We went through a dramatic event with a relative this past year. I’ve tried several different times to write about it, but no matter how much I obscure details to protect everyone’s privacy, I just don’t feel good about posting. I was a bystander, and I guess at the heart of things, I don’t feel like it’s my story to tell.
But I’ve been feeling troubled and agitated ever since the media broke the story about the Alabama shooting rampage. The story is still big in the news, maybe not as big as Madoff and the Octumom, but big enough that soon reporters will be asking, “Could we have prevented this tragedy?” It is the most human of questions: Bottom line, how does this story affect me? How can I keep my family safe?
I want to look at these questions by telling our story. Maybe I can compromise: no names, no narrative, no judgment… just the bottom-line lessons we learned about the mental health care system, gun control, and the media. Maybe it will help me if I can just explain to someone why I’m watching the Alabama story and feeling so frustrated and impotent.
Disclaimer before you read: I am not suggesting that we throw out patient confidentiality rules, and I am WAY too fragile and sensitive to take on the NRA. I don’t know any solutions to the dilemmas I present below. I can only tell you that when you’re dealing with them yourself, these situations are what my counselor calls “crazy-making.”
Lessons my family learned the hard way:
1) You have very little chance of taking someone’s guns away. They can threaten to commit suicide with a gun, in a very public way that attracts newspaper reporters and even a TV news helicopter. But unless they get charged with a crime – or have been convicted of a crime in the past – they still get to keep their guns.
2) People can buy and keep lots of guns. They can have a loaded rifle by the front door and a pistol in every bedside table and a shotgun under every bed, enough guns that if an intruder breaks in, they can kill that intruder from any room in the house. They can also keep military-style weapons like an M 16 and a Kalashnikov and trunks full of ammo. Again, unless they have been convicted of a crime or drug abuse, or have an ironclad diagnosis of severe mental illness, they can keep all of these guns.
3) When an adult goes into the care of the mental health system, you might find out little to nothing about their treatment or diagnosis. Even if you are their closest relative, even if you hid in the bathroom for an hour during their breakdown, even if you care with your full heart about the patient, even if you fear for their safety and the safety of your own family... unless the patient signs a release for the doctors to speak to you, they will not speak to you.
4) Amendment: the doctors will not speak to you until the patient needs a ride home. Then they will speak to you. You will arrive at the hospital and they will ask, “Where is the gun the patient used?” And you will say, “The police took it into custody.” And the doctor will ask, “Are there any more guns in the house?” And you will think, Where to start? The doctor will ask a relative to secure all the guns, and you realize you will have to hire a moving company and rent a storage facility. And you will know that this effort will be entirely futile because at some point, the relative is going to get the guns back, or they’re just going to buy more. There are always more guns. In my community, there is a gun store next to a donut shop.
5) When you pick up the patient at the hospital, you still do not get to know the diagnosis or the treatment plan unless the patient agrees to share this with you. You can look at the doctor and ask your big question: “Is he going to be safe?” And you don’t ask your follow-up question because the patient is in the room and you don’t want to set him off. But you’re thinking, Is my family safe? The doctor will say, “Ma’am, we would not release the patient if we felt he was a danger to himself or others.” And you will smile and thank him and think, Gosh, I hope you’re right.
6) And finally, if someone you know threatens suicide in a very public, frightening spectacle, the newspaper reporters might arrive with ultra-zoom cameras to take pictures as you arrive and hug your tearful family. The news helicopter might hover, the concussive drumbeat of chopper blades following the suspect as he paces the street. But you might be surprised to find out that none of this will make the news. When a standoff ends peacefully, it is apparently not news. The cameras and the helicopter – they were only there just in case the guy actually pulled the trigger.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Ann Nichols
AtHomePilgrim
benjamin_the_donkey
froggy
The Yellow Starlings
gracielou
Salon.com
Comments
But here, it's about profit. Guns and weapons are HUGE business in the good old USA, and one of our chief exports, if not the main one. Exporting death, war, killing and destruction of property and lives.....(sniff, sniff, wiping tears)...makes me so proud to be an American....
But it's just like I said in the post - the situation with the relative was crazy-making! Seems like people will always have the right to bear arms just about until they start shooting. Then they won't have that right anymore, but it will be too late.
Forgive me if I get some of the details wrong but the end findings are accurate.
Years ago women used to commit suicide in large numbers by placing their heads in their ovens. When the type of gas was changed to the sort that does not result in "easy" suicide, the suicidal women did not find another way to kill themselves. These feelings passed and were not acted upon because their stove was no longer an easily accessed lethal weapon.
Removal of easy access to firearms would no doubt have the same effect.
We did work something out where the assault rifles were sold. But of course, now someone else has them, so I don't think that gives much comfort, really. Thanks to ALL of you for your comments.
Or " Thank God I Had a Gun: True Accounts of Self-Defense " by Chris Bird (http://www.amazon.com/Thank-God-Had-Gun-Self-Defense/dp/0965678458/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_k2a_1_txt/182-6009300-0565267?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-2&pf_rd_r=03E60TMYTQKKH8Q2R9M9&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_p=304485601&pf_rd_i=0312951507)
Obviously, I dont want to get shot at, but neither do I want to be stabbed or beaten to death.
Even in the USA (so-called land of AK-47s) you're more likely to be beaten or stabbed to death than to be shot at!
To the Europeans & Canadians who have posted here -- STOP STEREOTYPING == not every gun-owning American is a "neo-Confederate right winger", in fact many are pro-choice, pro-government program liberals who understand that having a gun is a useful defense against those who are bigger, stronger, faster and crazier!
If you read those 2 recommended books, you'll understand that not every gunshot victim were innocent! Some of them were abusers, robbers, rapists, burglars, etc and THEY DESERVE TO BE SHOT AT!
Look, I'm not glamourizing guns. Even being in a shooting range sent chills up my spine!
But I'm tired of this European/Canadian/Blue State (and I'm from Obama's home state) stereotyping of gun owners as "crazy Nazis who kill for fun". In fact, as those 2 books will say, many gun owners are liberals who had to use a gun to defend themselves against those bigger, stronger, faster and crazier!
Yet, Colombia, Mexico, Jamaica, South Africa and India all have gun-bans. They're even more dangerous than the USA!
Hasn't stopped the criminals from having guns. It only stopped innocent people without underground connections to defend themselves!
Lot of people own guns who have NEVER committed a crime (contrary to European/Canadian/BlueState stereotypes)! Maybe you should talk TO them instead of talking DOWN to them!
In a free society, you can't really prevent traumatizing incidents! To prevent them all would mean clamping down on civil liberties! Is that where we want to go?
Sometimes, bad things just happen!
And yes, sometimes bad things happen. And they happen a lot more often when guns are involved.
Assault riffles should not be readily available to our citizens. There should also be a limit on the number of guns that private citizens can own. If you want a handgun and a hunting riffle or two-that's absolutely fine. But stockpiles of semi-automatics are ridiculous.
This wasn't a "Guns are Evil" blog.....
Annette was very clearly stating her frustration in being completely powerless to help a family member who was spiralling out of control, and her anger that the authorities could do nothing to restrict access to dangerous weapons from someone who was clearly not in a state of mind to be trusted with firearms.
Thanks for sharing this with us Annette.
Guns kill family and friends of gun owners a lot more often than they save the lives of gun owners and their families.
Where I work there are three people who have concealed carry permits. The workplace has a strict "no weapons of any kind" policy that even includes no paring knives to peel the occasional piece of fruit or cut the occasional sandwich. We also have an armed police force with at least 3 officers on duty at all times. I have asked management if they will perform shakedown checks of everyone's workspace to make sure these and other concealed carry people are not bringing their weapons to work for "protection."
A qualifier for me: I am a Vietnam-era Marine Infantry radio-operator. I served with the 9th Marines, 5th Marines, 7th Marines, and the CAP during a three-year tour in Vietnam. I was wounded once.
If anyone thinks carrying a weapon around makes them safer, it does not. Just ask a real, true combat veteran who had the terror of walking point on a combat patrol where contact was likely. Ask the family of a dead veteran who walked point in a combat unit and was killed in the first seconds of an ambush. Just ask the family of a dead veteran who was waiting in ambush for the enemy and was killed by a quick-reacting NVA soldier whose reaction to the ambush was successful.
Please pay attention to those who have come before you. John Wayne and Rambo are characters of fiction. Sergeant Rock did not really exist. Just because you are carrying does nothing for your or your family's personal safety. In fact, because of the number of would be "heroes" who are carrying there is a larger likelihood now that bad guys will "go to guns" quicker than before to get what they want.
One way to guarantee a situation will get out of hand is to make the bad guys think they have to use deadly force to get what they want. Owning and carrying a gun out to dinner will not help you against a determined killer who wants your stuff.
Why can't it be both (right/privilege) to protect the public?
Good post. Rated.
I read this post and many of the comments because I want to try to understand where people who don't like guns are coming from. I have a lot of relatives who don't like guns.
I was raised with guns and I don't find them scary or mysterious. I think a lot of people who don't understand guns are afraid of them because of what they see on TV or because of the way guns are presented by the media.
You can tell lack of knowledge is the issue whenever anyone says that people shouldn't be allowed to own "assault rifles" or "military-style" weapons. Newsflash: assault rifles are rifles capable of firing more than one round when you pull the trigger. Assault rifles are already heavily restricted as Class III firearms. You can't really buy one without a shit ton of money and a perfect background record and tons of paperwork. "Military-style" weapons are a term people use to describe guns that look scary but really aren't functionally more dangerous than regular sporting weapons. For example, a gun made out of black plastic and covered with flashlights, etc, really isn't inherently more dangerous, it's just more intimidating. It's like saying that a racing stripe makes a car go faster.
An example of this is the "AK-47" that anti-gun crowds always claim is easy to buy. It's not. The AK-47, the real fully-auto kind, is illegal unless you live in a state where you can buy Class III weapons, and even then it's going to set you back $12,000 and while you own it the BATF is going to be watching you like a hawk.
What you can buy at a gun store is a semi-automatic rifle that is modeled to look like the AK-47. The funny thing is, these tend to be fairly inaccurate and because they fire a small cartridge these types of rifles are less lethal than most sporting rifles you can buy.
I'm surprised more lefties don't own guns. Aren't you afraid of the right-wing redneck crazies? I always have a gun in the car when I'm driving through real backwoods areas. I don't need some crazy opportunist trying to take advantage of me or my family if I break down somewhere.
Oh, and a AK-47 and a Kalisnikov are one and the same. If you're going to get specific in your gun talk, you should be careful you really know what you're talking about because this is the kind of thing the NRA types will latch onto in an attempt to discredit your entire argument.
We should protect BOTH gun rights and patient privacy rights. It's a far cry than losing both and being no better off.
Really intriguing to read the debate points below. Was grateful to Texas Bubba for relating his real-world experiences with the issues.
Gabe, I was very interested by your comments and clicked your pic to find out what else you've written. I notice the blog page is empty; perhaps you are new? If so, welcome. What you've written above has all the makings of a great post.
To all of you who have taken the time to write, thank you for your insights and opinions. Well-reasoned debate lifts us all.
Hawley, JR, fingerlakes... thank you so much for reading and for your words of support.
The definition of a semi-auto is just that. One trigger pull, one round fired. It could be a sporting AK-47, AR-15, or a Browning 30.06 rifle. A machine gun is, one trigger pull, bullets keep firing until you depress the trigger; run out of ammo; or it malfunctions. It doesn't matter what label (Assault Rifle/Battle Rifle/Military Style Rifle) the media or gun/sporting stores call them. The BATF monitors all sales, transfers, and final disposition of all "machine guns" and they should.
P.S. I'm a Texas redneck and proud of it.
It is a fact that, those most hystercally frightened of guns are those most lacking in knowledge about them.
For instance the following from the story:
"They can also keep military-style weapons like an AK 47 and a Kalashnikov".
An AK 47 IS a Kalashnikov.
It was invented by a russian named Kalashnikov and called an AK 47.
From "Ablonde":
"Forgive me if I get some of the details wrong but the end findings are accurate.
Years ago women used to commit suicide in large numbers by placing their heads in their ovens. When the type of gas was changed to the sort that does not result in "easy" suicide, the suicidal women did not find another way to kill themselves."
Yes, you ARE wrong.
I expect you to challenge me die to the fact that I have MERELY 35 years as an appliance service business owner however, the CORRECT reason is not that there is different gas(it is STILL the smae natural and/or propane).
The actual correct details are that ovens are now manufactured so that one cannot simply put his/her head in the over with the gas tunred on.
They are made with a valve called an "oven safety".
For this valve to allow gas into the oven, there are different ignotion systems and, when the gas IS alowed into the oven, it is aflame and, it is impossible to keep one's head in a lighted oven.
I am a gun owner.
There are times when I have lost my temper to the point of wanting to harm someone.
I have NEVER EVER thought of using one of my guns.
I have ALWAYS had the thought of using my hands.
I am not a "gun nut" as the hysterical anti's term us.
Neither am I unable to control my temper.
If I was to lose it to the point of the Ala guy, I would choose to use my hands and, I learned how to be damn good at that, thank you U S Navy.
Now, since I am NOT "nuts", I am able to control my temper and not do these things.
I live in a basically nice neighboprhood with one white trash place nearby.
I do not sit in my house with one of my guns "at the ready", cokced and ready to KILLLLLLLL!!!!!!!
This sort of hysterical irrational thinking by the anti's is far from the reality of what we gun owners are actually like.
My life is NOT focused upon my guns.
My life IS focused upon what it's like to go out on a spring morning, feel the warmth of the sun and hear the birds chirping for a honey.
I enjoy the scent of my mowed lawn.
My neighbors and I smile at each other and are friendly.
Some are gun owners, some are not.
NOT ONE OF US is defined by our guns.
In reality, we are defined as how w treat each other and whether we like the Blackhawks, Bears, Brewers, fish, golf, etc.
There is exponentially more hysteria among the anti's than there is among any gun owner I have ever known.
So, in reality, no guns CAUSED the guy in Ala to do what his MENTAL CAPACITY led him to choose to act out his anger.
Yes, he used a gun.
I'd bet he would have acted out to the loss of someone else's life WITHOUT access to a gun.
Would the dead be any les dead if he had chosen some other "tool"?
This post and conversation seem to have upset you. I have tried to be as careful and respectful as I possibly can. I don't want to come to your house and take your gun away. I just wanted to help a loved one and found myself pretty powerless to do so.
"Too much freedom" really? I'd rather have freedom and see shooting rampages than the alternative.
Maybe I went off a tangent too much! Maybe my earlier posts should've been shorter to just to get to my point!
I apologize if I made you guys look like "total gun banners" I went too far when I implied that! Forgive me!
I just wanted to notify possible readers of Salon (not just you guys) on the dangers of gun bans!
However, please those 2 books I recommended a chance!
I already know that using guns for defense isn't perfect. No defensive stance (ie. martial arts, watching your back, using knives, using guns) will ever be perfect!
However, if you read those 2 books I recommended earlier in the comment thread, you will see REAL LIFE stories of people using guns to defend themselves!
Just because some people might've failed in using guns to defend themselves, that doesn't mean everyone fails at it!
You walking through a war zone is different from people driving around in non-war zones.
In a war-zone, your enemies are numerous and are hiding behind trees, mountains, buildings, etc.
Whereas in most cases of gun-defense, you're only dealing with 1 or 2 bad guys!
I hate the arms race. But what I hate even more is that the good people are loosing the arms race to the bad guys! There will always be an arms race. Let's allow the good guys to at least catch up in the arms race. Let's give people the option of using martial arts, knives or guns. Let them decide for themselves!
After all, not everyone is born big, strong or fast!
Lefties used to like guns in the 1960's when the Black Panthers, Brown Berets, American Indian Movement and the Weathermen had guns!
Unfortunately, afterwards, too many on the Left went along with the (I know I'm about to over-generalize here) limousine liberals of Manhattan/Hollywood/SanFran/Boston who never touched a gun in their life and don't know anyone who did!
It's also ironic that some (not all, some) liberals want us to rely on the police, the same guys some (not all, some) liberals denounce for police brutality and neglecting to protect our communities.
If you read my blog post from last year (http://pablowegesend.blogspot.com/2008_12_01_archive.html#617283429944124433), I wrote about how the local police backed in Mumbai 2008, Athens 2008, New Orleans 2005 and LA 1992, and the common people were left defenseless for the first few days of chaos!
Again, I mentioned earlier, I'm not glamourizing guns. Even visiting a shooting range and holding a real gun sent chills up my spine. It's not as easy as TV makes it out to be!
I also understand that not everyone is born big, strong and fast, and those people need all the defense they can get, even a loaded weapon, if they choose!
Actually, in OVERWHELMING majority of the times guns are used in defense, NOBODY gets shot! What actually happens is that the predator backs off and runs away!
That happens more often than someone shooting their relatives dead!
Another book to recommend "More Guns, Less Crime" by John Lott!
You'll see the title and say "What?"
Just give the book a chance and you'll see why the title is the way it is
It is commendable of you to draw inferences on how befalling and beleaguring it is to discuss mental illness in families and stigmas associated with it. It is wierd how the mental health associates can name most symptoms with no problem on t.v. commercials, but once it is personal, that the laws that are there to protect, are also there to cause confusion and are conflicting. So if a person were in need of some type of mental help, the only way one might find out, is when it is too late. Such was the awful case in Alabama, the man was set off, it all became too scarry for him, a new baby, a wife who needs to be home with her baby, but for godsake, no she should be a feminist, how dare she want to stay home with her baby. She must have rocks in her head, but to peoples amazement, what will it take to just let people be? It is the hardest assignment, to just let people be, and stop the bull shit, or running peoples lives for them, so you have a a pay check and I don't, what does that imply? I'am broke, what? I beg your pardon, if you follow where I am going, I am proud of who I am, and definitely do not need people to tell me what I should or shouldn't be doing. It is unfortunate that we just can't have a world, where people can do what they are good at, godforbidno, that would mean, that mean people could only treat each other that way. It would mean, that people wouldn't have to worry about answering to somebody, but that would also mean definitive to God, and many today aren't ready to make that difference, they want to go it alone. Well, so did that crazed loonatic, he was sure there was no way, he was going to survive not having a job, or what ever else his insanity would not tolerate, where were all the smart people, who suredly could have prevented this horrific tradgedy?
As for mentally ill people having access to firearms: the information is not correct. NOT correct: Federal law requires that any diagnosed mental patient be screened by having gun sellers check the database. Trouble is: so-called mental health workers (shrinks) and hospitals totally ignore the requirement for registering their patients!
Aforementioned half-brother IS forbidden to acquire / own / use firearms. That's why he tried to use his hands to twist my head off.
People kill (injure /maim) other people: with whatever means they have available (forks, meat cleavers, baseball bats, HANDS).
If you have a mentally ill (potentially violent) person in the house who also "collects guns" - the solution is to take YOUR GUN and make that person stand aside while you REMOVE HIS GUNS.
Besides: the issue of "mentally ill" ignores the clear fact that many of these massacres are carried out by ENRAGED people. These (as in the case of the Alabama and Germany shootings) people are angry, stewing over injustices (real or unreal) they want to avenge.
The solution for these dangers is: Stop being uncivil, sarcastic, judgmental, dehumanizing toward EVERYONE. In other words, "don't pick on losers" - they just might take their legally owned firearms and do some "protesting" and "getting even." Is it SO HARD to be civil, polite, supportive and empathetic to those obviously needing a little personal / social validation?
I haven't belonged to the NRA in 30 years: I don't need them, there are 10s of millions of gun owners in this country (only about 1 million NRA members) who know the value of self defense, know the value of legitimate gun sports. These people are the ones clearing up the fuzzy heads in Washington. (Example, by telling them the difference between "auto" and "semi-auto" and the difference between "military rifle" - used in competition -and "assault weapon.")
FYI: Germany has far more restrictive gun laws than the U.S. - it made no difference to that socially abused teen. Scotland has a virtual ban on guns: does anyone remember the Kindergarten Massacre of a few years ago - in Scotland?! That killer was an adult - but had his own rage and revenge fantasies and carried them out on 5 year-old kids and a teacher.
Please, lets just stop blaming guns and start blaming ourselves: for the uncivil, mean-spirited society we've created. I deal with high school kids all the time: most of them WANT a little responsibility and the trust that goes along with it. Teach them how to do useful, appreciated things (I train them for after school jobs where I work).
This of course, applies to adults as well. Because, we're all human.
"This post and conversation seem to have upset you."
You have either misunderstood or deliberately spun my words.
Where I stated,
"Would the dead be any les dead if he had chosen some other "tool"?"
You stated,
"I think the answer is, YES, people would be less dead if he had chosen some other "tool."
Could you explain how a dead person could be "less dead" had they been put to death by some other means?
"I just wanted to help a loved one and found myself pretty powerless to do so."
I can understand that that would be an extremely sad and psychologically hurtful experience.
I think you probably ignored the part of my comments where I described my neighborhood and the interactions of us neighbors here.
While we HERE IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD would be saddened and angry had something been done to a neighbor, even though some of us are gun owners, that does NOT preclude us from those same feelings as you described.
Because we own guns, WE ARE NOT MONSTERS!
While I’m a Canadian, to the annoyance of some no doubt, I’ve got 24 years in our military as a pointy-ender (infanteer to you not in the Biz) and have been deployed on various missions including Afghanistan, so I might not be talking out my butt.
I know US gun owners are passionate about your right but I don’t think anyone was advocating the removal of guns in this particular debate. I think you guys are quite gun-shy to the idea of any further restraint but the sad fact is you have nearly no restraint in the US at all. Even if a guy is a criminal and dangerous the opportunity to acquire a very dangerous firearm in the US is at best a few hours of work one way or the other. The individual State’s laws favour rapid, easy access to guns and ammunition, and that doesn’t mean a six-shooting wheel gun but enough firepower to get into real trouble. These easy-access laws have made your nation one the most heavily self-armed in the world. Individual citizens in the US outgun both the Russian and Chinese militaries. And half of those guns have nothing to do with sport shooting or hunting.
Some points:
- a ‘civilianized’ commercially available semi-auto assault rifle is not a reduced capability weapon nor is it less accurate as lesalzo suggests. They all have a potent rate of fire and can be rapidly reloaded with virtually unlimited ammunition, if the shooter brought it. After-fact evidence at most of your mass shootings proves semi-auto weapons with lots of loaded mags caused the scale of carnage.
-It is denial at best to contend that if somebody brings a chain-saw or a big broad sword to a planned mass murder, he will simply not be able to kill as many people as if he had three full mags with a semi-auto. To say these people would still be dangerous is to ignore the reason they were vastly more dangerous.
-Canadians and Europeans do have a valid opinion about your nation’s gun situation. There happens to be a Constitutional Amendment before the Second, and it doesn’t specify nationality. We in Canada receive annually thousands of illegally imported guns that go directly to criminals. Ontario states that 70% of guns used in crimes are illegal US guns. Your gun laws impact our lives for the worse.
-Texas and most other States that have CCP (conceal-carry permits) also have more gun violence than States that ban it. Obviously arming the public in greater numbers is it’s own lamentable argument against CCOs.
Now, lets tackle the myth about self-defence and mass murder or shootings in public places. A handgun, which is all you can lawfully carry loaded in public or concealed, in the hands of the average American, will do more harm than good in this situation. Even with so many of you having military experience, at best only a tiny fraction of you any of you are trained to use a handgun with skill in close quarters battle. You simply would not be able to shoot effectively or safely in such a situation, and you would kill more innocent people than you saved. You would be extremely scared and react without the necessary tactical skill, have no fire-team partner, and any cop who came on the scene would likely mistake you for the shooter. You would end up shooting at the cops to defend yourself. Or dead by the hand of a dispassionate murderer who unlike you had a plan and knew his surroundings. Self-defence with a handgun is successful only in places like convenience stores or a home, as Mr Wegesend’s books will probably indicate. And I’m sure that luck plays a greater roll than he’s willing to admit.
ArborJack probably has the last say, in that a change of societal norms and habits must come before you will see a reduction in gun deaths in the US. Right now, in my opinion, there is no hope of that.
Lorne WP
welcome to the party, we forgive your lateness
1) you and other gun-controllers believe that getting guns in the USA is as easy as buying candy! (not your exact words, but I've heard it from others)
There's a legally mandated 5 day waiting period (15 days in my state - Hawaii). Also, there's background checks and a required training course!
2) we can outshoot the Russian and Chinese military? If that's the case -- GOOD!
3) I know, pro-gunners like me bring up other non-gun weapons to point out people do kill with other things.
The whole point is -- whatever weapons are used, it's NOT the root of the problem!
If I see a bunch of guys punching each other out, my reaction isn't "I'm so relieved no guns are involved".. My reaction is "who started the fight in the first place? Why are they fighting? What are their home environment? Is it something about the community they live that makes those fights happen? In other words, I'm thinking about the root of the problem!
4) blame the USA for "imported illegal guns into Canada"? LAME ARGUMENT! Who's shooting the guns?
5) You claim states that allow concealed-carry have high crime rates? Vermont (liberal on most issues) have the MOST LENIENT GUN LAWS in the USA! Their crime rate is even lower than my home state with super-strict gun laws --- Hawaii!
Colombia, South Africa, Jamaica, Mexico and India all have gun bans! They're more dangerous than the USA!
In Switzerland, most people are armed and better trained at it -- safer than the USA!
6) A gun in self-defense does more harm than good?
In overwhelming majority of cases of times someone pulls out a gun to defends themselves, NOBODY GETS SHOT! The criminal backs down and runs away!
Criminals prey on the weak & defenseless! Most don't want a shoot-out, they want to victimize and run! If you pull out a gun, most will just run away!
Let's just say, you do pull out a gun and have a shootout with the criminal. The big question is WHO STARTED IT? The criminal started and SHOULD TAKE FULL RESPONSIBILITY for everything that happened, even any accidents that happen on your part!
Look, guns aren't glamourous. Fights aren't glamorous!
However, sometimes, you can't always walk away. I hate that truth, but it's the truth!
So remember these lyrics from the Brazilian heavy metal band Sepultura
"when you go down
when you go down
when you go down
you go down fighting!"
So while most criminals would run as soon as you point a gun at them, if you're forced into a shootout situation and can't walk away -- go down fighting! You'll die a hero!
I read a story about mental illness destroying a person, and a family struggling to help that person without one ounce of support from any establishment.
I'm so sorry you had to suffer this, and equally sorry for your relative, who obviously needed a hell of a lot more treatment and support.
First I want to say that I understated my sympathy for your situation. Second, I want to say that I have no reason to dislike or distrust Canadian citizens. I live in an area with "ready access" to our good neighbor, Canada, and have always respected Canadian people and their culture.
But in view of your response to my own and several other "pro self-defense" advocates, I still have to say we have a disagreement going.
You kindly acknowledge that I may "have the last word" in bringing up the need for a cultural change in the U.S. I will agree with anyone who says that we have a sick fixation with violence. I need not point out that our television and movie industries play to and perpetuate this sickness. Literally, this phenomenon connects immediately to the mind of some mentally ill persons. "I seen it on TV!" so it must be "the way to go." That goes for suicidal as well as homicidal victims of mental illness. This alone should make us turn away - and more - it should make us restrict "violent entertainment" at least as severely as some want to restrict gun ownership.
This on-going (and fruitless) argument over what or who kills WHOM has got to stop! Thought precedes action: It's that simple. So the FIRST problem is how to avoid having people have violent thoughts, vengeful thoughts. I've watched Canadian television many times: notably, there's very little violence depicted in "fiction" programs - and if there is violence involved (like police shows) - often as not it is "off stage" or "before the story began." I'm a writer, I know how to do this: so why can't I sell a non-violent police TV series to U.S. producers? (You already know the answer.)
Civility and hospitality: the very hallmark of Canadian culture! Suspicion, arrogance and anger: the very hallmark of the U.S. culture! (Yes, I've sat supper in Canadian households and "argued politics" at length: hats off to Canadians for this in-the-blood civility and respect of others!)
Politics:
Boisterous and sometimes baffling - but can be changed with a simple "vote of no confidence." - that's Canadian politics.
Boisterous, detached, open to bribes, not open to public input: that's U.S. politics. (God, oh God, what were they thinking when they left out "vote of no confidence" from our constitution?!)
Corporatism: (the idea that the well-being of corporations is the end-all, be-all for the entire population) - do Canadians have this disease? The U.S. certainly does. This "idea" has become a "principle" on which one of our political parties is founded. It ignores the dehumanization which results: for the sake of a few "leaders" who recently have become most famous for their unbounded greed (if not "incompetence - we gotta look at motive here).
All the while: we arm ourselves. Heh, funny how that all translates into mass murders in the United States (mostly), isn't it?
So I'll stick to my point: Mental patients should not have access to firearms, our society must CHANGE and I don't mean "someday."
If we could somehow instantaneously put a semi-auto handgun in every Canadian's pocket tomorrow: there might be an uptick in violence but, even if allowed to proceed for a few years: the per capita "rate" would never match that of the U.S. Violence isn't ingrained in Canadian society: it is in ours.
I completely disagree with those who say (regarding such a change to non-violence) that "it can't happen here." Famously funny saying: We aren't Ameri-can'ts, we are Ameri-CANS. Forty years of futility should have discouraged these negative thinkers: more gun laws and restrictions went into affect during that time than in the previous 160 years. NO noticeable difference, in fact, the rate of "mass killings" increased.
Does Canada have street gangs committing murders at a one-a-minute? I don't know, but I doubt it. We do: these "gang members" are often still in their teens. I had a street gang (composed of members with an average age of about 16) try to kill me for a month. THEY didn't care how many innocents got hit by "stray bullets" - and one of those bullets struck an innocent (by-standing) 16 year-old girl in the head and killed her. Where was I? I was under cover - waiting for the CLEAR fire zone before opening up with MY weapon. If that were the only time I've used a gun to save myself or my friends, I couldn't speak as I do. Just the SIGHT of me coming to bear with my gun "chased them off" - and the police later caught up to them. So, am I "crazy and dangerous?" Am I (as one military vet here states, "incompetent in a real gun battle?" Bee-Ess!!
Expert training (in combat hand-gunning) and lots of practice MAKES
I'll also stick with my stance against the "apparently sane" argument that guns "enable violence." If the impulse the " thought of as "normal" violence is mitigated: those guns will "enable" fewer people because there will be FEWER of that kind of person.
Unfortunately, we just don't get do overs! And it is impossible to know if the sheltered path would have ultimately saved my son.
Anyway, Arbor, I digress. Just wanted to say thanks for stopping by, and essentially, I don't think we disagree. I am sorry, as well, for the personal situation you mentioned in your first post, and I wish you all the best.
(Families, huh?)