.

Jason, you're absolutely right...and if he would have had a gun, it could have been even higher than 22.

But the point I was trying to make though is that even when guns aren't accessible, mentally ill people will still find others ways to mass harm or kill people - knives, bombs, driving a car into a crowd, poison Kool-Aid, etc.

I just think people are focusing their attention on guns instead of the root of the problem (the mental illness). The fact of the matter is that guns will never be banned and people need to get over that and focus on the problem (again, the mental illness) rather than focus on the means by which the mentally ill kill.

You are spot-on about this. I read more about the stabbing by the 16-yr old today - they said he was a B-B+ student with no apparent problems or past signs of mental illness, and looked like a 'deer in the headlights' after the stabbings. People treat these events as if the person all of a sudden became evil and should now be punished as quickly and severely as possible - we hear it right here on this forum. We never know at this stage why he did this, but 9 times out of 10 it was a first mental break. I've explained before what that actually means, and it falls on deaf ears for anyone who hasn't been through it with a loved one or close friend, so I won't repeat myself.

Protecting society from the 'symptoms' and administering punishment is also necessary, but, as you say, there needs to be a focus on the problem rather than the symptom. Gun-control helps deal with the symptoms, but trying a 16-yr old as an adult probably has more adverse consequences than positive. For one thing, it reinforces the punishment aspect, and you might be punishing someone for something that they had no control over - I suspect that knowing he was going to be punished, regardless of how severely, would have had no affect on this guy's actions. All it does is keep society happy and allow them to focus on the evil of the act and ignore the possible mental illness - no one wants to be responsible for other people's mental illness.

I'd agree with this.

There's a rush towards the knee jerk reaction to punish. That's what our society seems to demand (Myself included fairly often)

But the ability to deal with any underlying mental aspects even if they're known in advance is either totally missing or done in such an all or nothing way that it's unworkable.
Someone with a problem can't be forced to get help or to maintain that help. At least until they cross a certain line. And the alternative looks bad too if the people involved are clueless. Like the school that forced a kid who was fidgeting with a pencil into a 5 hour mental and physical evaluation after another kid who had been picking on him claimed he was making gun motions with the pencil - Coerced consent with no due process looks pretty ugly.

And there's no sensible provision for temporary circumstances. If someone in a bad situation says or is accused of saying the wrong thing, a restraining order is issued (probably appropriately) And that then precludes gun ownership permanently in many places. leading to the obligatory confiscations "voluntary" or otherwise. Likely prolonging the anger and making it more severe in the short term.
I can't help but think that many of those people will be just fine in some period of time. Their anger fades and the risk just isn't there. But the effects of that one mistake are for life.
An ability to temporarily remove someone's guns until a particularly bad stretch of their life has passed would be more work, and more difficult, but perhaps more fair in the long term.

Steve B

Steve, to go a touch further with this - a swift, severe punishment, even when the person is proven to have mental illness, allows the public to pretend like their child could never end up in the same situation. It comes down to such a scenario being too horrible to comprehend, so instead of 'mental illness', it was an incredibly evil person.

I don't think it's right or just. But that's the initial instinctive reaction of many people.

Somehow it's not that hard for me to comprehend someone doing something horrific. History is full of evidence that it's not only possible but sadly likely.
What is hard is figuring out what's reasonable to do. it's a hard choice to let someone slide on it because they weren't right mentally. As a Montana judge supposedly said when denying an insanity defense - something like yes, normal people don't usually kill other people. (naive for a judge, I'd think he'd at least have heard of people doing that for hire :confused: )
But it's also hard to justify a serious punishment for someone who probably had no idea what they were actually doing.

The flip side is people who do something like that with a plan or to hide another crime, or just because they don't give a _ about anyone but themselves (Like locking kids in a car in 100+ weather to spend an hour or two in a bar) .........yes, fast and severe punishment.

Steve B

+1

Unfortunately, this is an area where society hasn't evolved.

As far as gun control, I think the Ministry of Propaganda, along with political driven agendas, have used a few terrible incidents to attempt to convince the masses that this (mentally ill people going on rampages with guns) is a common place thing. You have far more intentional gang shootings by people who know what they are doing and are not mentally ill. Why don't they use this platform? Because then you have to talk about the failed war on drugs, poverty, the prison industrial complex, decaying infrastructure in the inner cities, no jobs, bad economy, national debt, etc. It's much easier to divert the attention to the mentally ill, cherry pick a couple of tragedies, and push the "gun control" agenda that way.

If the two issues were separated- you would not hear much talk about the mentally ill, sadly.

Sincerely, Clayton

"......a few terrible incidents..." = Sleeper Agents!

Most shooters are male. Second biggest statistical connection to gun violence is most probably alcohol.

So pro gun people who are men who like to drink alcohol should be careful about using statistics and demographics to decide who should be allowed to own guns.

It's always good to see spirited debate on politics. Let me add my 2 cents.

I believe that a lot of gun violence is attributable to untreated mental health conditions. Providing adequate screening and treatment for mental health would be damn near impossible, especially given the current stigma attached to treatment. The simpler response is to have a knee jerk reaction and take away guns.

Pro 2A here as well. ALso, a collector

.

I wonder if there will be signs in bars, like in the old west, telling patrons they have to give their guns to the bartender when they enter. I guess the process would be that the patron leaves the house with his gun, ready to protect all of us from bad guys, stops for a drink as many of us do, but ends up drunk. Goes to the next bar and gets told to give up his gun...or doesn't show it until he needs to start protecting people.

Great plan.

Do the churches have to post signs above their entrances, saying 'No Guns Allowed?"

David - I don't mind getting hammered for my last post. I was raised Republican, with guns everywhere and I'm a diehard Libertarian. Plus, I get a huge (deleted) when I think about buying another gun, which is imminent.

I just don't get this new Georgia law. Probably the fact that I lived in Texas for 35 years and North Georgia for 11, and hung out in pool halls for most of my adult life, has tainted my thoughts regarding guns in the hands of many of my friends, or even worse - the ones who weren't my friends.

(Barry - why is it so natural to type "the ones that" when it's correct to type "the ones who" ?)

Scott, Remember a few months ago when the IRS was targeting people for their political AND religious beliefs? That's not some right-wing conspiracy theory, that's a fact. It was a pretty big scandal. Also remember a couple of years ago when the gov't purchased an estimated 2.5 BILLION rounds of ammo (many of which were hollow point) - including the Social Security Admin, IRS, Dept of Educ, etc.? Just another hard fact. So if the IRS is targeting people for their religious beliefs and given that they have thousands of rounds of hollow point ammo, you really question why one shouldn't be allowed to carry their gun to church? You need to move back to Texas, you've been gone too long.

Edited to add: If you can give me a valid reason why the IRS would target people for their political and religious beliefs, and also give me a valid reason why the IRS needs hundreds of thousands of rounds of hollow point ammo, maybe you can change my mind.

I don't understand how the IRS screw-up you mention has anything to do with the new Georgia law or anything going on in Texas.

Sent from my SM-G730V using Tapatalk

I'll connect the dots.

Can we at least agree the following 4 statements/questions are true:
The IRS has hundreds of thousands of rounds of hollow point ammo, right?
The IRS was targeting people based on their religious views, right?
More specific, they were targeting particular churches, right?
People go to church to express their religious views and worship as they choose, right?

So, if the IRS (who is heavily armed) was targeting people based on their religious views and people go to church to express their religious views, don't people have a right to carry a gun into church to feel safe against a group that was targeting them based on their beliefs? The new Georgia law allows people to carry a gun into church. After all, why do people carry guns? To feel safe.

Sound far-fetched to you? Maybe it is, IDK, then again, ask Cliven Bundy. A similar situation could happen in Texas with 90,000 acres near the Red River. Americans are finally standing up.

I connected your dots and did not get a recognizable picture. But I see what you are going for - people in church who can't focus on the sermon because they have their finger on the safety and are constantly watching the door for armed IRS agents.

Sent from my SM-G730V using Tapatalk

Now that I have a logical explanation for armed churchgoers, please give your thoughts on why we need drunken armed rednecks in bars where you already have plenty of fights between people who previously left their guns in the pick-up.

Sent from my SM-G730V using Tapatalk

:D Funny stuff, Scott.

But seriously, whether you agree with the Georiga law or not, you're going to see a lot of new gun laws in the near future that you're probably not going to agree with. Here's a new one in Indiana that allows residents to shoot police that overstep their bounds...

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/sta...efense-police/

You asked me a question. I answered it and also asked you a question. Before asking me another question, how about answering the question I asked you?

Here it is again? Why does the Internal Revenue Service need hundreds of thousdands of rounds of hollow point ammo? Come on, humor me.

I think my disagreement with many on this topic, is really a matter of 'how much is needed based on likely scenarios?' I guess you could argue that if the IRS thinks people in the church might be armed, then they are less likely to attack in force during a service; however, would they ever do that, even if guns were not allowed? Anyone who was really in fear of such an event would have a gun anyway, and if their particular church had been publicly targeted by the IRS, even moreso. The new law just sets up bad possibilities for those who would not otherwise carry.

The armed drunks in the bar scenario is just plain scary - my preferred watering holes were the hole-in-the-wall North Georgia bars where if you weren't a local, you needed to be alert, and pool halls where we just plain out had fist-fights. Guns would have been a really horrible unknown factor in such places. My APA team had four legitimate alcoholics on it, and two other guys who were looking for fights even when sober and whose SAT scores couldn't have gotten them into mail-in colleges in the Caribbean. I'm certain both would (will) bring guns to the pool hall, just in case someone who they might get in a fight with brought one.

Look for the name 'Jamie' in the Marietta obits - he should get there within the year.

To be fair, you never answered my question about guns in bars. You did respond to my question about churches, but that wasn't near the concern for me as the bars.

David, I have no idea why the IRS would need ANY ammo, but I doubt it's for a planned attack on a church.

The fact is that we rarely see ANY laws that are perfect - there is so much bartering, etc, among lawmakers that you quite often end up with a law that is so bastardized that it would have been preferable to both sides not to have even enacted the law. That common practice for law-making could have dire circumstances when applied to gun control.

But the real proof will be in looking back at the results of the new law, perhaps 5-10 years from now. Hell, maybe the IRS will get scared and blow up their ammo caches. If our government could indeed be rendered useless and incapable of attacking anyone, much less its own citizens...what would all those guys in Idaho do?

Scott, you scoff at the idea that a gov't agency could not raid a church as if it's never happened before. I can think of two right off the top of my head.

As much as I try to come up with one, I can't think of a valid reason why the IRS needs that much ammo either. What about the Department of Education? Have any idea why they would need thousands of rounds of ammo? What about NOAA? The United States Post Office? Come on, Scott, surely they have some reason, right? Maybe it was just all on sale. Yeah, that's it. Again, this isn't some right-wing conspiracy theory. It's a fact that all these agencies (as well as others) purchased 2.5 BILLION rounds of ammo (much of which was hollow point). Surely there is a reason???

Edited to add: No, I can't think of a valid reason why a bar patron needs to have a gun in their possession.

David,

I understand the appeal of arguing with a straw man, but no need to do it with me - I don't attribute facts to right-wing conspiracy theories; in fact, when a group of people come up with a view that I think is nutz or paranoid, unless it affects others in a negative way, I generally ignore them, realizing that there could be some mental issues going on that are hurting them a great deal than me - no need to make it worse for them.

I think I agreed with you in print, that none of these groups you mention need stores of ammo, but if not, let's make sure you understand that we are in agreement on that point. I'm also in agreement that we should have the right to protect ourselves with arms, for whatever reason we choose, be it a fear of the government or a fear of crazies with guns. But if that right infringes on the rights of others, and endangers them, I think we have to reconsider it. Thus my thoughts about guns in bars.

Regarding the churches, I was thinking of real churches - I don't want to guess which ones you are actually referring to, as that would be putting words in your mouth. Give examples and I will respond. For instance, I wasn't thinking of the Waco situation as involving a church, although technically they did have a church in their compound.

Scott, do you really want to go down this road with me about subjects you are totally ignorant of? Let's play.

http://www.beaumontenterprise.com/ne...me-5207288.php

Respond

Out of respect, I asked for examples. Your response was to insult me. That's fine as it's the internet, but I'm done. You definitely know more about this than I do - I have no problem acknowledging that. We are looking at this from two totally different perspectives and no amount of discussion is going to change that.

Sent from my SM-G730V using Tapatalk

My response was an insult to you? You called me out by name (post #174) and I answered your questions. Granted, it was just my opinion, but I still answered your questions. Then, when I asked you questions, you wouldn't even answer. I didn't ask you to back up your answer with fact, I just wanted your opinion. Surely you have one?

I apologize if you felt my response was an insult. I deleted my response because I didn't want to argue about it anymore. But, since you obviously read it, I'll go back and add my response back word for word exactly as it was written.

David, best to end this. Obviously some miscommunication and I'm sure we both can find non-argumentative discussions.

Sent from my SM-G730V using Tapatalk

Agreed.

.

I couldn't understand it either, which is why I suggested we stop discussing with each other. David is a great guy, but I should have learned by now to not talk about gun control with him. This was totally my bad.

It's pretty simple, really. Scott asked me why one would need to carry a gun into church. My answer was based on speculation, just my opinion. Is it possible for the IRS to raid a church? Certainly, it's happened before - very recently in fact (see link). Is it probable? No, it's not. I don't think my little 80 member Baptist church is going to be raided. Do I carry a gun to church? No, I don't. Would I if it were legal? No, I wouldn't.

Now on the other hand, when I asked Scott to answer my question which required him to speculate, he couldn't do it. Scott's a great guy as well, but when the questions got tough, he took his ball and went home, not wanting to play anymore.

.

Re-read my last post. I wouldn't carry a gun into church whether is was legal or not. Scott asked me a question as to why somebody would want to and I speculated as to why. Are there other reasons as well? Sure. But that came to mind because that raid happened recently just down the interstate from me, about an hour's drive.

Edited to add: You can't understand why one would want to carry a gun into church. I can't understand why the IRS needs thousands of rounds of hollow point ammo. Which makes less sense, the IRS needing that much ammo or carrying a gun into church?

.

.

Since you've been to a range, answer me this question. All 174,000 rounds they purchased were jacketed hollow points. Tell me, when you go to a range, do you shoot hollow points or do you shoot the cheap stuff? Hollow points are made for one reason and one reason only. Come on!

.

David, no 'big boy pants' comments? Come on, if you are going to insult someone for not agreeing with you, you can do better than the old 'took his ball and went home' comments.

When I'm at the range I shoot the cheap stuff too. I keep hollow points for home defense. Again, there is only one purpose for hollow points.

Likewise, if you won't listen to me, listen to the GAO (Government Accountability Office) who is investigating why the feds need to purchase so much ammo...

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/was...ammo-purchases

At least somebody in Washington is questioning it.

I'm not worked up about it. But I am being reaslitic why government agencies like the Department of Education, NOAA and the US Post Office need to purchase any ammo, let alone hollow points.

I didn't ask you to agree with me, Scott. I asked you for your opinion, just like you asked me for mine. I gave you my opinion, but when you were asked for yours, all of a sudden it was time to end the converstation. I understand, Scott. I wouldn't expect anything less of you.

.

2.5 Billion bullets???

Ummm, how many bullets do they need?

Between the entire DHS, DOJ and the other mentioned agencies; the amount of bullets purchased is underwhelming. Especially taking into account most of the agencies are purchasing bullets for the next four years (anticipating the rise in cost of ammunition) and the fact that most agencies are seeing a decline in per officer ammunition/year. It's more like business as usual.

You said earlier that the reason why they're target shooting with hollow points instead of the cheap stuff was "federal employees are much more wasteful than you and I." Now you're saying that they want to eliminate their wasteful ways and stockpile ammo anticipating a rise in cost? So before they weren't concerned with cost, but now they are? Well, since you've explained it all to me, I guess there's no more need to carry on the conversation. Thanks for the clarification. :rolleyes:

.

Yes, sir, you did and I appreciate that. Thank you for doing what Scott wouldn't. I disagree with your opinion (after all, when has the government ever been conscientiousness about spending tax-payer dollars?), but I do respect it. I'm about to step into a meeting, but I'll give you my opinion later.

.

I believe that it's the governments way to try and control ammunition sales. You may find that far-fetched, but which is more far fetched: The government buying in bulk to save money (as if they've ever cared about how much tax payer money they spent) or the government trying to control ammunition sales?

Here are some numbers for you:

• DHS - 704,390,250 rounds of ammo. With 65,000 armed personnel, that's nearly 11,000 rounds per agent.

• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) - 46,000 rounds of ammo.

• Department of Agriculture - 320,000 rounds of ammo (must be to protect us from those mad cows).

• Social Security Administration - 174,000 rounds of ammo (you know how those old people can get when they don't get their SS checks).

• FBI - 100,000,000 rounds of ammo for their 14,000 agents (7,000 rounds per agent)

But, whether you're right or I'm right or neither of us is right, there is one thing I just have a hard time understanding. You've been gracious enough to give your opinion on my other questions, maybe you'll oblige me on this one too.

There is a company called Law Enforcement Targets Inc., that supplies targets to the DHS. The DHS specifically requested "no hesitation" targets which depicted images of pregnant women, children, and old people in residential settings. My question is, why would the DHS request such targets? Oh, it's true. Just look it up.

Oh, and by the way, there are seven targets in the series: Pregnant Woman, Older Man 1, Older Man 2, Older Woman, Young Mother, Young Girl and Little Brother.

Knowing how conscientiousness our government is about saying tax payers money (they do buy ammo in bulk after all), maybe these just happen to be "on sale" and were less expensive than a regular target.

Here are 5 of the images:

.

Clearly you haven't been shopping for ammo in a while. I did just Wednesday. I found bare shelves.

So, it's ok to put any image on a target as long as they're holding a gun? Umm, ok. On that note, I'm done with the conversation. Have a good evening.

David, you have won all the discussions - congratulations.

You mean to tell me that the government had the nerve to buy ammo and train the employees that handle firearms?!?!?

How dare you use logic IOnlySmoke4theCards?? There is no room for logic when it comes to the internet.

Instead of snide comments, how about an intellectual one? If large ammo purchases are just "business as usual" for the government, why would the GOA launch an investigation on the matter?

http://rt.com/usa/dhs-ammo-investiga...apolitano-645/

From the article: "DHS claims that it is buying ammo in bulk to save money, but experts have pointed out that hollow point bullets cost nearly twice as much as full metal jacket rounds. They also explode on impact for maximum damage, which has caused some Americans to wonder what purpose they would serve the DHS domestically. Purchasing 1.6 billion rounds of ammo would also give DHS the means to fight the equivalent of a 24-year Iraq War. Members of Congress say the DHS has repeatedly refused to tell them the purpose of procuring such large amounts of ammo."

Furthermore, why would lawmakers introduce a Bill, HR 1764 Ammunition Management for More Obtainability Act of 2013 (the AMMO Act), that would limit the amount of ammunition purchased or possessed by certain Federal agencies (with the exception of the DOD) for a 6-month period?

.

I think it comes down to the government bought a lot of ammo. They bought four years worth according to the article. I don't think they are stockpiling to "invade" churches or anything like that. I think they bought ammo in case they need to kill people. Seems pretty simple.

That's not an NRA report. That is some article written by a guy named Rich Smith who, from my knowledge, has no affiliation with the NRA. If the NRA Report was linked somewhere in the article, then I missed it, but what you linked is definitely not written by the NRA.

That is one reason why the GOA is investigating it. The quantity purchased is another. I was really concenred with the quantity part, that's why I mentioned HR 1764.

Thanks!

.

Our filters at work block out the article you linked. I'll check it out once I get home. Regarding your question I quoted above, couldn't the opposite argument be made as well?

If the government was buying in bulk just to save money, why would they propese a bill to limit their ability to purchase in bulk?

IMO, the reason for the investigation is because enough people questioned it so they had to launch an investigation.

And the reason they train with the same ammo they have when working is the same reason you won't see MLB teams practice with whiffleballs or softballs. Each sort reacts differently, and if you might ever need to be precise, (Longer range, partially screened, through various things like glass or wood. ) You need to practice with the exact same round.

An acquaintance in LE a few years ago said they always finished with the hearing protection off. The noise is substantially louder, and many people drop the gun the first time they hear it without hearing protection.

Steve B

Those "no hesitation" targets are extremely disturbing to me. Also, it is insane that the DHS would "need" that much ammo-are they planning for a decade long war? They are a "domestic" agency for God's sake. They don't even fight foreign wars-in fact, they don't even protect our borders, so I think even their title doesn't make any sense.And, maybe it was already stated, but aren't those rounds banned in war by the Geneva Convention? If that's true, should we not be concerned that a domestic agency is buying these up? WHAT or WHO are they for exactly?

Just look at those numbers David posted. That's insane, and unjustifiable in my opinion.

Sincerely, Clayton

I guess you and I are the only ones.

I bet if our military trained with "no hesitation" targets that depicted images of Afghan and/or Iraqi women, children and elderly people, it would cause an outrage in the media.

.

.

Ahh, got it. So those 11,000 rounds for each DHS agent should be divided by 4 years. That makes sense. So each agent only needs 2,750 rounds per year. :D

.

What makes you think that?

DHS agents are required to quilify with their weapon 4 times a year. I really don't think it would take more than 2 50 round boxes of shells to qualify each time. That's 400 rounds a year. So, 4 months out of the year they're qualifying.

Now, let's say they go to the range another 8 times a year - the months that they're not qualifying - just to target practice. Let's also say they use another 2 50 round boxes each time they go. That's another 800 rounds a year.

That comes to 1200 rounds a year. What about the other 1,550 rounds? I think my numbers are a very fair estimate. I don't ever go through more than 2 boxes of shells at the range (at least not for one particular gun). But who knows, maybe my numbers are way off? But at least I'm trying to put into perspective how many rounds they need.

How do you justify 2750 rounds a year?

.

[QUOTE=jhs5120;1273184]Obviously unarmed American civilians.


Armed and unarmed. Tell me, what are the MRAP's for, and the bulletproof checkpoint booths? Why are they militarizing local police forces? And, why isn't DHS protecting our borders?

Sincerely, Clayton

.

I know you are being sarcastic, but you don't need to put words in my mouth.

I never said anything about an upcoming mass murder of the entire United States population.

"They" would be the Federal Government. They are the ones providing the local police agencies with MRAP vehicles. They are the ones providing the militarized gear that looks like it belongs in a war zone.

Have you not noticed the rash of unarmed civilians being killed by police lately? Could it have something to do with the "militarization" of local police forces?

And, why is an agency called "The Department of Homeland Security" not protecting our borders at all??????

Anyhow, you can believe there is nothing strange about all of this, reply with sarcastic remarks, and justify all of this nonsense- but keep in mind, all it takes is for good people to remain silent.

Sincerely, Clayton

.

I guess this is nothing to be alarmed about either, right?:

http://benswann.com/supreme-court-denies-ndaa-lawsuit/

How much does it take for someone to see that something is seriously wrong with this picture? When will you be convinced? Those "no hesitation" targets should be enough to raise an eyebrow, no? Small children, pregnant women? WTF?

Sincerely, Clayton

You keep saying things like "kill us all off" and "kill us all" like I said that. Still putting words in my mouth. Now you bring Obama into it........geez, that was predictable.

Before you hit me with your barrage of sarcastic questions- try answering one of mine- why doesn't "Homeland Security" guard our borders?

Sincerely, Clayton

I don't think the government bought ammo to create a shortage. My father is a huge NRA supporter but even he agrees.

If the government wanted to do that there are other ways to do it. My first thought would be to do inspections of manufacturing plants and temporarily all shut down all of the ones with violations. By doing this they would create a temporary shortage.

Clayton,

Homeland Security does guard the border. Customs and Border Patrol falls under that agency.