justtray: We're waiting for that massive mental health overhaul plan. Lay it on us whenever you think we're ready for it. Be sure to explain where the funding comes from as well, can't wait to hear your response on that.

I've been a proponent of imposing a 5% tax on guns and ammunition sales in this country specifically to fund mental health care initiatives. Further, a percentage of a nominal (sub-$50) fee on background checks from everyone could be used as well.

I've also been telling my general practitioner that I would like to see him have a resident psychiatrist or a psych to whom he sends people with mental issues and concerns to for evaluation, and a much clearer system of psychologists being published/available with ratings in some form of standard directory along with all medical professionals.

mbillips: Dimensio: mbillips: You don't have to be in favor of assault weapons bans, though, to be annoyed by the blatant lying by their defenders. Face it, idiots want .223 ARs so that they can pretend to be ready for guerilla warfare, and their proliferation makes the lone nut gunman that seems increasingly prevalent a bit more dangerous. There are much better guns for hunting and target shooting. Admit that it's a toy that you don't want taken away because you like your toy, and quit claiming there's any compelling reason for people to own semi-auto versions of military rifles, chambered in a varmint cartridge.

Please identify rifle models chambered in .223 Remington better suited for hunting and target shooting than the AR platform. Please explain why, if I wish to "pretend to be ready for guerrilla warfare", that I have modified my AR rifle to fire .22LR caliber ammunition and explain why I own no .223 Remington caliber ammunition.

Here's 44 of them. Most states limit the number of rounds you can have in the magazine when hunting, so the AR is particularly ill-suited for sporting use. And the fact that you modified an AR, rather than buying a Ruger 1022 in the first place, pretty much proves the "pretend" appeal of that platform. I didn't say you were actually prepping for guerilla warfare.

How do those firearms differ, functionally, from an AR-15 platform rifle, assuming identical magazine capacity? Are you unaware that magazines of capacities of ten or fewer rounds of ammunition are available for AR-15 pattern rifles?

I modified an AR-15, rather than purchase a Ruger 1022, because I already owned the AR-15 (intending to use it for outdoor target shooting) and a 22LR conversion kit was less expensive than was purchase of a new firearm.

Marine1: Huh. Generally, I only see them coming in and out of University Hospital on my campus. Then again, Mizzou's in an area where there are some places only reachable by helicopter, at least in a reasonable amount of time. Guess that's where I got the idea.

It's actually one of the big problems in the US right now involving medical transport is the overuse and abuse of the Helicopter transport system based on the appearance or mechanism of an injury rather than the actual injury it's self, which we have studies proving that approach is flawed.

Brian Bledsoe, back in 2008, wrote an angry article about it after a HEMS Crash.

CrazyCracka420: If only the victims had knives this would have never happened

Deep Contact: There wasn't one good guy with a knife around?

Satanic_Hamster: This would never have happened in a more gun friendly state.

fireclown: The only way to stop this is with more guns and knives.

/getting a kick

Lonestar: Hey guys whats going on in this thread?

/LOL

See, libtards?  You can kill just as many people with a knife!!

^{What...nobody died?}
Whatever...gun control unconstamatutional!!1!

udhq: Bravo Two: Now subtract roughly 60% of that number which are suicides...

Why?

Are we supposed to ignore the well-established fact that gun bans significant cut suicide rates?

Why should we draw an artificial distinction between a behavioral disease violently attacking others versus it's own host body?

Honestly? because if someone wants to commit suicide, they will commit suicide, and for those who choose to do so because they are suffering from a physical condition that they have no way to cure, they should be allowed to do so. Further, I absolutely believe that if you wish to end your life, that is your choice as an adult, but you should attend counseling with your family members first so you understand the implications of the decision.

Why should we stigmatize suicide when there are legitimate reasons to do it, to the point of using it as a strawman to inflate gun-related death rates to argue for gun control, when it's an issue that hardly involves guns and is more about the problems the person is suffering from?

Gosling: And how many deaths are reported due to this knife attack? So far, it appears nobody. Everyone's still alive.

Which would not be the case if the suspect had a gun.

Because on the TeeVee when a guy gets shot in the belly he immediately closes his eyes and drops his head meaning he's dead.

Lionel Mandrake: Whatever...gun control unconstamatutional!!1!

It's not, depending on your definition of/proposed type of gun control.

/Background checks are not.
//Registration violates right to privacy, since I did not consent to register by buying a firearm that did not require registration
///Really, at this point, is 50/50 on registration anyway...handguns in MI are required to be registered with the state, and doesn't do jack shiat to prevent crime, but also hasn't been used to confiscate firearms, unlike in NY.

tom baker's scarf: stonicus: mbillips: Weird, nobody was killed? I thought it was just as easy to go on a murderous rampage with a knife or baseball bat as with a semi-automatic .223 rifle.

People kill people, not guns or knives.  If he had a gun, he would just wounded them like he did with the knife.

I'm not sure you understand how guns work. If knife=gun then why would the military bother making guns? why not just make really mean knives?

Because as America gets fatter, the ability to use a sword in battle is diminished, and firearms allow people to be really really lazy when fighting each other, using science to do the work for us.

stonicus: Bad analogies and deflections...

lostcat: OK, here's my proposal, let's do more stuff that we already do (that I'm complaining about not working)and ask people their opinions and stuff.

Great thoughts guys. Here's what a valid proposal and argument looks like, which is why I'm allowed to speak on gun control; (not all necessarily, just various options)

Taxation on transfers
Registration requirement on all guns
No more private sale loopholes (via registration)
Property taxes on guns (to limit the super nuts)
Liability insurance
Expanded mental health screenings to cover immediate family
Licensing and training requirements updated annually (or every x years)

These proposals will reduce gun related crime and homicide by increasing liability, reducing sales to criminals, reducing supply, and setting increased monetary penalties on marginal increase in guns per person.

Now if you want to come back with why mental health should be the focus, list SPECIFIC resolutions on what you would change to help alleviate the problem, and how it would work.

Good day.

Bravo Two: tom baker's scarf: stonicus: mbillips: Weird, nobody was killed? I thought it was just as easy to go on a murderous rampage with a knife or baseball bat as with a semi-automatic .223 rifle.

People kill people, not guns or knives.  If he had a gun, he would just wounded them like he did with the knife.

I'm not sure you understand how guns work. If knife=gun then why would the military bother making guns? why not just make really mean knives?

Because as America gets fatter, the ability to use a sword in battle is diminished, and firearms allow people to be really really lazy when fighting each other, using science to do the work for us.

Then Democrats are poorly and too narrowly focused, while -- despite common beliefs and claims -- the Republican party is addressing the root cause of violence. Recall which political party is most dedicated to the total rejection of science.

sodomizer: May, 2013: Killer uses rock and stick to bash four peoples' heads in.

June, 2013: Congress introduces background checks for gravel and stone purchases, and a tree registration program.

You're so clever.

lennavan: Bravo Two: Continued attempts to pass weapons bans and gun control measures that will not affect crime rates or actual incidents of death in this country.

So I thought the rest of this was a great post and people should click your name and read it.  But this part is simply not true.  There are examples of gun control measures that have indeed reduced crime rates and death (The DC handgun ban).   http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199112053252305   There are also examples of stupid weapons bans that do nothing because they've been watered down to the point of irrelevance (the AWB).

The question is not whether or not gun control or bans can or do work.  The question is whether or not the tradeoff is worth it.  I'm against a handgun ban.  But a handgun ban absolutely reduces incidents of death.

Funny that the FBI data talking about gun crime in WADC doesn't match NEJM's.  Personally, I choose to believe data compiled by law enforcement, rather than a medical magazine simply because I would expect Law Enforcement personnel to be far closer to/more able to readily access the data necessary than a doctor.

Take a look at Chicago. They have essentially the same kind of ban as WADC, and include firearms including shotguns and others that were not banned in DC, yet their crime rate and death by firearms remain incredibly high comparative to DC even after the Heller decision.

It seems to me that the ban is an easy mask of other policies that lead to lower crime rates in general, and there are many other approaches that are just as effective.

Bravo Two: justtray: We're waiting for that massive mental health overhaul plan. Lay it on us whenever you think we're ready for it. Be sure to explain where the funding comes from as well, can't wait to hear your response on that.

I've been a proponent of imposing a 5% tax on guns and ammunition sales in this country specifically to fund mental health care initiatives. Further, a percentage of a nominal (sub-$50) fee on background checks from everyone could be used as well.

I've also been telling my general practitioner that I would like to see him have a resident psychiatrist or a psych to whom he sends people with mental issues and concerns to for evaluation, and a much clearer system of psychologists being published/available with ratings in some form of standard directory along with all medical professionals.

This is getting there. There's already a federal 11% tax on ammo. NFA has a tax stamp option, which I would like expanded.

As for the psychiatrist the biggest problem with mental health is that you can't force anyone to do anything or to stay committed unless they do so on their own accord. And crazy people don't think they're crazy. So what's your solution to that?

lostcat: Come on...The Replublican-controlled congress is clearly motivated to increase funding for programs that would aid those with mental health issues. Haven't they made that clear by all of their historic votes?

I hear they have been working hand in hand with the Democratic Controlled Senate to do this!

Fact is the Mentally ill do not vote thus are not worthy of funds needed to buy votes. I live in CA who supposedly has the "model" mental health system and speaking from experience with a mentally ill loved one it is crap!

FYI:spell check is your friend

Bf+: [assets.nydailynews.com image 635x371]
Clearly the only available options are to prevent funding of knife-related research and make knife
ownership mandatory for the criminally insane everyone.

If everyone had a gun, there would be fewer deaths from gun violence.
If everyone had a knife, there would be fewer deaths from knife violence.
If everyone had a baseball bat, there would be fewer deaths from baseball bat violence.
If everyone had a car, there would be fewer deaths from car violence.
If everyone had a vagina, there would be fewer deaths from vagina violence.

Continue, ad nauseum.

Publikwerks: andrewskdr: Publikwerks: Listen, you can try and make this out to be an Obama joke, or try and make out knives to be more dangerous than a gun somehow, but the fact of the matter is that this is what Sandy Hook would  have been like had we had no second amendment and all firearms were banned or highly regulated.

Kepp making your jokes. Obviously, it's not too high a price.

6 year old children would have been able to defend themselves against a knife wielding adult as well as adult-age college students are able to defend themselves?  yeah sure

No, but they might have lived.
http://www.salon.com/2012/12/17/the_chinese_lanza_had_a_knife_all_22 _s choolkids_survived/

And of course, there was not only six year-olds at the school that day.  duh

mbillips: Dimensio: mbillips: Dimensio: mbillips: You don't have to be in favor of assault weapons bans, though, to be annoyed by the blatant lying by their defenders. Face it, idiots want .223 ARs so that they can pretend to be ready for guerilla warfare, and their proliferation makes the lone nut gunman that seems increasingly prevalent a bit more dangerous. There are much better guns for hunting and target shooting. Admit that it's a toy that you don't want taken away because you like your toy, and quit claiming there's any compelling reason for people to own semi-auto versions of military rifles, chambered in a varmint cartridge.

Please identify rifle models chambered in .223 Remington better suited for hunting and target shooting than the AR platform. Please explain why, if I wish to "pretend to be ready for guerrilla warfare", that I have modified my AR rifle to fire .22LR caliber ammunition and explain why I own no .223 Remington caliber ammunition.

Here's 44 of them. Most states limit the number of rounds you can have in the magazine when hunting, so the AR is particularly ill-suited for sporting use. And the fact that you modified an AR, rather than buying a Ruger 1022 in the first place, pretty much proves the "pretend" appeal of that platform. I didn't say you were actually prepping for guerilla warfare.

How do those firearms differ, functionally, from an AR-15 platform rifle, assuming identical magazine capacity? Are you unaware that magazines of capacities of ten or fewer rounds of ammunition are available for AR-15 pattern rifles?

I modified an AR-15, rather than purchase a Ruger 1022, because I already owned the AR-15 (intending to use it for outdoor target shooting) and a 22LR conversion kit was less expensive than was purchase of a new firearm.

Click the linky, and find out. They're Remington 700s. Bolt action, with an internal 3- to 5-round magazine that can't be expanded (in the standard model). Much better for long-range target shooting and for huntin ...

What characteristics make them superior to an AR-15 pattern rifle for target shooting or hunting?