underscore that these words would have served you far better if you had spoken them while looking into a mirror.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Because your posts certainly lack it completely.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)oh . . . say . . . .
Fem-religionists
or . . . maybe . . .
LGBT-religionists
wonder how long you would last . . . .
DanTex
(20,709 posts)...whereas "gun rights" is a dog-whistle that right-wingers use to rile up the gun-religionists that make up their base.
I wonder how well you'd do in those forums if you went in and insisted that women's and LGBT rights groups really have a lot in common with the NRA...
My prediction:
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)I have kids. I can do this all day . . .
always and forever REMEMBER IVERGLAS and how it was the Fem/LGBT that brought her down. NEVER FORGET.
Insults that are thrown in GC&RKBA will not be tolerated elsewhere on this board and people are learning how bad it is in here.
Things will change.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)For example, repeatedly citing FOXNews, Townhall, WashingtonTimes, etc in GD would at least get you laughed at, and eventually PPRed. Also, comparing feminists and LGBT advocates to the NRA crowd probably wouldn't go over too well outside of this forum.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)Somehow personal attacks by pro-gunners don't seem to bother you much. Hmmm....
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)Faux, partisan outrage by you.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)I could be wrong but, in most intances I am seeing ANTIs throwing out the FIRST insult and the 2Aers are the ones automatically thrown in defensive mode and trying to make a joke out of the insults and actually taking the insults and making them terms of endearments. note: The Gungeon. note: Toters. etc.
I am not saying it doesnt happen, mind you...but, I am saying it is far more rare for the 2Aer to be the one to START the process.
as a woman, you have no idea how insulting your position above was to me about Feminist comments.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)How about "anti-rights" or "bigot" or "gun grabber"? Does that ring a bell? Try some google:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22gun+grabber%22+site:democraticunderground.com
http://www.google.com/search?q=gun+bigotry+site:democraticunderground.com
http://www.google.com/search?q=gun+%22anti-rights%22+site:democraticunderground.com
Also, how exactly is my position on feminism insulting to you. My position is that women's rights (along with minorities, LGBT, etc.) are important issues, and they shouldn't be trivialized by putting them in the same category as "gun rights". That offends you as a woman? Please...
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)trivial? thanks.
If this is such a trivial issue to you why do you bother wasting your time posting in this group?
DON'T PLAY DUMB
DanTex
(20,709 posts)...although I still haven't seen a single example where you complain about name-calling or personal insults by someone who doesn't agree with you politically. Like I said, faux outrage and pure partisanship on your part.
Second, by "trivial", I mean that "gun rights" are trivial compared to actual civil rights. That doesn't mean the whole issue is trivial: the 30,000 people who die every year from guns are not trivial.
Third, you never explained how what I said was insulting to you as a woman. You're not just going to toss out the accusation that I posted something insulting to women and not back it up. Are you?
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)Explain how anything I said was in any way offensive to you as a woman. You won't, and you can't, because I didn't.
Here's what you posted:
If you're going to insinuate that I posted something about feminism that was offensive to women, you need to explain what it is. Don't just toss around that accusation. That's irresponsible and offensive in itself.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)equating guns with phallic symbols and "cowboy" attitude.
Your position that you did not understand what I was saying about calling out people in other groups.
Maybe you did not understand and I give you the benefit of doubt.
The very fact that I was NOT talking to you in the first place. You interjected yourself into this subthread.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)My position, which has been clear all along, is that feminism and LGBT rights are worthy causes, whereas "guns=freedom" is for the Norquists and Nugents. That's why calling people out for being LGBT advocates or a feminists is not the same as calling people out for being NRA mouthpieces.
I don't need the benefit of the doubt, because I didn't do anything wrong. If you felt insulted "as a woman", that's because you didn't pay attention to my posts and instead just went looking for something to be insulted about.
PS, I found another post for you, where a pro-gunner calls DUers in favor of gun control "gun grabber losers". This, of course, is a much stronger insult that "gun-religionist", and I know you saw it because you were part of the thread. But, you said nothing, because all kinds of insults are OK by you as long as they're directed at people you disagree with.
Hypocrisy.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/124099632#post45
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)Get in line all you gun nuts and get a bite to eat!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=40329
as for the other topic.... You are being deliberately OBTUSE about it. so PeaceOUT
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)Try this: in an iverglas grave-dancing thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/117239829#post19
Wait, lemme guess! "As a woman", this doesn't bother you at all, because women of a certain age who aren't married are worthless to society and so we should laugh about how bitter they must be. Hahaha, that's so funny and appropriate on a Democratic message board. Did I get that right?
Or maybe it's only OK by you if it's posted by a worshipper of the almighty gun...
Hypocrisy.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)(she mentioned an SO) the rest is a fair description. It seems that you are assuming that Tuesday implied Iverglas' bitterness is from being single. I did not see that. Iverglas certainly seemed bitter in her rants.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)bitter or spinster NONE OF IT!
I NEVER SAID IT.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)cowgirl and tell you that your baseball (or whatever) is really just a phallic symbol.
you are dense.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Do you think it's OK to call iverglas a "bitter spinster"? Do you find that to be sexist and inappropriate? Do you think it perpetuates a certain gender stereotype? Or is it OK as long as the person posting it agrees with you politically?
Also, "you are dense" is a personal insult. Kind of ironic in a thread where you complain about too many personal insults in the gungeon, don't you think?
And finally, I never called you a cowboy or anything else, except for pointing out your faux and hypocritical outrage, which I stand by. You accused me of having a position "about feminist comments" which was insulting to you "as a woman": a completely unfounded accusation, and you still haven't been able to point to anything I said that was remotely insulting to women or feminism.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)questions.
You have been dense in this conversation and twisting things and taking things out of context and why on earth and calling this faux outrage IS insulting.
I never accused YOU of anything.
what I am trying to get across to you is how it feels to be a 2A woman READING in this godforaken hellhole of a group.
The insults bandied about between both sides is beyond the pale.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Actually you did. Right here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/117238940#post115
Did I take that out of context? No. You accused me of posting something about "feminist comments" that was insulting to you "as a woman".
How it feels to be a 2A woman reading this group is a different matter. I won't deny your experience, but I will point out that the sexism I've seen here has been far more prevalent from the pro-gun side, like the example I cited. I'm pretty sure iverglas has been called a lot worse than a "cowboy" on many occasions.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)I don't know which side started it. I just want it to stop.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I agree with you that there is a lot of hostility on this board.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)So the choice to be a gun-religionist is the same as "choosing" to be a female, or an LGBT?
Methinks you've memorized too many repig Talking Points!
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)Last edited Sat May 26, 2012, 04:51 PM - Edit history (1)
the equivalent type of vile insults you use in here and see what happens .... note: IVERGLAS!!!!
get it or not .. the rest of DU is getting the point:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1240&pid=99632
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)DonP
(6,185 posts)The NRA versus Brady, Hennigan and their Gun Grabbing friends?
Let's see.
NRA has 23 (or is it 26 now?) pieces of sponsored/supported legislation passed at the state and Federal level in the last year.
NRA has won multiple major cases in both appellate and SCOTUS, including getting big fat checks from the cities that lost.
The whole SYG, Castle and CCW issues have dropped off the front pages again with no serious action being taken on it anywhere.
The NRA membership is now close to 4.5 million dues paying members and growing.
Brady hasn't had a single piece of gun control legislation passed in over a decade.
Their annual allowance from the Joyce Foundation has been shrinking.
Not even the fans of gun control on DU bother to actually join and pay membership dues to Brady.
Sounds like one organization is actually getting their agenda moved ahead and the other has been reduced to whining impotently in increasingly rare editorials and online. Why bother defending a group that is clearly and consistently winning the argument?
As for the VA?
Excuse me if I don't take much they have to say seriously, after ignoring returning veterans with PTSD, agent orange and other service related illnesses and serious mental problems for over 40 years under both D and R administrations.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)The NRA gets lots of help from conservative slush-funds like ALEC. Right-wingers LOVE the NRA.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)lobby shop.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)Conservative bucks funding anti-Democracy initiatives are evil no matter what they're called.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)NRA gains are being made (27 bills signed so far this year) through the democratic legislative process. Many Democrats have voted for those same bills. It isn't anti-democratic. It is simply that your side is losing.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)> It is simply that your side is losing.
Nope, it's the influence of money & lies on politics. CONservatives don't win by Democracy, they win by lies & out-spending the truth.
DonP
(6,185 posts)You just can't seem to find any proof of that.
Let's just take your "word" for it, right?
We'll just ignore the millions of NRA members from both parties paying all those dues and the "round up" contributions many non members voluntarily make when they buy ammo or other shooting supplies.
Now, what's your excuse for no grass roots financial support for the "Oh so popular" gun control agenda?
ALEC, the noted right-wing slush fund, has admitted they're part of the money behind the SYG laws being passed.
Your gun-religion blinds you to facts. Sad.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)foundation from getting any donations and/or membership.
ellisonz
(27,709 posts)*what a bunch of snobs*
God Bless the NRA/RNC and their delirium
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)academics who are funded by interest groups to do "advocacy scholarship" to get results antis like are "highly regarded scientists"
However, award winning academics who are not so funded and publish results you don't like are "hacks." Who are the anti intellectuals here?
ellisonz
(27,709 posts)Is that it echoes your two favorite topics: Gary Kleck and the Joyce Foundation while making a completely illogical argument about guns and the mentally-ill. The NRA is out-of-touch with reality! Do you hear that ringing? It's the little alarm clock deep in your brain telling you you're repeating a bunch of canned bullshit.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)he is simply the best known.
While agree with you that they are out of touch when it comes to kids and old people with dementia. That said, suicide is not "gun violence" or "rope violence." If someone with dementia decides to go with dignity, what is the problem with that? IMHO, I view that condition as mental and intellectually dead. Tell you what, if my mind starts going, I promise to sell or give away all of my guns except for one pistol and one round.
From what I have read, the best prevention is to stay mentally active.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)If my health every become bad enough that I decide to exit with dignity I plan to breathe pure nitrogen.
ellisonz
(27,709 posts)"If someone with dementia decides to go with dignity, what is the problem with that?"
When they harm others too...
"The same could be said of your side. It is actually more true with your side. Most murders are committed by criminals killing other criminals."
"Criminals" have families too...and considering how messed up our criminal justice system is (a point you readily concede), that's not saying much.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)I call it as I see it, including Larry O'Donnell's anti Mormon religious bigotry.
ellisonz
(27,709 posts)A substantial percentage of homicide victims have criminal records or in the commission of a crime, that is not the same as gang affiliation carte blanche.
Note: Arguments include brawls due to the influence of narcotics or alcohol,
disagreements about money or property and other arguments.
Felony types include homicides committed during a rape, robbery, burglary, theft, motor vehicle theft, arson, and violations of prostitution and commercial vice laws, other sex offenses, narcotic drug laws, and gambling laws.
Gang homicides include gangland killings and juvenile gang killings.
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/circumst.cfm#reasons
What does Lawrence O'Donnell have to do with any of this? You are the master of tangent. The truth is that the NRA is full of shit as the OP amply demonstrates and is part of a false ideology that distorts the facts to meet a political agenda. Shame on the NRA, shame on its enablers, and shame on those who make excuses for the failed gun control policies of this country.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)so I guess that makes me the supreme master of tangent
Yet, I have not seen any progressives or other "open minded and tolerant" types. I used LO as an illustration of ideological blindness and hypocrisy. Open minded and tolerant of those who you like, but have no problem with individual rights violations of those who you don't. If you are going to be a liberal, you need to be consistent. I detest dishonesty, hypocrisy, closed mindedness, etc from the left as much as I do from the right. You might call it priggishness, I call it being consistent to principles.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-01-31/news/31008363_1_gang-related-murders-oklahoma-city
http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/January-2012/Gangs-and-Politicians-Statistics-and-Charts-How-Gang-Crime-Stacks-Up/
While the murder rate has been dropping, gang related became the largest percentage. Seems like the only demographic not becoming peaceful are gangsters.
DonP
(6,185 posts)I just pointed out the real world results over the past decade plus.
But I did notice that none of you or your ilk have refuted any of the basic facts posted.
The ongoing frustration over NRA related bi-partisan victories in court and legislatures is easy to understand. How about; "the sun was in my eyes" or "the ball took a bad hop". Those always worked in little league as excuses for losing.
I'll take the legislative and court victories and you can have your self defined moral high ground.
ellisonz
(27,709 posts)...what are you doing on a Democratic website again?
DonP
(6,185 posts)Do you actually think all these gun laws from CCW to SYG and Castle doctrine have been passed in every state just with GOP votes?
That would mean that either the GOP actually runs everything in this country from local, state and Federal or ... that not all Dems think like you do... thankfully. I'm guessing #2 is the correct answer.
Hell, one of the first people in line for a CCW permit in Wisconsin was the Minority leader of the House, who also voted for the measure along with all but 6 Dems.
Anyone that thinks it's only the GOP passing these laws is dense beyond redemption. But keep your ultra simplistic vision of what "every Dem thinks".
ellisonz
(27,709 posts)...The NRA overwhelmingly funds Republicans and has done so for the last two decades. It's donations to Democrats are token at best.
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000082 - See graph #3 - you can read graphs right?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)like John Kasich.
safeinOhio
(32,527 posts)Gave a couple of thousand to Strickland's re-election and millions to Portman.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)safeinOhio
(32,527 posts)During the visit, Strickland addressed his opponent's track record when it comes to voting on gun laws and the Second Amendment. While Kasich currently has a B rating with the NRA, the Governor said his opponent has a very inconsistent record when voting on gun laws throughout the years.
"When I was in Congress, John Kasich was in Congress with me," said Governor Strickland. "We faced a very important vote--the Clinton gun ban vote. I voted against it. He voted for it. He earns an 'F.' I earned an 'A+.'"
Representatives from the NRA said Kasich's position on the Second Amendment changes from year to year, like the weather changes from day to day.
"NRA members deserve better than that," said Hohenwarter. "Sportsmen deserve better than that. We don't wanna put defending our Constitution, defending hunter's rights to hunt on the weather."
Strickland also addressed the fact that his running mate Yvette McGhee-Brown has an "F" rating with the NRA.
"John Kasich, when it really counted, got an 'F,'" said Strickland. "When we were dealing with the Clinton gun ban he got an 'F' and it's the governor who makes decisions regarding what happens in the state of Ohio, not the lieutenant governor."
John Kasich's campaign filed charges with the Ohio Election Commission on Monday against Strickland's campaign.
Note: Kasich filed charges against Strickland's campaign for saying he had an F rating. The commission thru out Kasich's charges that he didn't have an F ratting.
The NRA changed Kasich's grade because he came out and said he now supports the 2nd. The same thing Obama has done, where is his B?
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Dozens or hundreds of anti-choice, anti-union, anti-teacher, anti-environment, anti-education, anti-health laws have been passed too. Here's a clue: the groups passing those gun laws you love so much is the same one passing the ones I am referring to.
Why do you call yourself a Dem?
ellisonz
(27,709 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)much like McCarthyism?
ellisonz
(27,709 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)and it was McCarthyism.
ellisonz
(27,709 posts)...and it's not a habitually pro-NRA and gun nut poster, who never posts about much else, not ever vocalizing his support of the Democratic Party.
And yeah, that was funny...
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)much more than you. It does sound like a purge of "those Dems who do not think exactly like me" which is what the tea baggers are doing to the Republicans.
Well, what does pro NRA and "gun nut" have to do with being a Dem?
ellisonz
(27,709 posts)Also, star members now have advanced search function... Searches for that member's post with the search terms "Obama," "Republicans," and "Democrats" for the last year in all forums and groups turns up not a single post in favor of Democrats at large or against Republicans. In short, the poster makes no posts about the Democratic Party, other than prattling on in support of the NRA's extremist gun policies. If he's shown support for Democrats, it's sure not on DU.
That's not McCarthyism, that's pointing out the obvious!
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)of course, IIRC, he lives in the Chicago area. There the choice is a corrupt union busting Republican and union busting, corporate criminal coddling Rahm.
The ToS only says vote for and support Dems during the general election. Provide evidence that he supports Republicans as a rule, not some specific policy that Republicans like to use as a wedge issue that many Dems also support.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Please keep such foul filth to yourself in the future.
ellisonz
(27,709 posts)Also, wake up on the wrong side of your bed bunker
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)what the fuck is a bed bunker?
ellisonz
(27,709 posts)search terms: "bed bunker"
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)have a problem with that? I use a futon, so won't work for me.
ellisonz
(27,709 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)was one that kept them in a safe. I would think you would support such products. Another example of reform=prohibition and void of any actual operating principle.
ileus
(15,396 posts)What the VA stands to gain in pissing on the 2A is unclear...
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)care about because of your love of all things guns.
I had to take guns away from my father-in-law -- retired Air Force with 25 some years, and retired Deputy Sheriff with about the same -- when he became confused/demented after several years on dialysis.
He was already having hallucinations that my wife, who cared for him 24/7 for most of 3 years, and I were ghosts/demons. I stopped him one time as he was digging through his drawer for his revolver. Took a shot gun away from him too. Fact is, guns and dementia don't mix.
Your day will come as well, and I hope someone is prepared to relieve you of your guns (just like many children of elderly do with automobiles).
Believe it or not, the OP is serious stuff -- as are people walking around with guns while on prescription meds that alter one's judgement. Heck, even Sudafed can make one high and meaner.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Some people retain alert, active minds into their 90s and even 100s.
And many people die before dementia can set in.
ileus
(15,396 posts)it would have been fine....but when they injected their antigun agenda opinion the whole body of the text turned to shit.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Guns are definately dangerous and must be handled with care, as must cars, knives, electric power tools and just about everything else. When a person suffers from dementia the entire dwelling must be made fool-proof in much the same was that a house is baby-proofed. For such a person many things that they formerly used must be taken away, including guns as well as car keys.
The problem with the VA is when they move beyond advice concerning dementia to general advice concerning guns. Then they seem to be parroting the VPC.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)the staffer writing the pamphlet plagiarized VPC out of laziness.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)That piece of the puzzle can't really be cast aside as unimportant in this.
The VA is scared of both terrorists who want to punish the government and of vets who might 'go postal.'
I'll admit it does negatively effect my mood when I have to pass through metal detectors to get a blood test for diabetes, but I understand their fear. We live in fearful times, that's why the R's are winning.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)When I go to the VA I leave my gun in the car. Officially, guns are forbidden even in cars in the parking lot, but what they don't know won't hurt them.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)aikoaiko
(34,127 posts)Compare the brochures for firearms and driving with dementia patients. I think they put a little more thought and care in the driving brochure.
Firearms:
http://www1.va.gov/vhapublications/ViewPublication.asp?pub_ID=1186
Driving:
http://www.va.gov/vhapublications/ViewPublication.asp?pub_ID=1162
sylvi
(813 posts)I've been an R.N. on a V.A. dementia unit for the past 11 years. The issue of firearms in the home causing trouble for the patients or their families has never arisen in my experience. As to the exact reason for that, I'm not sure. Perhaps the family removes or otherwise secures the weapons, if any, long before the individual ever has any contact with the system. Perhaps by the time a dementia sufferer reaches the point that their judgement is so impaired that they may become violent, they don't even recognize a firearm for what it is or understand its function. I do know the nursing database we collect on admissions contains no questions about firearms. Neither does the history collected by the physician. In my career I don't recall any reports of firearm-related violence on the part of patients after the onset of dementia. No self injury. No shooting at others. That goes for other weapons as well. Most of the violence I've ever seen or heard of involving dementia sufferers involves striking, scratching, pushing people down, and the like. The use of weapons, even makeshift ones, is extremely rare.
That is not to say it doesn't happen. In all probability I'm confident it does. I'm just observing, from my experience, it has not been a notable problem in the lives of my patients or their families.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)It was refreshing to get real information, instead of ideology.
ellisonz
(27,709 posts)Why the NRA insists on denying that those with debilitating mental illnesses shouldn't be told by their doctors to give up the guns is beyond reason.
moroni
(145 posts)I recently removed some weapons from my Dad's home. He's 80 now and has a moderate case of dementia. I did not remove them due so much to his mental condition as I did due to his advanced age and vulnerability to criminal activity. As he was going to be in and out of medical facilities, I did not want the weapons to be stolen from his home while he was being treated. As it was, he never went back home and is living with me (also a retired vet) and my wife, a registered nurse with the V.A. At his level of physical ability, he can barely pick up a spoon and feed himself. He does not have the strength or coordination to use a gun, unless he knocks it off the table by accident and it lands on your toe.
sylvi
(813 posts)I know how tough it is on families to be caregivers for a loved one with dementia. I can't tell you how many vets like your dad get placed in our system and then rarely even get any visitors, let alone a family member willing to commit to their care at home. It takes a special person to be able to shoulder that task.
That's not meant as an indictment of all families with elders placed in long-term care. Some just aren't able to cope physically or emotionally with that responsibility at home.
Simo 1939_1940
(768 posts)Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)Simo 1939_1940
(768 posts)one would think that if there were any actual problems associated with firearms in the homes of persons with dementia - you would be an individual in a position to know about it.
I started taking care of my Dad in '99 when he developed dementia - one of his neighbors called me reporting odd behavior. One of the first questions the neighbor asked was whether or not there were guns in the house - entirely reasonable. He wanted to be assured that he and his wife were safe in trying to assist my father while I was making arrangements for his care. (I informed him that there were no guns in the house -- save my old boyhood .22 rifle in the rafters of the garage.)
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)Of course, it is well known that people who commit crimes with firearms almost always have extensive prior criminal histories. And criminals also have homes.
The common denominator here is not guns in homes, it is criminals in homes.
The idea of the law-abiding person who just snaps is a rarity.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)gun culture's lobbyists/promoters/panderers -- NRA, Republicans and other right wing gun groups.
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)... how big is that bunch and when did it move out of the "rare" classification?
Simo 1939_1940
(768 posts)responsible for a significant number of firearm-related homicides - but you'll get ZERO support.
Reposting link from downthread:
http://www.cardozolawreview.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=138:kates201086&catid=20:firearmsinc&Itemid=20
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)How so?
Events like Zimmerman are not just rare, they are extremely rare.
And Loughner had known mental issues well prior to his crime.
ellisonz
(27,709 posts)No gun, no fatality from gunshot.
"The idea of the law-abiding person who just snaps is a rarity."
Domestic Violence + Financial Difficulties + Alcohol/Drug Abuse + Mental Illness = Snapping.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)A person with a history such as you listed "Domestic Violence + Financial Difficulties + Alcohol/Drug Abuse + Mental Illness" is almost certain to already have a police record and convictions. A law-abiding person who suddenly goes on a murderous rampage almost never happens.
ellisonz
(27,709 posts)...But take RFK Jr.'s ex-wife. Except for the recent DUI's she had no criminal record.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)I said, in my post: "A law-abiding person who suddenly goes on a murderous rampage almost never happens." So whom did she murder? She committed suicide and didn't even use a gun for it. She hung herself.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)Wow, your powers of deductive reasoning are staggering!
Domestic Violence + Financial Difficulties + Alcohol/Drug Abuse + Mental Illness = Snapping.
Except such "snapping" is exceedingly rare. The biggest determinator for committing a crime with a gun is a prior criminal record.
Not owning a gun in your home.
Yes, obviously if there is never a gun in a home there can never be a shooting in that home.
But gun ownership in a home is not the biggest determinator. It's whether or not the gun owner in that home has a past criminal history or not.
http://www.cardozolawreview.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=138:kates201086&catid=20:firearmsinc&Itemid=20
The overwhelming majority of people who commit homicide with firearms have extensive criminal histories. Such people also live in homes.
Simo 1939_1940
(768 posts)ileus
(15,396 posts)To some people are never to blame...they believe guns kill people.
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)The people at the Brady Campaign are pure genius.
jeepnstein
(2,631 posts)And the thing about some Veterans, their mental conditions, and their guns is a valid point. The problem is many of our Veterans have nobody, no support structure, and the VA is their primary health care and mental health provider. We have men in their nineties who are still wrestling with demons they've carried around since the 1940's. I seriously doubt the VA is trying to take away our guns. I do have no doubt that they need to better educate their staff and make more mental health care available to our Veterans.
If you ever had to deal with a young man who went from United States Marine to Coloring Books for Life in a split second you might understand. They get pushed out the door to deal with a world they really didn't want to be a part of, a world where their injury dictates their every waking minute. Of course they get angry, depressed, and are at times inconsolable. We owe it to them to do better. Many of them gave a part of themselves that they'll never get back.
Simo 1939_1940
(768 posts)One of my cousins (Nam vet) fell into that category.
This is an issue that really tears my heart out.
Scribejohn
(7 posts)Does in thriller form for gun control what John Grisham did for death penalty statutes with The Chamber (IOW, nada - but a good thrill ride neverthless).
FREE on kindle for a while.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Second-Amendment-1-ebook/dp/B007A53RX0/ref=zg_bs_157321011_5
...One simple thesis.
But it threatens the very
roots of the Constitution.
There's too much at stake.
20,000 gun deaths a year, schoolyard massacres, and now a wave of militia bombings... America is under siege.
At the heart of the storm is Josette Horvath, the FBI counter-terrorist agent whose world is torn apart when her young son, Daniel, falls victim to a militia bomb. Her brother Bernard's latest political studies thesis meanwhile focuses on the thorny issue suddenly foremost with the President and an outraged America: stricter gun control.
But Bernard doesn't appreciate just how momentous and far-reaching his thesis is destined to become. And as Josette, torn between tracking the bombers and coping with her son's fate, discovers the extent to which the far right have infiltrated the FBI and the White House - she realizes this is one final battle she can't possibly win.
An explosive, uncompromising thriller which confronts head-on one of the most fiery issues of the past two decades: gun control.
Reviews:
If Vince Flynn and John Grisham got together to tackle probably the most controversial issue of the past two decades - Gun Control - this is what they might come up with. Hair-trigger suspense all the way. Electrifying.
Crime Ink
The FBI and Capitol Hill go head-on against the far-right and self-appointed militias in this no-holds-barred thriller. Amongst all the bullets and mayhem, the thorny issue of gun control is also handled sensitively but don't expect much time to draw breath between the two. A 'loaded' issue in more ways than one.
Books, etc.
A novelist of real accomplishment.
Amazon co.uk.
John Matthews is a leading British thriller writer. His books span genres of crime, action, mystery and legal-thriller and include: Basikasingo, Crescents of the Moon, Past Imperfect, The Last Witness, The Second Amendment, Ascension Day, The Shadow Chaser and The Prophet.
They have been translated into 12 languages with total sales of 1.2 million. In 2007, Past Imperfect was included in a top ten all-time best legal thrillers list in The Times. He was one of only two British authors in the list.
TBF
(31,921 posts)I've already downloaded it to my Kindle
Scribejohn
(7 posts)It was loosely based on a Clinton-style administration then updated recently so that the stats were fresher. But it's a thriller first and foremost - with the wrangling over gun control as the backdrop.
TBF
(31,921 posts)so I think I will. Thanks for the recommendation.