Good article on this very subject.
Here It Comes | Fill Yer Hands
Here It Comes | Fill Yer Hands
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
So...It's not the gun's fault, but what do we do?
- Thread starter HoughMade
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Thats why headlines/front pages/news teases/twitter/facebook posts are so important. We have become a society that only reads the title, not the content. Look at Drudge, I have friends who get there news by going to Drudge, reading the headlines, and never clicking a link. This is also why front pages like the one posted are so detrimental to 2A rights. The general public only see this, goes no further and the next thing you know the majority of voters think that an AR stands for "assault Rifle" and are "made for murder". They think there is a "gun show loophole". When the Clinton gun ban sun-setted there were news stories showing cops firing full auto weapons, and a newscaster talking over the stock footage saying these are the guns you can start buying tomorrow. On no other subject that divides our country (gays/abortion/immigration) is the general public so misinformed then gun rights. And it's because of front pages like the one I posted. We have to fight this crap, or we will lose. And on those other issues the county is no longer really divided. Abortion somewhat. But the gay issue is dying, most don't care anymore, immigration reform is being pushed by Rubio. 2A rights we are losing. Majority opinion is for gun registration, no private sales/high cap mag ban. It's because of this crap. Maybe I'll start to OC more and get people to ask me questions. I don't know.
I posted the above in another tread about the media and the general publics perception. The fact is we can be right all we want , but the center of this country on both sides is moving more and more to the "anti gun side". It's sad but true. And our side is so often seen as being unwilling to give anything. I understand why, I'm just talking about perception among those in the middle. Wayne Lapierre did not do us any favors with his public statements/interviews after Sandyhook. Im not saying I disagree, just saying a lot of people were very turned off to our position with his statements. The majority of Americans, vast majority now support universal background checks, high cap mag bans, and gun registration. I don't know what the answer is, but I do know we have an image problem. That would be the first thing the pro 2A side needs to do. How we find compromise and not give up our rights is the million dollar question.
I posted the above in another tread about the media and the general publics perception. The fact is we can be right all we want , but the center of this country on both sides is moving more and more to the "anti gun side". It's sad but true. And our side is so often seen as being unwilling to give anything. I understand why, I'm just talking about perception among those in the middle. Wayne Lapierre did not do us any favors with his public statements/interviews after Sandyhook. Im not saying I disagree, just saying a lot of people were very turned off to our position with his statements. The majority of Americans, vast majority now support universal background checks, high cap mag bans, and gun registration. I don't know what the answer is, but I do know we have an image problem. That would be the first thing the pro 2A side needs to do. How we find compromise and not give up our rights is the million dollar question.
Crap. Everything was quite and running pretty smooth.
Damn nut bag stupidity and here we go again.
Damn nut bag stupidity and here we go again.
Let me say this without sounding paranoid. I believe the strong push behind gun control is a minority that has hidden agendas. It is impossible to subjugate an armed populace. To disarm the public you need to make them think it is their idea and for the good of the masses.
First of all, you (or we, if there is such a thing) can stop letting the enemy create a debate, frame it in terms of "gun violence", and pressure you into thinking or feeling obligated to [legislatively] "do something!". There is crime, and there is punishment. (At least, there used to be punishment, as in public execution for the most horrible of crimes).
Most proposed "solutions" entail the mandatory forcing of the entire population to prove their innocence of criminal charges and/or their "mental fitness", "qualifications", or "worthiness" to the satisfaction of government appointed bureaucrats as a prerequisite to the exercise of a fundamental, constitutional right -- thereby making everyone guilty until proven innocent. (Except for exempted "elites", of course.)
I can tell you what you don't do. You don't violate the rights of the many because of the actions of the few -- or the one.
If holding an office of the public trust, you don't violate your oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and that of your State.
(ETA: "you" here in last segment to be understood as second-person plural)
Last edited:
One or two wacko's will always screw things up for everyone else! It's the politician's looney idea that guns are the problem...they simply have to have something to rave about and blame other than the fact that someone got angry and went loco!
In Israel, I believe 1 out of every 2 persons owns / carries a gun daily! We don't hear of them having issues like this!
As a general rule...95% of the problems will always come from 5% of the population!
In Israel, I believe 1 out of every 2 persons owns / carries a gun daily! We don't hear of them having issues like this!
As a general rule...95% of the problems will always come from 5% of the population!
Ill be honest....I don't want any new "regulations" that use mental illness to judge whether or not your competent to own a firearm...look whats happened to all those vets who stood up, did what the military asked them to do, and reported to behavioral health officials that they may/may not be suffering from depression, PTSD, or some other form of mental illness. The politicians answer to being honest, is to take away your freedoms. No thank you. Ive self referred myself for depression when my last marriage crumbled before my eyes upon the return from my last deployment, and I refuse to let some jackazz, who was elected by me to represent my interests in Washington, tell me because I was strong enough to seek help, that I can no longer own a firearm.
Like its been said numerous times by numerous people, gun control isn't about controlling what kind of weapons the populace can have, its about controlling the populace by eliminating all means to protect itself, whether it be from crack head, burglar, murderer, rogue LEO's, or the jackazz we elected into office to represent our interests in Washington DC. Until the people of this country realize that once our means of self defense are gone, nothing will stop the elitists (whoever they are) from turning the USA into their private plantation, with 350 million slaves to work for them. just my opinion
Like its been said numerous times by numerous people, gun control isn't about controlling what kind of weapons the populace can have, its about controlling the populace by eliminating all means to protect itself, whether it be from crack head, burglar, murderer, rogue LEO's, or the jackazz we elected into office to represent our interests in Washington DC. Until the people of this country realize that once our means of self defense are gone, nothing will stop the elitists (whoever they are) from turning the USA into their private plantation, with 350 million slaves to work for them. just my opinion
BehindBlueI's
Grandmaster
- Oct 3, 2012
- 25,916
- 113
If I remember correctly, you are an NCO. What do you do when an enlisted soldier in your platoon comes to you and says he's having suicidal thoughts? Unless things have radically changed since I left the service, you will disarm him. He is being honest. He is doing the right thing. Would you be doing the right thing to leave him with his rifle in that situation?
I'm not suggesting we disarm vets willy-nilly, or that everyone who is diagnosed with PTSD or depression needs to be barred. I certainly think that those who've had a mental health professional diagnose them as homicidal or suicidal should be given the chance to be treated and recover, though, and we do them a huge disservice to not provide a safe environment for them to recover in.
Reasonable minds can differ on where the lines are to be drawn, but as I've said in a few other threads I think the debate needs to take place. The state of mental health treatment in the US, no matter if we're talking about vets or the general public, is simply ridiculous in how poor it truly is.
SERparacord
Grandmaster
Any one taking meds that give you suicidal thoughts, or thoughts of harming others should not have guns. Common sense.
Sadly any one can walk into a Dr.'s office and say I am sad, he says here take a pill. No common sense.
Sadly any one can walk into a Dr.'s office and say I am sad, he says here take a pill. No common sense.
jrogers
Why not pass the time with a game of solitaire?
Unsupported conspiracy theories always sound paranoid. On the other hand we have people on this board who appear to genuinely believe that 9/11 was some sort of conspiracy, so you'll find a warm welcome among the foil hatters here.
Actually, I went to see a therapist after I had retired from the Army, but you're right, I would have taken a soldiers weapon until he/she was cleared by health officials to be able to have it back. Problem is, most judges have no medical experience, and we currently have people applying for Medicaid disability, and getting approved on appeal because the current judicial systems thinks something like appendicitis are grounds for lifetime medical insurance courtesy of Mr and Mrs John Q taxpayer. If the judicial system cant get something like that right, then why would we trust a non-medically trained judge to rule fairly.
I agree with the reasonable minds concept, but we all know that with certain hot button topics, like gun control, it's all or nothing.
No, I didn't. And I didn't say you said anything about passing laws, rather it was a comment based on obervation of how these discussions have gone before, whether personally involved or (mostly) reading or listening to others.
It makes a huge difference to speak in person, so there is no mistaking the "tone", which was meant to be a lower, quieter, conversational one. In the meantime, I'll try to do a better job on the wording of typed correspondence.
Last edited:
BehindBlueI's
Grandmaster
- Oct 3, 2012
- 25,916
- 113
I'm guessing you don't have much medical experience, yet you knew how to intervene in a psych emergency and then how to trust the people who do have medical expertise to make the decisions afterward. An NCO and a judge or no different in that regard. With a reasonable amount of training and an overview of the system, its quite possible to have an effective system with checks and balances in place.
MTC, not a problem.
I'm just concerned about a couple of things.
First, I'm concerned that most of the country does view more laws as the only way to make a difference (as are you, MTC, I would surmise). The reaction of many to this violence seems to be "we have to do something" and that "something" is more restrictive laws whether they would make a difference or not. We, as gun owners and gun rights supporters, can not fall into the trap of seeing more laws- laws that favor us, as the solution.
Second, I am concerned that gun rights supporters seem to be offering little of value by way of getting in front of problems like mass shooters. Maybe there's little to nothing that can be done given the random nature of these things, but silence and reactionary anger at gun control people just doesn't seem to play in the middle. There has to be something. The NRA announced a comprehensive school security plan after Newtown. That's a good start. I'm just noodling on this point and looking for ideas.
Third, as I said above, the issue, at its base, is that people seem to be too willing to give up freedom, not for security, but only for perceived security. This is a problem that goes much deeper than gun rights. We support restrictive covenants in our subdivisions so that one guy our of 100 can't paint his house a bright color. We support sobriety checkpoints (with little evidence of effectiveness) because at least it makes us feel like the police are doing something to help make us safer. We get so angry at the 1% because we feel like if they had less, we'd have more. The yearning for more regulation to impose some sort of utopian ideal is strong....and illogical.
We need to encourage people to value freedom more greatly and not to be so willing to give it up so readily.
I am not convinced that taking steps to avoid tragedy and enhancing freedom are mutually exclusive. I believe that intelligent, innovative people can do both......so.....let's innovate.
I'm just concerned about a couple of things.
First, I'm concerned that most of the country does view more laws as the only way to make a difference (as are you, MTC, I would surmise). The reaction of many to this violence seems to be "we have to do something" and that "something" is more restrictive laws whether they would make a difference or not. We, as gun owners and gun rights supporters, can not fall into the trap of seeing more laws- laws that favor us, as the solution.
Second, I am concerned that gun rights supporters seem to be offering little of value by way of getting in front of problems like mass shooters. Maybe there's little to nothing that can be done given the random nature of these things, but silence and reactionary anger at gun control people just doesn't seem to play in the middle. There has to be something. The NRA announced a comprehensive school security plan after Newtown. That's a good start. I'm just noodling on this point and looking for ideas.
Third, as I said above, the issue, at its base, is that people seem to be too willing to give up freedom, not for security, but only for perceived security. This is a problem that goes much deeper than gun rights. We support restrictive covenants in our subdivisions so that one guy our of 100 can't paint his house a bright color. We support sobriety checkpoints (with little evidence of effectiveness) because at least it makes us feel like the police are doing something to help make us safer. We get so angry at the 1% because we feel like if they had less, we'd have more. The yearning for more regulation to impose some sort of utopian ideal is strong....and illogical.
We need to encourage people to value freedom more greatly and not to be so willing to give it up so readily.
I am not convinced that taking steps to avoid tragedy and enhancing freedom are mutually exclusive. I believe that intelligent, innovative people can do both......so.....let's innovate.
The basic problem is that our society has crazy people that want to randomly kill strangers.
The anti-gunners make the case that we need to keep guns out of the hands of such people, which sounds reasonable to most people because it is. We should do what we can reasonably do to keep guns out of their hands. Otherwise, we just look like a bunch of nuts. Along those lines, we need to emphasize that we need to do a better job of identifying people that are dangerous and getting correct, up-to-date information into the background check system.
We should also make the point that gun-control will not solve the basic problem that our society has crazy people that want to randomly kill strangers. The most gun-control can possibly accomplish is to force the crazy people to use a different weapon. This is not necessarily a good thing; some of them might choose a knife, but others will choose a bomb or gasoline. A successful campaign to ban guns could simply make the crazy people more dangerous. Imagine the Navy Yard gunman dropping pressure-cooker bombs into the atrium of that building instead of shooting with a shot-gun. We need to make sure people are aware of the fact that the worst mass-killings in our history did not involve guns, but instead used fertilizer bombs or a gallon of gasoline.
We also need to recognize that we are actually winning the debate. Gun-control was much more popular in the 1970's than it is now. The younger generation is more libertarian than it is liberal, neither side has figured that out yet. We can continue to win the debate by making reasonable arguments instead of flying off the handle. We need to make sure that everyone understands that banning guns won't make them any safer. The average person isn't going to be swayed by arguments about how we need to have guns so that we can overthrow the government if necessary or any other esoteric arguments. It is their personal safety that they are worried about.
The anti-gunners make the case that we need to keep guns out of the hands of such people, which sounds reasonable to most people because it is. We should do what we can reasonably do to keep guns out of their hands. Otherwise, we just look like a bunch of nuts. Along those lines, we need to emphasize that we need to do a better job of identifying people that are dangerous and getting correct, up-to-date information into the background check system.
We should also make the point that gun-control will not solve the basic problem that our society has crazy people that want to randomly kill strangers. The most gun-control can possibly accomplish is to force the crazy people to use a different weapon. This is not necessarily a good thing; some of them might choose a knife, but others will choose a bomb or gasoline. A successful campaign to ban guns could simply make the crazy people more dangerous. Imagine the Navy Yard gunman dropping pressure-cooker bombs into the atrium of that building instead of shooting with a shot-gun. We need to make sure people are aware of the fact that the worst mass-killings in our history did not involve guns, but instead used fertilizer bombs or a gallon of gasoline.
We also need to recognize that we are actually winning the debate. Gun-control was much more popular in the 1970's than it is now. The younger generation is more libertarian than it is liberal, neither side has figured that out yet. We can continue to win the debate by making reasonable arguments instead of flying off the handle. We need to make sure that everyone understands that banning guns won't make them any safer. The average person isn't going to be swayed by arguments about how we need to have guns so that we can overthrow the government if necessary or any other esoteric arguments. It is their personal safety that they are worried about.
Hi Hough,
Re: a couple of things.
Partial disagreement on the first point, in that I'd favored repeal of existing laws personally held to be unjust. However, that should not be dwelt on since the benefit of the doubt should be extended as knowing what was meant in that paragraph.
There is agreement on the third paragraph.
On the second paragraph, and also the very last sentence, I consider this (provided we're on the same page) a more fundamental, if complex, problem with the culture. When expounding on this before in private conversations, while acknowledging no one single magic solution existed, my ideas were more in the educational realm. Not so sure the other party [-ies] agreed, as they may or may not have been in favor of something more tangible in the form of restrictive legislation, but at least it was much easier to cram numerous topics into a short period of time.
Re: a couple of things.
Partial disagreement on the first point, in that I'd favored repeal of existing laws personally held to be unjust. However, that should not be dwelt on since the benefit of the doubt should be extended as knowing what was meant in that paragraph.
There is agreement on the third paragraph.
On the second paragraph, and also the very last sentence, I consider this (provided we're on the same page) a more fundamental, if complex, problem with the culture. When expounding on this before in private conversations, while acknowledging no one single magic solution existed, my ideas were more in the educational realm. Not so sure the other party [-ies] agreed, as they may or may not have been in favor of something more tangible in the form of restrictive legislation, but at least it was much easier to cram numerous topics into a short period of time.
Last edited:
I've said this before, but we actually need the government's help.
-tax credit for gun safes
-free gun training at police stations
-Public Service campaign "Real men use words, not guns to settle disputes" or "Cowards use guns, don't be a coward - talk it out"
-allow mental health records into the background check database
-tax credit for gun safes
-free gun training at police stations
-Public Service campaign "Real men use words, not guns to settle disputes" or "Cowards use guns, don't be a coward - talk it out"
-allow mental health records into the background check database
Site Supporter
Members online
- Robert Richardson
- Steel and wood
- DoggyDaddy
- JamesV
- AllenM
- Rafterman
- DDadams
- lance
- JohnP82
- Charlie3p0
- WhitleyStu
- pharmboy
- S8MS-01904
- gassprint1
- Tomahawkman
- tmschuller
- HCALREF
- mgdiaz1993
- jimbob488
- HoosierHunter07
- Thor
- SEIndSAM
- jsn_mooney
- 2tonic
- Butch627
- JimH
- bub74
- Hassiebawked
- BR8818
- Kaardomos
- Simon6101
- 762god
- Bethridge345
- BehindBlueI's
