GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, OR DO THEY?

[Jimbone]

I'm not a hopeless person that thinks that nothing can ever be changed or improved. I re-read all of your posts tonight; some feel very heated. I'll just clarify the points addressed.

*snip*

P.s. The Constitution promotes states' sovereignty. Since New York law doesn't dictate federal law or any other state's laws, I was originally unclear about what laws you were objecting to earlier; I understand now. Thanks.

Well I am obviously coming off as a nutter, so I'll try to clarify my positions as you did above. I am not a hopeless person either, I just believe infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens doesn't improve anything.

Do you know how many gun deaths (including suicides, which were over 60% of gun deaths) there were in 2010?

31,672

Do you know how many homicide gun deaths were caused by long guns (of which 'assault weapons' fall into)?

576 or 1.8% of all gun deaths.

I don't know about you, but the way things are being reported and talked about I sure as hell thought all these scary looking rifles were more than 1.8% of the problem.

I believe the reaction to these events has focused almost solely on guns, because they are the easy target. But dealing with spree killers is really a mental health issue. ALL of the focus should be on that part of the problem, because that is where the real solution is. There are millions of guns in the hands of everyday people, and there aren't shoot outs in the streets or roving bands of law abiding citizens terrorizing anyone.

The overwhelming majority of gun deaths come from ILLEGAL firearms, and ILLEGAL drug and gang activity (not with 'assault weapons' either. It's mostly handguns). Spree killers are extremely rare statistically... but make a huge splash across the news when they strike. And invariably, they are almost ALL mentally ill people who were being treated for their mental illness.

So now to go about keeping guns away from mentally ill people to stop spree killings, new laws are being passed to restrict firearms and firearm supply from people who ARE NOT mentally ill. The logic is apparently that fewer guns in the hands of law abiding citizens means less access for mentally ill people.

But does that really make sense? Restricting the freedom of the majority because of the inability to deal with the problem a minority is causing?

Where is the full frontal assault on the mentally ill? Are they not the overwhelming majority who perpetrate spree killings? My gut tells me that naming them the problem would be construed as cruel, and not it's compassionate or PC to 'go after' the mentally ill like that. I'd honestly have more respect for a politician who came out and said we should build more insane asylums. That would at least indicate to me they understood the problem, even if they had a draconian method of trying to deal with it.

But no one is really addressing mental health, so instead, it's guns.

On a public health scale, you or I are 10 times more likely to be killed by a doctor than by a gun. Where is the outcry to ban bad doctors? There isn't any. No one cares because they don't kill 26 people at one time, and guns are a sexier cause celeb for politicians.

To that end, where was the President after Aurora? Maybe if he put forward his 19 EO's the Newtown tragedy could have been avoided? Maybe there would have been more awareness, and Lanza would have been on the radar?

Oh, that's right. He was trying to get elected and didn't want to alienate the majority of citizens who are in favor of a strong 2^nd amendment. This is political expediency in practice.

Looking more broadly at the overall gun violence problem, where is the evidence that strict gun laws stop gun violence? If that is what would solve the problem, Chicago, Oakland, Baltimore, and Washington DC would be glorious cities serving as shining examples. But they're not. They are shitholes of gun violence. And these kids aren't mentally ill, they are just violent and angry. They won't give a crap about any new law or EO, and they sure as hell won't be being treated for mental illness.

I'm all for coordinated data and more robust background checks. They are a great idea, and quite frankly should already be in place. I'm all for requiring private purchases go through the same process as a retail purchase, that is entirely reasonable. But after all of this settles... look at everything that is proposed and ask the honest question: would these things have stopped Columbine, Aurora, and Newtown?

If I seem heated, so be it. I get irritated when common sense is ignored trying to solve most problems - let alone one as serious as this. If you want to stop gun violence, destroy the gangs and their drug trade. If you want to stop spree killers, get serious about treating and dealing with the mentally ill.

Maybe we could do that instead of restricting those not a threat, who ultimately end up as the targets.