Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Gun Control: How about fixing the system
#1
Came across this insightful article by Mike Rowe titled I’ve just received a request from The White House!

No, he did not really receive a request from Obama, but he did bring up some pretty interesting issues regarding guns and our flawed system.



[Image: 12471531_1115674178442724_5867956496934164584_o.jpg]



This was written Jan. 17, 2016


Quote:Hello Friends,

I’ve just received a request from The White House! On behalf of The President, I’ve been asked to share some talking points directly with each one of you, regarding the need to expand background checks on those citizens who wish to purchase a gun!


Just kidding.


For some reason, I was not among those celebrities selected to assist The White House in this endeavor. I’ve since recovered from my initial disappointment, and identified three possible explanations for the oversight.

1. The White House did not ask for my assistance, because they do not believe I’m famous enough to persuade anyone of anything.
2. The White House did not ask for my assistance, because they do not believe I would tweet out someone else’s words and claim them as my own.
3. The White House did not ask for my assistance, because they do not believe I support background checks.


With respect to #1, The White House is correct. My powers of persuasion, like my celebrity, are limited.

Regarding #2, The White House is correct again. I would never post someone else’s talking points as if they were my own. My own particular brand of hubris requires me to use my own words, which is probably why everyone in my office has developed a permanent facial tick.

As for #3 though, The White House would be mistaken to assume that I oppose background checks on gun purchases. I do not. I’m just skeptical that expanding a broken system is the best way to keep guns away from bad guys and lunatics.



Currently, thousands of people deemed mentally incompetent by the courts are NOT registered in our National Check System. That’s insane, if you’ll pardon the irony, in part because it’s so easily correctable. Likewise, The ATF says that most states report less than 80% of their felony convictions to the national system. As a result, nearly 7 million convicted felons are not currently registered. Is it any surprise that nearly every mass killer in recent memory passed a background check?

Seems to me, our current system is only as good as the records in it, and right now, those records are laughably incomplete. But even more troubling are the tens of thousands of people who ARE in the system, that keep trying to buy guns illegally with absolutely no consequence.

Lying on your application to purchase a firearm is a federal offense, but very few are prosecuted for doing so. According to Politico, the Feds have prosecuted just 1.5% of all those individuals who have attempted to purchase a gun illegally. If my math is correct, that means 98.5% of people who are NOT allowed to own a gun, have not been prosecuted for trying to buy one.

Maybe it’s a manpower problem? Maybe it’s a resource problem? But whatever the reason, many thousands of individuals who try to purchase a gun illegally are allowed to keep on trying. Many eventually succeed, and then use that gun in the commission of a crime. This strikes me a serious problem. And yet, I’ve received no tweets from my favorite action heroes, asking me to support an effort to fix the system we have. Why is that?

To be clear, I’m not a member of The NRA. Last time I joined a club it was The Boy Scouts, and that was a long time ago. But from what I can tell, the NRA is not the reason that so many criminals and lunatics are able to buy guns today. Nor do they appear to oppose the kind of overhaul that would give us a more effective check system. In fact, wasn’t it The NRA that demanded background checks back in the mid-nineties, the moment the technology was first made available?


Regardless, we now possess the technology to update and maintain an accurate data base of felons, lunatics, gang members, terrorists, B-list celebrities, and other unsavory types that we can all agree should never be allowed to own a weapon. We also possess the ability to identify and prosecute anyone who attempts to buy a gun illegally. But if we don’t have the resources or the commitment to administer and enforce the system we have, why in the world would we want to make it bigger?


‪#‎When‬ there’s a hole in your net, you don’t need a bigger net; you need a smaller hole.
#When your foundation is shaky, you don’t keep building on top of it, you knock it down and start over.


Should The White House ever find itself in need of a tweet in support of that approach, please help yourself to either of the above. But if our elected officials are going to rely on actors and comedians to advance their political agendas, let’s not limit them to 140 characters or a list of pre-approved talking points. Seriously, where’s the fun in that? In the name of authenticity, let’s encourage our celebrities to use their own words.


Hey – it seems to be working for Trump…


Mike




Mike’s Facebook Page



He is the first person that I have come across, to bring up the fact that the system itself has numerous issues which means, no matter how many gun regulations are passed, criminals, mentally unstable people will still be able to get guns, until these holes are fixed.


Hey, how about #MikeforPresident?   smallgreennumberone

a.k.a. 'snarky412'
 
        

#2
(06-23-2016, 01:13 AM)senona Wrote: ...He is the first person that I have come across, to bring up the fact that the system itself has numerous issues which means, no matter how many gun regulations are passed, criminals, mentally unstable people will still be able to get guns, until these holes are fixed.

...

You left out "B-List Actors".

The broken system ---
Interesting that a large number of those at the top of the "Should Not Buy/Have Guns" list are those that were once our warriors.
Anyone with PTSD should probably be kept away from guns.  You simply do not know when they will flip.
But - the fact that they have PTSD from being an active participant in a war zone (defending your & my right to defend ourselves) is one of the screwiest twists of luck imaginable.
No-one should be allowed to don a uniform of the U.S. Military (or any nation's military) until they're old enough and mature enough to understand, with all gravity, what it WILL cost them.
If only mature persons were allowed to enter a combat zone/theater, then sitting in a foxhole and watching their buddies blown away, though terrifying, would still be more likely to survive with some sense of wit about themselves than throwing a bunch of kids that just left high school into the meat grinder.
I know - it is idiotic to suggest such a thing, because most people mature enough to make such a decision would not choose military life.
When you know what death is... When you've seen friends and family...die...and realize that's where you're going too...then...and only then...are you in a position that could stave off PTSD.
Nonetheless - we have a bunch of Vets that SHOULD NOT be allowed to have guns, or knives or axes or rakes or hoes or automobiles or...fingernail cutters - because we didn't care enough to shut a government down that would throw our children into war LONG before they were ready for it.

I'm not even a B-List actor.  So - my words will mean even less.
But - I'm not trying to add meaningless drivel.
I just find the irony so profound.  Vets - PTSD - No Guns

I find it just as interesting that most of the people in the Orlando Night Club Massacre, who were not killed, will find themselves victims of PTSD...and may, later, find that, when they want to arm themselves (for self defense?), they will not be able to do so legally.

My fingers are out of breath.
#3
I thought this, if the stats are accurate, needs to have something more done about it.

Like get the states to start reporting felony convicts



Quote:Likewise, The ATF says that most states report less than 80% of their felony convictions to the national system.

As a result, nearly 7 million convicted felons are not currently registered. Is it any surprise that nearly every mass killer in recent memory passed a background check?

a.k.a. 'snarky412'
 
        

#4
@"Minstrel" , I didn't think about the PTSD vets, but yeah, you are right.

That made me think of an article I read last year, where doctors that thought a Vet might show signs of being 'unstable', were put on some kind of list without them knowing.
If I'm not mistaken, it had to do with guns.





Mainly, the fact that States do not report a large number of convicted felons to the data base, is one hole in the system that can be fixed.


Not to mention attempting to buy guns illegally and/or lying on the application, yet no prosecution.
Another 'hole' in the system that gets overlooked



Quote:.....

But even more troubling are the tens of thousands of people who ARE in the system, that keep trying to buy guns illegally with absolutely no consequence.

Lying on your application to purchase a firearm is a federal offense, but very few are prosecuted for doing so. According to Politico, the Feds have prosecuted just 1.5% of all those individuals who have attempted to purchase a gun illegally. If my math is correct, that means 98.5% of people who are NOT allowed to own a gun, have not been prosecuted for trying to buy one.



Basically the system overall is flawed and regardless of how many gun laws they pass, the bad guys will always find a way to get a gun, especially with the system being inadequate to stop them.


--------


ETA: I didn't think about the dude being an actor, but rather the words he said were different than what I am use to seeing.
 Usually it's "Get the guns off the streets" and "why do we need to own guns"  instead of saying the system needs correcting as he did.

Which is nice for a change, instead of imposing more gun regulations each time a shooting incident occurs.



And radical Islamist terrorists, will find a way to get the weapons regardless.
Hell, anyone wanting to do serious harm will find a way IMO.

a.k.a. 'snarky412'
 
        

#5
So let me play devils advocate

Why should mental health be a banning point for non gun ownership

No where in the constitution does it state

"The right to...... Unless the person is found to be mentally unfit due to a disorder or disease."


That is what is being advocated 
Respectfully I have to take issue with this point

Does this mean that the clause will apply to the other amendments

Will cops be able to bypass the need for warrants or to take up residence in someones abode..
"The right to...... Unless the person is found to be mentally unfit due to a disorder or disease."

So they can be sent to the church of the governments choice (does this mean I get free ellen tickets and the view.. I would love to meet whoopi goldberg.. or maybe oprah)

Does this mean any story I write has to be approved by the government before it is published.. (Am I allowed to respond to this post without there oversight)

Does this mean the mentally disabled can be enslaved and made to work cotton fields


I am not being ridiculous in any way shape or form..
They are already trying this crap with vets on one part
they send letters and notices with the award letters


No one on this sights right to safety, my neighbors, or the general publics safety comes before my rights..

Otherwise you trade Liberty for safety

Plus the next dangerous part
Who decides what is mental illness?

When the constitution was written

Homosexuality if I remember correctly was a sign of mental defect

As was promiscuity..

And what happens if republicans gain power and this is in place (or someone with grand ambitions)
Opponents will be deemed mentally unfit

#6
The problem in my view is not the system

What has been mentioned is more administrative details from lack of years of leadership


the problem is not the issue even as represented here


The american society has hit a low point on one issue


Lack of responsibility

Which has lead to a lack of discipline

Which is the feed that causes the problem


Its the democrats fault
Its the republicans fault
Its obama,bush, Clinton , XXXX

All the ills of this society go back to this lack of responsibilty and its good friend lack of discipline

What has been named as the issue is nothing more then a tool..
like an axe, a car, fork, or fishing pole

It is a huge problem I have when explaining MAGIC to people
there tools, it is the user that is responsible

The only way to solve the problem is to teach the users how to be FREE

nothing else will succeed 
But a simple warning, slaves love thier religion
#7
Quote:The american society has hit a low point on one issue


Lack of responsibility

Which has lead to a lack of discipline

Which is the feed that causes the problem


Its the democrats fault
Its the republicans fault
Its obama,bush, Clinton , XXXX



You got that one right!!
So very true

We are busy playing the "blame game",  that the person(s) who commit a crime are not truly being held responsible for their actions.
But rather, a group of people are coming up with excuses to place blame for that person's bad deed.

Instead of just placing blame where it belongs, with the person who committed said act, for he is the one and only one responsible. Period.

a.k.a. 'snarky412'
 
        

#8
I guess I picked up more from the article than just the mental issue factor.
Which is a rather touchy issue by itself, especially where Vets are concerned.

Being some of the mass shooting killers were known to be on some kind of anti-depressant drug at time of killings, which I find alarming, being as the side effects on them are spooky IMO.



Aside from the mental issues, I was surprised to see how many convicts slip through the cracks when trying to apply for a gun or lying on application for a gun.
And very few are prosecuted for it.

In other words, nothing is done about it.
Would it make a difference if they were prosecuted for trying to get a gun illegally?
Maybe, maybe not....but would be nice if they were reported to the system.

a.k.a. 'snarky412'
 
        

#9
(06-23-2016, 05:56 AM)senona Wrote: I guess I picked up more from the article than just the mental issue factor.
Which is a rather touchy issue by itself, especially where Vets are concerned.

Being some of the mass shooting killers were known to be on some kind of anti-depressant drug at time of killings, which I find alarming, being as the side effects on them are spooky IMO.



Aside from the mental issues, I was surprised to see how many convicts slip through the cracks when trying to apply for a gun or lying on application for a gun.
And very few are prosecuted for it.

In other words, nothing is done about it.
Would it make a difference if they were prosecuted for trying to get a gun illegally?
Maybe, maybe not....but would be nice if they were reported to the system.

[Image: 1f2ef02637a19f1c07de968d8a9bab0a.jpg]

May I extend the conversation to felons

Why should they not be allowed to own guns?
(please note they are allowed to own black powdered weapons)

Do you punish children for the rest of their lives for crimes they have committed?

But lets make it more interesting and current

Why should they not be allowed to own guns worship who they want?

They committed a crime.. 
Satanism is bad and does DARK things.. 
they might decide to grab someone off the street for a sacrifice if allowed to worship who they want


The use of Felons in a civil rights debate is better put to a different usage here

What is the issue?
They have violated basic customs of decency

The issue here is not one of rights, but as to wiether not the individual is rehabilitated
(a whole different kind of dangerous conversation)

Lets assume for a second the example of punishing a child
Follow through on this with the bad example I am using

We have a two pronged issue

What is crime?

And what is the source of the behavior?

Too fix this part of the system, the above needs to be addressed

A former roommate and still a friend told me the major issue him and the guards had actually was the earlier part of the conversation on mental health

While in custody thier are teirs to mental health issues

The majority of crimes could have been treated with very simple diagnostics
The repeat offenders slip through the system and it turns out from what he was telling me was that the main reasons the prisoners started getting treated was because the guards safety was more important 

If this where to hold true
if convicted and placed in state custody, the individual should be screened for mental health issues

Automatically
Extra safeguards need to be put into place of course with outside monitoring

this is used only if the person is being placed in custody of the state
and not to be used as an example of taking person and forcing treatment
(already rules in place on that which is a different fix)

To sum this up
The prisons need to be fixed first the issue again is not with felons owning guns

Please note another issue here
Those that live out in rural areas just about need guns and knives just to operate and survive

(this of course makes my preferences for sharp objects interesting when dealing with coyotes and wild dogs. And yes it was a small mixed pack..)


The issue that needs fixing in this part is the prison system, not ownership of guns
IMHO, the system is major league broken in this regard
#10
It seems that we're talking about a lot of broken systems.
Convicted felons not being reported to a national database...
Convicted felons not diagnosed with mental disorders...or, if diagnosed, not treated adequately.
Convicted felons who may not have become felons, had they been diagnosed and treated prior to their offensive act/s.
Etc...
So, it's just one bad system trying to rely on another bad system, and another bad system and another and another.
Doesn't look very promising...

Kinda goes back to the argument - "You cannot turn bad into good with legislation."
I have worked in a business where two "systems" that were designed & implemented independent of each other were told to work together.  The chaos that ensued was a disaster.  It finally took a massive effort to entirely rework one of the systems such that it could work with the other.
Who, in their right mind, believes that any bureaucratic agency is (or would be) willing to give up their autonomy, and revamp their system to be subject to another bureaucratic agency's system?
Not a chance.
smallupset
#11
For a person not of the USA, it's easy to say that owning firearms of any sort in a urban environment
can seem a recipe for disaster of many kinds. It would also be cheap of me too.
Of course, mature measures are taken to avoid any mishaps along with the belief that your fundamental
right is to bear arms.

Here's the latest on the subject from the BBC.
Gun Control Protest...
Edith Head Gives Good Wardrobe. 
#12
The Democrat's are Pandering to The Less Intelligent.
[Image: ?url=%2Fcmsmedia%2Fa6%2F6b%2F5e6ba90f463...dsuc-a.tif][Image: ?url=%2Fcmsmedia%2Fd5%2Ff8%2F7045a4ff45f...humb-4.jpg]
What They Want,
[Image: ?url=%2Fcmsmedia%2F22%2F6f%2F6ffa592c493...dcmc-a.tif]
The Truth,,,
[Image: ?url=%2Fcmsmedia%2F86%2F46%2F23ef8540447...humb-1.jpg]
Once A Rogue, Always A Rogue!
[Image: attachment.php?aid=936]
#13
Just to throw another viewpoint into the fray...

I'm against ANY sort of "no gun listing". I don't care if someone is as mad as a hatter. I don't care of someone is a felon. I don't care if they're a Muslim, a communist, a "dangerous right wing militiaman", or a bomb-tossing anarchist. There should be NO "no gun list", or any other kind of government kept and controlled listing.

Banning a former felon from owning guns (or voting, for that matter) amounts to a life sentence, and the government dodges the bullet by not even having to keep them up - they just turn them loose on the rest of us, and then cry and wring their hands if one behaves badly, and tries to blame an inanimate object for the bad behavior.

If you're going to give a felon a life sentence, WHY IN THE HELL ARE YOU LETTING THEM LOOSE ON THE REST OF US? If someone is so dangerous they can't own a gun, what in the hell are they doing walking among us with no bars? The question I'm asking here is if the government is so concerned about the citizens safety that they think depriving us of the means of protecting our own safety is mandatory, WHY ARE THEY ALLOWING SUCH DANGEROUS PREDATORS TO ROAM?

If you can't trust a person to bear arms, then either kill him or keep him locked up - don't just throw open the gate for him and say "there they are - sic 'em, boy!" fact is, if they're dangerous, they're dangerous. With or WITHOUT guns. They can still get crowbars, tire irons, claw hammers, kitchen knives, etc, etc. A dangerous man is a dangerous man, whether he has a gun, a knife, a stick, a rock, or just his teeth. he's goddamned DANGEROUS - what part of "dangerous" is not sinking in? It's not the tool that makes a fella dangerous.

"Mental issues" - ditto. if they're too dangerous for polite society, what are they doing in polite society? If I suspected that I had PTSD, no way in hell would I seek treatment for it - you KNOW there's gonna be a list in your future if you do... and when they start making these "lists", where does it stop? What about those scary Pentecostals in that church down the street? You know, they holler and dance and wave their arms around like possessed folks... awful excitable, that bunch... do you really want folks like that having WEAPONS? We better start a list on 'em! And cops... ever notice the shifty eyes cops have? Better start a list on THEM, too, and disarm them, lest they get out of hand! Republicans? you know they have that Trump fella just hell bent on destroying America... ain't you seen the tv ads about how scary he is? Better start a list on his followers.... hell, let's just extend it to ALL Republicans! All cut from the same cloth, that bunch is! What about them Democrats? barely a step up from Communists, I say! Start a list, don't let 'em carry so much as a toothpick! I've seen all the videos of how they act and get all violent and stuff at the Trump rallies! If you put 'em on a list so's they can't have guns, well, that's gonna calm them right down, make 'em downright docile, so they don't behave badly like that any more, right?

RIGHT?


Know who else used "mental health" as an excuse to curtail folks' rights and eventually imprison them? the Soviet Union, that's who! Folks pronounced "mentally defective" by a court here and there filled up the gulags... folks like that unstable Solzhenitsyn fella - what the hell was he thinking, criticizing the great government of the Motherland like that? Obviously, the man HAD to be crazy to dissent so! He got locked up for his dangerous thoughts.

Nope, I'm entirely against "black listing" anyone at all. Once you get it started, make it ok to list "the other guy" and deprive him of HIS rights, you never know where it's gonna end... but we've seen it get pretty far out of hand before, we just haven't seen how far it CAN go, despite how far we've seen it go. Once you start curtailing the rights of "the other guy", you are unwittingly placing YOUR OWN rights on the chop block, too.


.
Diogenes was eating bread and lentils for supper. He was seen by the philosopher Aristippus, who lived comfortably by flattering the king.

Said Aristippus, ‘If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.’ Said Diogenes, ‘Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king.’


#14
(06-23-2016, 01:57 PM)Minstrel Wrote: It seems that we're talking about a lot of broken systems.
Convicted felons not being reported to a national database...
Convicted felons not diagnosed with mental disorders...or, if diagnosed, not treated adequately.
Convicted felons who may not have become felons, had they been diagnosed and treated prior to their offensive act/s.
Etc...
So, it's just one bad system trying to rely on another bad system, and another bad system and another and another.
Doesn't look very promising...

Kinda goes back to the argument - "You cannot turn bad into good with legislation."
I have worked in a business where two "systems" that were designed & implemented independent of each other were told to work together.  The chaos that ensued was a disaster.  It finally took a massive effort to entirely rework one of the systems such that it could work with the other.
Who, in their right mind, believes that any bureaucratic agency is (or would be) willing to give up their autonomy, and revamp their system to be subject to another bureaucratic agency's system?
Not a chance.
smallupset



Yes, exactly!

That is what I got from reading the article/comment.

That there is a whole slew things wrong/broken within the system itself, and no amount of gun legislation will really help until those issues get fixed, which may be never.



I thought it to be a different take than the usual --'ban all guns', 'take them away', 'who needs them' -- mantra




I even thought about why not have different legislation for hand guns vs. semi-automatic rifles/guns (???)
Kinda like drivers license.

To receive a CDL drivers license, one must go through stricter test than a regular DL in order to obtain one.

So why not do the same for handguns (normal requirements)
Then for the more heavy duty semi/automatic weapons, a person would be required to be under more scrutiny, tougher legislation, longer waiting period.
Dunno, just a thought.

I'm not a weapons expert, so I am unsure of the proper classification for weapons that have semi-auto.

a.k.a. 'snarky412'
 
        

#15
Technically, we all would probably be put "on the list"   being as we are all Free Thinkers -- we think outside the box and do not hesitate to question our government.

One might even say we are anti-government.
Do not trust them.

I remember hearing preppers being put in that category, as being unstable.

a.k.a. 'snarky412'
 
        



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)