Gun Raffle Insensitive?

[Deleted member 37064]

I see that now, you only stated "shot" in the post I quoted but I missed your previous point specifying of killing.

And you are correct. with such a high number of wounded and rapid fire, I don't doubt it's still in the hundreds but the exact number of shot vs. injured another way during the mess I'm not sure.

No worries, it happens. Sometimes my fingers and brain don't necessarily match when attempting to respond to a post. So, can understand the confusion may create.

 

[JickyJuly]

For the record, many states have laws where if you have any kind of domestic violence on your record, your life as a gun owner becomes extremely difficult and you may very well lose your right to own them. Furthermore, those whom are convicted will most likely need to see a counselor to address anger issues.

Part of the problem is that far more people would rather be "the bad ass" than the "good guy". It's more lucrative to promote bad behaviour than it is to promote good. This isn't always the case. But, many times it is. People want exciting, and they typically don't associate that with "the good guy".

A lot of states do have those laws about domestic violence, but domestic violence is way under-prosecuted. Many officers are so used to victims not following through, that they let violent people slide. Many victims are afraid or unable to separate their love for the person from the abuse. The domestic violence part is something that is so prevalent in our society that just making a law and hoping it weeds out the riff raff isn't enough. On top of that, cities that are inundated with violence are understaffed by police. So, a fight between family members that is going to be a hard sell in court is going to be skipped over. A few years ago, I punched my husband repeatedly in the face. It happened on my front lawn. Plenty of neighbor witnesses. I admitted to the police that I had done it. My hand was bloodied. The police told me to be quiet. They told me they didn't hear what I had said and not to say it again. This would be great if they were my lawyers, but not so great considering their job. My gender certainly played a part, but our culture still treats violence between spouses as a family problem and lets things slide that shouldn't. Too many people are allowed to fly under the radar for the domestic violence gun provisions to be effective. I could have gone out and bought a gun an hour after the police left. Nothing to stop me. I'm not saying that I would be a danger if armed, but if we're going to stop potentially dangerous folks, we have to apply the law to everyone with the same reverence.

I totally agree with you that our culture puts more value on the bad ass than the good guy. We give boys conflicting messages on what it means to be a man, and expect them to be virtuous. On top of that, we stunt them emotionally from the time they're tiny. The process of getting rid of anger involves crying, but we tell little boys they're not supposed to do that. We tell little boys it's cooler to be angry than to be sad. We break our sons and then wonder why there are so many angry men wrecking the place.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

A lot of states do have those laws about domestic violence, but domestic violence is way under-prosecuted. Many officers are so used to victims not following through, that they let violent people slide. Many victims are afraid or unable to separate their love for the person from the abuse. The domestic violence part is something that is so prevalent in our society that just making a law and hoping it weeds out the riff raff isn't enough. On top of that, cities that are inundated with violence are understaffed by police. So, a fight between family members that is going to be a hard sell in court is going to be skipped over. A few years ago, I punched my husband repeatedly in the face. It happened on my front lawn. Plenty of neighbor witnesses. I admitted to the police that I had done it. My hand was bloodied. The police told me to be quiet. They told me they didn't hear what I had said and not to say it again. This would be great if they were my lawyers, but not so great considering their job. My gender certainly played a part, but our culture still treats violence between spouses as a family problem and lets things slide that shouldn't. Too many people are allowed to fly under the radar for the domestic violence gun provisions to be effective. I could have gone out and bought a gun an hour after the police left. Nothing to stop me. I'm not saying that I would be a danger if armed, but if we're going to stop potentially dangerous folks, we have to apply the law to everyone with the same reverence.

I totally agree with you that our culture puts more value on the bad ass than the good guy. We give boys conflicting messages on what it means to be a man, and expect them to be virtuous. On top of that, we stunt them emotionally from the time they're tiny. The process of getting rid of anger involves crying, but we tell little boys they're not supposed to do that. We tell little boys it's cooler to be angry than to be sad. We break our sons and then wonder why there are so many angry men wrecking the place.

I can't speak for your area, so will have to take your word for it. But, in mine, they arrest and take to jail. Doesn't matter the sex. But, most times it is the male. Have seen more domestic situations than I care to, as well as troubled families. Some are stuck in the endless generational cycle. Others, just found themselves in a bad spot and are working to get out.

For your situation, regarding being able to go out and buy a gun an hour afterward, what would be your solution to that? Am curious, as even if you were arrested, it takes time to work all of that through the system due to booking, due process, etc. The way to prevent you in that situation would have been to arrest you, and hold you while they put it on your record (again, takes an anspecified time). Anything sooner, and you're now making those whom uphold the law judge/jury/prosecutor. Not saying this is right or wrong. Only that is about the only way I can see it happening as quickly as you mentioned.

But, I do agree that laws should be equally applied and enforced to everyone, regardless of whatever demographic they may fall into.

 

[JickyJuly]

For your situation, regarding being able to go out and buy a gun an hour afterward, what would be your solution to that?

Maybe they could give an immediate temporary ban to people who are accused of domestic violence from having access to guns pending trial? They do emergency temporary restraining orders/custody orders. It could be treated as similar to those? If we're shifting the blame from guns to human violence (gun or no) and mental health, then we need to be prepared to treat those situations as real dangers to the public. If that were the expectation, that would also give the police reason to follow through with family situations as well.

 

[JerryBoBerry]

I meant in his hypothetical where you get a card that’s active for a year, that lets you buy as many guns as you want. Would it get deactivated if you were arrested?

Yes. If you get arrested they run you through the computer right then and have you surrender the card. You would also be in the databases and forever be barred from getting another...if convicted of course.

One note. That's not a hypothetical situation. I used that from real world. That's the exact case in Minnesota now, and has been for at least a couple decades. In Minnesota there is no permit required for shotguns or hunting rifles. However, if you wish to purchase or transfer a handgun you have to fill out this form and take it to your county's Sheriff's office. They will do the background checks, and inform you within 7 days if you can come pick up your permit, or have been denied. That permit to purchase is then good for one year to purchase unlimited number of handguns from any licensed firearms dealer in the state.

If you just want to make a one time handgun purchase only, then you can go directly to a gun shop and have them do the background checks there. They may charge a fee though. There's no fee for the permit at the Sheriff's office.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

Maybe they could give an immediate temporary ban to people who are accused of domestic violence from having access to guns pending trial? They do emergency temporary restraining orders/custody orders. It could be treated as similar to those? If we're shifting the blame from guns to human violence (gun or no) and mental health, then we need to be prepared to treat those situations as real dangers to the public. If that were the expectation, that would also give the police reason to follow through with family situations as well.

It is a possibility. But, would like temporary restraining orders, would most likely have to be done via a judge I would think as it is removing a person's legal privileges/rights. Officers have the ability to put a medical hold on someone for things such as suicide watch, detox, etc. So, perhaps similar? Dunno, can be a slippery slope of sorts.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

Yes. If you get arrested they run you through the computer right then and have you surrender the card. You would also be in the databases and forever be barred from getting another...if convicted of course.

One note. That's not a hypothetical situation. I used that from real world. That's the exact case in Minnesota now, and has been for at least a couple decades. In Minnesota there is no permit required for shotguns or hunting rifles. However, if you wish to purchase or transfer a handgun you have to fill out this form and take it to your county's Sheriff's office. They will do the background checks, and inform you within 7 days if you can come pick up your permit, or have been denied. That permit to purchase is then good for one year to purchase unlimited number of handguns from any licensed firearms dealer in the state.

If you just want to make a one time handgun purchase only, then you can go directly to a gun shop and have them do the background checks there. They may charge a fee though. There's no fee for the permit at the Sheriff's office.

Yep, was going to comment on the MN laws. Also, if you go through training and get your permit to carry, it is good for five years and replaces the permit to purchase. Which, the carry permit also has a lot of restrictions on it in the event of things such as convictions on domestic violence, or other violent crimes.

MN does require a permit to purchase, or permit to carry, when it comes AR platforms. This is primarily due to the lower receiver and potential build as a large pistol. But, I think this is more a Federal requirement than I do a state.

 

[Bocefish]

As we have seen already the terrorists aren't able to get any guns so their potential for harm is much more limited

Clearly, that assumption helps you sleep better at night so I won't ruin it for you.

If you need all the modern technology and weaponry you can get to feel "comfortable" while hunting, you need a new hobby. Buy some meat and take a camera to the woods instead. Leave the hunting to folks who have sportsmanship. There's more to hunting than killing something real good.

The vast majority of my experience with hunting, ARs and firearms, in general, come from well over a decade living in Alaska.

I'll admit to wanting all the latest technology for FISHING.

For hunting, I preferred Browning A-bolts, various shotguns and had several handguns ranging from .22 to .44 magnums.

I don't understand why you would have an issue with somebody wanting to have the best in order to make a fast, clean kill to preserve the most quality meat possible while minimizing the animal's suffering.

In regards to the mental health issue, most mass murders have some sort of domestic violence in their past.
http://chicagotonight.wttw.com/2017...ootings-look-domestic-violence-says-professor

Politicians amazing rallied together promising to make the mental health issue a priority after Sandy Hook, yet somehow their concentration focused more on being re-elected than fulfilling their promises.

Back to AR issue and btw I've met the guys in the following article:

FAIRBANKS — Mass shootings, once a rarity in this country, now seem to happen with alarming regularity, and in the wake of each fresh tragedy, the call to ban all assault rifles becomes louder and more insistent.

But what exactly is an assault rifle? Are they popular in Alaska? And if so, how are Alaskans using them?

It’s surprisingly difficult to find a commonly accepted definition of assault rifle. Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines it as “any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use.”

The National Rifle Association website defines it as “a selective-fire rifle chambered for a cartridge of intermediate power.”

Many people think all semiautomatic rifles are assault rifles, while others say only fully automatic rifles — those that fire a sustained burst for as long as the trigger is pulled and the ammunition lasts — can be called assault rifles.

According to Gary Junk, owner of Arctic Gunworks in North Pole, the difference between a semiautomatic rifle and an assault rifle is “the intent of the use of the gun due to the manufacturer’s design.”

“In today’s age, it’s going to have a rather short barrel, it’s going have a flash suppressor on it, it’s going to have a detachable box magazine, it’s going to have the ability to adapt and attach other gizmos and tools to the outside of it, and it’s probably going to have a collapsible stock with a pistol grip. That’s an assault rifle. It’s intended as a battle instrument,” Junk said.

Although the AR-15 is the rifle most often cited as being used in mass shootings, the reality is that a variety of semiautomatic, assault-style rifles have been used. For instance, the rifle used in the recent Orlando nightclub shooting was a Sig Sauer MCX.

Junk estimated 90 percent of gun owners in Alaska own an AR-type rifle — a designator used here to encompass the full class of assault rifles — in some configuration. People like to shoot them, collect them or use them for home defense, Junk said, noting it’s easy to get military surplus ammunition for them.

Fairbanks police officer Andrew Adams said that estimate sounded reasonable to him, even though most criminals don’t use rifles.

“They usually carry pistols because they’re small, concealable. Most of your AR-type rifles are a bit more expensive, and most criminals don’t carry expensive guns,” Adams said. “It’s very rare that I would see what would typically be called an assault rifle.”

Adams said it’s more common for criminals to steal AR-type rifles from law-abiding gun owners and then sell or trade them for money or drugs.

Adams doesn’t support a ban on AR-type rifles.

“Taking them away from legal owners isn’t the answer. If he’s a bad guy, he’ll find a way. I would be much more worried about a pistol,” Adams said.

What about hunting?

Junk said he wouldn’t recommend using an AR-type rifle to hunt animals because the rounds commonly used are “marginally powered.” Still, he said, many people do hunt with one because it’s often the only rifle they own.


According to Alaska Wildlife Trooper Sgt. David Bump, the use of AR-type rifles is a relatively common practice in the Bush, especially when hunting smaller game.

“I have seen people use AR-15s in the field, but more commonly, it’s a Ruger mini-14, which is a semiautomatic, clip-fed or magazine-fed rifle. That’s a common one, but I’m not going to say that’s all you see. People use them for shooting seals, caribou, fox, wolves, coyotes,” Bump said.

The Ruger mini-14 uses a .223 round, which is a smaller round, Bump said.

“You don’t commonly see them for moose and sheep and bears, just because people use bigger guns, but there are people who use AR-10s, which is a .308 caliber versus a .223. It’s a bigger round. It doesn’t have any more speed but it’s a bigger bullet. I think a .223 with a proper shot placement would take out a moose just as easily as a .308, but usually a bigger bullet means a bigger wound channel,” Bump said.

Ken Marsh, the public information officer for the Alaska Division of Wildlife Conservation, said the Ruger mini-14 is “not an uncommon gun style and caliber. My understanding is it’s popular in some of the villages.

“Rifle choice is very subjective, and varies among users.”

Contact staff writer Dorothy Chomicz at 459-7582. Follow her on Twitter: @FDNMcrime.

 

[dilligaf0]

I don't understand why you would have an issue with somebody wanting to have the best in order to make a fast, clean kill to preserve the most quality meat possible while minimizing the animal's suffering.

I have no problem with that at all. i have a problem with the all too easily available modifications that make them mimik a fully automatic weapon like was used in Las vegas.

Politicians amazing rallied together promising to make the mental health issue a priority after Sandy Hook, yet somehow their concentration focused more on being re-elected than fulfilling their promises.

I won't defend politicians motives on anything since they don't represent the people, just the special interests and preserving their ability to get re-elected.
Your point about most criminals preferring handguns is valid. Unfortunately the mass murderers we've seen lately aren't mere criminals, but psychopaths.
Again, I don't even support an AR ban, just the modifications that make the more rapid fire (almost full-auto) and outrageously large capacity ammunition magazines. As a hunter (at least you sound like one) do you need a 100 round magazine to hunt?
If you want those modifications for sport, then make it so that the events (or shooting ranges) own the equipment. You can use it while you're there, but it stays there when you leave.

Junk said he wouldn’t recommend using an AR-type rifle to hunt animals because the rounds commonly used are “marginally powered.” Still, he said, many people do hunt with one because it’s often the only rifle they own.

If that's the only gun someone owns, I doubt they have the money to blow on bump stocks and extra large magazines.

 

[Bocefish]

f that's the only gun someone owns, I doubt they have the money to blow on bump stocks and extra large magazines.

Bump stocks would be useful in scenarios like "The Walking Dead" often portrays..

It wouldn't surprise me if the bump stock issue goes all the way up to SCOTUS.

That said, we are basically in full agreement about enforcing current laws before legislating more laws that will also go unenforced.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

Of these men, very few are actually diagnosed with mental illness and most have some instance of domestic violence in their background. The fact that most don't have a diagnosed illness is most likely due to never seeing a mental health professional. The problem then becomes, how do we get men to reach out for mental health help?

The mental health profession? Occasionally necessary and helpful. Often completely ineffective. Sometimes completely counterproductive. Portions of it are nothing more than a bureaucratic for-profit pill distribution network.

Based on what I have seen, you might as well have said "How can we tell men they need Jesus?"

*******************************

Something I have often wondered about (mostly about healthcare).

I come from a heavily Zionist background (think John Hagee). Politically, a "friend to Israel" has always been an important considerations when measuring the worth of a candidate. There is no problem with dual Israeli/American citizens serving in government, or with anti-BDS legislation being passed.

Yet suggestions of a healthcare system similar to Israel's are sure to bring out howls of protest, and I have on more than one occasion heard the idea described as an evil that barely stops short of rising to the level of accepting the Mark of the Beast (and the ACA seems to only have solidified such notions in the minds of some).

The same goes for gun control. The differences in USA/Israel gun legislation has been pointed out time and time again, to little effect (including by Israel after the Newtown shooting, if memory serves).

The situation is vastly different of course, Israel not having had to deal with a couple hundred years of legislation when forming their laws. And it is fair to note they have mentioned relaxing their laws in response to terrorism. Still, it represents yet another contradiction in the tiny slice of American culture I am most intimately familiar with.

i have a problem with the all too easily available modifications

Spoiler: Ignore, just some low-brow trolling...

 

[JickyJuly]

The mental health profession? Occasionally necessary and helpful. Often completely ineffective. Sometimes completely counterproductive. Portions of it are nothing more than a bureaucratic for-profit pill distribution network.

Based on what I have seen, you might as well have said "How can we tell men they need Jesus?"

Disagree. Hard disagree. I've had a few bad doctors across the board, including one crappy psych, but psychiatry and meds save lives. They make some lives livable.

 

[dilligaf0]

The mental health profession? Occasionally necessary and helpful. Often completely ineffective. Sometimes completely counterproductive. Portions of it are nothing more than a bureaucratic for-profit pill distribution network.

Based on what I have seen, you might as well have said "How can we tell men they need Jesus?"

*******************************

Something I have often wondered about (mostly about healthcare).

I come from a heavily Zionist background (think John Hagee). Politically, a "friend to Israel" has always been an important considerations when measuring the worth of a candidate. There is no problem with dual Israeli/American citizens serving in government, or with anti-BDS legislation being passed.

Yet suggestions of a healthcare system similar to Israel's are sure to bring out howls of protest, and I have on more than one occasion heard the idea described as an evil that barely stops short of rising to the level of accepting the Mark of the Beast (and the ACA seems to only have solidified such notions in the minds of some).

The same goes for gun control. The differences in USA/Israel gun legislation has been pointed out time and time again, to little effect (including by Israel after the Newtown shooting, if memory serves).

The situation is vastly different of course, Israel not having had to deal with a couple hundred years of legislation when forming their laws. And it is fair to note they have mentioned relaxing their laws in response to terrorism. Still, it represents yet another contradiction in the tiny slice of American culture I am most intimately familiar with.

Spoiler: Ignore, just some low-brow trolling...

Really?
That's the most intelligent reply you have re: my comment?
If it makes you feel better then I'm happy for you.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

Disagree. Hard disagree. I've had a few bad doctors across the board, including one crappy psych, but psychiatry and meds save lives. They make some lives livable.

I am glad that your experience has been an overall positive one. Mine has been one that cautions against your view that getting men into the mental health system is the answer.

Some lives may be made livable. Some may be relatively unaffected. Some may be made worse.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...wn-shootings-caution-about-violence-and-ssris

It is possible that the SSRI’s were not properly prescribed and therefore were not working. But we also have to entertain the idea that those drugs may have directly or indirectly contributed to the violence that resulted.

I believe the mental health profession is just as much in shambles as the gun regulation concoction we have.

 

[Bocefish]

If you want those modifications for sport, then make it so that the events (or shooting ranges) own the equipment. You can use it while you're there, but it stays there when you leave.

I've heard options like that are available in southern states where you either know someone licensed or pay a fee to fire all sorts of automatic weapons.

 

[Honey Moon]

The mental health profession? Occasionally necessary and helpful. Often completely ineffective. Sometimes completely counterproductive. Portions of it are nothing more than a bureaucratic for-profit pill distribution network.
*******************************

This doesn't mean you should automatically assume that the whole field is ineffective and unnecessary. Many people rely on mental health professionals to help them live decent lives. Yes, there needs to be reform, especially in regards to how often drugs are prescribed instead of proper treatment plans (that may or may not include drugs.)

I've had experience as a teenager going to clinics and doctor's offices. They didn't help me but that is also the fault of me not knowing what was wrong, accepting misdiagnosis, and having no real desire to get better.
As an adult, I now know what may be wrong and want help and treatment, but cannot get it due to lack of health insurance. My conditions are fairly debilitating, and the weight of coping and treating myself lies solely on me (and my partner, he tries to help.) Anyways.

I hate the way people behave when they witness/experience something needing reform, stating it's pointless as if more energy shouldn't be put into improving it. The way you state your opinion also shows no interest in promoting beneficial changes to what you see as the issue. Regardless of the issue, this mindset is stunting.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

This doesn't mean you should automatically assume that the whole field is ineffective and unnecessary.

I made no such assumption. In fact, I plainly stated otherwise.

I've had experience as a teenager going to clinics and doctor's offices. They didn't help me but that is also the fault of me not knowing what was wrong, accepting misdiagnosis, and having no real desire to get better.
As an adult, I now know what may be wrong and want help and treatment, but cannot get it due to lack of health insurance. My conditions are fairly debilitating, and the weight of coping and treating myself lies solely on me (and my partner, he tries to help.) Anyways.

It almost sounds like you are pointing at some problems. Misdiagnosis, and now the help you need is out of reach.

I hate the way people behave when they witness/experience something needing reform, stating it's pointless as if more energy shouldn't be put into improving it. The way you state your opinion also shows no interest in promoting beneficial changes to what you see as the issue. Regardless of the issue, this mindset is stunting.

Very well then. I suppose I shall have to learn to cope with being viewed as having a "mindset that is stunting" in your eyes.

The mental health profession? Occasionally necessary and helpful. Often completely ineffective. Sometimes completely counterproductive. Portions of it are nothing more than a bureaucratic for-profit pill distribution network.

Based on what I have seen, you might as well have said "How can we tell men they need Jesus?"

I am a blasphemer.

 

[Bocefish]

I believe the mental health profession is just as much in shambles as the gun regulation concoction we have.

Some lives may be made livable. Some may be relatively unaffected. Some may be made worse.

Please explain how this gun regulation concoction correlates with the mental health profession being in shambles.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

Please explain how this gun regulation concoction correlates with the mental health profession being in shambles.

Well, "compares to" would be a better way of saying it than "correlates with".

Occasionally necessary and helpful. Often completely ineffective. Sometimes completely counterproductive.

 

[Bocefish]

Well, "compares to" would be a better way of saying it than "correlates with".

Occasionally necessary and helpful. Often completely ineffective. Sometimes completely counterproductive.

You sound like a cop that would beat the shit out of a suspected street kid witness in Chicago.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

You sound like a cop that would beat the shit out of a suspected street kid witness in Chicago.

Thank you. It has been hours since I was last called a racist, I was beginning to feel quite irrelevant.

 

[Bocefish]

Thank you. It has been hours since I was last called a racist, I was beginning to feel quite irrelevant.

Quite happy to oblige your assumptions.

 

[dilligaf0]

Drunk drivers still kill people in car accidents, so make drinking and driving legal.
People die from illnesses everyday, so don't bother to treat them.
People are abused by relatives and partners daily, but we can't stop all of it so don't try.

There are no solutions that are 100 % effective, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
Progress takes time, but it will never happen if nobody takes a first step.

 

[Bocefish]

Thank you. It has been hours since I was last called a racist, I was beginning to feel quite irrelevant.

Where did race come into the conversation?