(03-03-2020 04:27 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(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:  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.

While I understand what you're saying, and get that it's a generally basic statistical correlation based on the majority of states not requiring it, that same article in the LAT did state the those numbers have gone down considerably in states that did require safety training or had storage regulations...you also need to note that my response was directly addressing the question in the initial post of there actually being statistical evidence that accidental injury and death due to firearms was actually a documented issue. While it isn't a huge number, finding ways to correct that issue while not really affecting the ability to purchase is something that sounds reasonable to me...and from the sound of it, many others.

I genuinely believe that an expansion of the treatment of mental health issues would help with suicide numbers, which you noted are the VAST majority of firearms related deaths. That's why I advocate for that at the state level multiple times per year with my state rep and state senator (both Republicans) as a suicide survivor, with a member of my extended family and extended friend group both committing suicide by legally obtained firearm (which is not the issue).

BCatman, I am against any sort of mandatory safety training or storage regulations laws. It would be interesting to know what states require real legit "training" whatever training is.

People who are suicidal are that way for many reasons. If they don't talk to someone about it no amount of government spending is going to help.

(03-03-2020 05:08 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  BCatman, I am against any sort of mandatory safety training or storage regulations laws. It would be interesting to know what states require real legit "training" whatever training is.

People who are suicidal are that way for many reasons. If they don't talk to someone about it no amount of government spending is going to help.

Having a fundamental difference is completely fine! Im not trying to convince anyone of anything being the best way to solve a VERY intricate problem, just lending my opinion based on the numbers I've seen and discussion I've had, and thank you for the interesting discussion to add to that.

Just as a final note, the "training" mentioned is specifically for CCW situations as those are the only situations that a regulated at anything more than a glance by most states (not municipal ordinances, which are completely different animal) so it doesn't even fully encompass firearm owner populations in those states.

(03-03-2020 03:25 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

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

[/quote]

I've long said that if we ended the argument... If we all could agree that citizens have a fundamental right to own guns not used to commit crimes... that we could fund a whole lot of things.... mostly and especially mental health. I am a HUGE advocate for Mental Health rights and treatment... more later...

The problem with classes (which I would be happy to eliminate these as problems) is that the left (on the issue) has long argued that having to wait at the DMV for an ID is overly-burdensome... much less time off work and transportation to vote... so that sets the bar on Constitutional rights. Again, I'd be happy to decide, no that's not a huge burden... especially the ID issue.

As to mental health, the biggest issue is that self-identifying a need creates issues for work and other things. If that somehow weren't the case, that would be great... but it would be hard (because of the public) to be a teacher or a cop or a pilot or a money manager or a bus driver if you had a known diagnosis of 'mental illness'. What needs to happen is a cultural change beginning with childhood where such things are addressed in an open and up-front manner. Where someone meditating or taking a personal day or doing all sorts of therapeutic things were almost expected, whether or not you had a diagnosable issue.... but it would have to be done without becoming a crutch