Guns

[FoolKiller]

I doubt even a perfect healthcare system could address this problem. A certain amount of personal responsibility is usually needed to diagnose and treat conditions that can lead to this and you can't enforce that no matter how hard you try.

But the US healthcare system, due to the regulatory design, has mistreated mental health. In most cases a primary care provider must refer you to a specialist, but primary care providers many times just write a prescription for meds and move them along, not sending them through proper treatment. A primary care provider is not trained to treat mental health.

One good thing the new law does is remove this restriction, considering mental health equal to any other specialist treatment. Starting in January, my insurance will allow me to go straight to a psychologist without a referral, the same as I can a cardiologist. Give that five to ten years to catch on and the stigma of treatment to fade and we will likely see some improvement in how mental health is treated.

 

[arora]

A primary care provider is not trained to treat mental health.

Apparently neither is Veterans Affairs, just as I've said many times before I'll bet doughnuts to dollars the ship yard guy was given ssri's among other things and just sent along his jolly way with no meaningful treatment. How many of these mass shooting perps are high on pills? All of them I would guess.

These drugs are great don't get me wrong, but they have powerful effects and the people taking them need supervision from a psychiatrist as well as some intense counseling from a psychologist. There are no short cuts when it comes to mental health.

 

[Badasp5.0]

Apparently neither is Veterans Affairs,
.

Don't get me started on the VA especially there mental heath programs.

 

[Nicksfix]

It's now official. The Obama administration (John Kerry) signed the United Nations Arms Treaty.

Article

It's not ratified by the Senate yet, so there is a little bit of time to make your voice known.

Call your Senators, express yourself, give them a subtle reminder about the next election.

 

[FoolKiller]

Here is a case of strict gun control keeping one of those insane gun nuts off the streets and away from kids.

http://www.libertyglobe.com/2013/09/22/this-man-lost-everything-sent-prison-brian-aitken/

This Man Lost Everything When He Was Sent to Prison Despite Not Breaking Any Laws

Brian Aitken is a normal, law abiding citizen; at the time of his arrest he still had student loans, a wife and a young child.

Everything changed when he was arrested and sent to serve time for something which was actually legal.

While he was moving from Colorado to New Jersey, Brian was pulled over and had his vehicle searched despite not being suspected of a crime. In the car he had two locked, unloaded and legally purchased firearms. The law specifically outlines an exemption clause which allows the transportation of legally owned firearms while in the process of moving. During the trial, the jury even asked the judge 3 times if they could rule based on this law but the requests were denied!

Brian was sentenced to 7 years for doing something that was legal, he was not breaking the law, he fell victim to a judge applying the rules how he saw fit. Thankfully, the governor of New Jersey released Brian early, but the NJ supreme court refuses to hear his case and his status as a convicted felon means he cannot see his son.

He is now raising money for a book through Indiegogo which he will then use the proceeds of to take his case to the US Supreme Court. No matter what side you are on in the gun control debate, this is a case of severe injustice.

 

[a6m5]

Story made no sense, so I hit Wikipedia.

Background:

A digital media entrepreneur,[7][dead link] Aitken has partnered with companies like Patrón, Gibson Guitars, Mercedes-Benz, and BMW [1] and received his executive education from the NYU Stern School of Business. His website displayed blog entries dating up until two days prior to his incarceration.[8][dead link]
Aitken was born in Pennsylvania and moved to Colorado where he married a fellow New Jersey émigré and became a legal resident. After his divorce, he returned to New Jersey where he had attended college to be near his young son and other family members. During the course of his move back to New Jersey he made several trips by commercial airline to and from Colorado. Prior to the last trip he sought clearance from the United States Department of Homeland Security Transportation Security Administration to transport three handguns in his checked luggage. This clearance was granted.[9]

Arrest:

On January 2, 2009 Aitken's mom dialed 911 while Aitken was packing his car to move to Hoboken.[9] His mom hung-up the phone before the call was answered. The Mount Laurel Police Department responded to an abandoned 911 call to find that Aitken had said he "didn't see the point in being here if he couldn't see [his] son". This vague comment relayed to the police caused them to call Aitken on his cell phone to determine his 'state of mind'.[10][dead link] Aitken told the officers he was not suicidal at which point Officer Michael Joy asked Aitken to return to Mount Laurel. Aitken asked if he was legally required to return to which Officer Joy responded that he did not have to return to Mount Laurel. Aitken thanked Officer Joy and stated that he would not be returning, however, minutes later Officer Joy made another call to Aitken notifying him that a 'General Alert' had been issued to New Jersey jurisdictions and that the Police would "pick him up" and "bring him back" if he did not return on his own. Officer Joy testified at trial that Aitken was "not free to leave until we're through with the matter" despite the fact that Aitken had not been charged with, or suspected of committing, a crime [10][dead link] The coercive nature of the second phone call to Aitken and Officer Joy's subsequent actions have been cited by many as a breach of Aitken's rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Fearing a manhunt, Aitken returned to Mount Laurel and the responding officers searched Aitken's car and discovered three locked and unloaded handguns in the trunk. Aitken was subsequently arrested for possession of these weapons and was sentenced to seven years in prison by Judge James Morley.[11] Judge Morley's decision not to provide information to the jury regarding exceptions to New Jersey's relatively strict firearm possession laws became a source of controversy.[9] Gun laws in the United States vary widely by state and require expert knowledge to understand the differences.[2]
During the jury instructions Judge Morley did not charge the jury with the exemptions to the New Jersey law despite arguments by the defense that Aitken met one of the exemptions and was therefore innocent of the charges. The jury returned three times requesting to be made aware of the laws that provide exemptions for lawful possession, however, all three requests were denied by the judge.[9] One of the jury requests read:
"Why did you make us aware at the start of the trial that the law allows a person to carry a weapon if the person is moving or going to a shooting range, and during the trial both the defense and prosecution presented testimony as to whether or not the defendant was in the process of moving, and then in your charge for us to deliberate we are not permitted to take into consideration whether or not we believe the defendant was moving?"[12]
In an interview with ABC News Joel Bewley, a spokesman for the Burlington County Prosecutor's Office, stated:
"The defendant's attorneys presented evidence that his house was for sale and that at the time of arrest he was travelling from one residence in New Jersey to another."[13]

Yeah, Wikipedia is not exactly a credible source, but I'm of the impression there was bit more to the story, and I suspect the media spin lost some of the detail in the shuffle. Don't get me wrong, it looks like a cluster flack, and totally mishandled by the authorities & courts.

 

[Keef]

I personally feel that any public servant, such as police officers and judges, should have their career be based on a lack of mistakes in it. You make a mistake enforcing a law, such as having given a ticket to a recipient who then proved it unwarranted, or making an arrest which gets overturned, or a judge who falsely convicts a person such as in this case, means that your credentials and career are taken from you and you're never allowed to work in the public sector again. Judges should suffer a further consequence in that eligibility for current or potential government benefits will be revoked.

But no jail time. Jail is too easy. I really don't think such a punishment is outlandish - hell, I didn't even suggest they repay any government benefits they've received in the past. I mean, I just think that they should be genuinely scared to do their jobs poorly. But hey, maybe that's just me being irrational.

 

[FoolKiller]

Keef, your idea has a problem. Lawyers are professional liars and juries are not trained to understand the law.

Your system would require deeper investigations that aren't possible in all arrests. You are looking to punish police and judges for something that may have been justified at the time, based on all known facts, but later evidence may change how those facts become considered.

That said, I imagine a detective does have it show up on his performance record if he screws up the arrest and it becomes an issue of point in court.

Honestly, I can fix it. End police unions and give time limits to appointed judges.

 

[BobK]

Another problem is that everybody makes mistakes. Now I'd be the first to agree that a demonstrated history of mistakes could and should be grounds for removal, I don't believe that an otherwise exemplary career should be ruined by one mistake in handing out, say, a traffic ticket or in prosecuting same. Furthermore it should not be so difficult to get a mistake rectified.as in the case cited above.

 

[Danoff]

I don't really disagree with any of what has been posted. Keef's sentiment is sound, though, a judge who instructs a jury to disregard (3 times) a relevant law in their verdict should be fired and disbarred.

 

[FoolKiller]

I don't really disagree with any of what has been posted. Keef's sentiment is sound, though, a judge who instructs a jury to disregard (3 times) a relevant law in their verdict should be fired and disbarred.

My biggest issue with the judge doing that is he completely ignores juror's rights. They have the right to take that in consideration no matter what he says. They have the right to rule not guilty if they disagree with the law that was broken.

The judge can instruct them on what the law says. He can not instruct them on how they can rule or why. A judge who instructs this way makes it sound as if a ruling he disagrees with will result in punishment.


And this is why I have never served on a jury, and probably never will.

 

[d3uc3_dropp3r]

And this is why I have never served on a jury, and probably never will.

How did you manage to do that?

The news is pretty crappy considering I live in NJ. At least Chris Christie pardoned him.

 

[FoolKiller]

How did you manage to do that?

Registered Libertarian. No prosecutor wants me on his jury. If I made it to the stage where they ask the jurors questions I would start discussing jury nullification and see how quickly I get asked to leave.

 

[Zenith]

I thought this was pretty funny:

NYC Police Commissioner wants to use tax payer money to hire 6 personal bodyguards.

I thought that the SAFE Act and the stop-and-frisk measures made NYC a safety paradise.

 

[a6m5]

I'm disappointed. Couple of figures I've really respected in Hollywood waged war on people like me. Law abiding citizens & residents of United States who enjoy firearms for recreation, or those who rely on firearms to protect themselves & their family.

Hollywood Movie Mogul Plans Film To Make NRA 'Wish They Weren't Alive'

Hollywood movie mogul Harvey Weinstein has warned the National Rifle Association (NRA) he plans to make a movie with Meryl Streep that will make them "wish they weren’t alive."


The NRA did not immediately respond Thursday to the warning, made in an interview on shock-jock Howard Stern's show, in which Weinstein said he hoped to turn cinema goers against the gun lobby.

"I don’t think we need guns in this country, and I hate it. I think the NRA is a disaster area," said Weinstein, known for his support for Democratic President Barack Obama and for gun control.

"I shouldn't say this, but I'll tell it to you, Howard. I'm going to make a movie with Meryl Streep, and we're going to take this head-on," Weinstein told the radio host Wednesday.

"And they're going to wish they weren't alive after I'm done with them," the straight-talking studio chief, who has huge clout in Hollywood and is also known for his ability to generate publicity.

He added that he does not own a gun and never wants to.

Mass shootings regularly re-ignite America's debate about gun control, which the NRA strongly opposes. The December 2012 massacre of 20 small children and six adults in Newtown Connecticut spurred Obama into new efforts, but they have been largely stymied in Congress.

A spokesman for the NRA and publicists for Streep -- who secured her record 18th Oscar nomination Thursday morning -- did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Harvey and Bob Weinstein have been behind some of Hollywood's most iconic movies, and they are known for their ability to guide projects towards awards season success, with films like 2010's best picture Oscar winner "The King's Speech."

BusinessInsider.com

It's always about disarming the law abiding people, not the criminals. It would be so refreshing to see on of these people, even just for once, lead a charge to disarming the criminals. I considered Weinstein a great man before this. It turns out that he's just another hypocrite who will talk up about rights until he doesn't agree with you. Now, he wants to destroy your rights.

 

[Imari]

It would be so refreshing to see on of these people, even just for once, lead a charge to disarming the criminals.

How does one go about disarming criminals? I mean, the point of criminals is that they're outside the system of rules that law abiding people live with. Short of going door to door strip-searching people, I'm not seeing it. Worst case for the criminals, they have to get another gun. Which is presumably not that hard.

Not that I disagree with you. Anyone who says "...they're going to wish they weren't alive after I'm done with them..." about a group he doesn't like is a reactionary idiot. Disarming criminals is fundamentally a good idea, but I suspect that if you were to try and actually implement that it might be difficult, for a number of reasons.

It's not like people have signs on their foreheads saying "I'm a criminal". Kids who shoot up schools and their parents are probably completely law abiding right up to the point the kids steals the gun from his parents and goes on a rampage.

 

[a6m5]

How does one go about disarming criminals? I mean, the point of criminals is that they're outside the system of rules that law abiding people live with. Short of going door to door strip-searching people, I'm not seeing it. Worst case for the criminals, they have to get another gun. Which is presumably not that hard.

Not that I disagree with you. Anyone who says "...they're going to wish they weren't alive after I'm done with them..." about a group he doesn't like is a reactionary idiot. Disarming criminals is fundamentally a good idea, but I suspect that if you were to try and actually implement that it might be difficult, for a number of reasons.

It's not like people have signs on their foreheads saying "I'm a criminal". Kids who shoot up schools and their parents are probably completely law abiding right up to the point the kids steals the gun from his parents and goes on a rampage.

Anti-gun lobby are willing to change the law, regulations, the constitution to disarm the lawful. While it's true that criminals don't advertise their business on their forehead, authorities are very well aware of countless criminal individuals & organizations. How about doing something completely unlawful & unreasonable to change law to go after them instead? Do I support this? Absolutely not. How would one accomplish this? I have no idea.

Again, what I'm pointing out is that anti-gun lobby is either lying and are out to just disarm the public in general, or that they consistently misdirect & mistarget their effort to create laws that will not only accomplish very little, but violate the very basic rights of millions.

Am I crazy to suggest that if they truly want to stop gun violence, direct these unreasonable attack on rights against the criminals?

 

[Imari]

Again, what I'm pointing out is that anti-gun lobby is either lying and are out to just disarm the public in general...

When Weinstein says "I don’t think we need guns in this country, and I hate it", he's hardly veiling his opinion that he'd like to disarm everyone.

Certainly a lot of anti-gun stuff is pushed under false pretences, but I'm not sure that what you posted before is one of them.

 

[a6m5]

When Weinstein says "I don’t think we need guns in this country, and I hate it", he's hardly veiling his opinion that he'd like to disarm everyone.

Certainly a lot of anti-gun stuff is pushed under false pretences, but I'm not sure that what you posted before is one of them.

I'm bit confused. Are you referring to a particular claim I made, or one of the speculations I listed as a possibility?

 

[Imari]

I'm bit confused. Are you referring to a particular claim I made, or one of the speculations I listed as a possibility?

I assumed we were talking about the article you posted in this post.

I'm disappointed. Couple of figures I've really respected in Hollywood waged war on people like me. Law abiding citizens & residents of United States who enjoy firearms for recreation, or those who rely on firearms to protect themselves & their family.



It's always about disarming the law abiding people, not the criminals. It would be so refreshing to see on of these people, even just for once, lead a charge to disarming the criminals. I considered Weinstein a great man before this. It turns out that he's just another hypocrite who will talk up about rights until he doesn't agree with you. Now, he wants to destroy your rights.

 

[a6m5]

I assumed we were talking about the article you posted in this post.

Ah, my bad. The article. When you said what I posted, I thought you were referring to something I typed. Let me try this again:

When Weinstein says "I don’t think we need guns in this country, and I hate it", he's hardly veiling his opinion that he'd like to disarm everyone.

Certainly a lot of anti-gun stuff is pushed under false pretences, but I'm not sure that what you posted before is one of them.

In regards to the article, I wasn't accusing Weinstein of false pretense. I accused him of hypocrisy. Of the anti-gun lobby, I did suggest that they are either doing it wrong, or that it may be a big conspiracy to disarm the public.

 

[Imari]

In regards to the article, I wasn't accusing Weinstein of false pretense. I accused him of hypocrisy. Of the anti-gun lobby, I did suggest that they are either doing it wrong, or that it may be a big conspiracy to disarm the public.

I dunno about the rights thing. I think people tend to pretend that they're not totally arbitrary. I mean, I've got the same natural right to a gun that I do to a couple of kilos of plutonium, except that one's legal and the other isn't.

At the end of the day it's all made up rules, and people try and twist them to get what they want personally.

 

[a6m5]

I dunno about the rights thing. I think people tend to pretend that they're not totally arbitrary. I mean, I've got the same natural right to a gun that I do to a couple of kilos of plutonium, except that one's legal and the other isn't.

At the end of the day it's all made up rules, and people try and twist them to get what they want personally.

That's one way to look at it I suppose, but I have to disagree. Weapons to defend one's life, or family's one thing, but heavy military weapons or technology's a stretch. Fact that small arms do exist in millions of American homes, and also in the hands of millions of criminals here is very real, and I think that should also be taken into account in a discussion like this.

 

[Imari]

Fact that small arms do exist in millions of American homes, and also in the hands of millions of criminals here is very real, and I think that should also be taken into account in a discussion like this.

That's a bit of a chicken and egg thing going on there though, isn't it? You need guns to protect your life because everyone has guns?

I don't think it's unreasonable for an appropriately trained person with a need for a gun to have one. It's a bit like a vehicle in that way. I do think a lot of people have guns just because they can, and that sort of leads to what you're talking about with guns in literally millions of homes.

 

[a6m5]

That's a bit of a chicken and egg thing going on there though, isn't it? You need guns to protect your life because everyone has guns?

In my opinion, that's beside the point. I brought up the millions of guns in homes & hands of criminals, because you brought up plutonium. I was trying to illustrate one is real life, millions of operators in existence, and nobody in this country is arming themselves with a nuclear weapon.

I don't think it's unreasonable for an appropriately trained person with a need for a gun to have one. It's a bit like a vehicle in that way. I do think a lot of people have guns just because they can, and that sort of leads to what you're talking about with guns in literally millions of homes.

So fundamentally, you don't see anything wrong with it? By the way you worded this, it sounds like you don't personally approve of the gun rights in the U.S., but you do respect their right to arm themselves? If so, we are arguing over nothing for no reason.

 

[Imari]

So fundamentally, you don't see anything wrong with it? By the way you worded this, it sounds like you don't personally approve of the gun rights in the U.S., but you do respect their right to arm themselves? If so, we are arguing over nothing for no reason.

I'm not arguing over anything. I simply thought there was an interesting discussion to be had. I threw that extra bit in exactly so that you would see that I wasn't opposing you in any way, just gathering information.

Apparently it didn't really work, because you still feel like I'm arguing with you.

You clearly feel strongly about gun rights in response to the article you posted, and I wondered what your reasoning was. I live in a country where there's extremely strict gun control and that's really very unlikely to change any time soon. It doesn't matter to me what the U.S. does with it's gun laws, but it is still interesting to observe.

 

[a6m5]

I'm not arguing over anything. I simply thought there was an interesting discussion to be had. I threw that extra bit in exactly so that you would see that I wasn't opposing you in any way, just gathering information.

Apparently it didn't really work, because you still feel like I'm arguing with you.

You clearly feel strongly about gun rights in response to the article you posted, and I wondered what your reasoning was. I live in a country where there's extremely strict gun control and that's really very unlikely to change any time soon. It doesn't matter to me what the U.S. does with it's gun laws, but it is still interesting to observe.

Arguing as in discussing, debating. To be honest, knowing now what kind of answers you were looking for, I found the questions way too indirect, and stuff about plutonium, or chicken/egg just confused me further. I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, so please, next time, tell me exactly what you are looking for.

 

[Michael88]

Ooops, wrong thread again.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Ruger to stop selling guns in CA. Why? California, as a state, has one of the toughest gun control laws in the books as far as the manufacture and sale of guns. Each gun that is to be sold in the state must first pass a DOJ inspection, which costs $200 per gun, and if it passes, can be approved for sale in CA. However, each gun that passes must remain legal to sell by way of another $200 inspection, and any variation to the weapon, such as a different finish or sights, must require a new inspection and a new fee.

This year, a new regulation broke the camel's back as CA is now requiring a special firing pin that imprints the serial number on the shell casing of the bullet. The liberals in charge of the state think that it would reduce crime, but it has been proven ineffective. This has, in effect, banned the sale of semi autos in the state.

 

[FiLaM1989]

First off, I'm not against semi-automatic firearms. People always judge them by the looks just as video games and movies put together. We can hunt with an AR-15 even though it's not a hunting rifle, but we can't hunt with an AK-74. An AR-15 doesn't have a fire selector and anti-gun lobbyists mistaken it as an assault rifle. Second, do not give firearms to the schizophrenics. Schizophrenics have high tendency of rampages and suicides. That's why I voted for moderate control.