Alternatives to assault weapon legislation

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by wishbone

B: The Constitution and 200+ years of court precedent has determined that US citizens have a right to have firearms.

Wrong. 200+ years of court precedent held that the right to bear arms was collective, not individual (that bit about well-regulated militias, y'know).

It's only since 2008 that SCOTUS has held that the right extends to individuals.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by wishbone

I'm not sure what this means; can you elaborate? If you mean semi-automtic weapon ban, then I don't know how that would be possible. There are simply too many - estimates range from 5-10 million ar15s alone.

Yup. I've started to use single-action/double-action (hopefully correctly) distinction since it allows you to group pump/lever/bolt/etc. guns into a single category, but I think single-action and semi-automatic are effectively the same thing.

And I'll totally concede again that these are all pie in the sky ideas (at least mine are)....the idea of passing a semi-auto ban is practically politically impossible, before we even get to the questions of feasibility. But I still like the idea of floating it, even if it's doomed to fails, because it acts as a possible agent/signifier of cultural change, as opposed to say, trying the same shitty legislation that was already in effect 12 years ago (and is still in effect in many places where these tragedies occurred), and hoping it somehow magically works this time.

I'm all for enacting (even incremental) cultural changes rather than thinking there's some sort of weapon ban that is going to work to impede crazy folks. I think we need to make an active, concerted and focused effort to build community, in order to combat the fact that technology is passively working to isolate us. I know you specifically said earlier that the idea of any community building brings the thought of increased threat, or building a potential shooting gallery, but personally I don't think that's too much of a threat as long as there's a million more attractive targets available (stadiums, nightclubs, concerts, etc.)

Maybe we can't place any controls on the press, and we don't want to dissuade violent news from being reported, but maybe we (the public or the feds) can encourage the people who make news to put some conscious thought into what words/phrases/presentation won't actively reward nutjobs for committing NEW RECORD KILL COUNTS!

Similarly, Health Care reform implies all sorts of drastic, sweeping shit these days, but I don't think it takes any legislation (or barely any) to put some efforts into changing the stigma/culture surrounding mental health care. Put some ads on TV saying it's OK to go to a shrink. Simply encourage people to talk to each other about this shit.

None of the cultural changes are going to do even the slightest thing to make things better tomorrow, or the next day, or the next, but it switches the MO from hunting for the single perfect legislative fix to simply pushing the needle in the other direction.

[wishbone]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

Yup. I've started to use single-action/double-action (hopefully correctly) distinction since it allows you to group pump/lever/bolt/etc. guns into a single category, but I think single-action and semi-automatic are effectively the same thing.

That's very incorrect. Single and double action refer to specific mechanical differences. Some guns are double action and single action. Simply put, if the hammer moves back as you pull the trigger it's a double action firearm.

I basically agree with the rest of your post

[thesloppy]

Thanks for clarification.

[wishbone]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Wrong. 200+ years of court precedent held that the right to bear arms was collective, not individual (that bit about well-regulated militias, y'know).

It's only since 2008 that SCOTUS has held that the right extends to individuals.

If you are talking about DC vs Heller, I'll disagree with you. The court held that the long standing private ownership model in use by the founders and continuing today was the design of the 2nd Amendment. The decision ruled that the laws in Washington DC restricting handgun ownership and requiring firearms stored at home to be nonfunctional violated the 2nd.

I hadn't read about Heller before but thanks for the chance to do it today, learned I'm not a fan of legal writing.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

... changing the stigma/culture surrounding mental health care. Put some ads on TV saying it's OK to go to a shrink.

I ask this in complete & utter sincerity: aside from maybe one or two specific sub-cultures (IIRC, I've read that some ethnicities still attach a stigma) ... exactly what stigma to it is really left?

I mean, half the f'n country has probably seen a shrink at this point & I literally can't recall the last time anyone so much as batted an eye about admitting it nor upon hearing someone bring it up.

That's true across pretty much all the lines I regularly cross too. Age, region, gender, religion, economic.

So where is this stigma that you're referring to?

(Again, let me emphasize: I'm truly honestly sincerely asking, complete lack of any snark or sarcasm or anything else intended)


I'd say that the biggest obstacle for expanded use of mental health professionals today is overwhelmingly cost, followed by availability (at least in some areas).

[thesloppy]

Fair enough question. I do think there's a stigma in talking about it. I know several people who are getting treatment who keep it secret from family and friends, but admittedly that's entirely anecdotal. I also think there might be a stigma related to what kind of care you're getting....most of the country certainly seems fine with admitting about going to a shrink to get a handful of pills, and talking about those pills, whereas I rarely hear folks talking about the specifics of their emotional issues. I know a lot of folks who are probably being treated for some source of mental illness (myself included) who would freely admit to much of the details of treatment, but still might balk if simply asked: are you mentally ill? If any of these dudes had just been a little more vocal about how ill they were maybe that would've served to cut them off in some way (admittedly, this particular dude sounds like he was pretty good at announcing he was an asshole).

That said, I think a great majority of these shooters were diagnosed and/or seeking treatment for mental illness, so obviously just getting them to accept treatment isn't operating as any kind of great barrier. But that fact cuts into the obstacles you listed as well...cost and availability didn't prevent care for most of these nutballs either. I guess what we can imply is simply that our current system of care didn't work at all, and questions of stigma might be putting too fine a point on it.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I ask this in complete & utter sincerity: aside from maybe one or two specific sub-cultures (IIRC, I've read that some ethnicities still attach a stigma) ... exactly what stigma to it is really left?

I mean, half the f'n country has probably seen a shrink at this point & I literally can't recall the last time anyone so much as batted an eye about admitting it nor upon hearing someone bring it up.

That's true across pretty much all the lines I regularly cross too. Age, region, gender, religion, economic.

So where is this stigma that you're referring to?

(Again, let me emphasize: I'm truly honestly sincerely asking, complete lack of any snark or sarcasm or anything else intended)


I'd say that the biggest obstacle for expanded use of mental health professionals today is overwhelmingly cost, followed by availability (at least in some areas).

I think there's a stigma in some corners, though part of that might be internal. My wife is on anxiety meds. She does not discuss this with her parents, especially her father. I think she feels like he'd view this as some sort of a weakness or failure. Even though it's quite possible that one or both of her parents themselves could benefit from something similar, and one of her nephews has issues.

My daughter is starting to see someone. Many of her friends do, and at a visit they spotted a neighbor there too. My son though is of the mind that her issues are largely made-up, or that these girls are feeding off of each other, creating their own problems -- like it's a fad. But if there is something, she should just buck up and get over it (even though the kid has his own crazy bug phobia).

So it's still there. I think it's breaking down, but it takes time.

(There's probably a fear of that info getting out to employers, too. Also: Scientologists.)