.
As we continue to hear and see the mostly knee-jerk public response to the horrific events of Sandy Hook Elementary School and the pundits continue to throw around statistical information, some good, some not so good, some of it downright incomprehensible, Rasmussen has come out with some that are at least a little more reliable and at the very least, fairly understandable.
Rasmussen reports that:
65% of American Adults think, “The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to be able to protect themselves from tyranny.”
17% disagree
18% are unsure72% of those with a firearm in the family agree, but even
57% of those without a firearm agree with the above statement54% of Democrats
75% of Republicans
68% of independents, not affiliated with either party, agree with the above
Scott Rasmussen reports that if Congress is “not willing to go as far as the President wants on gun control perhaps they …might take a stronger action on mental health issues or increase penalties for crimes committed with a gun.” However he also states that attitudes are “not likely to change in a nation where 6 out of 10 would rather live in a neighborhood where you can own a gun and most would feel safer if their children attended a school with an armed security guard.”
He also reports while there is strong support for stricter gun control (51%) in general, there is even stronger support for increased background checks and even more support for dealing with mental health issues. 59% of us believe that Congress will enact stricter gun control laws.
My humble analysis of the numbers suggests that at the very least mental health issues need to be addressed and part of that solution, meaning an increased reporting standard from mental health professionals. I think that most of us can agree this is one of the major common factors in all of these horrific events. The major failure of the mental health professionals in assessing and reporting the dangers presented by their individual clients has substantially contributed to most if not all of the mass shootings in recent history. Frankly, I can’t think of any of these mass murders where the individual involved could have been assessed as sane and still gone out and shoot at people the way they have. While I am not a professional, it’s insane behavior, no matter how you parse it, to shoot anyone in this manner. Society can not tolerate it.
I don’t see how increased penalties would help prevention, since most if not all of these killers are in suicide mode when they start their rampages. Since the penalties are already death, what more could you add on that would be effective? I would certainly entertain ideas on this point!
My personal beliefs are that the mentally unstable, in some totally messed-up way, are looking for notoriety and infamy through the media as some form of legacy. While this motivation might be debatable, it certainly seems to be a common thread for both the insane mass shootings and terrorists. I really don’t know how we can change that portion of the equation. I would like to hear from anyone who does have ideas regarding that part of it as well, you might be doing all of us a really big favor if you can figure out that one too.
There are some other numbers listed at the above listed Rasmussen report that are interesting and those might be interesting to discuss as well but these are the ones that really interest me at the moment.
Interesting to note that Rasmussen’s polling, which you cite above, was the source of the Romney campaign’s misguided belief as to who would become President.
They were completely wrong in their assessment of who America favored in the recent election. It turned out that they were calling mostly Republicans, and that got them faulty numbers.
It’s surprising to me that people still hire them, and that you would call them “reliable.”
But, I think that you are right in wanting to address the mental health aspect of this issue. These mass murderers are obviously deranged, and shouldn’t have access to guns.
If we had health care for everybody, it might mean that unstable people would be more likely to seek and get help. Mental health care is pretty hit or miss the way that it is right now, according to my wife who has been a psych nurse for over thirty years.
If you’re not seeing a doctor on a regular basis, and staying on your meds, then you are more likely to suffer a psychotic break from reality, and become a threat to yourself and to others.
At that point, most of the attention that you will get is from the media and the police.
So what is the best way to make sure that those in need are able to get mental health care?
Single payer?
One of the ironies of the right’s position is they keep harping on the mental health issue, but then, theoretically, if you were to suggest greater government spending on the issue, you’d be met with resistance. They can’t have it both ways.
And yes, objective people know Rasmussen’s polling skews right.
*Ok then…..you take a half ugly loner kid…..put him on Xanax or some other psycho-tropic drugs……for ADD and then let him play very violent Video games till he maxes out the national score! He hates to play with others and every teacher and fellow students…knows the guy is mental. He even goes to psychiatrist 6 times a month. He has probably been in minor trouble with the law and is totally fixated on his mother’s or father’s or uncle’s gun collection. You leave him at home to fend for himself …while you go out and socialize and occasionally have a few drinks with male friends.
The House burns down one night and you can’t figure out who caused the arson report. The dog is killed and disembowled…..and you think it must be that evil neighbor kid. Pretty soon…you think you might have to send your Mentally Deranged son to a special place….and tell everyone in town…because you are so embarassed by it all.
The next thing you know……someone writes a letter to the editor about gun control and how high capacity magazines are for nut cases!
And when things happen…..you can honestly say: “As his Dad….I had no idea
of what was going on!”
Huh?
So your idea of treating a person for mental health issues is simply to give them a pharmaceutical?
And to repeat…as the proliferation of videos games increases, you would expect violent crime to go up in its wake and that has not happened.
Some interesting statistics, specifically on the correlation between violent video games and gun murders;
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/17/ten-country-comparison-suggests-theres-little-or-no-link-between-video-games-and-gun-murders/
Which voices in your heads are we listening to today? (Just wondering.)
As for the mental health issue, You do make a good point. I will say that it seems that the individuals must have been under the care of a Dr or they wouldn’t have had the medications they were on.
It also seems the at least in some of the case, Tucson & Aurora, that the Drs involved had notified campus security of a threat. IF they did that and the individuals were viewed as a safety threat on campus how did they justify NOT notifying the local civil authorities? If the cops had known they might have been able to stop the purchase of the firearms used, or might have been able to get them in for observation for 72 hours and examined by another Dr. The Dr’s have both a professional and moral obligation to notify authorities if someone is a danger to themselves or others, at least from what I understand of the license and professional standards. If that is in fact the case, shouldn’t we discuss the side issue of their culpability and license?
That’s a very interesting view of Scott Rasmussen, since this is a quote from wiki about him,
Speaking about his political views, Rasmussen said, “I was brought up loosely as a Republican, but at our family dinner table we talked about the important politics of the New York Giants and the New York Yankees. There was no political discussion in my life growing up. I became a Democrat after Richard Nixon and into the Jimmy Carter era and have been an Independent ever since. I spoke today about how the American people were skeptical about politicians—well, I’m more skeptical. I really do see the core issue as the political class versus mainstream voters. I think that is a much bigger gap than Republican, Democrat, conservative, or liberal.”
I picked his poll because of a flatter methodology in his survey questions. He usually has the source materials, the questions, available for viewing, most others don’t. At the very least that adds some understanding for me of how fair the survey should be. Surveys are never 100% correct nor the engineered ones always wrong, but I prefer to at least see how they came up with the answers they get by looking at the questions.
Addressing the mental health problem is definitely part of the package. I believe we can thank Reagan for closing the mental institutions and now we have the mentally ill running around and not taking their meds…because they don’t have to. Its their right…not to take meds.
I think back ground checks and banning any weapon capable of shooting more than 10 rounds before reloading is #1. Right now anyone can by a weapon…including me and nobody wants to be around me with a gun. I admit it…I am a klutz.
I also believe gun owners need to take legal responsiblity for locking up their weapons and if their firearm is involved in a crime…no matter if its stolen…they are liable. Its their weapon and their responsiblity.
Back to the mental health issue. Right now…anyone over the age of 18 does not have to take their meds. Its their Constitutional right. It doesn’t matter if they might be a threat to society…they have to commit the crime first before anything is done.
So lets push this one step further. I think white supremacists are nuts. Do they qualify? I will go even further. I think anyone who kills innocent animals for sport is nuts. Do they qualify? I read that serial killers start out killing animals.
Who decides who is mentally ill? Or do we have to wait until they do something crazy and then might it be too late?
*Inge…we would trust you with a firearm because you are caring, thoughtful and responsible human being. If you needed training, you would probably go get it. If you wanted to know everything about any firearm….our bet is….you would find out and make sure your firearm(s) were all stowed away safely.
It doesn’t take much to show respect for yourself and that is the key to safe gun ownership. You do not want a Zimmerman or some other….”victim in waiting,…wanting to be John Wayne”. You want Cujo Mom. When the babies
are threatened…Cujo Mom gets serious and that is why most good students of firearms training are women.
Thank you for your thoughtful words Ron and Anna, however I would never own a gun. I didn’t allow my son when he was little to play with toy guns. I don’t think violence is the way to solve any problems, whether they are domestic or in war. This is not to say I wouldn’t defend myself, but I would not
intentionally kill someone…incapacitate yes…kill no.
I don’t care if people want to own handguns or rifles. I am against any weapon that can kill dozens of people within a couple minutes. More guns will equal more violence. People get angry and instead of solving problems with their fists like boys used to do, they choose guns because they are so easy to get. I do not want to be hit by a stray bullet meant for someone else.
Arming employees at schools will eventually become tragic, because of human error. People make mistakes all the time and a kid will get ahold of a gun. I wonder if the schools insurance broker will cover them when the school is sued for negligence.
“My personal beliefs are that the mentally unstable, in some totally messed-up way, are looking for notoriety and infamy through the media as some form of legacy. While this motivation might be debatable, it certainly seems to be a common thread for both the insane mass shootings and terrorists”……….. Hmmmmmm
First of all, lets exclude “terrorists” from this discussion because someones terrorist is someones freedom fighter. Except for George Washington, virtually all revolutionaries (mostly leftists) were labeled as terrorists. Terrorism can be controlled only by the armed militia as provided by USA constitution and practiced only by the Swiss’.
The term “militia of the United States” was defined to comprehend “all able-bodied male citizens of the United States and all other able-bodied males who have . . . declared their intention to become citizens of the United States,” between the ages of eighteen and forty-five.
Which bring us to the mentally unstable where a substantial element of the population is “mentally unstable” one way or the other. To try to determine who is or who is not stable would bring “witchcraft” like persecutions and the USA would fall into a dark ages. The lynching would become ramped.
It is such insignificant amount of these people who commit crime with the guns that it is virtually physically immeasurable as percentage to the population and only emotionally, by the use of media, can it be sustained.
Somehow the people must realize that the world is a dangerous place and that not everyone will make it – for one way or the other.
Especially if we have no clue how long we have to live based on our genetic makeup including a collisions with other genetic (inducing, but not limited to, a virus which can kill by the millions) and our destiny.
The entire gun issue is simply based on rising liberalism which can’t tolerate that others have something what liberals don’t have, therefore, liberals will ban anything which threatens their liberalism – not only guns!
It is wealth, freedom and happiness as well…. trust me, I lived it for 22 years in CSSR.
Since the liberals are always majority (bolsheviks in Russian) we are living in a tyranny by the majority.
Just look the elections!….. why do I need the right to vote if the elections are decided by the red/blue collar of the districts and states and my color is neither.
Well we are once again at fork!
I should add that this is exactly what Hitler did!
First he confiscated guns and than he went after mentally ill way before he went after Communists, Gypsies and Jews.
It looks like someone is reading Mein Kampf in the oval office.
Yeah, take away guns from people that are unstable. That’s a bad idea!
What’s your solution? Give them bigger guns with bigger clips?
Your foolish Hitler paranoia is tiresome. Sounds like someone has Mein Kampf memorized.
Hmmmmmishugina!
“Your foolish Hitler paranoia is tiresome”……… Hmmmmmmm
Read it again demagog and if you still read that I am promoting Hitler then you need colonoscopy of your head.
Read it again …..
I never said that you were “promoting” Hitler. I just pointed out your paranoia.
“I should add that this is exactly what Hitler did!”
Then you compare it to the activity in the White House, which is crazy. You keep predicting the next American civil war, and the imminent fall of the US.
The sky isn’t falling Chicken Little, and if it were, what are you still doing here?
“I just pointed out your paranoia”……… Hmmmmmm
I am not fright if you carry a gun even thou that liberalism is a mental disorder.
I contrast, you are!……. so who is paranoid?
You need my translation services again on that one, Dema?
It looks like someone hasn’t read Mein Kampf at all, which was written before Hitler took office and was in a position to confiscate guns — although, let’s recall, only the guns of groups he despised. I believe that you’ll find material in there on Communists and Jews — well, before gun confiscations.
“although, let’s recall, only the guns of groups he despised”………… Hmmmmmm
Does not the Obama despise the National Rifle Association and its members?
Demagogue,
I think what he is saying is referring to an idea often heard,
“Those who don’t know history are destined to repeat it.” Edmund Burke
The demonizing and diminishing others ideas or the expression of them, makes them no less valid, nor changes the truths they speak, even if you don’t like those who speak them.
Correct!
“The demonizing and diminishing others ideas or the expression of them, makes them no less valid, nor changes the truths they speak, even if you don’t like those who speak them.”
It has nothing to do with who speaks them, or if I like that speaker. It has everything to do with the idea itself.
Constantly repeating the same faulty ideas doesn’t make them any more valid.
Edmund Burke’s quote….. elementary school school stuff. We all know it. No credible evidence that we are “destined” to repeat the ways of Hitler. Unless you are a follower of Stanley.
That is rather funny coming from someone who chose the screen name of Demagogue, don’t you think?
The last line was a blanket statement, not intended to be personal, sorry if anyone took it that way, and I should have stated that when I penned it. My apologies if you felt it was directed at you.
The word “demagogue” has two definitions…..
I refer to the greek origin…. an orator who espoused the cause of the common people.
Oh, I was sure you were Demagogue.
After knowing that there were two, I looked it up just for kicks…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demagogue
That is rather funny, don’t you think?
Well if there’s anyone who knows how to “demonize and diminish others ideas or the expression of them,” it’s Stanley.
Human rights?
The USA is arming people all over the world with military style guns under the banner of “Human Rights”, But here in the old USA it is a difference story.
And there is a need for American citizens to be armed with military-style guns because…??
Why do you think that is, cook?
On May 15, 1939 the Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion written by Justice McReynolds, reversed and remanded the District Court decision. The Supreme Court declared no conflict between the NFA and the Second Amendment had been established, writing:
“In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.”
Describing the constitutional authority under which Congress could call forth state militia, the Court stated, “With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.”
In dicta, the Court also looked to historical sources to explain the meaning of “militia” as set down by the authors of the Constitution:
“The significance attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. ‘A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.’ And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.”
So, if the firearms that they want to ban are the very same weapons and accessories for those weapons that make them appropriate for that purpose, that are specifically protected then we have some problems.
What part of that is so hard to understand?
If, as has been put forth, we have a Right to own a musket, the same line of reason would propose that the only protected speech would be, spoken words or those put on parchment by quill pen.
And in Scalia’s 2008 decision, he wrote;
“We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons'”
On Fox News Sunday in July of 2012 he stated his belief that the Second Amendment leaves room for federal gun control legislation.
Anon,
I posted on Heller back in 2008, here on OJB and the copy, formatting errors and all resides here;
http://thecentristoc.com/2008/06/29/supreme-court-decision-dc-vs-heller-majority-report/
(I think I fixed all the format errors but if I missed some, please let me know.)
—
In Section 3 one of the paragraphs opens the door to interpretation that may have bearing on California law. Prior to Heller the Miller decision said the it (paraphrased) only protected militia type weapons. In the Heller decision it seems to leave the door open for the removal of the assault weapon ban in all states.
(Direct quotes from the court) …
…
Perhaps we will regain the Right to black, ugly, non-politically correct, conspicuity protruding, semi-automatic firearms. Perhaps even the purchase real magazines again.
The meat of the verdict for Heller;
……..
The court did not address licensing but did seem to accept it as long as it was fairly applied.
They also said;
What does all this have to do with you and me? Well it means that we all have a Right, that has now been affirmed by the courts. It should change future legislation as well as roll back some others. Bans on firearms in public housing, like actions now being filed by NRA in San Francisco, that would protect a gay man who is living in public housing and claims he needs it for protection against hate crimes.
The restrictions and limits on transfers and those who can be denied the Right seem to be left intact. If you’re a felon or mentally incompetent you are precluded from ownership. We will see some of the blanket bans as in Chicago & Morton Grove probably go off the books and Rights restored in the second city. The fallout will surely not be completely known for some time.
The greatest bonus is we now have a decision that we can balance our future on that is less vague and more concrete than we have had in many many years. Let the debates begin!
—
If you can give me some links for your opinions on Judge Scalia I would appreciate it.
“If you can give me some links for your opinions on Judge Scalia I would appreciate it.”
Those aren’t my “opinions” about Scalia…it’s what he actually wrote and said…you can look it up yourself. It took me about 30 seconds.
Anon,
Not knowing what you searched it took a little longer than that, thanks so much for your help and further education of all of us.
Here is what I came up with in the interview that was relevent, but it’s a good interview worthy of watching.
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-sunday-chris-wallace/2012/07/29/justice-antonin-scalia-issues-facing-scotus-and-country#p//v/1760654457001
Yeah, he acknowledges limitations. Rational people do.
People, and their elected representatives, will determine those limitations. And those limitations CAN be influenced by current day events. It won’t take too many more Sandy Hooks before those limitations become more clearly defined.
I STAND CORRECTED!
Gun Control in Germany, 1928-1945
Quoting:
A common belief among defenders of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is that the National Socialist government of Germany under Adolf Hitler did not permit the private ownership of firearms. Totalitarian governments, they have been taught in their high school civics classes, do not trust their citizens and do not dare permit them to keep firearms. Thus, one often hears the statement, “You know, the first thing the Nazis did when they came to power was outlaw firearms,” or, “The first thing Hitler did in Germany was round up all the guns.”
(… See http://www.natvan.com/national-vanguard/assorted/gunhitler.html …)
Now read the German firearms laws for yourself, either in the original German exactly as they were published by the German government in the Reichsgesetzblatt or in the complete English translations which are provided here. If you want to skip over most of the legal gobbledygook and go directly to the most pertinent part of the National Socialist Firearms Law — the part pertaining to the purchase, ownership, and carrying of firearms by private citizens — turn to page 35 (Part IV of the Law). Note, as already mentioned above, that two separate and distinct types of permits are referred to: a Weapons Acquisition Permit (Waffenerwerbschein), required only for purchasing a handgun; and a Weapons Permit (Waffenschein), required for carrying any firearm in public. Interestingly enough, as also mentioned above, a hunting license could take the place of both these permits.
When you have read the two laws reproduced here, you will understand that it was Hitler’s enemies, not Hitler, who should be compared with the gun-control advocates in America today. Then as now it was the Jews, not the National Socialists, who wanted the people’s right of self- defense restricted. You will understand that those who continue to make the claim that Hitler was a gun-grabber are either ignorant or dishonest. And you will understand that it was not until 1945, when the communist and democratic victors of the Second World War had installed occupation governments to rule over the conquered Germans that German citizens were finally and completely denied the right to armed self-defense.
A fairly good article on German Guns laws is at;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Germany
Nice article Carl,
It essentially supports the above.
It totally changed my view on the National Socialist’s tyranny re “gun control” and it clearly shows that Sen. Dianne Goldman Berman Feinstein current Gun proposal is far more oppressive that the one of the Hitler.
It appears that Hitler’s laws were essentially in line with the 2nd……… Hmmmmm
Well, I’m not so sure I would go that far about German firearms laws. He did take them out of the hands of who he saw as his enemies. While easing the very restrictive laws that were imposed after WW1 by intentional treaty.
German gun laws have “progressed” so that only those of above average means can afford to own or use them and where is strictly limited. Which is more inline where most progressives seem to be headed.
The additional expenses in purchasing, taxing, storing, and using legally, all add up. Most folks don’t realize that there are already special excise taxes built into all firearms and ammo prices right now and of course they just keep going up with everything else.
Recently, Rush Limbaugh was talking about additional $4K annually paid tax for the Obama care premium for smokers on the top of the regular one.
I am sure that soon they will do same for the gun owners claiming gun related injuries and deaths.
That is why the registration is so important to them so they can send you a bill.
I am sure that soon they will demand, on the Obama care insurance questioner, to answer “are you a gun owner” under the penalty of perjury under which all insurance applications are submitted.
You may be looking at additional $5K -10K for owning the gun.
This is what the opponents of the Obama care ware fright of that will happen.
Anything can go under the health care.
It is taxing bonanza for the Left Liberals to completely destroy the American civilization as we know it.
In today’s Senate Gun Control Hearings, the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre says that the organization no longer supports universal background checks.