Thursday, December 20, 2012

Stricter laws are needed to keep guns away from the mentally ill

Pacifica Tribune, letters to the editor, 12/18/12.  "The real issue," by Bob Hutchinson

"Editor:  I am a pro gun person and I strongly believe we need much stricter laws concerning guns and the mentally ill.  The problem is not assault weapons and, in fact, renewing the dumb ban on assault weapons would not have prevented any of the recent attacks by crazy people. These nut-cases all used handguns which would still be legal.

Didn't  I pass the test? 
We don't think so.
That's right, the problem isn't the types of guns. The problem is mentally ill people being able to legally get them.

Nevertheless, Dianne Feinstein just announced she will try to renew the stupid assault weapon ban. Just another distraction by a politician with little understanding of firearms.

We need to have better mental health screening for people wanting to buy firearms. Also, local police should be able to order a mental evaluation if they suspect a problem with a gun owner. Right now there is nothing police can do if neighbors, friends or family reports a problem. Perhaps a new screening every five years for gun owners. And if firearms are in the same house of a mentally challenged person they must be kept from them and locked up. Police should be able to inspect the house at any time for guns being secured properly.

We can not keep doing the same thing and expect a different result. Enough is enough. The longer we let politicians distract us with stupid laws, the more people will die. Demand they actually address the real problem and keep guns away from who are not mentally able to safely own them."

Posted by Kathy Meeh


Anonymous said...

Why does Diane Feinstein carry a concealed weapon. What is she afraid of that I don't know about?

Anonymous said...

12:12, what a creepy comment, and why do you care?

Anonymous said...

Beyond creepy. How'd that poster get beyond the magic looney detector? I wonder.

Anonymous said...

Cause libbies like Feinstein want to ban everyone elses guns but hers.

Typical libbie hypocrite

Anonymous said...

"Because less than twenty years ago I was the target of a terrorist group. It was the New World Liberation Front. They blew up power stations and put a bomb at my home when my husband was dying of cancer. And the bomb didn't detonate. ... I was very lucky. But, I thought of what might have happened. Later the same group shot out all the windows of my home" "And, I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself because that's what I did. I was trained in firearms. I'd walk to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out, I was going to take them with me."

-U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat from California

Anonymous said...

"This is a munitions manufacturer owned by the State of Israel, and by advancing this export, the Israeli government is putting the official imprimatur of its people on the commercial sale of weapons designed not for hunting, but for combat; not to protect, but to kill. It is my hope that the Israeli government will lead the way and set an example that others will follow."

-U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat from California, letter to President Bill Clinton, September 17, 1997, regarding Israeli Military Industries

Anonymous said...

The New Liberation Front? OMG! Those people are now working in the White House. US AG Eric Holder was part of that group. HOLY SHEET! and now they want to take away our firearms. Great. Just great. Well, Feinstein sure flipped a switch. What do they have on her?

Anonymous said...

Nut job alert.

Anonymous said...

None of that New Liberation Front and Eric Holder crap is true.

Anonymous said...

In 1973, Eric Holder was aSophmore at Columbia. Eric Holder, who is now the United States Attorney General, participated in a Armed Takeover of the former ROTC Office. Holder has bragged about his involvement in the “rise of black consciousness” protests at Columbia. Hey, I think that was the same year Difi was being harassed by the terrorst group The New World Liberation Front. Huh.

Kathy Meeh said...

Dianne Feinstein will re-introduce the improved assault weapons ban, she introduced in 1994, which was not renewed by congress in 2004. As she said "Who needs these military-style assault weapons? Who needs an ammunition feeding device capable of holding 100 rounds?" Feinstein wrote on her campaign website. "These weapons are not for hunting deer -- they’re for hunting people." .... "It will ban the sale, the transfer, the importation and the possession, not retroactively, but prospectively," and ban the sale of clips of more than ten bullets, Feinstein said. "The purpose of this bill is to get... weapons of war off the streets." Huffington Post, 12/16/12.

Feinstein's question of "who needs these military-style assault weapons" (on the streets), I believe is pretty much the same question Steve Sinai has been asking in the Senseless shooting Newtown, CT article on this blog. And most reasonable people would agree with that position. After all, we live in a civilized society, and this issue is about citizen safety.

Feinstein's 1995 experience that caused her THEN to carry a concealed weapon was explained by her, see you tube video, 1:44 minutes. And, that experience hardly qualifies for the lame "hypocrite" comment, Anonymous 4:00 PM. "What was she (Feinstein) afraid of then", Anonymous 12:12 PM? View the video.

Eric Holder's biography. Anonymous 7:18 PM, Holder has been busy on the East Coast with his career and being a "good guy" for 61 years. No time or desire to fit into that radical West Coast group you mentioned.

Anonymous said...

Rush Limbaugh ate breakfast the same day that Reagan was shot. Huh. Connect the dots.

Anonymous said...

A father used a Assault Rifle to hold back a gang of norteno's that was after one of his kids.It was reported that the gang entered his front yard property ready to invade his home is when he confronted the gang with his Assault Rifle, he then called police. It was in the news. I will find the article and try and get in touch with this father. We should ask him what he thinks.

Anonymous said...

Good one, 9:29. A little subtle for the wingnuts, though.

Anonymous said...

Yes, please find that article. Let's also do a little research and see if there is less than a 1:1000 ratio of articles where assault rifles saved people versus killed people.

Anonymous said...

Memo to Democrats In Denial;
In America;
Terrorist Groups Exist.

Former Convicted Terrorists Now Work In The White House and are Professors in our once prestigious colleges.

Terrorist Groups Make Bombs And Like To Blow Up Buildings, Armored Cars and Police Officers.

Terrorists like to Recruit At Risk Youths. Look Up The Ruckus Society-A front group for training youths into agitators, anarchists. The Ruckus Society I have monitored for years and recently has changed it's website to hide it's true agenda.

Gangs Exist.

Former Gang Members Are Now Leaders of Political Organizations.

Gangs Like Assault Rifles. Gangs Like Big Ass Assault Weapons. Gangs Recruit At Risk Youths. Gangs rob, steal, murder in our communitires.

Guns In The Hands of Law Abiding People Make For A Civilized Community. Cops can't be everywhere. Support your 2nd Amendment Rights.

Anonymous said...

@1033, the Newtown killer is the kind of terrorist we need to worry about right now. Home-grown and with one kill as many people as fast as he can before dying. Sound familiar? It's a new religion right here in America. The assault weapons ban is the right place to start. These weapons are for killing people, nothing more, and they are efficient at it. There are plenty of other weapon choices for home-defense, sport, hunting that don't lend themselves so readily to the massacre of people.

Anonymous said...

@1015 the father was probably a gangbanger himself with his own arsenal.

Anonymous said...

Memo to Democrats in Denial;

Psychopaths Exist.

Anonymous said...

Almost 2,700,00 AR15 type assault weapons in the USA.

99.99% are were purchased and used for home defense, sporting, collecting.

I would say that means these guns purpose is not for killing people.

Anonymous said...

that should be 2,700,000 assault weapons in US

Anonymous said...

anon 9:03 - your illogic is flawless

Steve Sinai said...

"I would say that means these guns purpose is not for killing people."

They did an effective job killing 26 people in Newtown, and in places like Columbine and Aurora before that. How can you say their purpose is not for killing people?

I doubt people who drive drunk intend to kill people, but they do. That's why we have laws that try to prevent it. They may not be perfect, but the reduce the number of people killed. For the same reason, we need to reduce the number of assault weapons in circulation.

Anonymous said...

you just proved the other sides point Steve. with drunk drivers the laws are against the person. They don't try to ban cars.

you make no sense. but anti gun people usually don't.

Anonymous said...

we need to reduce the number of criminals and mentally ill people in circulation. In no other arena do innocent people get blamed more vehemently for the crimes of others.

Steve Sinai said...

"you just proved the other sides point Steve. with drunk drivers the laws are against the person. They don't try to ban cars."

You're taking things to an illogical extreme.

People have become so reliant on cars and trucks for everyday life that it's impossible to ban them. They provide a clear benefit to society. You can't say that about guns.

Even then, you still have regulations about what kinds of vehicles you can own and drive. You can't buy a tank and drive it around on public streets because it's too dangerous.

Same idea with guns. Shotguns and revolvers? Not totally safe, but the amount of damage they can do is limited, so they're OK. Semi-automatic weapons with 20 or 30 round clips? Too dangerous.

Anonymous said...

The fact that we can't come up with a perfect, one-size fits all answer to the problem does not mean we get a pass, or, in Pacifica terms..get to kick the can down the road. The gun lobby hates to hear it but Obama is right when he talks about banning these weapons of mass murder..just because we can't do everything to solve the problem does not mean we shouldn't do something. It's the best place to start while we work on education, mental health, tougher pos restrictions.