Thoughts on Gun Control

Was watching Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson last night and was impressed with some of the ideas they expressed.

  1. 100 kids were shot in the south side of Chicago last weekend alone which falls within a ten block radius. Gang banger crime constitutes 70% of all gun shootings/murders in this country. They buy on the black market from drug cartels and due to the suspension of “stop and frisk” (a wildly  successful strategy in NYC in the 90s under the reign of the G-man), it has become far easier to buy and own an illegal weapon. Any hand-wringing on these types of purchases?
  2. Let’s own up to this: There is a mental illness issue going on in this country and many people pass through background checks because and -I DID NOT KNOW THIS- MDs are prevented from (due to doctor/patient privilege)  releasing mental records to the public. I believe in personal privacy but there are many instances when you deserve to lose those rights- applications for FBI/CIA/ NYPD/FDNY and the purchase of an AK-47 and AR-15 which are deadly military weapons.

What Tucker and Sean were trying to express is that we have good rules on the books but they are not being executed properly. Gun ownership is certainly an American right but without proper oversight, it will be taken away- mark my words.

This is not a new story. For heaven’s sake, one of our most important founders Alexander Hamilton was shot down like a dog by the VP of the United States!

4+

Users who have liked this post:

  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar

92 thoughts on “Thoughts on Gun Control”

  1. MJBubba:
    It would be good to develop a way….

    So I am sort of inclined to listen to reasonable red flag proposals, but, as soon as I say I am willing to consider, I remember how little trust I have for the people who would be rushing to write and enforce these laws.

    0

  2. EThompson:

    Phil Turmel:
    Pardon, but your ignorance is showing.

    I’d be happy to have a conversation about this topic, but I will not tolerate incivility and rudeness. You need to take a class in how to put forth an argument in a civil manner, but I know the PTBs will never call you on this one.

    Incivility and rudeness?  Although others have defended my comment while I went to church and watched some football, I can’t let this pass.  You are the single most thin-skinned, arrogant, and uncivil internet denizen I’ve ever engaged with.  You resort to various forms of “shut up” at the slightest correction, or failure on our part to conform to your elitist opinion.   Projecting much?

    Pls just ignore this post.

    And there it is again.  But hey, there’s a “please” this time.

    FWIW, I wasn’t active on Ricochet when you were there, but I now sympathize with its operators.  Your conduct here has convinced me that, whatever other injustices they’ve perpetrated by kicking people out, your case wasn’t one of them.

    1+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
  3. “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” – Benjamin Franklin

    The deer-in-the-headlights belief that “good ideas” or “common sense” will limit gun violence is not rationally defensible. That is why proponents go straight to “feelings”. Neither is the belief defensible that people with mental illness can be listed with anything vaguely approaching accuracy or validity. They just say it “feels” like a good idea, and “we have to do something”. Fact just happen to get in the way.

    When one studies medicine, one encounters some very thick textbooks. The thickest ones, by far, are invariably psychiatry textbooks. That is because the field is so poorly understood and ill-defined with innumerable variables that it relies upon endless verbiage in an attempt to classify the un-classifiable and make distinctions which are vague at best. Again, there is zero scientific evidence that dangerousness can be predicted, even among those said to be mentally ill. But that unambiguous scientific fact mustn’t stand in the way of making anyone “feel” safer, should it. Ask Ben Franklin.

    Even were it possible to classify mentally ill people accurately as dangerous (as the original poster seems to accept as gospel), do you believe a workable and humane system respectful of civil rights could be implemented by the same institution which runs the TSA or the post office or any state motor vehicle agency? Anyone who believes that seriously misperceives the trajectory of our government as it rushes headlong to fill the statist vacuum created by the implosion of the erstwhile USSR. The notion that safety trumps every other value is cited here, as is always the case with statists (and those who go along with their arguments on an emotional basis), with no limiting principle ever given. Even if sufficient people were denied guns to make you “feel safe”, what is the acceptable number of people who may be denied their civil rights to accomplish this end? What is the likelihood that those denied guns are actually those who want to commit mass murder?

    Let me flesh this out. Once “mental illness” becomes a reason for termination of Second Amendment rights, no other right right will be safe. Further, given the nature of government and the mission creep built into its DNA (mission explosion, actually), expect the NICS (national instant check system) to exempt itself from HIPAA and obtain the pharmacy records of every American. Anyone who has ever had a prescription for Prozac or Ativan can kiss their rights goodbye. “Westman is nuts and paranoid”, you say? Oh No. Because that is exactly what was proposed in the “moderate” “common sense” “bipartisan”Toomey/Manchin bill a few years ago. Or, suppose you are taking a domestic flight. The TSA agent goes through your carry-on and finds your bottle of Ambien (a controlled substance on which some people act erratically). “Have a nice flight”, you hear, while our name goes into a federal database adding you to the “no gun” list. BTW, a local cop friend with whom I discussed this said he wouldn’t be surprised if exactly that happened. He just wondered, though, what would happen to half the cops on the local force who are all on Prozac…

    3+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  4. Phil Turmel:
    You resort to various forms of “shut up” at the slightest correction, or failure on our part to conform to your elitist opinion.

    Phil Turmel:
    FWIW, I wasn’t active on Ricochet when you were there, but I now sympathize with its operators.  Your conduct here has convinced me that, whatever other injustices they’ve perpetrated by kicking people out, your case wasn’t one of them.

    Take a good look at your words here. You seem to be describing yourself.

    0

  5. civil westman:
    “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” – Benjamin Franklin

    Right, but kids weren’t killing other kids randomly and notice I mentioned nothing about ambien- a sleeping pill? I specifically noted bi-polar, schizophrenia, PTSD. I was hardly including insomniacs in the “danger” group.

    0

  6. EThompson:

    Phil Turmel:
    You resort to various forms of “shut up” at the slightest correction, or failure on our part to conform to your elitist opinion.

    Phil Turmel:
    FWIW, I wasn’t active on Ricochet when you were there, but I now sympathize with its operators.  Your conduct here has convinced me that, whatever other injustices they’ve perpetrated by kicking people out, your case wasn’t one of them.

    Take a good look at your words here. You seem to be describing yourself.

    Honey, I’ve not been booted off Ricochet.  Never suspended, either.  Mainly because, with very rare exceptions, I try very hard to be polite, even formally so, in any internet forum.  But yes, you have brought out my dark side.

    1+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
  7. Phil Turmel:

    EThompson:

    Phil Turmel:
    You resort to various forms of “shut up” at the slightest correction, or failure on our part to conform to your elitist opinion.

    Phil Turmel:
    FWIW, I wasn’t active on Ricochet when you were there, but I now sympathize with its operators.  Your conduct here has convinced me that, whatever other injustices they’ve perpetrated by kicking people out, your case wasn’t one of them.

    Take a good look at your words here. You seem to be describing yourself.

    Honey, I’ve not been booted off Ricochet.  Never suspended, either.  Mainly because, with very rare exceptions, I try very hard to be polite, even formally so, in any internet forum.  But yes, you have brought out my dark side.

    “Honey?” What century were you born in?

    But we do agree on one thing- you definitely have a dark side. I’m just blunt with a definitive point of view; there’s a difference and pls spare members personal attacks. This is supposed to be about the issues and you are simply infuriated because I don’t agree with yours.

    0

  8. I think it is okay to have a little back and forth between members for people have a right to respond. There is no way that I can think of for things not to get personal at times. That being said please don’t let a personal fight derail a thread. A thread should be about specific issues not about the character of the individuals on the thread.

    Ratburger.org is great place where people can disagree and sometimes have heated debates without moderator overreach. As much as possible things will be unfiltered so everyone can see your opinions. Only when someone has become disruptive to the point that the normal back and forth can’t handle it, something needs to be done to bring some order. If that happens I hope it will be done transparently, professionally, and politely.

    3+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  9. I have commented and written before about bias. There is no way from getting around it. One favors one’s beliefs. One makes assumptions from those beliefs. If you are pro one thing, you are also anti something else. In society, as long as there is transparency and the criteria is know and for the most part is objective I think people can live with it. When things are opaque and people are in denial about bias, it causes a lot of unfairness.

    I think the Founders were wise in setting up a system of checks and balances. They understood the “crooked timber” that make up things.

    2+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
  10. civil westman:
    The deer-in-the-headlights belief that “good ideas” or “common sense” will limit gun violence is not rationally defensible. That is why proponents go straight to “feelings”.

    There is also asymptotically close to zero connection between the supposed motivations for these proposed policies and the actual policies proposed.  This is how the narrative works: build on isolated events to gin up “feelings” and “fears” in order to advance an agenda which will do nothing to ameliorate the problem it is supposed to address while actually accomplishing its actual purpose: to disarm the citizenry and make them simultaneously completely dependent upon costumed minions of the state for their “security” and powerless to resist either the state or the non-state actors it stirs up to advance its agenda.

    Do those who are selling this narrative dare mention that the multi-decade trend in violent crime in the U.S. has been steadily falling?  That genuine “mass shootings” are a vanishingly small risk compared to other forms of crime, not to mention automobile accidents and other more frequent causes of death?  That the overwhelming majority of “gun violence” occurs precisely in the jurisdictions which have enacted the most draconian forms of “gun control” that they now advocate for general adoption?  That most of the deaths due to firearms are suicides who would doubtless find other means if deprived of access to guns?  That the scary “weapons of war” they’re baying to take away (semi-automatic rifles and carbines, most in intermediate calibres) account for a small fraction of deaths attributed to firearms?  That virtually every genuine “mass shooting” occurs in a location designated as a “gun-free zone”?  No, they don’t.

    The one thing that keeps on working, decade in and decade out, is that if a lie is repeated sufficiently without refutation, and framed in a way that appeals to the emotions of people who do not have access to or the opportunity to research the facts for themselves, it will eventually shift opinion.  Not even the sorry record of “gun control” in every country which has enacted it is enough to counter the narrative since it is not allowed to penetrate the Gardol shield of the legacy media.

    Only the fact that the U.S. has had a large population acquainted with firearms since childhood has injected some sense into this relentless barrage of propaganda.  Now their hope is that a hoplophobe urban population can be leveraged into a majority with young people indoctrinated from childhood on the evil of weapons of self-defence.

    They twist and they turn, but the ultimate goal is the same: a disarmed population at the mercy of the armed state.  This is the end state of totalitarianism everywhere, and it always starts out with the best intentions, justified by regrettable, tragic, but statistically insignificant rare events blown up in the emotional feedback loop of the slaver echo chamber.   Now it’s about “mental health”.  If you’re old enough, you see these things coming around again on the guitar.

    In the late 1950s, we had “mental health” rolled out to deal with the threat of those who dissented from the left-liberal consensus.  Psychiatrists declared Barry Goldwater mentally unfit to be President.  Then the Soviet Union advanced this to a fine art, replacing some of their prison camps with psychiatric hospitals and seeking medication to “cure” those who deviated from the “mental health” of the New Soviet Man.  And now, in the U.S., we see a manufactured crisis created by prohibition of opioid painkillers and rampant over-prescription of psychotropic drugs such as amphetamines and SSRIs, with the predictable consequences of a black market, large-scale smuggling, large sums of cash corrupting everything in sight, and violent turf wars among those supplying the artificially-restricted demand, not to mention the deaths and suffering of those obtaining adulterated or mislabeled drugs through illicit channels.

    And they want to fix this by taking away those ugly black guns, or creating a medical panopticon society where everybody will be denied their God-given right of self-defence and defence of those for whom they’re responsible because they got a prescription for Sudafed ten years ago or a neighbour who thinks they’re “scary” because they wear a Forbidden Red Hat?

    No, what’s scary is imagining a society in which this has happened, or one where a majority votes itself into slavery in the interest of “safety” against a phantom menace.

    5+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  11. John Walker:
    They twist and they turn, but the ultimate goal is the same: a disarmed population at the mercy of the armed state.

    I’m far more concerned about being at the mercy of citizens who disregard all healthy social norms and my NRA neighbor agrees. He believes every sane citizen should own a gun and does support documented mental illness checks that do not waste time worrying about applicants who use ambien.

    0

  12. 10 Cents:
    That being said please don’t let a personal fight derail a thread. A thread should be about specific issues not about the character of the individuals on the thread.

    Agree wholeheartedly.

    0

  13. I’m afraid the discussion has taken the Biden tack of emotion uber alles; we have sailed upon his rocks of received wisdom in this discussion. As he so eloquently put it, “truth, rather than facts”.

    1+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
  14. Who gets to decide? Rules and laws don’t matter if the people with the power don’t follow them. Or worse, they use their power to punish their enemies for “the good of the people”.

    2+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
  15. Bryan G. Stephens:
    As an expert on mental illness, in no way do I think I can red flag anyone well. We send people to the hospital erring on the side of caution. I would be less likely to do that,  knowing it would further deprive them of liberty.

    This is a great point.  Mental health professionals with a strong anti-gun bias might be less hesitant, with the justification that it’s fine to fudge a mental health report in service to the great good of eliminating guns from society.

    4+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  16. 10 Cents:
    Who gets to decide? Rules and laws don’t matter if the people with the power don’t follow them. Or worse, they use their power to punish their enemies for “the good of the people”.

    From living in California, I have the feeling political views would quickly become mental health indicators.

    I would hate to see EThompson for example confined to a mental ward because she enthusiastically supports Trump, but if it’s for her own good it’s just something we’ll have to live with.

    Sorry EThompson, but we’ll have you fixed and loving Big Sister in a jiffy!

    2+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
  17. Damocles:

    10 Cents:
    Who gets to decide? Rules and laws don’t matter if the people with the power don’t follow them. Or worse, they use their power to punish their enemies for “the good of the people”.

    From living in California, I have the feeling political views would quickly become mental health indicators.

    I would hate to see EThompson for example confined to a mental ward because she enthusiastically supports Trump, but if it’s for her own good it’s just something we’ll have to live with.

    Sorry EThompson, but we’ll have you fixed and loving Big Sister in a jiffy!

    Did Big Brother go through a transition?

    I don’t know about EThompson but there are quite a few who would like to see Donald J Trump in a straight jacket.

    0

  18. EThompson:

    civil westman:
    I would also think long and hard before encouraging doctors to become like unto the Stazi.

    Give me a break! If somebody is mentally unstable there should be limits on their gun ownership. We have limits on drivers with bad records, credit checks on people applying for mortgages and car leases, but nothing on the mentally insane roaming the streets with “clean” records. Surely hope one of your relatives doesn’t because a victim of a mass shooting because more are coming.

    The problem is “who” decides what citizen is unstable.  Buttigieg?

    3+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  19. Trinity Waters:

    EThompson:

    civil westman:
    I would also think long and hard before encouraging doctors to become like unto the Stazi.

    Give me a break! If somebody is mentally unstable there should be limits on their gun ownership. We have limits on drivers with bad records, credit checks on people applying for mortgages and car leases, but nothing on the mentally insane roaming the streets with “clean” records. Surely hope one of your relatives doesn’t because a victim of a mass shooting because more are coming.

    The problem is “who” decides what citizen is unstable.  Buttigieg?

    No, documented records of patients with severe diagnoses and under pharmaceutical care. That’s pretty cut and dry. No opinions or interpretations needed; just the medical facts that are already in the system.

    Example: A friend has an autistic son who thankfully functions well in society (Michigan graduate with a good job) but periodically goes into unexplained rages which is not atypical and she would never approve of his owning a firearm of any kind. She’d be afraid for the lives of her immediate family.

    Don’t distract the argument with liberal doctors’ politics; there are kids and young adults with serious problems that have been diagnosed since birth. They need to be taken into account because this senseless violence will only continue.

    I find it ironic that many of you are pro-life except for the actual living and that you’re worried about gun rights vs. the most important civil right of all- the right to live in a reasonably safe society which we currently do not.

    0

  20. EThompson:
    I find it ironic that many of you are pro-life except for the actual living and that you’re worried about gun rights vs. the most important civil right of all- the right to live in a reasonably safe society which we currently do not.

    It’s interesting that after your husband suggests a policy used in North Korea you suggest a policy that is used in Mainland China.  I wonder how that’s going to influence Dr. MJBubba’s assessment of your mental condition!

    The problem will be that as soon as you implement that policy, the gun-grabbers will immediately start working the system to their advantage.   We already have MDs asking about guns in the home as part of routine medical checkups.

    Do you like Dennis Prager?  He has a great article (just released today!) about this.

    Our age loves scientific equations. Here’s one you weren’t taught at college but which affects you as much as the law of gravity:

    GI – W = E

    Good Intentions (GI) minus Wisdom (W) leads to Evil (E).

    https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/the-equation-that-explains-evil/

    2+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
  21. New resolution: I won’t respond to those who pick and choose specific sentences and refuse to look at the entire point of my comment.

    Respond to this:

    Example: A friend has an autistic son who thankfully functions well in society (Michigan graduate with a good job) but periodically goes into unexplained rages which is not atypical and she would never approve of his owning a firearm of any kind. She’d be afraid for the lives of her immediate family.

    0

  22. Damocles:
    It’s interesting that after your husband suggests a policy used in North Korea you suggest a policy that is used in Mainland China.

    And btw, what the hell are you talking about? Do not distort my words ever again.

    0

  23. EThompson:
    New resolution: I won’t respond to those who pick and choose specific sentences and refuse to look at the entire point of my comment.

    Respond to this:

    Example: A friend has an autistic son who thankfully functions well in society (Michigan graduate with a good job) but periodically goes into unexplained rages which is not atypical and she would never approve of his owning a firearm of any kind. She’d be afraid for the lives of her immediate family.

    Here’s your problem. The legal system is based on evidence of crimes previously committed. You’re going to have to redo all of that in order to get this son’s pre-crime recognized.

    If you do get this pre-crime thing going, be prepared for other people to use it to advance their political goals.

    5+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
  24. EThompson:

    Damocles:
    It’s interesting that after your husband suggests a policy used in North Korea you suggest a policy that is used in Mainland China.

    And btw, what the hell are you talking about? Do not distort my words ever again.

    Simple. Your husband suggested jailing people in punishment of crimes committed by family members (that’s what North Korea does), and you suggested that the right to live in a “reasonably safe society” is the most important of our civil rights (which is what China says).

    So top marks to the both of you for good intentions, but a big “needs work” in the wisdom department.  Fortunately I’m here for you!

    4+

    Users who have liked this comment:

    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar
    • avatar

Leave a Reply