(03-03-2020 01:46 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 01:18 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  I just have one question, one that we both ask a lot of people when we talk about this stuff to users of the range or buyers. Is it really bad learn more about how to care for and respect the weapon you're buying?

Of course not. It's also not bad to require basic knowledge about issues before you vote on them or have an ID to vote. SOME of it is related to the simple additional costs.

Quote:What I suggested isn't taking guns away from a soul who wants them and will respect their right to own them, because that's not something I would ever want to do. It would allow for accidental issues to stop happening at the rate they do and allow for greater security of weapons so that more stolen weapons don't flood the markets. It's clear that most of the outrage from the media and the bleeding hearts out there comes from the mass shooting events and domestic issues, things that are not typically done by people who are respectful gun owners. These sorts of programs would do quite a bit to help mitigate the amount of people able to purchase those guns in short order when their emotions may be out of whack. As I said before, I'm not for taking guns away at all, I'm for trying to find a way to weed out individuals who are not purchasing with good intentions.

First, I said this wasn't your goal... but it IS the goal of some.

to the bold, how so? Why would adding a few days to the waiting period matter? Sure, it might stop someone who was out of whack for 3 days but not 8... but it could also give some people with issues the false impression that because of the training, they're now 'safer' to own one.

Add to this the cost of compliance now for 100+mm people so as to impact a few who even if they succeed in killing themselves, haven't committed a crime? The solution to this aspect of the issue is better mental health care... not trying to eliminate all the potential options.

While there are all sorts of reasons for things to happen, some evidence suggests that there is little correlation between gun control and suicide rates... merely methods.

Quote:As for the illegal gun owners, there's literally NOTHING that can be done to mitigate that issue, at this point, it's kind of a wait for those people to figure things out type situation.

Here is where you lose me. You're suggesting that doing SOMETHING is better than figuring out a real solution. I couldn't disagree more. Perhaps if there were no chance that 'the left' on the issue wouldn't use this to do even more... but they've openly said that this is their goal.

If you can't require someone to take a knowledge assessment to vote, how can you require them to take one to own a gun?

I've always thought safety education for people who buy their first gun is a great idea, but I do agree with you that it won't stop mass shootings that stir up the left for stricter measures, b/c nothing they ever propose does anything to actually address the overall problem.

(03-02-2020 11:00 PM)TripleA Wrote:  You know, the "Hell, yes, we're coming after your AK-47, your AR-15" guy.

Uh huh...that should get Biden a lot of extra undecided votes, lol. Especially in the South and non-coastal West...

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-r...ndorsement

The DNC is just testing to see if VA can be turned to red. If not in this election, it will forever be blue.

(03-03-2020 01:55 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I've always thought safety education for people who buy their first gun is a great idea, but I do agree with you that it won't stop mass shootings that stir up the left for stricter measures, b/c nothing they ever propose does anything to actually address the overall problem.

To be clear, I don't really think it'll do that either. I'm just spit-balling ideas that could help a bit without being anything past the point of no return for lobby groups, that MAY help mitigate some of the issues individuals have with guns. The big issue is, and always will be, the lack of federal and state funding for mental health programs like we used to have. With the advances in modern diagnosis, treatment, and general counseling procedures, there is no reason why there should be so many issues still pertaining to access to mental health care for people who need it before they become a danger to themselves and others. Without there being a sincere effort to build out strong support for mental health awareness and treatment, nothing else will matter.

(03-03-2020 10:56 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  Beto is an idiot.

I'm a left leaning centrist who owns 2 handguns (Sig P220 and H&K USP) and and 2 rifles (Springfield M1A SOCOM 16 and R700). My best friend who is as red as they come runs a rifle range and gun shop in Ohio....we both have the answer that I don't think anyone can really argue against in a logical way.

Along with a background check and mental health confirmation period, and before the first purchase of a gun in any specific "class" (handgun, scout/short rifle, shotgun, long rifle, etc.), the purchaser must attend a training course, and not one of the ****** CCW courses we offer, but one that fully overviews every part of gun ownership, including safety, maintenance, laws of the state/federal government pertaining to that class, etc.. That would likely limit the impulse buyers who are doing something in the heat of the moment, would cut down on about 80% of the gun accidents in America while dealing with most of the guys we call "range idiots", and fully teach everyone to respect the gun.

What you offer here is of merit, utilizes common sense and would likely be supported by a majority of bipartisan American citizens. There's a problem though, what you're trying to create here doesn't line up with the end state of the left for this particular issue. Their end state goal is to take guns. They used to deny it, but now they're openly saying it (i.e. Robert Francis O'Rourke). Their ultimate goal is control, not safety. Safety is their BS talking point they'll hide behind and print on protest posters. They want supreme control and they know an armed populace isn't one they easily control.

(03-03-2020 12:36 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 08:24 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I was also wondering why there is a third drink at the table but maybe there is someone to the left of Beto? That also looks to be a Russian over the right shoulder of Biden.

looks like a woman in a black sweater with brown hair to the left of Beto

Buttigieg in her Tuesday wig?

(03-03-2020 01:18 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 12:46 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 10:56 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  Along with a background check and mental health confirmation period, and before the first purchase of a gun in any specific "class" (handgun, scout/short rifle, shotgun, long rifle, etc.), the purchaser must attend a training course, and not one of the ****** CCW courses we offer, but one that fully overviews every part of gun ownership, including safety, maintenance, laws of the state/federal government pertaining to that class, etc.. That would likely limit the impulse buyers who are doing something in the heat of the moment, would cut down on about 80% of the gun accidents in America while dealing with most of the guys we call "range idiots", and fully teach everyone to respect the gun.

Not saying this is a bad idea....

but in all seriousness, rifles account for a miniscule portion of gun deaths in this country.... something like 1% (3-400 out of 30,000)... as for hand-guns, while tragic when they DO happen, what percentage of non-justified gun deaths (accidents or crimes) are related to legal owners?

Assuming the numbers I anticipate... Said more simply... why AGAIN is the first step towards gun control is to go after those who will comply with whatever laws you put in front of them and are responsible for a small percentage of the issues... rather than those who will NOT comply and are responsible for a larger percentage of the issues?

The reason this is an issue is because I believe the right would endorse laws that take guns away from criminals... but they won't endorse laws that take guns away from everyone else.... In part because the stated intention of some who propose ideas like yours IS SPECIFICALLY to take guns away from law abiding citizens. I'm not saying that is YOUR goal... but YOU don't control the legislation

I just have one question, one that we both ask a lot of people when we talk about this stuff to users of the range or buyers. Is it really bad learn more about how to care for and respect the weapon you're buying?

What I suggested isn't taking guns away from a soul who wants them and will respect their right to own them, because that's not something I would ever want to do. It would allow for accidental issues to stop happening at the rate they do and allow for greater security of weapons so that more stolen weapons don't flood the markets. It's clear that most of the outrage from the media and the bleeding hearts out there comes from the mass shooting events and domestic issues, things that are not typically done by people who are respectful gun owners. These sorts of programs would do quite a bit to help mitigate the amount of people able to purchase those guns in short order when their emotions may be out of whack. As I said before, I'm not for taking guns away at all, I'm for trying to find a way to weed out individuals who are not purchasing with good intentions.

As for the illegal gun owners, there's literally NOTHING that can be done to mitigate that issue, at this point, it's kind of a wait for those people to figure things out type situation.

People should know about everything they own. Not just firearms. Cars being driven foolishly kill far more people than guns. What you are proposing is the government giving me the OK to purchase a firearm. A license if you will.
Not for this at all. This will evolve into just another way to restrict law abiding citizens of their constitutional rights.
Now if the government were to subsidize the NRA to teach these classes as a free benefit I might whole heartedly agree. Just as the government subsidizes abortion I might add.

(03-03-2020 03:12 PM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 01:18 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 12:46 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 10:56 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  Along with a background check and mental health confirmation period, and before the first purchase of a gun in any specific "class" (handgun, scout/short rifle, shotgun, long rifle, etc.), the purchaser must attend a training course, and not one of the ****** CCW courses we offer, but one that fully overviews every part of gun ownership, including safety, maintenance, laws of the state/federal government pertaining to that class, etc.. That would likely limit the impulse buyers who are doing something in the heat of the moment, would cut down on about 80% of the gun accidents in America while dealing with most of the guys we call "range idiots", and fully teach everyone to respect the gun.

Not saying this is a bad idea....

but in all seriousness, rifles account for a miniscule portion of gun deaths in this country.... something like 1% (3-400 out of 30,000)... as for hand-guns, while tragic when they DO happen, what percentage of non-justified gun deaths (accidents or crimes) are related to legal owners?

Assuming the numbers I anticipate... Said more simply... why AGAIN is the first step towards gun control is to go after those who will comply with whatever laws you put in front of them and are responsible for a small percentage of the issues... rather than those who will NOT comply and are responsible for a larger percentage of the issues?

The reason this is an issue is because I believe the right would endorse laws that take guns away from criminals... but they won't endorse laws that take guns away from everyone else.... In part because the stated intention of some who propose ideas like yours IS SPECIFICALLY to take guns away from law abiding citizens. I'm not saying that is YOUR goal... but YOU don't control the legislation

I just have one question, one that we both ask a lot of people when we talk about this stuff to users of the range or buyers. Is it really bad learn more about how to care for and respect the weapon you're buying?

What I suggested isn't taking guns away from a soul who wants them and will respect their right to own them, because that's not something I would ever want to do. It would allow for accidental issues to stop happening at the rate they do and allow for greater security of weapons so that more stolen weapons don't flood the markets. It's clear that most of the outrage from the media and the bleeding hearts out there comes from the mass shooting events and domestic issues, things that are not typically done by people who are respectful gun owners. These sorts of programs would do quite a bit to help mitigate the amount of people able to purchase those guns in short order when their emotions may be out of whack. As I said before, I'm not for taking guns away at all, I'm for trying to find a way to weed out individuals who are not purchasing with good intentions.

As for the illegal gun owners, there's literally NOTHING that can be done to mitigate that issue, at this point, it's kind of a wait for those people to figure things out type situation.

People should know about everything they own. Not just firearms. Cars being driven foolishly kill far more people than guns. What you are proposing is the government giving me the OK to purchase a firearm. A license if you will.
Not for this at all. This will evolve into just another way to restrict law abiding citizens of their constitutional rights.
Now if the government were to subsidize the NRA to teach these classes as a free benefit I might whole heartedly agree. Just as the government subsidizes abortion I might add.

I think that's a great idea honestly. Pay the people who understand it the most to teach the topic is the best plan I could think of. Hell, I've always thought one of the best ways to do this would be to teach gun safety in the same way we teach car safety and safe sex to secondary students, but that would likely get some of more ridiculous individuals up in arms about what their kids learn, so your suggestion would be a happy medium...and would odly enough probably sit even closer to the letter of the Constitution ("a well-regulated militia").

(03-03-2020 03:03 PM)CG_Hawk06 Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 10:56 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  Beto is an idiot.

I'm a left leaning centrist who owns 2 handguns (Sig P220 and H&K USP) and and 2 rifles (Springfield M1A SOCOM 16 and R700). My best friend who is as red as they come runs a rifle range and gun shop in Ohio....we both have the answer that I don't think anyone can really argue against in a logical way.

Along with a background check and mental health confirmation period, and before the first purchase of a gun in any specific "class" (handgun, scout/short rifle, shotgun, long rifle, etc.), the purchaser must attend a training course, and not one of the ****** CCW courses we offer, but one that fully overviews every part of gun ownership, including safety, maintenance, laws of the state/federal government pertaining to that class, etc.. That would likely limit the impulse buyers who are doing something in the heat of the moment, would cut down on about 80% of the gun accidents in America while dealing with most of the guys we call "range idiots", and fully teach everyone to respect the gun.

What you offer here is of merit, utilizes common sense and would likely be supported by a majority of bipartisan American citizens. There's a problem though, what you're trying to create here doesn't line up with the end state of the left for this particular issue. Their end state goal is to take guns. They used to deny it, but now they're openly saying it (i.e. Robert Francis O'Rourke). Their ultimate goal is control, not safety. Safety is their BS talking point they'll hide behind and print on protest posters. They want supreme control and they know an armed populace isn't one they easily control.

I completely understand that, and that's primarily why I would never even think to identify as a democrat...I just say I'm a slightly bluer shade of purple on the political spectrum

(03-03-2020 03:28 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 03:03 PM)CG_Hawk06 Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 10:56 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  Beto is an idiot.

I'm a left leaning centrist who owns 2 handguns (Sig P220 and H&K USP) and and 2 rifles (Springfield M1A SOCOM 16 and R700). My best friend who is as red as they come runs a rifle range and gun shop in Ohio....we both have the answer that I don't think anyone can really argue against in a logical way.

Along with a background check and mental health confirmation period, and before the first purchase of a gun in any specific "class" (handgun, scout/short rifle, shotgun, long rifle, etc.), the purchaser must attend a training course, and not one of the ****** CCW courses we offer, but one that fully overviews every part of gun ownership, including safety, maintenance, laws of the state/federal government pertaining to that class, etc.. That would likely limit the impulse buyers who are doing something in the heat of the moment, would cut down on about 80% of the gun accidents in America while dealing with most of the guys we call "range idiots", and fully teach everyone to respect the gun.

What you offer here is of merit, utilizes common sense and would likely be supported by a majority of bipartisan American citizens. There's a problem though, what you're trying to create here doesn't line up with the end state of the left for this particular issue. Their end state goal is to take guns. They used to deny it, but now they're openly saying it (i.e. Robert Francis O'Rourke). Their ultimate goal is control, not safety. Safety is their BS talking point they'll hide behind and print on protest posters. They want supreme control and they know an armed populace isn't one they easily control.

I completely understand that, and that's primarily why I would never even think to identify as a democrat...I just say I'm a slightly bluer shade of purple on the political spectrum

Cheers and +3 for common sense Americans!

(03-03-2020 02:35 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 01:55 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I've always thought safety education for people who buy their first gun is a great idea, but I do agree with you that it won't stop mass shootings that stir up the left for stricter measures, b/c nothing they ever propose does anything to actually address the overall problem.

To be clear, I don't really think it'll do that either. I'm just spit-balling ideas that could help a bit without being anything past the point of no return for lobby groups, that MAY help mitigate some of the issues individuals have with guns. The big issue is, and always will be, the lack of federal and state funding for mental health programs like we used to have. With the advances in modern diagnosis, treatment, and general counseling procedures, there is no reason why there should be so many issues still pertaining to access to mental health care for people who need it before they become a danger to themselves and others. Without there being a sincere effort to build out strong support for mental health awareness and treatment, nothing else will matter.

Is there a documented issue that otherwise legal, first time gunowners have issues with safely handling firearms?

If there isn't, this is a solution in search of a problem. It won't make anything better, other than infringe upon the right to bear arms.

Even if I accept that a first time gun owner safety class is worthwhile, I don't see how requiring one for each "class" of guns (whatever that means) is helpful. If I know how to run a pistol, I need a governmental approved instructor to show me how to run a shotgun?

The problem with mental health care is not funding, per se. It is our societal reluctance to admit that serious mental health issues merit in-patient care. Not everyone with a severe problem, medicated and monitored or not, should be walking free.

Mandatory firearm training or requiring a license to own a gun would be unconstitutional AF. 2/3rds of all gun deaths are suicides then the vast majority of murder using a handgun is mostly hood rats...who don't buy handguns at retailers (where the Brady Bill background checks are done). People with legit mental health issues do a tiny fraction of shootings. And most of the perps who do the large mass shootings are not legit crazies. They are mad AF about various things and then let the evil brew inside of them.

"The problem with mental health care is not funding, per se. It is our societal reluctance to admit that serious mental health issues merit in-patient care. Not everyone with a severe problem, medicated and monitored or not, should be walking free."

Walking free? Heck, they're running for office even. You can't tell me that Bernie, Warren, Waters, Bite'em are sane. You can include those that vote for those dingbats too.

(03-03-2020 03:37 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  "The problem with mental health care is not funding, per se. It is our societal reluctance to admit that serious mental health issues merit in-patient care. Not everyone with a severe problem, medicated and monitored or not, should be walking free."

Walking free? Heck, they're running for office even. You can't tell me that Bernie, Warren, Waters, Bite'em are sane. You can include those that vote for those dingbats too.

And these people,

California Tells Retail Stores...
Proposed California bill calls for gender-neutral toy and clothing aisles in department stores

Quote:
Assembly Bill 2826 would require retailers in California to create gender neutral aisles for children's merchandise. The bill would apply to children's clothing, toys and childcare items.

Quote:
The bill states that "keeping similar items that are traditionally marketed either for girls or for boys separated makes it more difficult for the consumer to compare the products and incorrectly implies that their use by one gender is inappropriate."

Any retailer who fails to comply could face a fine of $1,000 if they fail to correct a violation within 30 days.

https://csnbbs.com/thread-895431.html

(03-03-2020 03:32 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 02:35 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 01:55 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I've always thought safety education for people who buy their first gun is a great idea, but I do agree with you that it won't stop mass shootings that stir up the left for stricter measures, b/c nothing they ever propose does anything to actually address the overall problem.

To be clear, I don't really think it'll do that either. I'm just spit-balling ideas that could help a bit without being anything past the point of no return for lobby groups, that MAY help mitigate some of the issues individuals have with guns. The big issue is, and always will be, the lack of federal and state funding for mental health programs like we used to have. With the advances in modern diagnosis, treatment, and general counseling procedures, there is no reason why there should be so many issues still pertaining to access to mental health care for people who need it before they become a danger to themselves and others. Without there being a sincere effort to build out strong support for mental health awareness and treatment, nothing else will matter.

Is there a documented issue that otherwise legal, first time gunowners have issues with safely handling firearms?

If there isn't, this is a solution in search of a problem. It won't make anything better, other than infringe upon the right to bear arms.

Even if I accept that a first time gun owner safety class is worthwhile, I don't see how requiring one for each "class" of guns (whatever that means) is helpful. If I know how to run a pistol, I need a governmental approved instructor to show me how to run a shotgun?

The problem with mental health care is not funding, per se. It is our societal reluctance to admit that serious mental health issues merit in-patient care. Not everyone with a severe problem, medicated and monitored or not, should be walking free.

There are more than a few studies done on that very statistic that show the number isn't zero (and is far higher than you might expect) for both accidental firearms injuries and deaths from legal gun owners. Respectively, those numbers for 2015, which is the most recent I could find reported, were 24,891 and 544 accounting for 14% and 1.8% of total firearms injuries and deaths in that year. Just under 65% of the accidental injuries and 74% of the deaths occurred in states that do not require firearms training for purchase and/or gun storage regulations...which I would say indicate doing those as a blanket measure would reduce those numbers further, something we all would agree is a good thing.

As for the mental health issue, it is a funding problem...there is not enough money to house and treat individuals and as a comparative measure of funding in 1960 is only 28% adjusted for inflation. Hell, Mental Health treatment and diagnostics is a line item that has been cut in each of the last 3 years, and 12 times since 1990, to the tune of just under 40% of it's 1990 levels adjusted for inflation. Were we simply at those adjusted 1990 levels, the treatment and housing capacity for mental health patients would be more than 450,000 individuals higher than it is currently throughout the US. That may not seem like a lot, but I'm damn sure that would help the situation as well. The 3-day "catch and release" laws that some states, including my own, do not help the situation at all...as I, and many mental health professionals, don't think that 3 days is a sufficient amount of time to determine if someone is a danger to themselves or others.

(03-03-2020 03:50 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 03:32 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 02:35 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 01:55 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I've always thought safety education for people who buy their first gun is a great idea, but I do agree with you that it won't stop mass shootings that stir up the left for stricter measures, b/c nothing they ever propose does anything to actually address the overall problem.

To be clear, I don't really think it'll do that either. I'm just spit-balling ideas that could help a bit without being anything past the point of no return for lobby groups, that MAY help mitigate some of the issues individuals have with guns. The big issue is, and always will be, the lack of federal and state funding for mental health programs like we used to have. With the advances in modern diagnosis, treatment, and general counseling procedures, there is no reason why there should be so many issues still pertaining to access to mental health care for people who need it before they become a danger to themselves and others. Without there being a sincere effort to build out strong support for mental health awareness and treatment, nothing else will matter.

Is there a documented issue that otherwise legal, first time gunowners have issues with safely handling firearms?

If there isn't, this is a solution in search of a problem. It won't make anything better, other than infringe upon the right to bear arms.

Even if I accept that a first time gun owner safety class is worthwhile, I don't see how requiring one for each "class" of guns (whatever that means) is helpful. If I know how to run a pistol, I need a governmental approved instructor to show me how to run a shotgun?

The problem with mental health care is not funding, per se. It is our societal reluctance to admit that serious mental health issues merit in-patient care. Not everyone with a severe problem, medicated and monitored or not, should be walking free.

There are more than a few studies done on that very statistic that show the number isn't zero (and is far higher than you might expect) for both accidental firearms injuries and deaths from legal gun owners. Respectively, those numbers for 2015, which is the most recent I could find reported, were 24,891 and 544 accounting for 14% and 1.8% of total firearms injuries and deaths in that year. Just under 65% of the accidental injuries and 74% of the deaths occurred in states that do not require firearms training for purchase and/or gun storage regulations...which I would say indicate doing those as a blanket measure would reduce those numbers further, something we all would agree is a good thing.

As for the mental health issue, it is a funding problem...there is not enough money to house and treat individuals and as a comparative measure of funding in 1960 is only 28% adjusted for inflation. Hell, Mental Health treatment and diagnostics is a line item that has been cut in each of the last 3 years, and 12 times since 1990, to the tune of just under 40% of it's 1990 levels adjusted for inflation. Were we simply at those adjusted 1990 levels, the treatment and housing capacity for mental health patients would be more than 450,000 individuals higher than it is currently throughout the US. That may not seem like a lot, but I'm damn sure that would help the situation as well. The 3-day "catch and release" laws that some states, including my own, do not help the situation at all...as I, and many mental health professionals, don't think that 3 days is a sufficient amount of time to determine if someone is a danger to themselves or others.

links

(03-03-2020 07:51 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  

Can anyone point out the mistakes in this Reuters tweet?

Whataburger ain't a chicken joint...

(03-03-2020 04:02 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 03:50 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 03:32 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 02:35 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 01:55 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I've always thought safety education for people who buy their first gun is a great idea, but I do agree with you that it won't stop mass shootings that stir up the left for stricter measures, b/c nothing they ever propose does anything to actually address the overall problem.

To be clear, I don't really think it'll do that either. I'm just spit-balling ideas that could help a bit without being anything past the point of no return for lobby groups, that MAY help mitigate some of the issues individuals have with guns. The big issue is, and always will be, the lack of federal and state funding for mental health programs like we used to have. With the advances in modern diagnosis, treatment, and general counseling procedures, there is no reason why there should be so many issues still pertaining to access to mental health care for people who need it before they become a danger to themselves and others. Without there being a sincere effort to build out strong support for mental health awareness and treatment, nothing else will matter.

Is there a documented issue that otherwise legal, first time gunowners have issues with safely handling firearms?

If there isn't, this is a solution in search of a problem. It won't make anything better, other than infringe upon the right to bear arms.

Even if I accept that a first time gun owner safety class is worthwhile, I don't see how requiring one for each "class" of guns (whatever that means) is helpful. If I know how to run a pistol, I need a governmental approved instructor to show me how to run a shotgun?

The problem with mental health care is not funding, per se. It is our societal reluctance to admit that serious mental health issues merit in-patient care. Not everyone with a severe problem, medicated and monitored or not, should be walking free.

There are more than a few studies done on that very statistic that show the number isn't zero (and is far higher than you might expect) for both accidental firearms injuries and deaths from legal gun owners. Respectively, those numbers for 2015, which is the most recent I could find reported, were 24,891 and 544 accounting for 14% and 1.8% of total firearms injuries and deaths in that year. Just under 65% of the accidental injuries and 74% of the deaths occurred in states that do not require firearms training for purchase and/or gun storage regulations...which I would say indicate doing those as a blanket measure would reduce those numbers further, something we all would agree is a good thing.

As for the mental health issue, it is a funding problem...there is not enough money to house and treat individuals and as a comparative measure of funding in 1960 is only 28% adjusted for inflation. Hell, Mental Health treatment and diagnostics is a line item that has been cut in each of the last 3 years, and 12 times since 1990, to the tune of just under 40% of it's 1990 levels adjusted for inflation. Were we simply at those adjusted 1990 levels, the treatment and housing capacity for mental health patients would be more than 450,000 individuals higher than it is currently throughout the US. That may not seem like a lot, but I'm damn sure that would help the situation as well. The 3-day "catch and release" laws that some states, including my own, do not help the situation at all...as I, and many mental health professionals, don't think that 3 days is a sufficient amount of time to determine if someone is a danger to themselves or others.

links

I averaged three sources for the Firearms statistics, since no one can ever seem to agree on a number:
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf
https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-com...a-details/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4700838/

Mental Health Funding was based on a few different sources cobbled together, and I should clarify, that is all based on per capita values, not bulk spending and the 1960 date was used as that was the last time all states actively took part in the Institutionalizing process for individuals with mental illness/abnormalities:
https://www.nami.org/getattachment/About...is2011.pdf
https://www.thenationalcouncil.org/capit...-proposal/
https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/full/1...f.25.3.601

And as for the Involuntary Hold info, that's mostly anecdotal from some MH professional friends of mine. Though there are literally blogs devoted to tricks for getting through the time period and getting out without a diagnosis, which are...problematic...

(03-03-2020 04:17 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 04:02 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 03:50 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 03:32 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(03-03-2020 02:35 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  To be clear, I don't really think it'll do that either. I'm just spit-balling ideas that could help a bit without being anything past the point of no return for lobby groups, that MAY help mitigate some of the issues individuals have with guns. The big issue is, and always will be, the lack of federal and state funding for mental health programs like we used to have. With the advances in modern diagnosis, treatment, and general counseling procedures, there is no reason why there should be so many issues still pertaining to access to mental health care for people who need it before they become a danger to themselves and others. Without there being a sincere effort to build out strong support for mental health awareness and treatment, nothing else will matter.

Is there a documented issue that otherwise legal, first time gunowners have issues with safely handling firearms?

If there isn't, this is a solution in search of a problem. It won't make anything better, other than infringe upon the right to bear arms.

Even if I accept that a first time gun owner safety class is worthwhile, I don't see how requiring one for each "class" of guns (whatever that means) is helpful. If I know how to run a pistol, I need a governmental approved instructor to show me how to run a shotgun?

The problem with mental health care is not funding, per se. It is our societal reluctance to admit that serious mental health issues merit in-patient care. Not everyone with a severe problem, medicated and monitored or not, should be walking free.

There are more than a few studies done on that very statistic that show the number isn't zero (and is far higher than you might expect) for both accidental firearms injuries and deaths from legal gun owners. Respectively, those numbers for 2015, which is the most recent I could find reported, were 24,891 and 544 accounting for 14% and 1.8% of total firearms injuries and deaths in that year. Just under 65% of the accidental injuries and 74% of the deaths occurred in states that do not require firearms training for purchase and/or gun storage regulations...which I would say indicate doing those as a blanket measure would reduce those numbers further, something we all would agree is a good thing.

As for the mental health issue, it is a funding problem...there is not enough money to house and treat individuals and as a comparative measure of funding in 1960 is only 28% adjusted for inflation. Hell, Mental Health treatment and diagnostics is a line item that has been cut in each of the last 3 years, and 12 times since 1990, to the tune of just under 40% of it's 1990 levels adjusted for inflation. Were we simply at those adjusted 1990 levels, the treatment and housing capacity for mental health patients would be more than 450,000 individuals higher than it is currently throughout the US. That may not seem like a lot, but I'm damn sure that would help the situation as well. The 3-day "catch and release" laws that some states, including my own, do not help the situation at all...as I, and many mental health professionals, don't think that 3 days is a sufficient amount of time to determine if someone is a danger to themselves or others.

links

I averaged three sources for the Firearms statistics, since no one can ever seem to agree on a number:
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf
https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-com...a-details/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4700838/

Mental Health Funding was based on a few different sources cobbled together, and I should clarify, that is all based on per capita values, not bulk spending and the 1960 date was used as that was the last time all states actively took part in the Institutionalizing process for individuals with mental illness/abnormalities:
https://www.nami.org/getattachment/About...is2011.pdf
https://www.thenationalcouncil.org/capit...-proposal/
https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/full/1...f.25.3.601

Not interested in the mental health stuff, mostly just accidental injuries and deaths.
The vast majority of states require no licensing let alone "training" to own a gun, so it would be likely that most accidental gun injuries and deaths would occur in those states. But honestly I don't see a correlation because I bet none of those studies ask "hey did the individual who accidental shot himself or someone else" ever have training" LOL.

The vast majority of gun deaths, 2/3rds or suicides, and the majority of the rest are hood rats shooting other hood rats.

Beto is just so adorable. I want him to go door to door confiscating AK47's... that should work out real nicely for him.