Maybe a different approach is needed. It seems to me that some of us assume

[hedgehog]

that we live in generally crime free areas, that the greatest hazard to us is a gun in the hand of an irresponsible person.

I fall into that category.

Crime around here falls into four general classes:

1. Males between the ages of 15 to 25 break into an business after hours, generally trash the place and make off with the coins from the gum ball machines. They don't realize the cash is over at the bank night deposit.

2. Snowmobiles and/or 4 wheelers stolen while no one is around.

3. Physical attack by a close relative or friend.

4. The closest we get to home invasion: a drug dealer is visited bycustomers or associates seeking to alter the terms of the contract.

In other words, a decent lock to keep fools out of your stuff when you're not around and a judicious choice of associates is sufficient to ensure safety. Oh, and being sure to wear an orange vest when walking the dogs out back during hunting season.

On the other hand , a large number of people feel that they must must be armed because they are apt to be confronted with a gun wielding criminal at any point as they go about their daily business.

Now, it's possible that some areas are safe, and others are not. It's possible that no area is as safe as I think, or as dangerous as others think.

What we need to do is to determine if people are under threat. If so, we need to determine the best means of removing that threat. If not, we need to determine the best means of proving the threat doesn't exist.

[Hoopla Phil]

1. Apx odds are that 1 in 3 woman will be the victim of sexual assault in her lifetime.

If you can tell her WHAT day that will be I'm sure she only needs to carry on that day only. Tell then the best thin to do is always be prepared.

[hedgehog]

6. The problem is that all too often, that sexual assault is not by a stranger

in a dark alley, but by the casual acquaintance or relative. Young women away at college their first semester are at extremely high risk. The original date rape drug is alcohol. A gun in her purse won't protect a woman passed out at a party.

Edited for clarity- I left out a key word.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

17. The prudent person with a CCW should NEVER go to a party and pass out while armed.

In fact, in most states it's illegal to carry your firearm while intoxicated. I have a CCW and my gun will NEVER protect me while I'm out partying... because I don't bring it. If people used common sense to avoid vulnerable or high-risk situations... that would go further than ANY measure to protect themselves.

[Kali]

2. except that the issue is NOT about "needing" guns

it is about the fundamental constitutional RIGHT to have them. I can have one or many just because. It is my RIGHT as a citizen. Don't need any reason or excuses.

[jody]

4. Constitution requires government to protect an inalienable right. It does not grant it. nt

[hedgehog]

12. Many people have posted here describing their need for a gun.

My point is, if fewer people felt a need for a gun, fewer people would want one.

[spin]

13. Perhaps you might try to get the media to mention the falling violent crime rate...

the media leads many people to believe that violent crime is increasing not decreasing.

Our crime rate now is approaching the levels of the "good old days" back in the 1960s.

FBI: violent crime down, but people don't feel safer

The FBI crime report, released Monday, shows murder and rape are down dramatically. But data on property crimes are inconclusive.
September 15, 2009

Atlanta

Overall crime in the US has dwindled to nearly 1960s levels, with particularly violent crimes – murder and rape – on a dramatic downward spiral, the FBI reported Monday.

Yet across the country, and especially in the South, residents are still alarmed about crime. Many report a surge in property crimes – chiefly break-ins targeting flat-screen TVs.

***snip***

One reason for the disconnect between perception of crime and the hard stats: Crime, like politics, is local. A 2007 survey by the Center on Media, Crime, and Justice showed that more than 53 percent of Americans said crime was an equal concern to healthcare and the economy. While people may not have seen crime as a problem generally, they often pointed to crime in their own neighborhood as a major concern.

***snip***

"Even though globally crime is down and people sense that, they don't necessarily feel safer," says Mr. Handelman. "It depends on where you live. People in inner cities and rural areas may be more worried" whereas people who live in the suburbs have fewer fears, he says.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2009/0915/p02s04-usju.html

Of course, while there are many factors, the crime rate might have fallen because of "shall issue" concealed carry and the fact that gun sales are up.

[AtheistCrusader]

14. I will always feel the need for tools.

My CPR mask.
My first aid kits.
Airways.

Doesn't matter how fast EMS can respond. Doesn't matter how many other people do or do not stay prepared for the odd, but life-threatening eventuality.

I will ALWAYS carry the skills and tools to protect human life.
This includes a firearm.

[Atypical Liberal]

19. The need for a gun.

I would hazard to say that one of the primary drivers for firearm purchases is not the perception of need for a firearm but rather the perception of scarcity of opportunity to buy. Witness the huge buying frenzy of firearms and ammunition since President Obama took office. This was not driven by fear of crime or other fear of needing to use firearms, it was driven by a fear that they would no longer be available.

[hedgehog]

20. Let's accept a premise that most people who buy guns are reasonable people.

Let's further premise that certain people shouldn't have guns: convicts, mentally ill. If we enforce those laws, and if we set up provisions to identify the mentally ill before a mass shooting, would that be acceptable to both sides of this debate? For example, if any of the people who'd had a run-in with Loughner had been able to have him investigated, and if he then had been put on a "no gun" list, would that be acceptable?

Would gun owners be reassured that they would continue to have the right to own a gun?

[shadowrider]

23. That would be reasonable. The problem lies with confidentiality laws

and whether or not an individual can be involuntarily committed (for observation). In other words, with the privacy laws in effect today, it's extremely difficult to do without violating (in any way, according to some), their civil rights.

Come up with an answer to how it can be done and you'll be rich beyond belief.

[Atypical Liberal]

25. Due process of law.

Let's further premise that certain people shouldn't have guns: convicts, mentally ill. If we enforce those laws, and if we set up provisions to identify the mentally ill before a mass shooting, would that be acceptable to both sides of this debate? For example, if any of the people who'd had a run-in with Loughner had been able to have him investigated, and if he then had been put on a "no gun" list, would that be acceptable?

Would gun owners be reassured that they would continue to have the right to own a gun?

The trick is, how do we get such people put on a list that revokes their Constitutional rights while preserving the due process of law?

For example, what we would not want is where anyone can call up the local police and say, "So-and-so is acting crazy" and he looses his right to keep and bear arms.

Not too long ago people in this country were frequently committed, or "put away", even though they were not mentally ill. Perhaps their family thought they were too promiscuous, or otherwise a burden or a shame to the family. As a result, it has gotten increasingly difficult over the years to involuntarily commit people to institutions, and this is probably a good thing. Any attempt to restrict their firearm ownership is going to mean you will need to find a way to declare them mentally incompetent, or involuntarily commit them to a mental institution, without running into the problem of years past where people were institutionalized for trivial reasons.

I don't know by what mechanism this could be done. Seung-Hui Cho, the shooter at Virginia Tech, threatened suicide while at school, and consequently the school authorities had police escort him to the local mental health agency, who determined that he was "mentally ill and in need of hospitalization". From here, a special justice ruled that he "presented an imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness". Unfortunately, they released him and told him he needed to seek treatment on an outpatient basis, which, under law at the time, did not flag him as being unable to purchase a firearm, since he was not involuntarily committed.

I suppose we could set up a new law that said a person need not just be adjudicated mentally incompetent, or involuntarily committed, but instead that they only be judged "a danger to themselves or others". As long as this is done with Due Process, I don't have too much a problem with this at face value that I can see right now.

However, I do wonder if, faced with the possibility of being so flagged, many people would refuse to seek mental health help.

[hedgehog]

27. What we have here is an intersection of two sets of inadequate laws.

No one wants a random police officer to be able to deny access to fire arms. However, if there were a special court with an appeals process? .......

No one wants a return to the days when it was possible to commit someone just because that person was not behaving to someone else's standards. However, thousands of families today are dealing with adult members who are living on the streets when they belong in a place where they can be sheltered and treated. The fact that in the past, many mental institutions were hell holes is no excuse to wash our hands of the problem today. Treatments today are better, although for many they are still inadequate.

Even worse, when a family can get someone into care, the family is strapped for money to pay for treatment!

[Atypical Liberal]

31. Goes back to access to health care.

I have heard it said that there was a big push (under Reagan?) to shut down mental institutions and push people into out-patient care (or homelessness). Part of this was to eliminate the problem of people who had been institutionalized and should not have been, but I suspect largely it was due to cost.

We need across-the-board better access to health care, including mental health care. But I'm not very hopeful that we will see it any time soon.

[shadowrider]

33. Mental health care only works if the object of the accessment

acknowledges they have a problem, whether or not mental health care is available, but I understand the concept.

[Atypical Liberal]

35. They don't have to acknowledge it...

For example, Cho, the shooter at VT, was forced to go to the local mental health agency for evaluation after threatening suicide.

[shadowrider]

36. Like I said, it's the most workable idea I've seen so far n/t

[hedgehog]

38. The idea was to close large central institutions and replace them with

community based services. Ideally a person would live in a group home near family and friends and maybe even hold down a job.
Well, all the institutions were closed, but the community based programs fell through the cracks as a result of people not wanting to be taxed to pay for them plus a strong dose of NIMBY.
Then , concerns over civil rights violations caused legislatures to pass laws to make it very, very hard to commit anyone involuntarily.

[beevul]

41. Its possible.

"Let's further premise that certain people shouldn't have guns: convicts, mentally ill. If we enforce those laws, and if we set up provisions to identify the mentally ill before a mass shooting, would that be acceptable to both sides of this debate? For example, if any of the people who'd had a run-in with Loughner had been able to have him investigated, and if he then had been put on a "no gun" list, would that be acceptable?"

I might go along with that. Provided after the things you mention are made so, that the process to change who goes on that list is made so difficult as to be next to impossible.

"Would gun owners be reassured that they would continue to have the right to own a gun?"

I think the only thing that will reassure gun owners, is ten years or more with nobody promoting/proposing banning any of them.

[guitar man]

3. I may be a little bit biased

Since I was shot by a gun wielding criminal when I wasn't carrying a gun of my own with me. So if I get a little touchy about people wanting to disarm me I hope you understand why.

[hedgehog]

5. We need to hear from you - what can we do to keep other people from

being confronted with a gun wielding criminal?

[guitar man]

8. If I was in charge?

The first thing I would do is get rid of the idiotic drug laws and end the ridiculous "war on drugs". How many violent crimes, and not just gun related crimes, can be attributed to this folly?

[old mark]

9. Get district attornies to end the standard dropping of gun charges

as part of plea bargains with violent criminals. The Philly police officer killed in a bank robbery in 2009 was attempting to stop 4 violent felons just giver early release from prison. 3 of them had had illegal gun charges dropped as plea deals - ALL would still have been in prison had they not bee granted early release-because PA prisons are overcrowded with pot smokers and drug consumers. This is typical of plea bargians nationwide-gun charges are dropped.

FWIW, I carry a legal handgun and have for the last 15 years...because I choose to. I have no wish for snyone else to determing my "need". You would certainly never let another person determine your "needs" to exercise your right to free speech or freedom from unwarranted search (presuming we still have that...)


mark

[hedgehog]

11. I think that is something we can all agree on - that the rigorous

enforcement of existing gun laws needs to be a priority. Maybe if we abandoned the phony war on drugs, we could do something about illegal gun ownership.

[old mark]

16. I certainly agree, but I would not hold your breath-too many are invested in the

"war on drugs"-there is too much money being made by keeping ghem illegal, and most pols don't care to support drug users rights...they'd rather see them in prison and get the money from the importers, etc...

I have a rather low opinion of politicians in general. It's probably a character flaw, but there it is.

mark

[hedgehog]

22. Ironically, some of the worst damage from drugs in this country

doesn't come form the drugs themselves, but from the associated crimes to pay for drugs and make them available.

[old mark]

40. That is part of the price people are willing to pay to make easy money...nt

[Statistical]

7. Self defense is a right.

It isn't up to you to determine if a threat exists. If you goal is simply education then I have no problem with that, however if your goal is legislation (person X isn't threatened enough thus can't own and/or carry firearm) then that is no dice.

If you feel personally the threat of crime doesn't warrant a gun in the house then don't own a gun.
IF you feel it does but doesn't warrant carrying the gun then leave the gun at home.

It isn't either your responsibility or right to make that decision for others.

[PavePusher]

10. If you can prove where/when threats exist, you'll have precognition.

No-one thought there was a threat in a small New Hampshire village, adjunct to an Ivy-League college, three miles from my grandmothers house.

They were wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dartmouth_Murders

Until you can perfect this precognition, I have a Right to be armed whenever and wherever I wish, unless you have taken measures to ensure my security. If you wish to disarm me in those places, you are completely liable for anything that may befall me.

Deal?



P.S. My father once taught at the high school the murderers attended. Our house was on the main route between the two locations.

[AtheistCrusader]

15. I admire your tack here, honestly.

From a legislative standpoint, addressing issues like mental health care, criminal recidivism, the drug war that manufactures most criminals, things like this can be worked on, and will possibly reduce the perceived need for concealed carry.

As I have mentioned, I will always carry, but it is a hunk of metal, not terribly comfortable, and having it on me precludes certain activities, such as entering a bar, even for food. It's a pain in the ass to carry, it really is. If you reduce the risk of all sorts of violent attacks, a lot of people will re-evaluate their 'worth it' decision to carry.

[Atypical Liberal]

18. But you are still making a huge assumption.

What we need to do is to determine if people are under threat. If so, we need to determine the best means of removing that threat. If not, we need to determine the best means of proving the threat doesn't exist.

The entire premise of your solution is that personal safety is someone else's responsibility, which is false.

This is not to say that government should not play a role in promoting and fostering as safe an environment as possible, and have resources for dealing with threats to public safety. But no society, short of a police state (and even then, probably), can provide around-the-clock protection for its citizens. So if someone wishes to be prepared for the possibility of needing to be able to defend themselves, no matter how remote the possibility, they should have that right.

You are correct in that most people, certainly most firearm owners, aren't involved in crime, and as a result, they are probably not likely to be victims of it, either.

But we have numerous contingencies that we take advantage of as modern humans to negate risk. For example, I have life insurance, homeowner's insurance, fire extinguishers, spare tires, first aid kits, and smoke and carbon monoxide detectors. I have all of these things even though the probability of me actually needing them is quite low. But the cost of the tool is cheap compared to the cost of needing the tool and not having one.

Finally, I will again point out that self-defense is only an ancillary part of the right to keep and bear arms. The primary reason is defense against oppression by the government.

[hedgehog]

24. What I have come to realize in this thread is that the threat is not from responsible gun owners.

The problem that I see is that because responsible people are so fearful of any laws controlling guns, that we don't enforce the laws we have and the laws we have are so loose that it is easy for the wrong people to obtain guns.

So, what laws can we pass and/or enforce to keep the criminals and mentally ill from having fire arms without unduly interfering with reasonable law abiding citizens?

[Atypical Liberal]

26. Universal FOID.

The problem that I see is that because responsible people are so fearful of any laws controlling guns, that we don't enforce the laws we have and the laws we have are so loose that it is easy for the wrong people to obtain guns.

So, what laws can we pass and/or enforce to keep the criminals and mentally ill from having fire arms without unduly interfering with reasonable law abiding citizens?

Short of broadening the rules for what constitutes "crazy", about the only other thing that could be done is to eliminate the fact that most private sales avoid background checks.

We can tighten up the requirements for legal ownership all we want, but as long as private firearm sales are unregulated, the "wrong people" will always be able to buy firearms.

An idea I have heard for this problem would be to require everyone to have an FOID, like Illinois, in order to own firearms. However, unlike Illinois, which has an opt-in system, whereby only firearm owners are going to have an FOID, thereby creating a registry, I would see an opt-out system, whereby everyone who applies for a drivers' license or state-issued ID is automatically run through the NICS system, unless the choose to opt-out. By so doing, the list of people with a valid FOID would not necessarily be a list of firearm owners. Thus firearm ownership anonymity is maintained.

Then you make it so that all private firearm sales require the presentation and recording of the FOID. People would have an incentive to obey this law because selling a firearm to someone without an FOID would mean that that firearm would probably be used for nefarious deeds, and thus be likely to be traced back to the last legitimate owner, resulting in legal problems and fines.

In this way, we could go a long way to making sure that everyone who legally owns a firearm has undergone a background check.

[hedgehog]

28. I would tend to agree with this proposal, but then I am not a gun owner!

[shadowrider]

29. A very good idea, but for the

guy who gets his FOID card before mental illness kicks in. How are situations like that dealt with?

An impossible question to answer I'm afraid.

[Atypical Liberal]

32. Revocation.

A very good idea, but for the guy who gets his FOID card before mental illness kicks in. How are situations like that dealt with?

Simple: The FOID is revoked, and the sheriff is sent out with authority to confiscate the FOID and search the premises for firearms, confiscating any that are found.

All licenses and IDs expire every few years, meaning that even if someone conveniently "lost" their license when the sheriff came to confiscate it, at best it would only be valid for a few years. It's not perfect, but it's far better than what we have today.

[shadowrider]

34. I can agree with that

But I hate to be a killjoy, but that would take several people I'm afraid, to come forward to swear the guy is batshit crazy and needs care. There are those with mental illness that exhibit no symptoms just like there are hidden drunks. No one would ever suspect a person is crazy or an alcoholic.

But you have the most workable idea I've seen.

[Atypical Liberal]

37. On being crazy.

I see the issue of detecting crazy people as separate from insuring that all firearm sales go to people who have undergone a background check.

The current NICS check will catch past criminals and people who have been adjudicated mentally incompetent or involuntarily committed to an institution.

That alone would go a long way to keeping firearms out of the hands of the wrong people.

Expanding who gets put in the NICS database as a crazy person is going to take a lot of doing, but is probably doable.

Really, there needs to be a good, reliable, and consistent way for crazy people to be identified while providing recourse for people improperly identified. I don't know what this mechanism could be.

[hedgehog]

39. Maybe it should take several people to come forward and swear that the

person is "batshit crazy". I use the term "batshit crazy" advisedly, because not all the mentally ill are crazy, nor are all the "batshit crazy" certifiable. Consider the situation in which someone is fighting with all the neighbors and making threats. That person may be perfectly healthy as far as a psychiatrist is concerned, but should that person have a gun? What about the guy who was fired, and left the plant swearing revenge on his boss?

I'd like to see a system that takes guns out of the hands of people like that, but also there has to be checks and balances to ensure that it takes more than an anonymous phone call to pull your gun license. Maybe a system somewhat like the child protection hot lines.

[shadowrider]

30. Now you're beginning to understand and congratulations on keeping an open mind n/t

[beevul]

42. That could change, but It wont be easy.

"The problem that I see is that because responsible people are so fearful of any laws controlling guns, that we don't enforce the laws we have and the laws we have are so loose that it is easy for the wrong people to obtain guns."


That couold change, but it wouldn't be easy.

Such a change would mean showing the extreme gun control crowd the door, politically.

Denouncing them.

Putting the bradys, the VPC, and the CSGV out of business.

They're the reason I and many others refuse to give one more inch.


I will not be a party to letting them establish a beachhead to exploit, after the next unpredictable tragedy, or the next period of politically unfriendly-to-gun-owner environment.

Its not that were fearful of laws, were fearful of what a group who are a known quantity will turn them into, or enact using them as a stepping stone.

[Lurks Often]

21. regarding your comment:

"On the other hand , a large number of people feel that they must must be armed because they are apt to be confronted with a gun wielding criminal at any point as they go about their daily business."

I have to disagree with you, no one I know feels that they are "apt to be confronted" by criminal. They chose to carry because they realize there is a POSSIBILITY that one or more criminals may chose to make them a victim. We recognize that the police, no matter how hard they may try, can not be everywhere. Look at the shootings in Tucson, based on current reports it took law enforcement 10-15 minutes to arrive and even longer for the EMT's.

If I KNEW I was going to be attacked on a specific day, I would stay home with the doors locked and call the police.

Where I live is a little different, I live in a town that can be described as middle to lower middle class. Within 30 minutes of me are 3 different cities: Hartford, New Haven, and Waterbury, CT where there are parts of town you do not walk in after dark.

On Edit: The primary purpose of virtually all of the guns I own is for recreation and competitive shooting and that is the usual reason why I acquire another one.