http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/12/26/gun-owners-outraged-at-being-identified-as-gun-owners Comments On: Gun Owners Outraged at Being Identified as Gun Owners by Cienna Madrid en-us Copyright 2013 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Wed, 19 Jun 2013 00:00:01 -0700 Wed, 19 Jun 2013 20:00:00 -0700 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss
Pamela Thomas Hickey was reported to the FBI for threats of violence and terrorism.
Posted by JGowens]]> Tue, 01 Jan 2013 17:03:04 -0800 The Stranger Posted by doceb]]> Fri, 28 Dec 2012 20:14:51 -0800 The Stranger Journal News has ever known an abused woman who made the unfortunate mistake of buying a firearm in a moment of irrational terror. I guess these women deserve what's coming to them, right, Cienna?
Posted by Furcifer]]> Fri, 28 Dec 2012 10:01:56 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Daddy Love]]> Thu, 27 Dec 2012 19:55:19 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Daddy Love]]> Thu, 27 Dec 2012 19:51:23 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Lissa]]> Thu, 27 Dec 2012 12:14:30 -0800 The Stranger Posted by tiktok]]> Thu, 27 Dec 2012 11:46:18 -0800 The Stranger Posted by capicola]]> Thu, 27 Dec 2012 11:19:07 -0800 The Stranger Posted by No One Cares Where You Live]]> Thu, 27 Dec 2012 10:24:12 -0800 The Stranger Okay, Lets start by looking at gun laws, ownership rates and gun violence in Switzerland and Mexico.
Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me]]> Thu, 27 Dec 2012 08:53:39 -0800 The Stranger
I would be pissed if someone posted my address and mentioned that I had a very valuable and easily resold item waiting to be stolen. Owning a gun does not mean the right to privacy vanishes, or that they should not be afforded the same rights and decency others are afforded.

If this happened to people you do not choose to hate, you would be outraged.
Posted by Theodore Gorath]]> Thu, 27 Dec 2012 08:23:43 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Root]]> Thu, 27 Dec 2012 07:57:47 -0800 The Stranger
So, why are gun owners complaining? If they believe their own rhetoric then this map just made them safer.
Posted by Root]]> Thu, 27 Dec 2012 07:47:54 -0800 The Stranger
You seem to be proposing a regime that will shuttle everyone who becomes ill into diagnosis/forced diagnosis, then to treatment/ forced treatment, then (in the event of failed treatment) to incarceration/institutionalisation. There are so many things you don't understand.

1) Some of the future violent offenders you want to catch will have no profile of violence or even of unusual disturbance, and that means for your plan to work you are going to have to 'catch' all 26.2% of the population who become diagnosable in a given year, even if their illness has no notable violence profile (Aspergers, for example, has none).

2)Psychiatric diagnosis is not a science but an inexact art, extremely inexact (and often inaccurate) with an unwilling subject with a vested interest in concealing the nature of their 'different thinking'. Broad compulsory screening, which is the only way to enact 1), would be wildly expensive, a violation of rights and a fool's errand, making the incidence of correct diagnosis plummet.

3) Treatment - even by medication - is almost impossible to enforce on the unwilling, unless you are ready to strap everyone who's ill down and inject them for the foreseeable future (even then, your treatment success rate is likely to be low, because of the limitations of medication, and because the conditions would be so poor for recovery). Non-medicinal therapies simply don't work on the unwilling.

4) Even for the willing, treatment is often enough unsuccessful in the short-term (and sometimes the long-term), requiring months to years of trial and error. In the meantime, those with longer-term illnesses (and their families and friends), tend to suck it up and cope as best they can. Again, it's amazing that you're not aware of anyone doing this - I guarantee it's happening to some people you know. Even if the ill person knows and accepts they are ill (some illnesses occlude this to the sufferer) and they want help, they will be struggling with overstretched community services, recalcitrant insurers, confused doctors, ambiguous treatment outcomes, and so on. Good luck with funding the institutionalisation of all those people while they try to get well, and bear in mind that institutionalisation tends to be counterproductive to recovery, so you'd best be in it for the long haul.

So where your keep-em-off-the-streets plan would even start I have no idea. It does seem basically unactionable, in almost every way.

Posted by diner mo]]> Thu, 27 Dec 2012 06:27:39 -0800 The Stranger
@88, it doesn't have to be public. It isn't here. But blame the government for that, not the press.

And Cato: I'm a gun owner. Blargh.
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty]]> Thu, 27 Dec 2012 04:50:56 -0800 The Stranger Posted by watchout5]]> Thu, 27 Dec 2012 04:42:59 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Cato the Younger Younger]]> Thu, 27 Dec 2012 04:03:58 -0800 The Stranger
And before you continue, you also need to acknowledge that the discrimination against people that have mental illnesses is profound. Among the worst insults today is to claim that someone's actions are due to a mental illness (like "conservatism is a mental illness"). Most people will not employ, rent, date, or have friendships with people that disclose their mental illnesses. Almost all TV programs when they discuss mental illnesses they show the individual as violent. The public perception of people that have mental illnesses is that they are violent. So, answer this: is it ethical to perpetuate this stereotype?
Posted by delirian]]> Thu, 27 Dec 2012 02:54:21 -0800 The Stranger Posted by venomlash]]> Thu, 27 Dec 2012 02:36:01 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty]]> Thu, 27 Dec 2012 01:21:59 -0800 The Stranger As to Saturday night specials and etc., I'm open to ideas. I'd be willing to consider things like transaction taxes on guns and/or shells to make them minimally expensive enough to decrease the appeal of cheap firearms. Personally, I've never paid less than $1,000 for a gun, but I like nice things.
Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me]]> Thu, 27 Dec 2012 01:07:33 -0800 The Stranger The current conversation is being driven by mass shootings. Do you know of any mass shootings done by people who were not mentally ill? They have all been done by people who needed help and either didn't get it, refused it, or couldn't be helped. Had we been protected from them, a lot of people would still be alive.

If you are aware of some examples of mass shootings by shooters who were not mentally ill, I'd be happy to discuss them, but I'm not aware of any.
Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me]]> Thu, 27 Dec 2012 01:03:35 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Calpete]]> Wed, 26 Dec 2012 21:20:11 -0800 The Stranger Posted by delirian]]> Wed, 26 Dec 2012 21:13:36 -0800 The Stranger
The gun control items that are currently being discussed will have little to no effect on the majority of crimes which are, as you point out related to the War on Drugs and domestic violence.

Just like people with mental illnesses are easy to scapegoat, so are "assault weapons" however, "assault weapons" are used in a tiny portion of overall firearm crimes, so banning them is going to have a miniscule effect on overall firearm crimes, it is a 'feel-good' kneejerk reaction that will have almost no effect on the root problem. And if you actually read @68's post, I think you'd find that he/she is mostly in agreement with what you are saying.
Posted by randoma]]> Wed, 26 Dec 2012 20:52:48 -0800 The Stranger