To me, the NRA argument works with criminals but falls apart when it comes to psychopaths.

[Bicoastal]

I'm not a gun owner, but I thoroughly understand the argument: if a burglar comes into your house, armed with a weapon, you are perfectly within your right to defend yourself. Same if you're driving or walking alone through a bad neighborhood, or even working at a job (bank, convenience store, etc.) that criminals tend to frequent.

But these are criminals. Criminals by and large are people who want to get theirs and get out--in other words, they want to survive. And thus, they're somewhat predictable--by and large, they look for targets who are especially vulnerable. And thus, if it was just the run-of-the-mill mugger, thief, or rapist our society had to worry about, it would be a simply fix--arm yourself if and when you're in a vulnerable position, and everyone will be safe.

But unfortunately, we've seen two attacks in the last two days from people who were NOT out to steal or rape--they were simply out to shoot indiscriminately. And when someone doesn't care if they live or go down in a blaze of glory, where and when are the rest of us NOT vulnerable? Schools, offices, diners, malls, sidewalks on busy streets in broad daylight--they've all been breached by gunmen who had nothing to lose. The NRA argument, of course, is to ALWAYS arm yourself everywhere, whether you feel you're in a vulnerable position or not. And THAT, I think, is where this argument falls apart.

For every single adult person to be armed, 24/7, indoors and out, is SIMPLY NOT A REALISTIC SOLUTION. Even if we trained every single American to be gun savvy, there would be plenty who just couldn't fight back properly--they wouldn't have the courage, or the stamina, or even the eyesight necessary to return fire during a killing spree. Even with the best training, some would still be too nervous to be trusted not to whip out their piece and fire in situations that didn't call for it; then, of course, some would just be untrustworthy with a gun, period. You think about the number of drivers licenses in this country, then the number of people who abuse that privilege, and you'll see what I mean.

A common criminal would have no real reason to enter, say, an office building and begin shooting workers at random--even if there was some sort of motive behind it, there's almost no way they could survive such an episode without being downed by cops or security guards. A psychopath wouldn't care; they'd just go in and start shooting. Now, unless someone had the presence of mind to quickly identify which person with the gun was the psychopath and which was just an employee returning fire--quite difficult to do in a surprise ambush where EVERYONE has a gun on their person--the situation could very well devolve into chaos. Plus, how would the first cops or security guards to arrive on the scene quickly identify the dangerous individual? Remember, everyone is armed, so "There's a man on the fourth floor with a gun!" wouldn't suffice. In short, the situation could be made even worse than it already is. The NRA solution works wonders when one or two people are are armed in an office of 40, but doesn't the NRA want to see MORE people toting guns, not less? Don't we ALL want to protect ourselves from vulnerability?

Do I have a solution? Of course not. But there MUST be a way to eliminate the danger of a gun-toting lunatic without arming every single person at all times. Criminals can always get guns illegaly; psychopaths very often use weapons they've legally owned and used for years. Ironically, THEY'RE often the ones protected by lax gun laws, and so if they snap (as a tiny, tiny minority do), the majority of us have absolutely no protection from them--especially when they're our neighbors, coworkers, or even friends. If you're paranoid enough, you'll want protection from EVERYBODY--and paranoia often leads to sprees like the one in Pittsburgh.

I want to start a dialogue on this, in a main forum--some, I'm sure, will disagree with me. But it seems to me that our society has very little defense against people whose minds have snapped--and many of these are people who, long ago, bought a weapon for the exact same reason the sane among us purchased them: protection.

[AllentownJake]

1. You'll never eliminate the lone crazy person

A good start however would be that people who have undergone mental health treatment that has resulted in being hospitalized are restricted in their ability to purchase fire arms.

[EmilyAnne]

3. I agree, but then again, why should a certain segment of the population lose the right to defend

themselves?
It is a constitutional right, so what other rights could/ should they lose.
Just playing the devil's advocate here.

And what about people with criminal records.
Felons are already limited in their right to own guns, am I right?
I should read up on the laws as they stand.

[virginia mountainman]

9. That is my problem with that rule..

Along with the "Domestic Violence" gun bans....

It is bullshit, that I can tell my mother in law, to "go to hell", and end up loosing my gun rights for life....

[EmilyAnne]

12. You can tell my mother-in-law to go to hell, of you like!

That is really interesting about the Domestic Violence law.

As someone who was stalked for a year by a former co-worker until he attacked me by my car one night, I am someone who would love to see guns out of the hands of such people.
Luckily, the guy had no gun and he was so completely deranged that he grabbed me by my neck and knocked me to the ground (drum roll, please) in front of my boyfriend and his best friend who proceeded to "detain" him until the police arrived.
Scary, but just another sign that it was time to move on from my college town of Austin, TX.
I did press charges, by the way.

Its such a difficult issue.
So many things to weigh.
And, seriously, the guy who stalked me was clearly nuts and as part of his sentence he was ordered to some kind of therapy.
Who knows.
Maybe all these years later he got the right kind of help, is on the right medication, and he somewhere happily married and raising some children.
What if he needed to defend that family one night?

There is the part of me that simply wanted this guy to disappear. To be put in jail FOREVER and ever so I would never have to be afraid again.
But, that's ridiculous and impossible.
Its the same kind of thinking that makes me say that I want guns out of the hand of this group of people and that group of people.
Really, there is no easy solution, there is no black and white and so many cases are different.

And, back to my stalking story. The guy tried to choke me. He probably could have if I had been alone. No gun required.

[virginia mountainman]

14. When it comes to Physical Violance...

I my eyes, you have lost the right to own a firearm....

Good thing your Boyfriend was their to "take care" of business!

I understand what you are saying about him one day "needing to defend his family" and You are very right. Unfortunately our gun laws are set up to be "One Strike, and it is a LIFETIME BAN"

But their is a mechanism for a person to "get their rights restored" if they where found guilty of *MINOR crimes, and they have been completely upstanding for a number of years, but it is expensive

*EXAMPLE, If you write a bad check in Virginia, for more than $199...It can be a felony, and their is a life time ban.....

[virginia mountainman]

6. It is, It is a Federal felony .....

To have been treated (inpatient)for mental illness, and even HOLD a gun...

I do have a minor issue with the law, and that is, it is damned near impossible to get your gun rights back, even if it was for a minor mental illness, it is, in fact a LIFETIME BAN, for something as minor as being severely depressed and staying overnight in a mental health treatment center, when you loose a loved one or something.

EDIT for Clarity

[safeinOhio]

11. Only if you have been committed by court order.

You have the right to go to court and contest your mother in laws claim. I know people that have and won. Hope that makes you feel slightly better.

[quiller4]

22. Not just "treated" but committed for inpatient treatment

There is a difference. Somebody can seek mental health care and it can be provided in an inpatient or outpatient facility but if thre is no court order involved and the individual is legally free to leave at any time, then that individual does not lose his/her second amendment rights.

This is significant. Returning vets are often reluctant to seek help they need to cope with PTSD from combat. It they believe they automatically sacrificed their second amendment rights because they got treatment, even fewer would seek the help they need.

[EmilyAnne]

2. I agree with everything you said, but I don't know of any reasonable answer.

I grew up in Texas around a lot of guns.
In fact, every single man, woman and child over the age of ten had some sort of gun.
Except my immediate family.
My father was raised by my "yankee" father and my latina grandmother and gun ownership just wasn't a a part of their culture. Maybe, not really sure why....

So, in all my thirty years of being related to a pretty large group of NRA members and/or gun collectors, here is the summary of gun related incidents:
1. One hunting accident in which a 15 year old shot himself in the head, survived, but has permanent brain damage that manifests itself in violent, criminal behavior. He is in jail.
2. One hunting accident in which my drunken uncle blew half of his foot off while sitting in a parked truck.
3. One robbery by an unknown person using a gun that was stolen out of my cousin's unlocked car.
4. One massacre of corn destroying hawks by my grandfather. Very scary to my 8 year old self.
5. One massacre of trash invading armadillos by my uncles. Even more terrifying to me.
6. One suicide of a family friend, aged 17, with the handgun kept at the top of his mother's closet.
7. Unknown number of deer killings leading to the production of very dry, not so tasty foods such as jerky, sausage and chili that I would be forced to sample from time to time.

So, some clumsy hunting accidents, a suicide with a very unsecured gun, irresponsible gun ownership all around.
And some farming maintenance of nuisance animals.
And some hunting.

No one has ever had to protect oneself.
No robberies, rapes or any sort of criminal behaviors have been foiled.
A few times a gun would be brought out in the middle of a family argument, which I never observed, but heard about. Terrifying, but luckily they made it through those years and have all settled down.

I think the main difference here is that all of these people are rural.
Maybe there is a big difference in rural gun ownership and city gun ownership, as far as the some of the motives behind owning the guns as well as the environmental stress factors?
Just thinking, not sure if there is really anything to that and, anyway, what is the solution.

Let's hope this conversation goes well and no one gets upset!

[Ian David]

4. If everyone is armed, including the psychopaths, then it will work out that...

... the psychopaths will go on a rampage, get shot and killed by another armed citizen, and spare us the cost of trying to treat them.

You CAN arm the psychopaths, so long as everyone else is armed.

The key is to have an armed citizen militia on every street corner.

They could be made easily identifiable by some kind of armband.



What?

WHAT???

What did I say???

[joshcryer]

5. Tattoos on their wrists or forehead.

Only way to go.

[virginia mountainman]

7. Interesting points!

And I agree with you. We, as a free society, will always be "Wide open" to internal attack.

Problem is, do you punish society, and strip away civil rights, as a whole, because of a few (literally a few) bad apples? To often the knee jerk reaction after a spree, is to take away the guns of those that did not do anything.

The NRA is not fighting for "everyone" to be armed, as many in here chant, Only for "THOSE THAT ARE LAW ABIDING" to HAVE THE OPTION of being Armed, no one is forcing guns on anyone.... The only people saying "The NRA wants to give EVERYONE a gun" is outright lying

Luckily, I live in Virginia, I have taken the steps, to get a Virginia Concealed Handgun Permit, I fully understand that the Police cannot be everywhere at once, and I don't expect them too. So I carry either a Kimber 1911 or a Glock 36, depending on how I dress, both are .45 caliber handguns, I am extremely proficient, and I carry EVERYDAY, and practically EVERYWHERE......And next to no one ever knows...

And they are strictly a last resort, for the most perilous of threats, against me, my friends, or my family. They are not talisman that allow me to go "into dark places" they are TOOLS, that will give me some manner of control over mine and my family's destiny in our hour of most pressing need.

As a Husband and Father...This is my most sacred duty.

[poboyross]

8. I'm "country" and a gun owner....

This is my first post, and I have to admit that it took a gun related one to get me to do so. I grew up around guns, and I got my first shotgun at the age of 12. My entire family owned guns, for hunting and self defense, and we never had any problems or any shenanigans going on in our family or our community for that fact. I always try and point this out to folks who ask about psychopaths and weapons; no matter what, they'll get their hands on weapons somehow. The broad brush stroke that many present is to simply do away with them, or heavily regulate or license them so the govt. always knows who has what and where. This relies on something that I'd guess at least half of the population holds to, that the govt shouldn't have that level of control over the populous. As long as I'm a responsible person, I don't like people knowing what I do or don't have and where I do or don't have it.

As I got older, we did have folks in the community who lost friends/family to gun violence. It was either as a result of drinking/drugs and a gun was the nearest weapon, or they got caught at the wrong place at the wrong time in Memphis (now you know where I'm from!). Never once did people blame it on the gun, or ease of access. It was a bad person doing a bad deed. I'm not sure where this changed, or when it changed, but I wish I knew how so I could reverse that sentiment of blaming the object *more* than the person.

I have personally used a weapon to defend myself 3 times when I went to school in Georgia. The perception in the town was that all of the kids that went to my school were rich (we weren't at ALL, just heavily in debt! I'm from a lower middle class family), thus the hoodlums looked at us as targets. While I am thankful that I never had to use it, I did have to brandish my pistol twice to people who were trying to mug me(yes I had background checks, and yes I went through mandatory training by sheriff's deputies and regular range visits :P ). I had one friend who got robbed and shot by a 12 gauge (she lived), and I had another friend who got shot as a part of a gang initiation....he was talking on a pay phone to his mother when it happened. That is the point when I decided to carry at night, when all of this stuff happens in that town. The third event, and the most harrowing, was when my roommate's girlfriend was driving home and some gangbangers started trying to run her off of the road, saying they were going to kill her and brandishing their guns. All of this happening quickly, and her being so close to our house when it was happening, her first thought wasn't to call the police, but her fiance in tears. Since she was almost there, he told me to be ready, so I quickly got my AR-15 (semi-auto...autos require class 3 permits) and headed for the door. As soon as we got there, she was swerving into the driveway with the thugs right behind her. I stepped forward, gun pointed down with safety on, motioning them to leave but ready to act. Upon seeing what I had, they shagged ass on out of there. We then reported what had happened to the authorities, who had no beef with how we handled ourselves, and they went on and did their thing. I never heard if they caught them or not. The police there understood us, and mentioned how they *do* appreciate those who are responsible and prepared to defend themselves.

My point is two-fold 1) The cliche saying "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away" is very valid, and 2) In the responsible lay-person's hands, non-hunting guns are useful other than fun at the range. It takes due diligence to keep guns out of the hands of those who wish to do another harm. One way to start is to have psych records connected to court records. It's that way in TN, if you've ever had any state required psych evals/hospital stays, it's on your record and you get bumped if you try to buy a gun. This is a lengthy post, and a deep subject as far as solutions are concerned, so I'll end it with that for now.

Best!

P.S. To confirm many of your suspicions, and so some can lock and load the insults I'm sure to hear because of it, I consider myself a Teddy Roosevelt conservative. The Dem tent is a little to big for me, and the Repubs are too ignorant and cheesy and make me sick most of the time. I like to discuss, not chap people's arses by burning them. I am for taking care of the environment because it's the responsible thing to do (sans any to-global-warm or not-to-global-warm agenda), I am pro individual, and like Chopper Reid..."People need to harden the F up". My political summary overall is best made by Clint Eastwood "People just want to be left the hell alone". I'm not a "freeper", whatever the hell that is, I still haven't figured it out. And if you've read this far without flagging me, thanks :) Best to you all, regardless!

[EmilyAnne]

10. Welcome! nt

[safeinOhio]

13. I, for one, think you fit in the tent.

Please read Deer Hunting With Jesus, the chapter Valley of the Guns will ring true with you. I think we liberals are getting real about guns. I carry and have used a side arm to save myself from a dog attack. I also think there is room for compromise in the debate, so I catch it from both sides.

[poboyross]

25. I'll add them to the queue.....

And thanks for the referral :) You know, I've started to dislike how the labels have been laid down. How come I have to be labeled R or D? I feel bad that you had to say "we liberals". I think most people on here would think I was more blue than red if I ever explained myself....but anywhere other than gun threads, I'm treated as a leper encountering the ever popular sarcasm. They love to jump to conclusions. I just posted about racial politics in TN, and because I mentioned that I labeled myself conservative (and the Teddy Roosevelt part was ignored) but liked Harold Ford Jr., I was pretty much considered a rube....and that my preference for him was because "he's an apologist who wants to stop Obama from going too far left".....*add more sarcasm here*, one step away from saying I'm a racist bigot. WTH? They don't even know me, or the people that make up my constituency.

[ZombieHorde]

16. "Freeper"--> There is a far right Republican message board called FreeRepublic.

They refer to themselves as "freepers", and we use the term to refer to them or those who remind us of them. I hope my explanation makes sense. Welcome to DU.

[poboyross]

24. Thx...it makes perfect sense

And thanks for the welcome :) I've made several other postings, and have gotten the infamous and trite sarcasm because I dared to say I was "conservative" in any way....like they know my shade of blue or perceived lack thereof. Never mind the modifier "Teddy Roosevelt". It's nice when folks apply their preconceptions of a word without even asking! If only they knew the truth, and the irony that it entailed :)....but I digress.

[CitizenPatriot]

26. I agree with your post re labels

I grew up in liberal/progressive areas all of my life, and now live in the deep south! I have people look down their noses at me as they proclaim with assumed superiority that they are "conservatives", as if they are saying they are human and I am a dog. They're contempt is actually disturbing.

Before I found this site and got in touch with the freeper side of life, I had no idea where these prejudices were coming from. Now I know.....Thanks, Rush et al! There's some real hatred a brewing there, so watch yourself.

At any rate, the more I think about it, the more stupid it becomes to have these labels. Or perhaps the labels aren't specific enough. In some European democracies, they have so many parties that you can really pick and choose: green party social conservative, for example. That seems really progressive to me.

I loved your comment about the Republicans being "cheesy". Their latest Tea Bagging Party song was sooooo 1980's elevator music and I wondered if I was the only person who wanted to drag a knife through my veins just listening to it once. I will never understand how they are so happy with their horrid music, bumper sticker ideas, and jingoistic solutions to complex problems.

Anyway, welcome to DU:-) The Democratic Party is a wide platform, with plenty of room for dissent and different agendas and ideas. Always glad to have new people join the party! It's bumpy and messy, but the same people who argue with you endlessly will have your back in a heartbeat.

[yowzayowzayowza]

15. Bless her heart, my mother is not just certifiable, but...

actually certified. Anyone who thinks she needs easy access to automatic weapons is indeed crazier than she. Given that there will always be uncertified certifiable folks, weapons of mass destruction must to be tightly controlled. I'm not sure where the line oughta be wrt firearms, but I find the claim that the average citizen needs easy access to military-grade firepower freaken insane.

2 cents.

[virginia mountainman]

17. Let me ease your mind...

The National Firearm Act of 1934 very tightly regulated military grade weaponry

Weapons regulated....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act#Categories_of_Weapons_Regulated

Just so you know, their is only a handful of AK 47's in the United States, But their are many rifles that LOOK like an AK 47, but do not function like them.

Just because the PRESS, says they are AK47's does not make it so....We all know how incompetent the press is.

Now you know!

[yowzayowzayowza]

23. Yea, I know therez lotza grey area is said def'n.

None to easing.

:hi:

[Irreverend IX]

18. The problem of insane people getting guns is similar to the problem of homelessness in some ways...

Nobody wants mentally ill people to get access to a firearm, then end up snapping and killing people. And nobody (well, almost nobody) wants people to end up living on the streets addicted to drugs with no hope of a better life. Most attempts to tackle the problems of homelessness and mass murder have involved passing new laws to restrict and prohibit the activities associated with these problems. Reams of restrictions on firearm purchases and draconian measures against loitering.

The problem is, some people will always ending up falling through the cracks, and laws can't change that. There will always be a few people who go violently crazy, and a few people who break down, get hooked on drugs and become incapable of functioning normally in society. You can pass all the "tough on crime" laws you want but you won't make a dent in these issues, although it does wonders when you're running for re-election.

In terms of restricting US citizens' access to guns, the horse has long since left the barn; there are more firearms in the US than people and anyone who knows a drug dealer can get the connections to buy one illegally. And it's a given that some people will end up living on the street, trapped in a cycle of addiction that prevents their return to a normal lifestyle.

The only way to address these two problems is through social changes that address the root of the problem rather than trying to suppress the symptoms. There was a story recently posted here about a housing project in Seattle for homeless alcoholics that's making a big dent in the city's homeless problem by giving unconditional support to the homeless and addicted rather than trying to criminalize their behavior. The problem of violence with guns should be approached the same way. If you want to reduce the number of murders committed with guns, better mental health care, a better economy and above all an end to the drug war are what's needed.

[ZombieHorde]

19. "anyone who knows a drug dealer can get the connections to buy one illegally"

I don't what sort of drug dealers you hang out with, but many many drug dealers have absolutely no illegal gun connections.

[951-Riverside]

20. "many many drug dealers have absolutely no illegal gun connections"

You forgot to add :sarcasm:

[ZombieHorde]

21. No, I did not. I used to live with drug dealers, they had no gun connections.

People grow pot in the mountains and sell it. Growing this plant and selling to friends and acquaintances does not magically imbue the grower with illegal gun connections.