That, folks, is the difference between the shepherd and the sheep.

Psshh....read what I mean...not what I type. :cool:

the constitution has been wrong before, you know. thats why we've had to amend it 27 times.

Personally, living in gun-crazy Vermont, I can say that... this doesn't really happen up here. There are the horror stories of 14-year-olds using their own personal shotguns to blow away mommy's new boyfriend (well, actually, in the case I'm referring to, the mother was either bipolar or schizophrenic, and was off her meds, and therefore was beyond being able to consent, so it was rape, and I think the kid shouldn't've been charged for warning his mother's rapist to leave, and then firing in self-defense when the rapist attacked him for the gun...), and plenty of hunting accidents, but for the most part, there are very few murders here (11 last year), and guns aren't actually used in at least half of them. There's also very little armed robbery and such.
And yet I could buy a semi-auto AK47 or AR15 today. With no planning. The background check takes five minutes. If I have enough money in my bank account I could have a semi-auto rifle with a 100-round mag by tonight. (well, i dunno if they're open weekends, but you get my point). If I were some sick fuck who wanted to mow down a crowd, i'd absolutely have more bullets than targets anywhere I could GO in Vermont, basically. Maybe the mall has a hundred or so people at any given time but its a long, thin mall with lots of exits.

Clearly, gun control laws aren't the only factor in gun crime and mass killings. But they could make it more difficult. I think it'd be perfectly reasonable to make owning a gun more difficult, paperwork-ed, and bureaucratic than owning a car. licensing, screening, basic training and certification, periodic inspection? Sounds cool to me. Surely it's worth mildly inconveniencing legal owners of guns, to help ensure that at least the most obviously unfit are weeded out?

I'd love to live in a free country.

Attachment 42152

Gender Identity disorder is still technically recognized in the DSM. Should trans* people not be allowed to own guns?
So is ADHD, and depression, and generalized anxiety disorder. Should they not be allowed to own guns?
So is obsessive-compulsive disorder. Should they not be allowed to own guns?
So is bipolar disorder. Should they not be allowed to own guns?
So is borderline personality disorder. Should they not be allowed to own guns?
So is sadistic paranoid schizophrenia. Should they not be allowed to own guns?

"mental illness" is far too broad an umbrella, unfortunately. Obviously psychopaths, sadistic schizophrenics, etc shouldn't have guns. but where do you draw the line?

I'd be much more interested in screening for violent factors like history of verbal/emotional abuse (even if not physical), racism/hate, gang/criminal affiliation, history of alcohol abuse, etc.

Actually, the new DSM-V just came out a month ago, and one of the big changes is there isn't a "gender identity disorder" anymore, because they wanted to get away from the idea that it was a "disorder." Now it's "gender dysphoria." (I'm up to date on the changes, by the way, because there's also no such thing as Asperger's or PDD-NOS anymore, it's all just "autism spectrum disorder." )

But to be blunt, yes, I think everything you listed should be at least a temporary barrier to owning a gun. Even ADHD. Because all mental illnesses are subjective to a large degree--one doc says you have adult ADHD, another says you're bipolar... All of the above should warrant a second or even third evaluation, when it comes to the question of gun ownership.

I don't think that anyone who believes that their guns are more important to them than their children should be allowed to have a gun (or children).

sheep-dip

I agree with you regarding focus on Mental Health Resources. Crimes like this have happened in countries with strict gun control laws e.g. UK

I disagree that the USA is a "free country". or at least any more free that a plethora of other countries. Ones which do have gun control among other things. And odn't necessarily have a "constitution" that is help up as sacred.

Just saying something doesn't make it so. Just because something was written on a bit of parchment eons ago doesn't make it sacred.

How many parents feel free of fear, right now, for example? And a little regulation wouldn't strip your law-abiding sane citizen of their right to own guns -just maybe a few more nutters. What is so wrong with the idea of "Gun Owners Ed" with a mental evaluation being part of the process? Shame mental evaluation isn't part of Driver's Ed.....

No matter what, though, you can't stop a nutter who is prepared to die. I am so saddened by this incident and yet, I feel I need not to feel. You can't wrap them in cotton wool and keep them at home. Or they turn into nutters. Sometimes.

shutting up

Yes.

Griff, you didn't need to edit your post. You're a citizen. Big Sarge is a citizen-soldier. Perhaps he's noticed some things that you missed. I'm sure he would have taken that into consideration. Thank you for your input, it was weighted accordingly even before it was withdrawn.

Whats the difference, these are semiautos...
http://cellar.org/2012/rifles.jpg
Other than the badass appearance of the first two they are the same, work the same, do the same. Full autos are illegal without difficult and expensive federal machine gun permitting. Some semiautos, other than the badass guns, use a detachable magazine too.

Semiautos allow you to make the second or third shot quickly and smoothly. It's not a case of you missed the first shot so no meat for you. It's you hit your first shot and if you don't make the second, the animal will escape wounded and suffering.
Permit for each gun, like license plates, or permit for each person like a drivers license?

The main difference is that I only own the last one. And it has the 19 round mag, pre-ban.

Ft3, you'll be sure to tell us if you start giving away your possessions, won't you ?