NRA's media event today: your thoughts?

[ReconRat]

I thought the mental health thing wasn't allowed to be part of firearm clearances, because of privacy and medical records issues?

Damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

edit: Has any place actually tried arming anyone in a school to see if it works?

The few places that are known don't seem to have any problems.

(Which includes high schools i both Columbus and Cleveland.)

No one would have data unless a fair number were set up and tried for 10-20 years.

So far, it apparently works. But data be damned, fear rules.

Edited December 23, 2012 by ReconRat

[Scruit]

I thought the mental health thing wasn't allowed to be part of firearm clearances, because of privacy and medical records issues?

Damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

edit: Has any place actually tried arming anyone in a school to see if it works?

The few places that are known don't seem to have any problems.

(Which includes high schools i both Columbus and Cleveland.)

No one would have data unless a fair number were set up and tried for 10-20 years.

So far, it apparently works. But data be damned, fear rules.

1) Health privacy is a law. It can be amended by a bill as part of another law. The govt has to balance the privacy rights of one group of people against the safety of another. The trick is finding that appropriate balance.

2) Yes, we're screwed either way.

3) Some school districts allow teachers to carry guns. Harrold ISD, TX is the well known example. Many others are going through the process of allowing it.

http://www.click2houston.com/news/North-Texas-school-district-allows-teachers-to-carry-guns/-/1735978/17832786/-/format/rss_2.0/-/a6lb0rz/-/index.html

[rsvRidr]

1) Health privacy is a law. It can be amended by a bill as part of another law. The govt has to balance the privacy rights of one group of people against the safety of another. The trick is finding that appropriate balance.

I agree, however when one is a danger to oneself or others, all bets are off.

Think, sex offenders and pedophiles.

Definitely a fine line though and hopefully will be well thought out as to protect all

[Scruit]

I agree, however when one is a danger to oneself or others, all bets are off.

Think, sex offenders and pedophiles.

Definitely a fine line though and hopefully will be well thought out as to protect all

I think the sex offender registry is a model that shows that this information can be collected and disseminated. A mental heal repository would not be publicly accessible but should be available to NICS and background checks for key jobs that require extra trust, such as police, childcare workers etc.

The technology would be easy. The difficult parts would be the politics/privacy/safety balancing act, and the determination of what constitutes "dangerous".

[rsvRidr]

Agree

[ReconRat]

I think I've read that 28% of the schools or high schools already have on duty or off duty police. I wonder if there's any stats on how that has worked out.

edit: I think that includes protective coverage at football games at night. That survey wasn't too official, and the way it was worded would include after school stuff once a week.

[Tonik]

I think I've read that 28% of the schools or high schools already have on duty or off duty police. I wonder if there's any stats on how that has worked out.

edit: I think that includes protective coverage at football games at night. That survey wasn't too official, and the way it was worded would include after school stuff once a week.

I work in the schools fwiw. I would say the vast majority of leo's in schools currently are to protect staff and students from students. And to address drug abuse, gangs and child abuse. And most urban high schools do have police and that is currently paid for by the city, not the schools. Police at jr High or elm is virtually unheard of. And it is very rare outside of the urban schools in the high schools.

[Pokey]

Define mental health issues? Sound like a pretty broad topic and potential/actual problem to enforce or be accurate IMHO.

[ReconRat]

Define mental health issues? Sound like a pretty broad topic and potential/actual problem to enforce or be accurate IMHO.

That's the problem. There are certain key characteristics of a rampage murderer, but not even 1% would ever have a problem. It's not enough to do anything about it without persecuting the other 99%. Even then, it could be bad data. There just isn't a way of identifying some types of problems by behavior. Not yet anyway.

[Pokey]

That's the problem. There are certain key characteristics of a rampage murderer, but not even 1% would ever have a problem. It's not enough to do anything about it without persecuting the other 99%. Even then, it could be bad data. There just isn't a way of identifying some types of problems by behavior. Not yet anyway.

Always the quiet ones that keep to themselves too, ever notice that?

[jbot]

That's the trouble i have with this... There are so many forms of mental illnesses and very few present in a way as to be harmful to others (more likely to self though, obviously).

Gun rights advocates have no bearing to ask those who have varying psychological issues that are almost universally not harmful to others to give up their rights to privacy and right to defend themselves while we simultaneously shout to the world about our right to buy this or carry that here or there.

So as always, if a compromise is to be made (even with a solution that is practical and not knee jerk response-like) no one will be happy

[ReconRat]

You know, standard firearm ownership isn't the same as say a permit allowed class three. Same with CCW. Should there be another tier of ownership? One for those weapons currently in contention? I'd be the first to say veterans automatically qualify, unless otherwise eliminated.

edit: If it involved getting a registered permit and paying a fee, they would do it. Additional income is seldom turned down.

Edited December 24, 2012 by ReconRat

[imaposer]

You know, standard firearm ownership isn't the same as say a permit allowed class three. Same with CCW. Should there be another tier of ownership? One for those weapons currently in contention? I'd be the first to say veterans automatically qualify, unless otherwise eliminated.

edit: If it involved getting a registered permit and paying a fee, they would do it. Additional income is seldom turned down.

This is what I think as well. The current CCW training is a joke. There should be a further level of CCW permit, which requires continuous training and qualifying the shooting part semi annually.

[ReconRat]

I'm thinking more of a "shall issue" permit for items that were on the 1994 ban list. Along with the high capacity magazines. That would probably require using an FFL to purchase.

Future purchases only.

The infrastructure is already there for CCW. This would be a state's rights thing.

[Disclaimer]

http://www.13wham.com/news/local/story/Webster-firefighters-shot/Aov0V53ztUC4bKegOnofrg.cspx

^^^ Proof we need more guns. Either FF's need an armed escort, or they need a 9mm in one hand, the fire hose in the other, and be able to somehow carry people out of buildings with "guns ablazin'"

[Scruit]

http://www.13wham.com/news/local/story/Webster-firefighters-shot/Aov0V53ztUC4bKegOnofrg.cspx

^^^ Proof we need more guns. Either FF's need an armed escort, or they need a 9mm in one hand, the fire hose in the other, and be able to somehow carry people out of buildings with "guns ablazin'"

I'd love to hear what the deal is there. They are reporting "one or more shooters". Obviously trying to stop the FF from putting the blaze out.

[cOoTeR]

http://www.13wham.com/news/local/story/Webster-firefighters-shot/Aov0V53ztUC4bKegOnofrg.cspx

^^^ Proof we need more guns. Either FF's need an armed escort, or they need a 9mm in one hand, the fire hose in the other, and be able to somehow carry people out of buildings with "guns ablazin'"

Yeah its crazy how those guns light fires and start shooting people on their own.

[cOoTeR]

Stats are bad mmmkay.

Harvard -- totally leftwing and biased, nothing good or academic comes from there, but please continue to quote sites like "Rense.com" -- totally credible Chevy.

And then when Cooter did post some credible numbers, the UK was better, which didn't help bolster that argument.

Speaking of profiling, it's funny you lump Mags and I together, since everyone is familiar with my firearm background. But hey, you guys keep ignoring the cold hard numbers in favor of your fantasy hero-scenarios and telling everyone how right you are and how wrong everyone else is that would dare question how simply obvious the solution of "more guns" solves this problem.

Let's look at before and after numbers. Yes its from 09 but the stats still there.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html

[Disclaimer]

In those 10yrs.. the population also increased by 1.3M... so while gun crime did rise per capita, the weapons ban likely wasn't the only contributing factor. A lot of other legislation may've been passed in those 10yrs.

The per capita rate is still less than the US.. so...

[Scruit]

Some of those number come from the fact that the UK Govt will reclassify weapons as "firearms" if they want to ban them without objection. That's why pepper spray sand tasers are "firearms" in the UK.

[cOoTeR]

In those 10yrs.. the population also increased by 1.3M... so while gun crime did rise per capita, the weapons ban likely wasn't the only contributing factor. A lot of other legislation may've been passed in those 10yrs.

The per capita rate is still less than the US.. so...

So if the crime went up per capita after the ban how can you expect it to go better here? We obviously are more violent so less guns won't help.

[Disclaimer]

correlation != causation

[ReconRat]

Also:

Correlation does not imply lack of causation

Lack of correlation does not imply causation

Lack of correlation does not imply lack of causation

[Disclaimer]

I love it. I think Pauly should be banned from the internet. Why? Just because.

[jbot]

Wahh I only like stats when they serve my cause