2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumBernie and Guns
I watched and then rewatched his interview with Chris Hayes - and trust me, I hate MSNBC now, so tuning in, even to see Bernie, was a chore.
What I heard him say wasn't this evil thing that this board has been telling me tonight.
He believes in background checks.
He believes in closing the gun show loopholes.
What he doesn't believe in is violating the Second Amendment.
Yeah, we have one of those.
I don't own guns, however, both my husband and I have been trained more professionally than most people on this board. I learned at the state police academy as part of a story I was doing as a reporter. I trained with the rookie cops. I was NOT given special treatment (other than I'm too small to have made the "cut" for a cop, so I did have to ask for some assistance in how to rack the rifle). My husband was in the Army - enough said.
Trust me. We can both shoot, clean and keep a gun safe. We choose not to. We don't need to hunt, nor like to do so. We have children. And, we have rescue dogs who would tear anyone who touched me or the kids from stem to stern if they tried. No. I don't need a gun.
But what Bernie added to this discussion is this: access to mental health counseling.
THAT is the difference between the average gun owner and the these nuts who shoot up innocents in the public square.
No one really talks about that. They say to just ban guns or restrict guns or let the good guys shoot the bad guys like the OK Corral. All of that is for naught if someone is bound and determined because they're in dire need of mental healthcare.
The gun violence issue is important, but, admittedly, not my number one, even though my son's fourth grade teacher shot and paralyzed his principle and a gang member shot and killed another gang member at my son's high school (before he was there).
My number one is bringing us up to "code" with the rest of the industrialized world and getting these people help or making it easier for a parent to stay at home with a child who needs their parent or making it easier for parents to take some time off with their kids.
That's why I'm for Bernie. It's time we stopped working ourselves to death and spent time with our families because we CAN, we'd all be better off.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)He needs to say that it was a mistake to vote for providing immunity to gun manufacturers.
Bernie needs to say it was a mistake for him to oppose background checks for handguns in the 1990's.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)Why would you hold a gun manufacturer responsible for making a killing machine. Don't we all know that's what they are?
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)And establishing precedent of allowing lawsuits against companies for production of legal products without narrow exceptions is EXTREMELY awful policy that no amount of horror about today's shootings can change.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)Abortion is legal, but all manners of legal shenanigans have been allowed to keep women from being able to exercise their legal right to an abortion.
To me, it's the same thing: a violation of the Constitution.
moobu2
(4,822 posts)there are several ways they could utilize new technology for instance. Gun manufacturers should be open to litigation exactly like any other product manufacturer is.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)Doesn't everyone wish the two could be separated? Absolutely, but that's not how the legal system works.
mythology
(9,527 posts)They were sued for not just lying about the harm, but also for advertising to kids. Gun manufacturers advertise in survivalist magazines and other places that have a wide readership of people who lack a basic grasp on reality.
Gun manufacturers also refuse to add safety features that would save lives. You can't make a car without seat belts or airbags. Also gun manufacturers fight to block things like background checks or block gun dealers who repeatedly have guns turn up in crimes. A bar can be sued for letting customers leave to drive while drunk.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)but allowing suits against manufacturers is an ass-backward approach. Those lawsuits would be thrown out of court.
Bernie didn't like the 5 day waiting period for background checks with the Brady bill. He voted for instant background checks.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)The reason for the law is precisely the opposite: the lawsuits were succeeding, and some gun companies (like Smith and Wesson) were changing their business practices in ways that would reduce gun violence. But the NRA couldn't have that. So they teamed up with Bernie to prop up our gun homicide rate along with the all important gun industry profits.
It was a horrible vote. It would be simple enough for him to just admit it, rather than giving dumb excuses for it like that hammer analogy of his.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)There is no way in hell that merely changing the business practices of gun manufacturers would have any effect on gun violence....we have 300 million guns in circulation.
I don't own guns myself. Listening to these discussions after each tragic massacre depresses me because I rarely hear anyone propose a solution that would have the slightest impact.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I've seen it compared to suits against tobacco companies, but a key difference is that the tobacco companies were actively lying to consumers about the dangers of their product.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)for the most part, interdiction of the sale of tobacco to minors is a success.
Gun companies would make it more difficult for their product to get into the wrong hands if there was a financial/legal incentive for them to do so.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Are we proposing on-site psychological evaluations?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Making gun manufacturers more responsible for who they sell to would make these multinational corporations pay attention more to where their products end up.
I don't like corporate protection for gun manufacturers.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)they aren't forced to sell their products to people. they have me your absolute power to condition the sale of their products
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)I agree with him: make it instant.
-none
(1,884 posts)Anyone wanting to use a gun shop like a grocery store is a potential murder, background check or no.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Its laughable to see his backers tie themselves up in knots trying to justify his reactionary, knee jerk, right wing position on guns and the protection of the big businesses that profit off the slaughter their weapons of mass killing make possible!
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Trying to sue gun manufacturers out of business for making legal products is a losing strategy.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Bernie is pro-gun control and is speaking out about the issue.
DUers should be attacking the Republicans who refuse to allow us to pass legislation to address the gun problem, not blaming Bernie.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)It's about mental health.
I'm lucky enough to be able to take time off or work from home when my children need me. Most people aren't.
dsc
(52,166 posts)How about Australia and New Zealand? None of them, not a single solitary one of them, have the mass shooting problem we have. Gee I wonder what is different about here?
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)And are allowed to take more time off from work with a mentally-ill family member without losing their jobs than we do.
Yes. There is gun control, but there is also better access to mental healthcare.
We don't seem to talk about that.
dsc
(52,166 posts)have single payer to name two, and I will concede there is likely more leave for those taking care of the mentally ill, it isn't unlimited.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)I fully support background checks, waiting periods, increased sale regulations and possibly bans on public ownership of certain types of firearms. What I will never support is outright banning of firearms or suing manufacturers for making legal devices. Bernie ' s positions line up with mine.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)That is my position, as well.
I believe in the Second Amendment, which, "in my view," also means a well regulated militia. That means you can have your guns, but we get to regulate that.
Right?
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)Gun fetishists tend to forget the "well-regulated" part.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)I'd hope they'd require me to show I knew how to use it, but they wouldn't.
The thing is: I wouldn't mind.
840high
(17,196 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)Hydra
(14,459 posts)For whatever reason, the people who want to ban guns in the hands of private citizens seem to think that's the only way to kill people, and murders and mass killings will disappear magically if they do.
I'd rather we change the culture- we encourage violence of all kinds, and then wonder why it leads to killing people. As far as I can tell, there's nothing positive we're getting out of it, so why are we not doing something about it?
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)But you do have to wonder why movies and TV shows that encourage that are so popular.
Hydra
(14,459 posts)But there's nothing to say we can't change what values we emphasize- otherwise why fight against racism, sexism, LBGT issues, classism, social darwinism, etc?
I'd like to see us become a more equal, accepting and less warlike nation. Unless the RW 1/4 of America is totally unsalvageable, I think we can do better about that.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)DebJ
(7,699 posts)short of a bomb. It just doesn't happen.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)DebJ
(7,699 posts)So you REALLY think that everything from Columbine forward would have happened with knives?
ROFLMAO.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)The Osaka school massacre took place on June 8, 2001, at Ikeda Elementary School, an elite primary school affiliated with Osaka Kyoiku University in Osaka Prefecture, Japan.
At 10:15 that morning, 37-year-old former janitor Mamoru Takuma entered the school armed with a kitchen knife and began stabbing numerous school children and teachers. He killed eight children, mostly between the ages of seven and eight, and seriously wounded thirteen other children and two teachers.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre
Knock it off with the straw man argument, you're not fooling anyone.
You said:
short of a bomb. It just doesn't happen.
I provided one example and now you're moving the goalposts and accusing me of making an argument that's not mine.
DebJ
(7,699 posts)without guns. Period. Despite what I've heard people say, that killers will find a way no matter what, that's just not true... it's just
not feasible. The movie theatre killings, the school killings.... just wouldn't happen. Stuck in a moving train, okay. But otherwise,
no, we would not have this proliferation.
Who wouldn't be happy right now to see that in the last umpteen years, there was only 2 mass killings with knives, instead of what we
see today..........wait, make that only two in the last FEW MONTHS.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)And there have been more than 2 mass killings with knives in the last "umpteen" years.
BROKEN ARROW, Okla. - When officers from the Broken Arrow Police Department responded to a silent 911 call late Wednesday night the last thing they expected to find was five people stabbed to death.
According to Cpl. Leon Calhoun, the suburb of Tulsa, which was named one of America's safest cities in 2007, averages less than one murder a year.
A mass murder like this one "isn't just unusual, it's unheard of," Calhoun told 48 Hours' Crimesider.
Cops were called to the home after someone called 911 from inside the house but did not speak. Cpl. Calhoun said officers were dispatched to investigate whether there was a problem and found the bodies of David Bever, 52, April Bever, 44, and three of their children. The Associated Press reports that the deceased children are a 5-year-old girl, and two boys, ages 7 and 12.
Now, the Bever's 18-year-old son, Robert, and his 16-year-old brother are in custody, suspected of the murders.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-details-in-stabbing-deaths-of-5-oklahoma-family-members/
I'm not making an argument against gun control, I simply provided three examples that proved you wrong. Just admit it and move on.
DebJ
(7,699 posts)People have also, over the course of history, been struck by falling objects from airplanes and killed, and occasionally
someone runs their automobile right through a house and kills someone sleeping in their bed.
But the TRUTH remains that almost everyone of the mass killings we have suffered would not have occurred without
guns. Period.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Since you realize that was wrong I guess we're done here.
DebJ
(7,699 posts)but that's not what we are dealing with, with guns. Mass killings with knives are bizarre and unusual circumstances. Mass killing with guns have become a routine occurrence. Like I said, I don't know anyone who wouldn't consider things extremely improved if the only mass killings done were done with knives. Then we'd hear about those so rarely we wouldn't think of mass killings as an issue in this country.
Without guns, how many of these would have taken place?
http://everytown.org/article/schoolshootings/
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Why is it so difficult to admit you were wrong?
Hydra
(14,459 posts)Biologicals could be a nasty new way to do business too.
Something as simple as bleach and ammonia do bad things to people. Bad people do bad things with whatever they have.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)training.
Americans do not channel or deal with anger well. Anger is a part of life.
We see this on DU. People get banned from DU all too frequently.
And why? Simply because they lose their tempers.
Some people who go on these shooting sprees are genuinely hallucinating or severely depressed or otherwise truly mentally ill.
But many of them are just downright angry and unable to control their anger and in that sense mentally ill.
Some of the mass murderers who have been deemed truly mentally ill would not have been prevented from getting a gun by any laws because there were guns in the home (Sandy Hook) or they were very young (Columbine) and a psychologist would have had great difficulty categorizing them as dangerous because of their youth. In addition, it must be quite a difficult decision for a doctor or psychologist to report that a person is not mentally stable enough to obtain a gun permit or should have his/her gun taken away. The client/psychologist or doctor/patient relationship would be pretty much ruined if the doctor did that. It would be hard to prove that a patient is a danger to others without the patient's having actually harmed anyone or posed a risk to anyone. Putting someone in a psychiatric hospital for a long time is difficult to do if the person is legally an adult.
Also, assuming that the right to bear arms is a fundamental right, it is hard to deprive a person who has never committed a crime of such a fundamental right. It is very close to deciding someone is guilty and should be punished or penalized when in fact the evidence only supports the conclusion that the person could be dangerous.
So this is a much more difficult problem than those who want to deprive certain people based on the opinion of a psychologist or doctor of a fundamental right.
Background checks are OK, but it seems to me that before someone is denied the right to buy or own a gun, that person deserves to have a hearing similar to a hearing on a restraining order, a hearing before a judge with evidence presented.
So passing a law about gun ownership is not such an easy thing.
And I would not want to see a law that would make it difficult for people who hunt, who live in the country in isolated situations or even on large farms, unable to have guns and defend themselves.
Restrictions on certain types of ammunition and guns that are virtually only useful for killing people? Yes.
But you can't just have a blanket prohibition on gun ownership by people who are deemed mentally ill without affording people the due process that permits them to support evidence that they are healthy. No one should be assumed to be dangerous just because they have a mental illness. That is another problem with gun control laws. Each individual is entitled to due process before a gun permit is denied in my opinion.
DebJ
(7,699 posts)When 1/3 of the population or so thinks that things should always go their way, with no compromise, that's a good base for
anger right there.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Nobody gets to have it all. Not even if they are strong enough to take it all.
We have to share.
Should slaves have "compromised" with their masters?
I don't think that would have resulted in anything approaching justice.
Compromise comes about when those compromising respect each others' points of view.
There is an excellent book on this called "Nonviolent Communication."
The problem in our government today is that one side, the Republicans, have the view that their ideas are ordained by God and that to compromise is to betray God and the way God would have them act.
That's crazy, but it does not allow for compromise.
We see the same philosophy with the Muslim fanatics in the Middle East.
And, always, this religious fanaticism that does not permit compromise is associated with a power structure that benefits from the fanaticism and the resistance to compromise.
If President Obama, moderate, thoughtful. rational and caring person that he is, has not been able to reach compromise with the Republicans that allows for a budget and a way forward that insures a better life for all Americans, then who can?
For the Republicans and their wealthy donors and the fools that hang on every word Fox News utters, compromise is a dirty word.
That 1/3 that refuses to share, those who complain to be pro-life but who refuse to pay a few dollars more for their health insurance so that everyone can go to a doctor when they need to -- that 1/3 needs to be learn to share. And if they do, we probably won't have nearly the terrorism in the world. That goes for people in all countries although the specific framing of the issues may differ from country to country.
We have to learn to share more with each other.
DebJ
(7,699 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)rates of social programs also have wonderful kindergartens. In Austria and Germany and I think in France, a child of three is eligible to enter a wonderful world of kindergartens in which there is order and relative peace, opportunities to play and learn together, a process that encourages children to share.
The teachers in those kindergartens are well selected and trained.
We have a hodge-podge of day cares with sometimes untrained teachers. We need to do better.
Bernie Sanders promises to do better. President Obama has proposed universal pre-school for all American children. We really need to make that a priority. It will help us solve a lot of our problems. I won't list them. I think you agree with me.
Thanks.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)alp227
(32,047 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)The "well regulated militia" part is always conveniently dropped.
It's one thing to play dressup in the woods but imagine if everyone who wanted a gun was required to serve in the military.
The "security of a free state" part is also forgotten. The idiots we have playing dressup in the woods are planning for the day when the federal guvmunt is gonna git em.
The 2nd is supposed to PROTECT that government. Not oppose it.
We don't NEED a militia anymore anyway. We're screwing up enough by maintaining a standing army and imposing registration for a potential draft.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)There's a long history of those being reversed.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Can you give me some examples?
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)Anything more recent than 1866?
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)In both cases the move was towards expanding rights not restricting them. Can you show a single case that removed or restricted an existing right?
Two cases in 150 years. And both expanded, not restricted, civil rights. Not much to hang your hat on, is it?
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Heller was mentioned prior.
Dissenting opinions:
The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people to maintain a well regulated militia. It was a response to the concern that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to state sovereignty. Neither the text of the Second Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidence the slightest interest by the Framers in limiting any legislatures authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms.
There is no indication that the Framers intended to enshrine the common law right of self-defense in the Constitution. The view in Miller that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes, but does not curtail the Legislatures power to regulate the nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons, is both the most natural reading of the Amendments text and the interpretation most faithful to the history of its adoption. The majority fails to identify any new evidence supporting the view that the Amendment was intended to limit the power of Congress to regulate civilian uses of weapons.
Dissent (Breyer)
The Second Amendment protects militia-related interests, not self-defense-related interests. Furthermore, the Amendment permits government to regulate the interests that it serves. Colonial history itself offers important examples of the kinds of gun regulation that citizens would then have thought compatible with the right to keep and bear arms, including substantial regulation of firearms in urban areas, and regulations that imposed limitations on the use of firearms for the protection of the home.
Adoption of a true strict scrutiny standard for evaluating gun control regulations would be impossible and I would adopt an interest-balancing inquiry. In applying this kind of standard the Court normally defers to a legislatures empirical judgment in matters where a legislature is likely to have greater expertise and greater institutional fact finding capacity.
This case is also cited as DC v. Heller. See United States v. Lopez for a constitutional law case brief addressing the constitutionality of gun control legislation enacted by Congress in exercise of its power under the Commerce Clause.
See how quickly it could change?
hack89
(39,171 posts)Have you ever wondered why a conservative court hasn't reversed Roe yet if it is so easy?j
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Republicans only use the issue to point at Demoncrats and claim they are killing babies as blood offerings to Satan.
Well,....you asked.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)There was a time when you could legally own a Tommy gun and hand grenades. The massacres of the gangland era caused the outrage to ban those.
We had a grade school massacre and,.......crickets.
hack89
(39,171 posts)AWBs, registration, and licenses are constitutional right now. All Heller says is that you have a right to own a handgun in your home for self defense.
The 2A and Heller is not your problem. Lack of political and public support is.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)I believe a LOT of it goes back to the problem in the Beltway where they believe the country is much more conservative than it actually is. That, and they've forgotten that the goal of politics isn't to raise money and avoid conflict.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Not for things like registration and gun bans. More to the point, that support is not evenly distributed which certainly shapes the political landscape.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)The public is firmly in the middle between the extremists on either side. Just like DU.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Rattlesnakes were fond of the morning sun on my back porch. I used to strap on a .22 revolver loaded with rat shot to feed the chickens. There were bear tracks near the blackberry bushes that grew along the creek that ran past the house so I had a 20 gauge pump with alternating 00 and slugs just in case.
I would have had ZERO problem with registering those guns.
I also realize that I don't need them anymore since I moved back to the city.
hack89
(39,171 posts)In a significant manner I will not support it.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)The ballistic signature of a gun constantly changes as it is used. After a while that reference signature is useless.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)The technology exists to track ammo to the buyer too.
hack89
(39,171 posts)In NY and CT? You are building your fantasy on shifting sands. It is meaningless when people ignore the law and law enforcement refuses to enforce it. You will not be able to force this down the publics throat.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Irrelevant for suicides and mass shootings.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)aikoaiko
(34,183 posts)Been lost since late 1960s.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)We're never going to solve this, ever.
We won't and it's because we as a country can't come together on what should be done. Nobody is willing to work with anybody else and let's be honest, some of the ideas floated around by both sides are just there to get attention and nothing more. The rhetoric is like a game of volleyball.
Some will say "let's ban guns!" which may sound all nice and cheerful but in reality, if we banned guns, we have enough to last us centuries. Heck, it's as easy to buy a gun as it is illegal drugs. That is honestly a joke of a suggestion. Do you think for one second people are going to allow the Gov't come to their houses and knock on their door with Gestapo like tactics? Hell no. There are more handguns in this country than people and cars combined. It's wishful thinking and nothing less.
We need to start someplace where we can get something done. Is that mental health? Yes. However this only covers a small sliver of the the problem. As we all know, if someone wants a gun, they're going to get one, period. This is just an issue which I see going on and on and on and on..our apathy has allowed the problem to continue so long that we are now past the point of no return in solving this, an issue which could have been tackled and handled under Reagan but never was.
So what do we do because honestly I don't have answers anymore. We're screwed.
moobu2
(4,822 posts)looked like Bernie Sanders had that statement ready for the inevitable mass shooting event with him shifting blame to mental health and crap that he knows isn't the cause.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)So a person with good mental health would suddenly think to take a weapon and just go kill several people before committing suicide by cop?
I'll allow that a person with good mental health might be pushed to fly off the handle and kill a cheating spouse or kill to defend a loved one from a murderer or abuser, but I don't buy that James Holmes or Adam Lanza or Dylann Roof were in good mental health.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)How do their positions differ from Bernie's?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)far have not accomplished much since most DUers are far too intelligent not to recognize deliberate smear campaigns, distortions of a person's record etc.
I just ignore them, let them vent. It isn't harming Bernie one bit.
However I applaud you correctingtherecord as it's always a good think to counter distortions with facts.