READ about Piers Morgan's long career in journalism here.
On Wednesday evening at 9, HLN's Robin Meade pulled her chair up in the "Piers Morgan Tonight" studio, welcoming actress and activist Jane Fonda to the program for an equal parts entertaining and engaging interview.
Currently appearing on HBO's "The Newsroom" as Leona Lansing, CEO of the fictional network parent company Atlantic World Media, Fonda offered insight into the development of her character:
"Rupert Murdoch that's been marinated a long time in Ted Turner," riffed the two-time Academy Award winner, in describing the role.
Referencing her marriage to the founder of CNN, whom she jokingly called her "favorite ex-husband," the 75-year-old explained how it aided in the process:
"It just made it not scary. I know the world, I know the universe. I know Rupert Murdoch. I know John Malone. I know people who have media empires like my character, Leona Lansing, does in the movie. So it just - it brought me into that world with no fear."
Earlier on the program, Meade welcomed Bill Sherlach, who lost his wife in the tragic school shooting in Newtown, Conn. The widower of Mary Sherlach, the school psychologist killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School two months ago, Sherlach discussed the group he's working with, and how he's remembering his loving wife.
"One of the reasons why I put my efforts behind the Sandy Hook Promise, as well as the foundation for my wife, is because I believe that a multifaceted approach to this whole situation is what is warranted," said Sherlach.
"And that's what the Sandy Hook Promise is all about. Talking about not just gun control, talking about mental health, talking about school safety and talking about parenting. I think it's something that needs to be fought on all fronts."
On Friday Sherlach will posthumously receive the Presidential Citizens Medal. To hear more from her husband, watch the clip as he explains that "two days ago would have been Mary's birthday." Also, listen to the interview with Fonda and catch a clip of her from "The Newsroom."
» Follow Piers Morgan Tonight on Twitter
> Follow "Piers Morgan Tonight" on Instagram
Young people who are diagnosed with “irregular behavior” are too often amped-up with anti-depressant prescription drugs which should be at the top of the problem list in our opinion. No one in the media or in Congress seems to talk about the problem. Why? Is it because too many are funded by the pharmaceutical industry? Because of their lack of knowledge people are too quick to blame guns.
I totally agree with you and have called public radio stations requesting discussion on this topic. No one mentions it yet we see commercials about these medications multiple times a day. SSRI's with black box warnings about suicide and aggressive behavior. Chantix might help you quit smoking but it may also cause you to commit suicide. They don't mention the possibility of homicide – they tone that down calling it "aggressive behavior". But most mass murders seem to be connected to some type of anti-depressant. How do we get this conversation started? I think background checks will forever fail because this is private information. So, I suggest the proposals of 7 states become a federal mandate – liability insurance required on all gun sales. The insurance companies could have access to health records but still keep the info private. An insurance policy would not be issued and could be revoked due to these medications. It wouldn't fix everything but would be a good start.
I am a Vietnam Veteran. As soon as I turned on Piers Morgan and saw that Jane Fonda was a guest I changed the channel.........she is a traitor to the USA. Doesn't Piers/Robin Meade know what she did during the Vietnam War. I value nothing she has to say. She should have been charged with treason. Next time she's a guest on CNN why don't you ask here about Vietnam....
Many questioned and protested this terrible war and even Robert McNamara eventually confessed in his memoir that it was 'wrong, terribly wrong.'" I think, at the time, those who served were wrongly criticized for their participation even though, for most, they were drafted into the mess.
Why CNN gives people like Jane Fonda (Traitor) and Piers Morgan (Foreigner) a platform to spew there liberal views is beyond me.
What are you, like 90? Your generation is finished old man. Time to move on.
wow, you are rude. when you make a remark like that, it makes you look “smaller” actually.
In 2011 there was approx. 8,500 murders using firearms in the U.S.
In that same year there was approx. 32,000 deaths by automobiles. Maybe we should be talking about car control.
Too bad cars have an actual use, unlike big guns, which are used mostly by low-IQ white rednecks to make them feel virile, macho and tough. I recommend you quit living in your John Wayne fantasy world and get back to 2013. Fast.
Guns have an actual use, too. Please do some research on "Defensive Gun Uses (DGUs)". There have been about 13 non-NRA studies on DGUs that estimate between 800,000 and 2,500,000 (depending on what study you read) instances occur each year where someone has stopped a criminal act, either from commencing or completing, with the threat of or actual use of a gun. And I’m sure there are many more “unreported cases” as well.
Hey Bigger: What are you going to do when someone invades your home and attacks your family. How are you going to defend your wife and children? with a knife perhaps, a baseball bat? My home is protected by a loaded gun in every room, we invite any one to invade our home, we are prepared. and we are not uneducated red necks either. The safety of my family is number one.!!
Donna – here are some statistics
Myth #5: Keeping a gun at home makes you safer.
Fact-check: Owning a gun has been linked to higher risks of homicide, suicide, and accidental death by gun.
• For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.
Myth #6: Carrying a gun for self-defense makes you safer.
• A Philadelphia study found that the odds of an assault victim being shot were 4.5 times greater if he carried a gun. His odds of being killed were 4.2 times greater.
Julie, it will be greatly appreciated if you could also include the sources of the statistics you post, so we can examine the authenticity of them.
10 Pro-Gun Myths, Shot Down
Fact-checking some of the gun lobby's favorite arguments shows they're full of holes.
—By Dave Gilson
| Thu Jan. 31, 2013 3:01 AM PST
Some people say "guns kill people"; some others say "people, not guns, kill people". In my opinion, 'bullets' triggered by guns are the real items that kill people in a shooting event. Therefore, not only guns, but also the acquisition of bullets and other ammunition should be subject to proper control and regulations. If we need drivers license and registration to use a car, we should also need identical tracking processes to use weapons and ammunition!
SHUT UP LOSER ! !
just like to point out the bad fact checking on CNN, they keep saying automatice weapons are illegal in the usa. well they are not, you have to file a form 4 with atf, provide fingerprints for a background check, pass the background check, pay a 200 dollar tax for each weapon, and either get clearence from local police or be an LLC. in fact nearly 500,000 automatic weapons are owned by private citizens in the USA, not one has ever been used in a crime.
maybe the whole problem with finding a solution is mis-information, propaganda, and inflated numbers.
sorry forgot to add they have to be made prior to may 10th 1986
WHEN YOUR MASTER TRIES TAKING PATRIOT'S GUNS, MAYTHEY USE MORGAN AS A HUMAN SHIELD. WHOEVER HIS MAJESTY SENDS BETTER GET THEIR LIFE INSURANCE SORTED OUT.
Wow, Piers lets a tratior talk about guns. I guess he felt right at home. To bad they didn't show her sitting be hind the antiaircraft gun that had shot down Americian planes and I quote" Showing her admiration
Fonda called returning POWs "hypocrites and liars," adding, "These were not men who had been tortured. These were not men who had been starved. These were not men who had been brainwashed. ... Pilots were saying it was the policy of the Vietnamese and that it was systematic. I believe that's a lie."
"In a 2005 interview with CBS, Fonda reiterated that she had no regrets about her trip to North Vietnam in 1972. "There are hundreds of American delegations that had met with the POWs. Both sides were using the POWs for propaganda... It's not something that I will apologize for."
Good going her and Piers are two of the same kind
Mr. Morgan appears to be the typical white who only cares about safety when it concerns suburban white children. Hence his only concern is banning weapons used to murder whites. The fact that thousands of black children die each year from hand guns is irrelavent. His arguments concernining gun control seems to only show concern for a segment of the population. Shapiro was excellent at pointing this out.
SANDY HOOK NEVER HAPPENED. DO YOUR RESEARCH. YOU ARE CORRECT, THEY ONLY FOCUS ON WHITE FOLKS, AND THEY CALL US PATRIOTS, TEA PARTY AND GUN OWNERS RACISTS. CNN IS A JOKE. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS A JOKE. PIERCED ORGAN WILL BE A SLAVE TO THE NEW WORLD ORDER. HA HA HA HE HE HE HO HO HO. LOSERS
The notion that HBO’s ‘The Newsroom’ is an innovative TV show is completely laughable when we already have the programs like Keith Olbermann (though canceled), Chris Matthew, Ed Shultz, Rachel Maddow. Will McAvoy is the same ilk on weed. It is an egregious offense when A JOURNALIST decides what the truths are and report the news with the intent of imposing his convictions on the audience.
The Newsroom is the worst creation of Aaron Sorkin whom I used to respect tremendously.
Give it up cnn, we all know this is a fake. You are a bunch of LOSERS ! ! !
SANDY HOOK NEVER HAPPENED AND NOBODY BELIEVES YOUR STORIES. WHAT DO YOU HAVE, LIKE 1000 VIEWERS ? LOSERS LOSERS LOSERS LOSERS LOSERS LOSERS LOSERS LOSERS
GET OUT OF AMERICA !!! SCEW CNN FOR LETTING THIS FOREIGNER INTERFERE WITH OUR 2ND AMM. RIGHTS. I WILL NOT WATCH CNN UNTIL MORGAN IS OFF THE AIR!!!!!
What happened to the comments page for Morgan tonight? Morgan interviews the doc at the Sandy Hook shooting. So I have a question for both of them. How is it that these liberals who jump up and down screaming that it's a womans' right to kill the innocent baby inside of her also want to stop someone from killing themself? I certainly don't condone suicide but that just seems to be the height of hypocrisy again. Would the good doctor perform an abortion or support those doctors who do? And yet an adult can't kill themself if they want to?
John Walsh is on talking about the guy profile who got out of prison FOUR times on parole and kept killing children. Yet all he can talk about is the killer getting access to guns. He doesn't say whether the guns were obtained ILLEGALLY – which they most likely were. Nor does he talk about the fact that the justice system FAILED by parolling the guy FOUR times!!!!!!!!
They have eyes and yet do not see. They have ears and yet do not hear. Just flat blind and deaf to the truth!
Mr. Morgan is lying. Court records are sealed for Aurora, CO. No one knows what gun fired what. Police reports indicate the AR-15 100 round magazine jammed and that weapon was abandoned. I argue that the shotgun, with buckshot loads, killed and did the most damage, and Morgan CANNOT REFUTE that until the court records are unsealed and the evidence revealed.
Secondly, Mr. Morgan has a record of misreporting facts and immoral reporting practices. I challenge everyone to perform a Google Search on "piers morgan phone hacking" and read search returns also about the "Leveson Report". This man will do anything as an editor or reporter to sensationalize any issue, all in the name to sell advertising time and space. He is a media hack-job to the tenth power and cannot even show his face in the UK anymore – even with their highly sensationalized tabloid culture.
Also, Morgan was fired as Editor of the Daily Mirror on 14 May 2004 after authorizing the newspaper's publication of photographs allegedly showing Iraqi prisoners being abused by British Army soldiers from the Queen's Lancashire Regiment. Within days the photographs were shown to be crude fakes.
He may have been duped.
If that’s the case, why did he not publicly admit his mistake and apologize for needlessly endangering the lives of British troops?
From Policymic/article 22223:
More mind blowing than this is the fact that he fired 33 bullets into each of the 12 people who died. Simple mathematics show that this adds up to 396 bullets embedded in the bodies recovered at the scene. This isn't counting other stray bullets or bullets recovered from the wounded.
I think he used the AR-15.
Obama does not go far enough on gun control!
Criminals don't always buy from legit dealers.
Background checks don't work if there is no background.
The more important checks that should be done are on those who already have guns!
Handguns cause the majority of firearms deaths.
My solution to handguns:
Make non or 'less than' lethal guns more effective vs normal guns.
1. Encourage the use & development of 'Smart guns'.
2. Make non lethal ammo that is designed to stun, like a flashbang.
-The Military is working on this right now.
This ammo should work with guns already in circulation.
3. Compulsory , regular training & mental health checks.
For more powerful weapons, more training & checks.
4. A choice of: paying an extortionate price for a license for powerful weapons,
Or; be part of a part time militia.
In conclusion you must ask these questions:
Is a gun owner still mentally & physically capable of using a gun?
Are they responsible enough to own a powerful weapon, that can be potentially be effectively used against the police?
Would what you suggest above work on criminals who have no regards for laws and regulations?
Wouldn't the sale of regular lethal ammo go underground and criminals would have them anyway?
Socretes, you said:
""Make non lethal ammo that is designed to stun, like a flashbang.""
And after that you bite the deer, moose or duck to death? Or suffocate with a pillow?
Hunters use rifles don't they? I didn't know hunters use handguns.
Yes Julie, they all use AMMO. And in US both are used for hunting. I thought you knew.
Socretes was discussing ammo for handguns – I thought you read it?
Socretes, you said:
"...paying an extortionate price for a license for powerful weapons""
What is your suggested cost of driver's licence for powerful sports car capable of far exceeding legal speed limit? Should all drivers got though background checks? I'm sure you know cars kill far more kids than guns, 'though not as much as drugs. Drug overdose deaths are at the very top.
Should there be a law against drugs so kids won't get it? :)
When will all of you gun huggers stop comparing cars and guns? It is a totally illogical comparison. But if you insist on doing so then let's go with that logic because I like it......
All purchasers of guns should be required by federal law to have proof of liability insurance before the purchase – just like cars. And yes, Edward, that powerful sports car's coverage is much higher than that of other cars and so would the coverage on that assault weapon you 2nd amendment criers insist you have a right to own based on an amendment that was adopted 222 years ago and 153 years before assault weapons were produced.
Those of you who claim to be responsible gun owners might then be more likely to be sure your guns do not get into the hands of a criminal (over 1/3 of criminals say they acquired their guns from friends or family – they aren't stolen like many gun huggers claim). If they let someone get your gun your premiums shoot up (excuse the pun), you lose coverage, and the insurance company takes your guns away (not the government)!!
Also, insurance companies can actually do a background check into your mental health history because they could have access to your private health insurance records. This would keep guns out of the hands of those on Prozac, Chantix, Paxil.... the list of drugs associated with "aggressive behavior and suicidal thoughts or actions" eliminating many of the mental health issues surrounding guns.
Insurance companies might also want to step in when divorce attorneys are contacted and I think that's a good idea.
Insurance companies would also push for safety in the industry just like they have with cars.
So – let's compare – it makes sense this way. I suggest very low premiums for hunters.
Julie, I don’t own a gun, so I’m not one of those gun huggers whom you seem to feel contempt for. But I don’t think comparing cars and guns is illogical. In gun violence and car accidents, deaths and injuries can be inflicted upon us by others’ actions that are irresponsible, reckless or plain mad. Both are disasters caused by “human behaviors” and/or “abuse or misuse of the tool”. And which occurs more? BY FAR, car-related incidents. Cars are much more dangerous than guns, and current regulations are FAR FROM GOOD ENOUGH.
Fixating only on guns is not doing much service to our society, in my humble opinion. Naturally, people, including myself, are emotionally stirred and distraught by the horrific image of massacre. It’s an honest human reaction. But let us all calm down and rationally examine what would work better, more efficiently, for the public safety as a whole, before we “vilify” gun owners.
For example, car accidents kill over 30,000 people every year and many of the victims are children too. I don’t understand why we are not having vigorous national discussions over road safety. For non-gun-owners, myself included, it is so easy to point our fingers at gun issues and demand stricter gun laws, because it won’t affect us. And yet we are unwilling to look at the fact of the frequency of car accidents and recognize that stricter traffic laws are imperative. Is it because it directly affects us and we don’t want lower speed limits and higher fines imposed on us? How about punishing speeders, tailgaters and phone users just as harsh as DUI drivers, making all of them subject to instant license suspension or $1000 per ticket? Understanding anti-gun people’s goal is “a safer society”, just as mine, I’d expect that you’d welcome my suggestion.
If anti-gun people were equally vehemently pushing stricter traffic laws, then I won’t have a problem. I just don’t think it’s fair to demand law-abiding responsible gun owners to compromise their way of life, IF we are reluctant to be saddled with stricter traffic laws when we know that could save thousands of lives. Do you know how hypocritical that is? Cars victimize three to four times as many as guns do, so why don’t we do something about that first? Road safety issue should take the precedence over gun-control, if we really want to SAVE LIVES...
I’m not a gun enthusiast. On the contrary, I’ve never fired a gun in my entire life. But I have a tremendous respect for the Second Amendment. I’ve never owned a gun because I haven’t felt the need. But if I ever sense a threat, to my family or to myself, I will get one, train myself to be able to use it well, and protect ourselves. And that is MY RIGHT in America.
Where to begin, first, cars are necessary in every day of our lives and ANYONE who argues that point is just being ridiculous. We have to work, we have to drive to work. So, let's not debate which is needed and which is not because that's just a waste of time.
So, then – automobile safety – seat belts?? Many fought and even still fight the use of seat belts – they should have a right to not be safe if that's their choice, remember? People are now pretty much used to the fact that you may get a ticket if you don't wear it. Most are probably aware they save lives.
Air bags – I am sure automobile manufacturers were not happy and would not have voluntarily made these standard equipment. They are expensive and require extensive testing during the manufacturing process. Failures can cause lawsuits. I am sure insurance companies have been influential in making these standard equipment.
Anti-lock brakes, theft protection devices, reduced insurance rates for these devices, child safety seats, automatic locks when the car is moving, having to press the brake to shift gears, MADD, sticter laws on drunk driving, now laws on texting while driving, better traffic control devices, cars with cameras in the back, cars that can detect another car in your blind spot, in the near future cars that drive automatically.
These things have happened because we know cars are essential but maybe you know of a way to get to work with a gun?? How can you say nothing is done to make cars safer? Have you not heard of any of these things?
What has the gun industry done lately to promote safety with their products that have only one purpose? And please don't say it has more than one purpose. Even if used in self-defense its only purpose is to hurt or kill. That is not the purpose of cars so your argument is NOT valid.
Julie, of course I am aware of all those improvements made in cars. I never said that nothing is done to make cars safer. What I said was IT’S STILL NOT GOOD ENOUGH. Please don’t put your spin on my statement.
Julie, when did I say cars are not necessary?? When did I suggest that we don't need a car to get to work?? Please don’t put words in my mouth. I’m only saying we need more improvement and stricter traffic laws for the road safety. If we are having a national conversation, just as vigorous as gun-control, we can come up with many ideas to make our roads safer, which will save far more lives than banning certain types of guns, am I wrong?
The gun debate and focus on guns is taking place because NOTHING has been done to make them safer or less accessible to people who shouldn't have them.
Julie, if you want to see SOMETHING gets done, then, how about we focus on the individuals with mental issues? Most of the mass murderers exhibited some kind of mental abnormality, didn’t they? Why not we try to make our society better able to assist those mentality-ill, spot the problem early on and give adequate help to those who need it? Why don’t we have that conversation much more vigorously than talking about what “sane people” can have or can’t, or that they have to go through more hoops to keep the tool they need to sustain their lifestyle?
As I've said insurance would address that issue. Background checks will never be able to because health issues of any kind are protected information, and should be, but insurance providers could have access and deny insurance. That is my suggestion on how to deal with it. What is yours? You just point out the problem and do not offer any kind of solution. We all know the problems.
My idea for a solution is to invest in public medical psychiatric facilities, make them readily available to the families of mentally ill, so anyone can take their family members and get examination and treatment (as an inpatient if necessary) by psychiatric experts at no cost to them.
Do you know mental health is protected information? Only accessible if volunteered by the person or submitted by the state to a database which most states are not doing. So mentally ill can still buy guns. Understand the problem? And those on prescription medication that can cause violent behavior (I believe this number is incredibly high – it includes meds to stop smoking – look up Chantix) may not be considered "mentally ill" but can pose a serious threat to themselves and others. I believe suicide is the 8th leading cause of death. Throwing more money at this usually means MORE people on these meds. Read about SSRI's. Read how many mass killers were on these meds or stopped taking them which is even more serious due to withdrawal symptoms.
Julie, are you saying psychiatrists and psychiatric medications have done nothing to help people with mental illness? Are you by any chance suggesting those meds are the problems, so we shouldn’t have any?
Family members can take their sons, daughters, brothers and sisters who exhibit an abnormal behavior as soon as they notice it, if a free clinic specializes in psychiatric treatments readily available throughout the nation. The patients themselves may be reluctant to admit themselves, but often family members succeed in convincing them to do so. And you are making it sound like the mediations are the cause of insanity, but those cases are fewer. Most patients taking the right medications do get better. It may take some trials and errors, but if they receive consistent treatment under the care of good medical professionals, the odds of ameliorating their conditions are much higher than the odds of turning them into a maniac murderer. My ideal is to find a way to finance state-of-the-art psychiatric facilities and make them available to the public at no cost.
Cap.Mark Kelly (G.Giffords’ husband) said it was “inhumane” not to medicate Loughner when his lawyers wanted to show the court how crazy he is to use insanity defense. Without medication, Loughner would pace around all day mumbling to himself. But after receiving medication, he was able to recognize what he did, regretted and cried for the girl he had killed. No one is denying there are bad side effects (in any medication) and they sometimes produce unimaginable outcomes, but those cases are rare.
If people suffer from depression or bipolar and are taking Prozac, is there a chance insurance providers could deny them? If so, their Second Amendment right will be infringed.
Yes – just as the right of smokers has been taken away because it poses a danger to others.
Smokers actually do cause health hazard to the people around them. I think it’s safe to say 99% of people who take Prozac do not go on a killing rampage. It is completely unfair to restrict the rest of the people from the activities they choose to engage in when only a fraction of that population had done something wrong.
And Julie, you are totally misconstruing something fundamental here... smoking is not a right, people don’t have a right to smoke, as opposed to, bearing arms is A RIGHT. You cannot take someone’s “rights” away due to an assumption that he or she "might" do something awful one day.
In self-defense, guns are designed to “incapacitate” predators, either animals or criminals or mad men, yes, by sometimes killing them, but unfortunately in some cases, that is THE ONLY WAY you can stop them from killing YOU. Are you saying if your home was invaded by armed men, and there were children that you need to protect, even if you had a gun, you wouldn’t use it?? well, if you still don’t want to use a gun, it’s your choice. But please don’t tell me that I can’t use it myself either.
Please don't put words in my mouth. I've never said anyone can't have a gun if they want to. I don't think the bans work and I don't think background checks will ever be successful because mental health history and the use of dangerous prescriptions drugs are protected information. I am actually fine, for the most part, with the 2nd amendment – I do believe it needs updating. I simply want gun owners to actually be responsible and I am sure the majority are but we need a way to ensure they all are and we don't have that right now.
I did not put words in your mouth. I ASKED you, “Are you saying.....?” “You wouldn’t use it??” Those are questions and not rhetorical ones unlike yours, as opposed to “How can you say nothing is done to make cars safer?”, which totally makes it sound like I said that, also this, “cars are necessary in every day of our lives and ANYONE who argues that point is just being ridiculous”, which make it sound like I’m that person who argues that, thus being ridiculous. Also, I said “IF you still don’t want to use a gun”, that was a supposition. If I had said, for example, “because you don’t want to use a gun”, that would be putting words in your mouth, which I did not say. In either case, I did not present those remarks as something you had actually said.
You stated, “And please don't say it has more than one purpose. Even if used in self-defense its only purpose is to hurt or kill.” It sounded like to me that you have a negative view on the use of a gun even when in self-defense. How was I supposed to know that you are for “the right to bear arms”??
“I simply want gun owners to actually be responsible and I am sure the majority are”
So do I. And you are right, the majority are. Then why use pejorative, like saying “all of you gun huggers“?? You employed the antagonistic tone against gun owners right off the bat. I’m sorry if I misunderstood you, but you made it very hard for me to think that you support the Second Amendment.
I want to prevent unnecessary deaths and injuries as much as you do. I’m only saying there are more effective ways than targeting law-abiding responsible gun owners. Even the Vice President admitted that he doesn’t expect the new gun laws (even if they pass) will have significant impact on gun crimes. What is illogical to me is to spend all this time and taxpayers’ money on a futile gesture to make you think “you did something” when that “something” doesn’t help much at all.
Instead, perhaps we should quadruple fines for all traffic offenses, ban eating behind the wheel, make anyone who knowingly lets drunk people drive be criminally charged, punish phone users just as severely as DUI drivers, etc… If we spend just as much as time and energy that we do on gun-control for making our roads safer, we may dramatically reduce the car accidents and save thousands of lives. I will turn my attention to gun-control AFTER we get car accident casualties fewer than that of guns. It’s called prioritizing. Why is my argument NOT valid???
“let’s not debate which is needed and which is not because that’s just a waste of time.”
Julie, Are you insinuating that guns are not needed?? Give me one good reason why these people shouldn’t ‘need’ high-capacity guns…
1. People who live near the Mexican border in order to protect themselves against Mexican gangs. Police could take a half hour to arrive, so how would you hold them off with just 10 bullets, if there are multiple assailants with more than 10 bullets in each of their guns? (FYI: criminals don’t follow the law, in case you didn’t know.)
2. People who want to be prepared if their town should go into anarchy after a catastrophic disaster. We can’t always count on our government as we all saw in Katrina.
I spent a year working on the Mexican border. I was never in need of an assault weapon. Is there shooting – yes – every day there was shooting. If it was too bad they shut down the border. There were dozens of shootings on the property of the plant where I worked. Everyone being armed does not help this situation. Are you saying everyone should be walking around with an Uzi just in case? I am just not that paranoid or afraid. If you are, go with it but just make sure no one else gets your gun. And to be sure you keep it safely away from others and to give you some incentive to do that I want you to carry liability insurance on it just in case you accidentally or intentionally shoot me.
Julie, you can understand that each person’s situation is different, right? Just because you were never in need of an assault weapon, that doesn’t mean everyone shouldn’t need it either. Do we agree so far? Some ranchers face land/home invasion by Mexican cartels and they do need high-capacity guns otherwise they could be outgunned, which could mean death. You are risking their lives by trying to regulate those guns out of the hands of people who need them to protect themselves. Good for you that you are not afraid. But do you have land to protect and patrol sometimes alone? I’m nowhere near saying everyone should be walking around with an Uzi. (Where in my comment did you get that?) I was simply asking you why people who need high-capacity guns with legitimate reasons can’t have them? Of course I will be responsible with my guns, just as most lawful gun owners are. (How many incidents of assault weapon being stolen annually do you know, by the way?) And here’s the crazy part... “in case you accidentally or intentionally shoot me”... WHY would I intentionally shoot you??? You automatically assume I’m insane without ever meeting me? Or are you by any chance planning on assaulting me? (then I may have to shoot) Okay, Julie, then I want you to carry liability insurance on all of your knives too, “in case you accidentally or intentionally stab me.”
just matter of time till we the people kick you out of U.S. USA Isn't U.K.
Whenever Morgans arguments fall apart, which is anytime he engages with another person, he resorts to name calling. Statements like "you're an incredibly stupid man," demonstrate his inability to conduct a reasonable interview. I am suprised that any intelligent person would waste time arguing with a person who is incapable of engaging in an true argument. Arguments must be based on reason,not name calling.
Why not broadcast BBC report on Piers Morgan being kicked out of British newspaper for fake photos of British soldiers. And being in fact poster boy for Al-Quida reecruiting. Piers is a fake and enemy of the Western world.
Jane Fonda & Piers Morgan together – on CNN, where else. LOL
'Daily Mirror editor Piers Morgan has been sacked after the newspaper conceded photos of British soldiers abusing an Iraqi were fake'.
That is a good idea! Piers can have shows about the BBC report. Have Anderson Cooper (since Anderson will be “keeping him honest”), interview Piers and let him explain himself if he is innocent of this. That is a great way for Piers to garner ratings. I’m sure a lot of people will tune in. I’ll watch it for sure.
Socretes, I forgot to ask. Is your name female version of Socrates? Just curious 'cause English is my third language, and one always learns.
Bigger, you said:
""Too bad cars have an actual use, unlike big guns, which are used mostly by low-IQ white rednecks""
I'm sure indians will resent to be called low-IQ rednecks.
What Big city do you live in? Is that why they call you Bigger?
Socretes, you said:
""He may have been duped.""
No. Piers IS the dupe. And he's proving it almost every day.
Julie, you said:
""When will all of you gun huggers stop comparing cars and guns?""
Soon as Hoplophobes quit. They likes to say "well we register cars, don't we" I say how many cars were confiscated?
""But if you insist on doing so then let's go with that logic because I like it......
All purchasers of guns should be required by federal law to have proof of liability insurance before the purchase – just like cars."""
1) You're wrong as usual. You can own whole fleet of cars, without insurance AND even without a driver's licence.
2) I pay $8 a year premium for $5,000,000 coverage to use all my firearms. That would be about 100 times less than you pay to use just one car. Quess why? The insurance companies are in it just for the money and they know something you don't, because they have actual statistics, not politics and emotions.
"""2nd amendment criers insist you have a right to own based on an amendment that was adopted 222 years ago and 153 years before assault weapons were produced.""
Same goes for 1st Amendment! So Piers Morgan can take his birchbark moutpiece and preach on a street corner. Not television broadcasting worldwide.
"""If they let someone get your gun your premiums shoot up (excuse the pun), you lose coverage, and the insurance company takes your guns away (not the government)!!"""
So the insurance company take your car away if someone steals it, right? Or you mean if you have two cars they take the other one away too? LOL
Your own logic :)
"""Also, insurance companies can actually do a background check into your mental health history because they could have access to your private health insurance records.""
GOOD, fewer drivers on the roads. I like that.
If you are careless with your car you pay more in insurance making it more difficult to get insurance which makes it impossible to register your car which means you can't get a new plate or tag and you won't be driving it for long.
Yes, they are in it for the money – and if you insist on owning guns it should be gun owners who pay the $157 billion a year that gun violence costs ALL of us right now. That's not even taking into account the emotional toll because it's impossible to put a $ amount on that.
Irene, your comments support my idea,and that being proposed in 7 states, that gun owners should be required to have liability insurance to protect against "irresponsible, reckless and plain mad" behavior just like is required for cars. Although the comparison is still not logical, the necessary use of cars and the use of cars to transport children far outnumbers the use of guns so I don't want to argue that issue again. How many people have to use a gun for their daily activities – and don't throw some ridiculous comment on that – think about it. Did you have to use a gun today? Was it required for your employment? For your child to get to school, soccer practice??? NO!!
"But I don’t think comparing cars and guns is illogical. In gun violence and car accidents, deaths and injuries can be inflicted upon us by others’ actions that are irresponsible, reckless or plain mad. Both are disasters caused by “human behaviors” and/or “abuse or misuse of the tool”. And which occurs more? BY FAR, car-related incidents. Cars are much more dangerous than guns, and current regulations are FAR FROM GOOD ENOUGH."
Julie, you are not the one to decide what we can argue and what we can’t. You still haven’t convinced me that comparing cars and guns is illogical, so I will bring that up until I am truly convinced of that. And usually when someone says “I don’t want to argue that issue again”, it implies “he or she doesn’t have a good counterargument, so they don’t want to go there.”
I don’t know which one of my comments sounded ridiculous to you, but if it was my feeling more concerned for the road safety than guns, could you kindly explain why? Is it ridiculous to point out that the chances of being killed in a car accident are 3-4 times higher than by a gun? And if it was something else among what I said that was ridiculous, tell me which one and please explain why. When someone says that my argument is ridiculous especially when I’m trying to present a reasonable point of view (though it may be different from yours), I take that as a borderline insult and I’d rightfully ask for an explanation.
What does “if you or I used a gun today” have to do with anyone’s need for protecting his/her life with a gun? Many would argue, including myself, being alive is more important than taking kids to school or to soccer practice. (Well, we cannot do those things without being alive, is my point.) And in some cases, people need guns to protect themselves and their “children.” Why make it harder for them to own a gun? Low-income people will be the ones who’d be harmed by the taxing liability insurance cost. Since they most likely can’t afford installing high-end home security system or hiring their own security guard, you are taking away their only potent option of protecting themselves. (And they usually can’t afford moving to a nicer area either.)
I can decide what I argue about. I've presented multiple reasons already why guns cannot be compared to cars. I choose not to argue the ridiculous comparison any longer. Try to argue it with someone else. If you don't get it I'm sorry.
Julie, yes, you can decide what you argue about, which means, I can too, right? What I meant was, you can’t “dictate” what “I” argue about. If I want to bring up the car/gun comparison, which I find perfectly LOGICAL, I can, can’t I? None of the reasons you gave me convinced me otherwise, so I offered my counterarguments to you, to each one of your comments. If you think I’m being ridiculous, why not rebut my illogical thinking to the bitter end? That’s how we have good debates, is it not?
And Julie, you were the one who said, “let's go with that logic because I like it....” You were completely willing to use that “illogical comparison between cars and guns” when you thought you could use it to your advantage. And when someone presents a reasonable counterargument, you now say “let’s drop it.” Do you see the inconsistency in your argument? If you ask me, you are the one who “doesn’t get it.” But if you don’t want to debate me any longer, then that’s perfectly fine with me.
You haven't presented an argument other that cars kill more than guns – you are correct – better now? It's still not a logical comparison. And you keep saying I want to take guns away so you are apparently not reading my point of view. You can have all the guns you want any kind you want – I want you to take on the responsibility and associated cost. If low income people can afford a gun they can afford a little more for insurance. If they don't carry insurance then the cost of gun violence is spread out throughout the gun owning community instead of all of us.
What more argument do you need? Over 30,000 people dying every year (and 2,000 of them are children) isn’t concerning enough to make you realize car accidents are bigger problem than gun violence? So we should be talking more about stricter traffic laws instead is my point. Do you still think it’s ridiculous to think we need to take care of the road safety issue first?
“Taking guns away” doesn’t always mean “banning” or “confiscation.” Imposing a financial toll on owners to make it hard for them to maintain certain property can be viewed as “taking it away.” For example, if a bank suddenly raises someone’s mortgage to the point the home owner can’t keep up, it results in the house being “taken away.” I think many people may have a gun that is passed on generation to generation (meaning it didn’t cost them anything), now suddenly they have to buy insurance just to keep it, and depending on their financial situation, they may have to unwillingly part with it... that is the same as being taken away.
“If they don’t carry insurance then the cost of gun violence is spread out throughout the gun owning community instead of all of us.”
I’m having a little hard time understanding this sentence. Who do you mean by “all of us”? Taxpayers? Are you saying “if someone was harmed by a non gun insurance holder (I’d think most criminals are), then the cost of gun violence (you mean compensation for the victims?) will be shared by all other gun owners who have insurance even though they didn’t commit the crime”? But that’s not true in car accidents, is it? If an uninsured driver hits someone, the cost (medical or car repair for the victim) wouldn’t be spread to other drivers (who are not involved in the accident), would it? That unlucky victim pretty much ends up paying everything by himself (or through his own insurance), no?
Same exhausted argument – let's ban cars! There are constant safety improvements for driving and cars. Tell me what has been done to improve gun safety in the last 100 years.
Edward says he gets $5 million in insurance on his guns for $8. I've asked him to publish his insurance company's name here. Any gun owner could afford that.
Understand how insurance works – see posts to Edward.
Julie, Edward says that his insurance provider doesn’t cover criminals... That’s too bad... since most of the gun causalities are caused by criminals. If you can convince an insurance company to cover criminals and if you can also convince criminals to buy the insurance, that would be wonderful. Please let us know when that happens.
Julie, when did I say “ban cars”?!?! You know, you have a habit of doing that, take someone’s argument and twist it to make it sound ridiculous and say “you are being ridiculous!” I resent that.
When you say “Same exhausted argument”, do you mean we “exhausted” the ways to improve the road safety? If so, I completely disagree. As I mentioned in one of my posts, there are many more things we can do to make our roads safer.
I feel that we are looking at things from totally different perspectives. My wish is to reduce the number of unnecessary deaths inflicted by others, intentional or not. Because I simply want to find ways to reduce the incidents where people die because of others’ actions with no fault of their own. You keep saying that we’ve done a lot already for the road safety, but nothing has been done for gun violence. But this is how I look at the issues.
There are two old buildings where the gas pipes are beginning to decay. Building A had five explosions last year and caused 50 injuries. Building B had two explosions in the same year and caused 20 injuries. The gas company decided to work on Building A first, and spent 6 months fixing the gas pipes. Then they went to Building B and spent 3 months fixing. This year, Building A has had three explosions and caused 30 injuries, and Building B has had one explosion caused 10 injuries. The gas company decided to go fix Building A first again, even though they have spent twice as much time as they have on Building B, because Building A causes more victims than Building B. Is their decision anyway illogical to you? Would you suggest they should go fixing Building B first instead? since they haven’t spent enough time on Building B compared to Building A??
And it is not true when you say NOTHING has been done to reduce gun crimes. There have been numbers of regulations and restrictions created, but they just haven’t been very effective or sometimes worse, have been counter-productive.
This is an article from The Washington Times.
A bill introduced in the New York State Assembly by Assemblyman Felix Ortiz, a Democrat, would require the state’s residents to acquire liability insurance as a condition for gun ownership. “Any person in this state who shall own a firearm shall, prior to such ownership, obtain and continuously maintain a policy of liability insurance in an amount not less than one million dollars specifically covering any damages resulting from any negligent or willful acts involving the use of such firearm while it is owned by such person”
Liability insurance for $1 million in coverage for gun owners is ESTIMATED TO COST BETWEEN $1,600 AND $2,000 ANNUALLY, the Examiner reports.
Now, how is this not a financial toll for some people (if not for all) that results in their guns “taken away” or to “discourage” someone from newly owning guns even when they need them to protect their lives...??
Edward says he currently has a $5 million policy for $8.
Julie, you said:
"""just looking again at the World Homicide Rates in Wikipedia – at the bottom of that page is a link for "List of countries by firearm-related death rate" Very different info."""
Depends how you cherry pick. It'll always be "different", depending on what tools you pick. So.
Oh, okay, because someone says it is $8, so it has to be $8!! MAKES SENSE!!
Then why don’t you tell that to Assemblyman Felix Ortiz. Why can’t he come up with something similar for the New Yorkers?!? Oh, wait... maybe things can be different in Canada versus America...??? Could it be because... if I’m not wrong... they are a different country???
So, how positive are you that the insurance companies here can extend the same type of inexpensive premium that Edward enjoys in Canada to the American people too?? If you know the way to do that, how about you write a letter to the Vice President, or better yet, you should run for the office of New York State Assembly!! Obviously Assemblyman Felix Ortiz is not nearly as smart as you are for proposing such a bill that would place such an extortionate burden on the people he serves, when Julie can do it for $8 !
I think if the outrageous cost passes in NY the Democrats are fried goose. People will simply refused to pay. Same reason why Liberal government lost in Canada big time. Under their law long guns had to be registered. Because of mass disobedience the law is gone and we have Conservative government, already second term, and looks it may be even third. Liberals didn't understand people can be pushed only so far. And people also saw what happen in UK and Australia. It would never pass in Canada now.
Nice to meet you. I’ve exchanged, in other threads, quite a few words with a few Canadians who think America should be more like Canada in regards to gun-control, so it is very refreshing to see a Canadian such as yourself who understands the great benefit of firearms that enable us to sustain our lives by providing us food when in need, and also by protecting us against harm at all times.
Even if this preposterous bill is passed into law, it will eventually be struck down by the Supreme Court, which would not allow placing a financial burden on the exercise of A RIGHT protected under the United States Bill of Rights. I think the Assemblyman knows that too, if he’s not really that ignorant, but he is nonetheless doing it to appeal to his liberal base that “he is at least trying” and to tell them that “see, again, the evil pro-gun people derailed our efforts by crying the Second Amendment. They don’t care about public safety!” all the while wasting the taxpayers’ hard earned money and his and the legislature’s time which are supposed to be used for something that works, for a fruitless gesture to advance his own political agenda! argh!!
Hi Irene, actually most Canadians would agree with you. It's the very vocal (and uninformed) minority that won't. They believe all that horsemanure liberal media tells them so there's little hope they would see the light. Or as in the comedy where Mr Tadpole (Tim Conway) told his secretary Mrs. Wheagens (Carrol Burnet) "Well, the fog is beginning to lift"
Back in old Czechoslovakia (being the politicall "unreliable class) I couldn't own any firearms or even a HAM radio licence. So when the Soviet tanks rolled in 1968 I realize this is my last chance to flee (long story) Today Czech Republic (NATO member) has about the same firearms liberties as USA, but very low homicide rate. Same in Switzerland. Of course neither has the black and latino gangs and drug lords USA has to deal with. And that is 90% of the street shooting.
Hi Edward, that’s nice to hear... that the majority of Canadians are not prejudice against guns. I read briefly about the passage of a bill to abolish gun registry in Canada, but Quebec is still fighting to keep it... I actually didn’t pay much attention to gun ownership in the US before, until these heated discussions happened and Mr. Morgan started attacking almost anyone who is pro-gun, that got me curious and motivated to find real facts and data and I came to realize how beneficial guns actually are. Now I have a completely different perspective on firearms... I used to feel somewhat uneasy to be honest, but now, after understanding how a great protective tool they are and how many are being saved every year by the use of a gun, I feel I should get one myself and practice with it, and to be prepared to protect myself and my family from any danger we may encounter in the future. The greatest part of this journey (if I can exaggerate and call it that) was reading the Founding Fathers words and understanding the brilliance of the Second Amendment. Firearms are the defender against an abusive power, and the embodiment of self-reliance, the great deterrence against tyranny. If that happens the casualties are not thousands, but can be millions! It is inconceivable how it’d be to be placed in a position that you have to flee your home country... I’m an immigrant myself but I chose to come here, I’ve never experienced government oppression. I cannot even begin to imagine the horror... HAM radio was prohibited? My goodness! What kind of legitimate reason could government possibly give for that?! We have to fight tooth and nail to keep our freedom and liberty and make sure the government won’t trample on our rights. I’m sorry I’m typing away my uncoordinated thoughts hastily at the airport, hope I didn’t sound too scattered...well, I must go now, you have a nice evening!
Yes the ,most important part of the training is the safety of firearms. NRA have excellent safety courses, also in book forms. Best is to join a gun club. What you see in Hollywood movies about handling firarms is everything VERY wrong. Three basic point:
One must handle each firearm as if it was loaded (no matter how empty is appears)
Always pointing firearm in safe direction.
Never put trigger finger inside the trigger guard, till ready to shoot. (most got this one wrong)
Hope you have a good trip.
Edward, thank you for your advice. I shall always remember those. I don’t know if I’d buy a gun right away, it seems the prices have gone up outrageously now, I may wait until all this hoopla subsides. I will go to a gun range and try out several different firearms before I purchase one. A friend of mine can help me choose a right one and give me training as well. I’ll consider joining a gun club to continue educating myself on safety and improving marksmanship. Also I may join the Second Amendment Sisters...
I’ve never thought I’d ever want a gun for myself before. Though I’ve never objected to anyone legally owning a gun, I’ve never thought it was for me... and now, that’s all changed. Even though I don’t sense any threats in my life, I want to own a gun just to honor our founders who trusted “the people” over “the selected or elected few.” I thank all the knowledgeable and sensible pro-gun posters here and the other blog sites for educating me on firearms and history which helped me gain the right perspective on the reality and truths behind America’s gun culture. It’s funny how life brings you something you had never imagined. Perhaps I should thank Mr. Morgan too?(lol)
I have no idea how much it would cost – that's for insurance companies to decide. I was simply telling you what Edward said.
Julie, when you said ”If low income people can afford a gun they can afford A LITTLE MORE for insurance.”, you actually had no idea how much it would cost?? I’m not that rich, so I consider $1600 not a little but “A LOT MORE.” When you objected to my saying that mandatory liability insurance would be a financial burden that can result in some people’s guns being taken away, and also when you said “Any gun owner could afford that”, you were just going with someone’s word (who lives in a different country) without even researching if that’s gonna fly in this country? I thought your argument was the insurance wouldn’t be costly, so it’s reasonable to impose it on gun owners (I still object to it irrespective of the cost from the const!tutional ground - I had to mistype on purpose since every time I use that word, the post won’t appear for some strange reason), was I wrong? Or will you change your mind now that you were made aware of the prohibitive price of the insurance?
Now you realize that low-income people are likely those who will be left defenseless not being able to afford a protection tool, don’t you? Especially when those people live in not-so-good areas, they could be easily robbed, or even worse, killed by bad guys who will have guns no matter what kind of laws we come up with, because laws don’t matter to them! Do you still support mandatory liability insurance, even at the cost of those people’s lives? By the way, I think many of them have children too and they could end up being victimized.
You don't know how much it would be either. For some reason you are taking the highest estimate I have heard. Maybe it could be based on income level – the insurance companies can figure that out.
At least I had some idea that it would not be cheap and would become a burden on gun owners and I WAS RIGHT ABOUT THAT, WASN'T I?? On the other hand, your statement “If low income people can afford a gun they can afford A LITTLE MORE for insurance.” turned out to be completely false.
“– the insurance companies can figure that out.”
Does this mean the insurance companies can figure out the reasonable premium for each and every gun owner so all of them can afford to buy or keep their guns? If so, again, WHY won’t New York State be using those cost efficient insurance companies???
Do you know that the number of suicides per year are higher than the number of people who die in automobile accidents? 32,885 in auto accidents in 2010 and 38,364 died from suicide.
Also, you said...
"And it is not true when you say NOTHING has been done to reduce gun crimes."
I said nothing has been done to improve the safety of guns. Some technology has been started but nothing has been pushed to the manufacturers. "The Smart Gun or Personalized Gun is a concept gun that aims to reduce the misuse of guns through the use of RFID chips or other proximity devices, fingerprint recognition, or magnetic rings. Only magnetic devices are readily available." (wikipedia) Insurance companies would push gun manufacturers to implement this technology. The NRA is trying to stop it of course.
“38,364 died from suicide”..... Julie, that number of suicides is not by guns only, is it? According to gunpolicy.org, the number of “gun suicides” for 2010 is 19,392.
Suicides are horrible events (and it’s a whole different issue we should address, and again I reiterate that the availability of proper psychiatric treatment is important to prevent them), but at least it’s not harming others or taking other people’s lives. Like I said, my wish is to reduce the incidents where people die “because of others’ actions with no fault of their own.” Besides, when someone wants to kill themselves, not having a gun wouldn’t stop most of the cases. They’ll simply find another way, swallowing sleeping pills, cutting their wrist, jumping off a bridge or hanging themselves... Suicides don’t occur just because guns are around. Guns are not the cause of suicides and we can’t prevent suicides by getting rid of guns.
“I said nothing has been done to improve the safety of guns.”
Again, I’d go back to the analogy of old buildings with the gas pipe problem. The important issue here is NOT about “how much has been done”, it’s about “how much danger the problem still incurs.” You cannot change the fact that car accidents causes more deaths (of the people who didn’t want to die) than guns.
I did not say all suicides were from guns but by your numbers over half are. Over 19,000 suicides from guns is horrendous! I was comparing it to your non-stop comparison to car ACCIDENTS. See that is they key word. Most shootings are not accidents they are intentional senseless killings.
"Besides, when someone wants to kill themselves, not having a gun wouldn’t stop most of the cases. They’ll simply find another way, swallowing sleeping pills, cutting their wrist, jumping off a bridge or hanging themselves…"
You need to fact check that. If a gun is handy someone can commit suicide without thinking twice. Many people survive their moment of hopelessness and change their minds – unless they've used a gun.
In the late 1990's or early 2000's (around the time of the Million Mom March which my kids and I attended) a top leader of the NRA quit and started speaking out when his son committed suicide. He said that he was sure his child would still be alive if there had not been a gun in the house.
So if it wasn't a mistake then what was the purpose of bringing up “the total number of suicides” when we are talking about gun victims??
I don’t deny that guns could make it easier for some to commit suicide, and indeed it is unfortunate. Parents (or any owners for that matter) must safeguard their guns securely, so that no one gets their hands on guns without the owners’ knowledge. But then, to prevent suicides by guns, we shouldn’t even have handguns or shotguns (the VP’s favorite), should we? I thought you said that you were not for “taking guns away”, I thought you agreed that “people should be able to own guns as long as they are sane and responsible.” So, what are you trying to argue here??
Julie you debate like Piers Morgan :)
You mention smoking. Mine is a non-smoker home and I have several firearms. Can you smell anything at all? Firearm safety? Yes each firearm has a safety – just like each car has a brakes. I think you're losing train of thoughts – again just like Piers.
Btw, skis don't have breaks. Lot of skiers get killed on all mountain ranges every year. No one got killed on shooting ranges. Firearms are safer.
I am not sure what that means that I debate like Piers Morgan but much of what you say is straight out of the NRA's playbook. It's been said for years – we need new ideas and discussion. I have not heard Piers mention liability insurance. I wish he would – it's a good option for many reasons.
And yes, a decorated Navy Seal and I think another soldier were just killed February 2nd at a shooting range.The SEAL was considered one of the best snipers in the world and he probably had a gun when he was shot. Guns are, without a doubt, very dangerous to EVERYONE. This shooting was not an accident like skiing deaths.
If a person is fatally shot with a gun and if a person fatally hits something while skiing, ARE THEY NOT BOTH DEAD?? Does it matter how??? WHY?? He is dead either way, isn’t he??
That doesn't deserve a response. This should be intelligent discussion.
Hmm, tell the moderator.
Calling somebody you never met a nut case who’d shoot you intentionally is also a part of “intelligent discussion”?
Where did I say that?
“And to be sure you keep it safely away from others and to give you some incentive to do that I want you to carry liability insurance on it just in case you accidentally or INTENTIONALLY SHOOT ME.”
Why did you say this to me then?
Sorry I did not mean you specifically I was referring to gun owners collectively. It is usually gun owners or at least people with guns who shoot people isn't it?
"It is usually" knife "owners who" stab people.
Well, even when you generally refer to gun owners (collectively), I think you are still talking about me too, because I’m one of them. When law-abiding gun owners intentionally shoot, there is a good legitimate reason for that and the people being shot are at fault most of the time. Why do you try to paint gun owners to be stupid, trigger-happy people? No wonder the conversation between pro-gun and anti-gun people doesn’t go well... because anti-gun people have the perception of gun owners (collectively) being crazy or dangerous. So they don’t accept any logic coming from us.
I have not portrayed gun owners that way. I don't know how many people who are shot are somehow at fault but that's not the point of all this. This is to protect innocent victims. They need someone to push for their rights for a change.
Liberals surely don't push for stricter sentences for CRIMINALS. They prefer to punish lawabiding citizen.
Really, liberals don't want to punish criminals, we want to punish law-abiding citizens? Seriously??? How is that? What do we do to punish law-abiding citizens and not punish criminals. Please explain your statement further.
And keep in mind that criminals were once law-abiding citizens too. Often it only takes one gun shot to turn one into the other. And please don't go on about how I think all gun owners are crazy. What I've said is a factual statement. The ex-husband who is angry, the kid who is angry at his/her parents – especially if they are on medication they shouldn't be on....
Liberal lawyers push for shorter sentences, liberal judges let criminals out in shortest alowable time, liberals are against capital punishment........
But they are all for registration/confiscation and putting as much burden on lawabiding citizen as they can get away with, and often more. Because that is where the $$$$ is. For liberal lawyers repeat offenders are whole industry.
Why do you think criminals do not pay for their staying in prison, like everybody else?? They are not burdened by any property taxes either.
That's where all what $ are? I missed something.I also missed originally I guess that you live in Canada. What does all this have to do wth you? You don't pay taxes here do you?
Makes no difference where I live. Isn't Piers Morgan talking about UK no firearms paradise? LOL
Firearms also come from many countries, namely China. Akwesasne Indian reserve on Ontario,/Quebec/New York border smuggle all sorts of things, including firearms.
“I have not portrayed gun owners that way.”
ok, then, what is your reaction to this question?
“Oh, you are a driver too? I hope you have good insurance on your car just in case you accidentally or INTENTIONALLY run over me. Oh, I don’t mean you specifically I was referring to drivers collectively.”
Does that sound like I’m portraying drivers in a fair way?
Yes – that's why we carry insurance because those things happen – oh and because we are mandated by federal law to do so. Even if we are excellent drivers.
You completely missed the point, having car insurance or not is NOT really the question here, if you really pay attention to it.
My question was “Does that sound like I’m portraying drivers in a fair way?” because you said “I have not portrayed gun owners that way.”
I didn't miss your point. Did you see the "yes" at the beginning of my response???? You did portray drivers in a fair way. Someone could accidentally or intentionally run you over. Is that news to you? It's not to me.
And does your insurance cover when you run over people INTENTIONALLY??
One can keep any number of cars on his property. Without so much as driver's licence, insurance or registration.
That could be because a parked car can't normally do any damage.
Neither can parked firearms.
Guns in homes present a serious risk to those in the home.
Your opinion only. Statistics shows it's the car. Even matches and lighters are more dangerous. And of course swimming pools.
•From 2005-2009, there were an average of 3,533 fatal unintentional drownings (non-boating related) annually in the United States — about ten deaths per day. An additional 347 people died each year from drowning in boating-related incidents.
•About one in five people who die from drowning are children 14 and younger. Drowning is a leading cause of injury death for young children ages 1 to 4.
Your point? People should stop swimming?
Is it about saving lives?
You lost me, sorry – I'm not following what you are getting at. Is what about saving lives? There is no way to prevent all accidents but we should always try to reduce the risks.
Let's try the longer version. Is the Morgan hoopla about saving lives, or just confiscate firearms, or just higher TV rating$?
It's about reducing gun violence.
And that is why Piers Morgan is such a hypocrite. He doesn't really care about lives. His obsessson is about disarming the public in another country. Little does he know it'll never happen.
Back to 1776, LOL
Just the opposite. They should keep swimming. Not drowning.
Julie, guns are not violent at all. Are knives violent?
I take it it's not really about saving lives at all, right?
I am not sure Ichiro. I've never checked into it. I don't have anger issues so doubt that I would run someone over intentionally. Unless he/she was pointing a gun at me. I might in that case.
I'm not really sure what your point is I guess.
Yes, it is new to me. I’ve never seen anyone telling others “I hope you have car insurance in case you accidentally or intentionally run over me” and didn’t occur to him/her that they sound RUDE.
“I don't have anger issues so DOUBT that I would run someone over intentionally.”
But then why don’t you DOUBT most (that’s what collectively means, right?) gun owners would shoot someone intentionally in a random way? Those who we shoot intentionally are assailants and you can’t criticize us for that. What’s wrong with protecting ourselves and our families?!?
And you didn’t know insurance doesn’t cover a criminal act? The word “intentionally” doesn’t make sense to me unless you were trying to ridicule gun owners collectively.
I assume no insurance would cover a person committing an intentional act of violence. Hopefully the victim would be covered. That's my point I want gun owners insurance to cover those hurt by gunfire instead of all of us sharing that burden.
And I still fail to see what your point is in all this.
What insurance cover those hurt by knives? Baseball bats? Crowbars? Most homicides don't involve any firearms. Shouldn't it be covered by the CRIMINALS???
Why do you always want others to pay??
Why not for example let the parole board, that let the perp out again and again, pay?
“I assume no insurance would cover a person committing an intentional act of violence. Hopefully the victim would be covered.”
Neither the insurance holders committing a crime nor victims will be covered in this case. As soon as a gun was used in an intentional criminal act, the insurance companies can and will bail out. (can you blame them?)
“instead of all of us sharing that burden.”
What do you mean by this? Do the gun victims currently receive compensation payments from the government?
“And I still fail to see what your point is in all this.”
Maybe because you lack manners. Calling gun owners “gun huggers”, saying that the NRA wants unstable drinking college kids to have guns, gun owners (collectively) would intentionally shoot people (who are not bad guys), fall in the category of insulting remarks in my world, but of course you’d still fail to see that.
Julie, you said:
"""if you insist on owning guns it should be gun owners who pay the $157 billion a year that gun violence costs""
Are YOU willing to pay for drunk drivers????
Last time I checked they and their insurance pay. Your logic is once again upside down.
Personally I would make the liberals and some judges pay as well – for letting the criminals right out back on the streets.
And the doctors who prescribe the poison pill making kids mad, without warning anyone.
I said many times I would make also all the liberals who achived disaming pilots before 9/11 to pay for all the WTC disaster and families of all those 3000 victims. Pilots are armed once again – too late.
Piers Morgan, do you have the balls to debate this Bohunk?!?
Do you think YOU don't pay for drunk drivers? How do you think insurance works? If a drunk driver causes an accident and the insurance company ends up paying a million dollar settlement – where do you think that money comes from? The insurance company spends their own money on it? The drunk driver pays for that million $ settlement from jail or prison? ALL DRIVERS pay for it – that's how insurance works. Insurance money all goes into a big pool where insurance companies pull from when needed.
I want gun owners to share in the responsibility of gun violence. No one could get a gun from me, I can't accidentally shoot someone since I don't have a gun so why should I have to pay for gun violence? I'm not the one insisting that everyone has a right to own one or twenty or whatever they feel they need.
""Do you think YOU don't pay for drunk drivers? How do you think insurance works?"""
Pretty good. Like I said I pay $8 a year premium for $5,000,000 coverage to use all my firearms. Firearms are very low risk comparing to cars. Beyond any comparison.
"""I want gun owners to share in the responsibility of gun violence."""
How about knife violence?? Do you own knives? Ask liberals, they should pay, and I already explained why, in my previous post.
Well if an insurance company is giving you that good of a rate why couldn't everyone afford it? $5 million in coverage for $8 is great. So knife coverage – do you know the cost of knife violence? I'm guessing that might cost me .10 cents a year – maybe. I'm in. What does that cover and who is your agent? Does it cover my accidental slice to my finger while preparing dinner?
We may be on to something here. Share your agent info.
Julie, you said:
"""If low income people can afford a gun they can afford a little more for insurance. If they don't carry insurance then the cost of gun violence is spread out throughout the gun owning community instead of all of us.""
How it is with knife violence?? Only knife owners pay? Do you have knife insurance?
Julie, you said:
"""Well if an insurance company is giving you that good of a rate why couldn't everyone afford it? $5 million in coverage for $8 is great."""
Of course. I strongly recommend joining NFA (National Firearm Association) and get that insurance. It comes with TWO free magazines Canadian Firearms Journal and Canada's Outdoor Sportsman Magazine and very many benefits like Hotel discounts etc., even low interest credit card. Of course no criminal can join since criminals are not alowed to posses any firearms. It's the law. Membership for a year is just $35. How is that for bargain?
"""So knife coverage – do you know the cost of knife violence?"""
I though you have the COST numbers. Where did you get the one on fireams?? They should supply you with numbers on every other homicide, unless they are cherry picking on PURPOSE. Makes sense? In Canada most homicides don't involve firearms, despite the fact they are plentiful. Robert Pickton for example killed 50 women with a knife. Down in the states they have OJ, Richard Speck etc. Guys with guns but using knives.
As for numbers I have only the ones on homicide rates, WORLDWIDE, country by country. Did you read them?
Google World Homicide Rates, Wikipedia. Why do you think USA has lower homicide rates than most countries? And Switzerland the very lowest. A country that have real military rifles (not look alikes like Canada or the US) in all households with crates of ammo, courtesy of the government..
I did check out Google Homicide rates. Interesting that many of the countries mentioned are in the middle of civil wars. I am not sure we compare to that.
I also looked for homicides by knife but the statistics seem to all be for the UK so I would guess ours may not be high enough for someone to be tracking but I will check CDC. Although I did find this interesting piece of information in a story today...
"In 1996, after a particularly critical report on gun deaths in the United States, Ark. Rep. Jay Dickey sponsored an amendment that removed $2.6 million from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s budget, which was the precise amount the agency had spent on firearms studies. It hasn’t published a gun study since."
So, we may not be able to find a lot of good data with the CDC for a few years but hopefully new changes will allow us to see true data not gathered and skewed by the NRA....
"President Barack Obama earlier this year issued a memorandum directly ordering the CDC and other federal agencies to do gun research. But groups like the Union of Concerned Scientists say more needs to be done to ensure that medical professionals can have a hand in compiling statistics on gun deaths, can talk to patients about the dangers of firearms, and can speak out about their findings publicly."
This is from the same article.
Irene, based on your argument below you believe that mentally ill people should be able to have guns because we supposedly can't restrict anyone based on what they "might do". Is that correct?
And – please define "mentally ill". This is not a scientific diagnoses like diseases. Is depression mental illness? Patients are given drugs that alter brain chemicals – I don't just believe those medications are dangerous – they are required by the FDA to carry black box warnings!
The Newtown shooter was believed to have Asperger's syndrome (a form of autism) which does not normally cause violent behavior. If he was on anti-depressants, which are used for Asperger's, those are known to cause violent behavior especially when these drugs are first started or stopped and they are not supposed to be prescribed to anyone under 24 but this is commonly done. I do not know if he was taking anti-depressants. The pharmaceutical companies don't like that information to come out and they have a lot of money to prevent it – the fortune they make from these drugs.
How do we prevent patients on these dangerous meds from buying guns? Or we shouldn't – just take the risk? Since this information is and should remain protected by law I think insurance companies should intervene in these situations.
Irene, you and the others forget that EVERYONE has the unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Many people consider smoking a part of their pursuit of happiness but it was decided that right treaded on others right to life. The same goes for guns!! Guns have taken away far too many adult's and children's right to life. Guns pose a threat to people around them just like cigarettes.
And Julie, you are totally misconstruing something fundamental here... smoking is not a right, people don’t have a right to smoke, as opposed to, bearing arms is A RIGHT. You cannot take someone’s “rights” away due to an assumption that he or she "might" do something awful one day."
Julie, it’s not about what I believe (of course I do not want the severely mentally-ill to have a gun or get behind the wheel for that matter). If you study the law, you will find out that we cannot restrict anyone, even when someone is acting strange, until he actually poses a threat, not a potential one, but an imminent one (tries to harm others or threatens to do so). But gun stores can use their discretion and not sell a gun to those whom they find questionable. (I wish it was the same with the DMV, that they can withhold issuing a driver’s license to anyone who exhibits questionable behavior or temperamental nature, but unfortunately they can’t impose psychological examination and weed out those who are susceptible to road rage, can they?) Either way, it didn’t prevent the Newtown case. Adam stole his mother’s guns. His mother had no problem buying guns and probably getting liability insurance either if she had to be insured.
Defining “mentally-ill” is indeed difficult. I think we both agree that the degree of mental illness vary greatly. So, the question is how ill the person has to be to be restricted from owning a gun? Even a friend of mine who is a psychiatrist says, in many cases, it’ll take quite a few sessions to figure out how really ill the patient is and also the fluidity of the patient’s condition makes it even harder to render a decisive conclusion. Yes, depression can be categorized as mental illness, especially if the person takes medication for it, you don’t need medication if you are not ill, right? So do we deny their right to bear arms for having depression? Most people who suffer from depression or bipolar disorder, even Asperger’s are completely no threat to society, so their freedom shouldn’t be taken away... do we agree on that? The freedom includes making decisions on what to purchase and own anything legally available to the public, including guns. If those decisions were to be made by the insurance companies, then they no longer have the freedom, do they?
Insurance companies have the ability and money to study and understand risk. It is their business. They would quickly learn the risks of insuring someone who is not stable for whatever reason – divorce, depression, medication. They would, I am sure, have health records and yes they SHOULD be sure that guns, cars (and they do) are not in the hands of unstable people. Do you know anyone who has seizures?
"The laws in all 50 states restrict driver's licenses for persons with active seizures that are not controlled by medication and establish rules regarding when and how a license may be acquired." (http://www.epilepsy.com/epilepsy/rights_driving)
This is common sense and it is certainly needed in gun legislation – if you want to cry 2nd amendment again – then it needs to be updated for common sense. NOT EVERYONE should have a gun – I think we should all agree on that!
Do you know one of the unintended and unwanted consequences of imposing the insurance on gun owners? People who really want to buy guns (or keep the guns they have) would avoid going to see a doctor even when they sense they may have some kind of mental problem in fear of their doctor visits and taking medication shown in their medical records become a hindrance to owning guns. Which means, your “solution” could prevent some people who need psychiatric treatment from receiving it, thus, create more “unstable people with a gun who are untreated”, like Jared Laughner.
“2nd amendment needs to be updated for common sense.”
Are you not aware of the recent Supreme Court ruling on the Second Amendment in 2010, McDonald v. Chicago?? It has been decided that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense. What “update” are you talking about?? The majority of our “current” Justices have upheld the legitimacy of the right to bear arms. Or are you suggesting that the current Justices lack common sense?
I am aware and this is what Scalia said about it. Note the comment regarding the "mentally ill". We have never achieved that. There is nothing that defines "mentally ill" and no way to keep guns away from them except by voluntary submission of information. I consider this one of many problems with guns that needs to be studied and resolved in some way and I think insurance companies would be the best way.
To clarify that its ruling does not invalidate a broad range of existing firearm laws, the majority opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, said:
Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
Julie, this is what you said,
“if you want to cry 2nd amendment again – then it needs to be updated for common sense. NOT EVERYONE should have a gun – “
I’ve known what Justice Scalia said. And if you are, as I am, in agreement with Justice Scalia, the Second Amendment doesn’t need to be changed. Doesn’t your post contradict your own remark “2nd amendment needs to be updated for common sense”? Your own post shows that there are no shortcomings on the Amendment part, since the Supreme Court has allowed the lawmakers to have the discretion to, if necessary, restrict the access to firearms by felons and the mentally ill. So why have you been complaining that the Amendment needs “updating” to have more “common sense”?? Justice Scalia’s statement displays the common sense, doesn’t it? The Second Amendment does not any way reject the notion that “NOT EVERYONE should have a gun” and neither do I.
Julie, have you considered the unintended and unwanted consequences of imposing the insurance on gun owners as I described in my earlier post? You yourself said there is no way to keep guns away from the mentally-ill except by “voluntary submission of information.” If mentally unstable people did not see a doctor, there are no records of mental illness for the insurance companies to look into. And as I said, people who really want (or want to keep) their guns will willfully avoid being diagnosed as mentally ill. That causes them not to receive treatment they need, which they would have otherwise sought, if it weren’t for the liability insurance mandate.
The alternative is that all mentally ill patients can buy guns as they can now. What do you suggest for that?
I suggest to take away their driver's licence and money.
Julie, I suggested we should find a way to fund free psychiatric facilities and make them available to the public at no (or relatively low) cost. We need to restrict those who are dangerously mentally ill from guns, not the good law-abiding gun owners. And I would strongly suggest all the states to enact “involuntary psychiatric hold” and “assisted outpatient treatment”, if the ACLU will let us!!
Again it all comes back to defining "mentally ill" – there is no definition and as you've said depression is a mental illness too. I would like to see experts assessing the risk. Insurance companies can study these issues as they should be studied. The money needs to come from somewhere and as long as the problem is with guns I still believe those who insist on guns for everyone pay the price for wanting to exercise that right.
If you pay a visit to a psychiatrist and say “I’ve been feeling depressed for the last few weeks...” and that could be noted as technically a mental illness (even a transient, temporary one that may be) on your record, otherwise how can doctors treat you? How would doctors convince insurance companies to cover the cost of the visit, especially when the doctor is going to render some kind of treatment, even cognitive therapy? People don’t go to see a doctor if they are not seeking treatment, do they? And I agree, depression is a very common occurrence and it does not make a person abnormal or anything to that effect, though there are cases where the severity is so great to the point it takes away the person’s ability to live a normal life.
“I would like to see experts assessing the risk. Insurance companies can study these issues as they should be studied.”
When you say “experts”, who do you mean by it? I assume you are not talking about psychiatrists because you seem to blame them for giving out “anti-depressants too often to people they should not be prescribed to, and possibly making these medications available to more people”, and causing more problems. In your mind, WHO ELSE are better qualified to examine the degree of patients’ conditions and study these issues than psychiatrists? Who is going to assess the risk factor of each person’s mental health, if not the psychiatrists who actually sit down with the patients face to face? I need to know that if we continue with this subject, because I really don’t know who you mean by experts and how insurance companies can do a better job determining the risk of the individual without the assistance of psychiatrists.
Can you explain it in more detail as to how it would work? For example, this person A, who took Prozac 10 years ago for 2 years when his wife died and he has now recovered from his grief and is doing okay. Can he own a gun? What is the process he has to go through? I’d imagine the insurance company has to send someone to interview him to make sure he can be trusted with a gun, who would they send if not a psychiatrist? What kind of expert?
Julie, I’ll be out of state visiting a friend for several days and leaving this evening. So please take your time responding. I’ll reply to you when I get back, probably Monday... unless I get some free moments while staying with my friend.
I am not sure how often it happens but I have heard that some doctors, psychiatrists, whomever – receive financial perks for prescribing certain medications. The money involved is significant so someone who would be on the other side of problems caused by these medications, an insurance company that would be liable for the problems, would take a different view on the benefits and risks. They have the financial resources to study these issues. Then we might all understand the risks too because I don't believe we know that now.
Julie, my question is,
Who is going to assess the risk factor of each person’s mental health, if not the psychiatrists who actually sit down with the patients face to face? Who would the insurance company send to interview their potential customers to make sure they can be trusted with a gun? If not a psychiatrist, what kind of expert?
Irene, you may have seen commercials for this new medication. It is another sleep aid. Most people would not consider insomnia to be a "mental illness" but PLEASE read the side effects. Doctors wrote 38 MILLION prescriptions despite these side effects. Do you think someone on this medication should have a gun? Seriously?? If the doctors continue to prescribe and people continue to consume, someone needs to take control.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zolpidem and http://abcnews.go.com/Health/intermezzo-promises-middle-night-insomniacs/story?id=16074353&page=2
Forty-two percent of Americans reported waking up in the middle of the night, according to the 2008 Sleep in America Poll conducted by the National Sleep Foundation,
Purdue Pharma, the company behind Intermezzo, said the new pill could be taken by those who wake up mid-sleep and may have as little as four hours or so left to doze.
But some physicians have questioned Intermezzo's usefulness and safety. Since the drug is in the same class as previous sleep aids, it carries with it all the same potential side effects, including behavioral disturbances, sleep walking and possible worsening of depression or suicidal thoughts.
Whether having Intermezzo on the market will lead to more consumption of prescription sleep drugs is a matter of debate. In 2010, medications containing zolpidem tartrate, the most common ingredient in sleeping aids, were collectively the 15th most-popular prescription drug in the country, with more than 38 million prescriptions dispensed, according to pharmaceutical data firm IMS Health.
A case of sleep driving has also been reported.
Psychiatric side effects including cases of psychotic reactions have been reported in association with zolpidem (the active ingredient contained in Intermezzo) therapy
Side effects may include:
• Anterograde amnesia
• Hallucinations, through all physical senses, of varying intensity
• Altered thought patterns
• Ataxia or poor motor coordination, difficulty maintaining balance
• Euphoria and/or dysphoria
• Impaired judgment and reasoning
• Increased impulsivity
Some users have reported unexplained sleepwalking while using zolpidem, as well as sleep driving, binge eating while asleep, and performing other daily tasks while sleeping
So your argument is that we should take away guns from those who use these sleeping aids, because they may kill people using guns due to the side effects? (Can you present me an actual case where the individuals under the influence of these medicines attacked someone?) If the side effects are so detrimental and can make people that delusional, what makes you think those people won’t pick another method (knives, bats, driving into a crowd, etc.) to kill even when guns aren't available to them?
“Do you think someone on this medication should have a gun?”
Depends on how severely he or she experiences the side effects. If they ever get to the point that they become delusional, dangerously aggressive, homicidal or suicidal, we should not only take away their guns, but also their car keys or anything potentially dangerous for that matter. To do that, “involuntary psychiatric hold” would work. That individual will be supervised by medical professionals and can begin the process of safely weaning off of the medication, since stopping abruptly could invite an even worse outcome as you said yourself.
“If the doctors continue to prescribe and people continue to consume, SOMEONE NEEDS TO TAKE CONTROL.”
Isn’t that the job of the FDA??? How about protesting against the FDA for approving these dangerous (according to you) medicines instead???
See, this is just ridiculous – do you think the drug companies would publicize those side effects in their commercials if they hadn't happened???? I'm not saying that's what happens- the drug manufacturers are saying that! The FDA requires black box warnings but people keep taking the stuff. Those people should NOT have guns. Yes they will use other methods but there is absolutely no reason to give them one more. If you want to take their cars or knives you can work on that.
Many thousands of kids die of drug overdose. Does making drugs illegal have any effect?
How does that relate to anything in this discussion?
Lives of kids relate to this discussion very much. Or don't you care?
Please provide me proof of the incident where a gun assault occurred by an individual taking Intermezzo.
If those medicines are as dangerous as you say, WHY ON EARTH DID THE FDA APPROVE OF THEM????? Are you saying the FDA knows how dangerous those medicines are and they are fine giving them to the American people????? And the administration is turning a blind eye to it too????? Then, aren’t they both criminally negligent of their jobs of protecting American people? Why aren’t you protesting against them instead of the NRA?? The NRA is NOT responsible for the availability of those drugs!!!!!
If you wonder why we supposedly can't restrict anyone based on what they "might do", here’s a part of that answer...
Connecticut Senate Bill 452 was put forward to remedy the fact that it lacks an "assisted outpatient treatment" law. But the bill was passed to Connecticut's Joint Committee on Judiciary, where it quietly faded away because of opposition by those who viewed it as "egregious" and "outrageously discriminatory." Had this law passed, it may have forced Adam Lanza to be treated for his alleged mental illness instead of allowing him to roam free and ultimately to kill 26 persons in a vindictive rage.
Why didn't the legislation pass? Because the ACLU and other "civil liberties" groups cried foul. The ACLU said the bill would "infringe on patients' privacy rights by expanding the circle of who can medicate individuals without their consent."
Adam Lanza was thought to have Asperger's syndrome although I am not sure that has been proven or even could be proven. Aspergers is a form of autism. It was also believed that he was taking medication for this which would mean he WAS under medical care. Someone needs to study the medications they give people as I have mentioned before. You asked if I was blaming psychiatrists – I believe anti-depressants are given out too often to people they should not be prescribed to. I think someone needs to study that instead of possibly making these medications available to more people. I think insurance companies would do this.
The Aurora shooter was under the care of a psychiatrist. The Virginia Tech shooter had been under psychiatric care. Obviously, that may not be the answer.
Julie, I ask again, then WHO will be better suited to treat people with mental illness, (mood swings, instability, dysfunction or whatever you call it)?? It sounds like from your posts that psychiatrists and medications are not the answer, then HOW DO YOU TREAT THE MENTALLY ILL, or DON’T TREAT THEM AT ALL??? Those untreated unstable individuals can go do really crazy stuff, like crashing into a building with a Cessna, build a homemade bomb, pushing people onto a train track, and even if they can’t buy a gun, they can steal it from others, which Adam did, and still shoot innocent people. What is your solution to that?!?!
I'm not sure what you are missing here. MY issue is that all these medicated and unstable people have the right to buy guns. That is what needs to be fixed.
That’s why I suggested “involuntary psychiatric hold” and “assisted outpatient treatment.” Do you oppose them?
"That’s why I suggested “involuntary psychiatric hold” and “assisted outpatient treatment.” Do you oppose them?"
Are you going to "involuntary pschiatric hold" an insominiac or someone who is trying to quit smoking or maybe someone with myalgia? All the drugs prescribed have serious side effects. The treatment may be the problem.
It would have to apply for background checks for drivers, politicians, doctors, teachers, cops......
Well, it should concern everyone that people on these meds may be driving. 38 million prescriptions is a frightening number.
Pharmaceutical industry and doctors should pay. They make billions from it.
Who can afford to fight them? If people have to give up their guns if they go on those meds – maybe they will think twice before taking them. In any case they should not have guns and we need a way to prevent it. Do you have an idea?
Then let’s ban all the meds, not the guns!!
I have said multiple times I have no desire to ban guns. I just want to keep them away from those who are at high risk of causing danger to themselves or others for whatever reason. There is nothing in place now to prevent that.
Do you deny this is an issue? Do you have any solution?
Yes, I said, ban all the meds! I don't take any so I don't need any, so let's ban them!
I am ok with banning those kind of meds. You work on that and in the meantime I will work on keeping guns away from dangerous individuals.
No, Julie, you work on banning all the meds because you are the one who thinks they are all bad. I’m actually fine as long as people like you don’t try to inconvenience us by imposing a new law. If you think the meds are the problem, pick on Big Pharma, not us gun owners.
Not true Ichiro, I oppose the mixture of certain meds with guns.
so is it OK if people mix meds with driving, knives, matches+gasoline, as long as it’s not a gun?
Yes, I do. Concealed Carry Law. It works.
Edward – it works to do what? And is that in the US or Canada? – two different things...
The practice of CCW is technically legal in many jurisdictions in Canada; however, in practice, it is often not permitted through the refusal to issue permits. This is the legal situation for Canadians, where an Authorization to Carry (ATC) exists, but the provincial chief firearm officers (CFOs) have agreed not to issue such licenses. Concealment of the firearm is permitted only if specifically stipulated in the terms of the ATC (thus this would then be a specific class of ATC, specifically an ATC-3 or type 3) and is in practice nearly impossible to obtain.
It works in several States and Czech Republic – for example. Because people who don't carry benefit as well.
Yes I do. Pharmaceutical industry and doctors should pay. They make billions from it. No need to "fight them". Just send a bill.
Of course these laws will NOT apply UNLESS the person exhibits violent behavior that would pose a threat to others.
Has there been an incident where someone suffering from insomnia or trying to quit smoking or with myalgia went out attacking people after taking those medications?
"Has there been an incident where someone suffering from insomnia or trying to quit smoking or with myalgia went out attacking people after taking those medications?"
Of course not Irene, the makers of those drugs just list those side effects to mess with your head!!!
You are being sarcastic, I gather? which means, you are saying, yes, there have been incidents. Then, again I ask, please provide me proof of it (an FBI or FDA report or a published article of some kind to prove that actually happened).
Ask the makers of the meds why they put that in their ads – don't ask me. You listen to their commercials. Do you think they do it to sell more product!! How can you be so naive??
Julie, I’m not naive. I never denied that the certain medications can have severe side effects. But the key word is “can”, and not “will”, so you and your doctor should carefully discuss if it’s right for you and if you ever feel anything abnormal, you report that to the doctor and ask his/her advice. (oh sorry, you don’t trust doctors, but I do, especially my family doctor.)
It looks like you can’t give me an actual incident of the aforementioned medicines for insomnia or myalgia (I don’t smoke, so I don’t ever need the other one) turning a person into a killer, so I think I’ll go ahead and “trust” my doctor and take those medicines if she recommends it, I mean, if I ever suffer those conditions.
As I said before, 27 million Americans are taking antidepressants, and how many out of them go off killing people in any given year? I’d say those medicines are much safer than driving. Even if it had caused deaths in some cases in the past, it still kills way way way waaaaay fewer than careless drivers. Why should I have to be so hysterical over those meds when I drive and expose myself to a much higher risk of death every day??
And please don’t misplace culpability of those medicines on gun owners...
“someone needs to take control”....
That “someone “ is the FDA. SO PLEASE, TELL THAT TO THE FDA!!!
Irene, Edward can probably get such inexpensive liability insurance on his gun because there is no 2nd amendment in Canada and Canada does not allow everyone to have guns. It is difficult to get a license there just as it used to be in the US until the NRA bought the Republicans.
Do you even have any knowledge of what Edward’s insurance covers? Do you think it covers an intentional criminal act? You are again casting an outrageous guess without facts to back your claim, is that how you debate an issue of this grave importance? And now you are blaming the Second Amendment? I thought you said you were fine with it. WHICH IS IT?? Your argument has no consistency!
Please learn to read more carefully or you are just not comprehending. I am not sure what his coverage is. I am assuming the fact that it is low is based on the lower cost of gun violence in Canada. They control who can buy a gun because that's just common sense.
You will have to find someone else to try to argue your points with – they don't make sense.
“Please learn to read more carefully or you are just not comprehending.”
Julie, you don’t cease to amaze me... wow, you are telling this to me??? You are the one who has repeatedly misunderstood my comments. You can’t even clarify your thoughts when asked a question about what you yourself said.... I’ll just have to return the exact remark back to you.
“They control who can buy a gun because that's just common sense.”
Didn’t you say “You can have all the guns you want any kind you want”.... ???
Don’t these two remakes of yours contradict each other?
And again I ask, are you “fine” with the Second Amendment as you said, or not?? Which is it??
I told you that I’m perfectly fine if you don’t want to debate me. You are the one who kept going after that. If you don’t want to talk to me, just stop posting, and you never have to speak with me ever again.
Adam Lanza did not steal the gun.
Didn’t he steal his mother’s guns?? Or was he able to buy them himself??
Do you consider a child using something his parent owns to be stealing? His mother's guns were available to him. Was she a law abiding gun owner? Most would say yes. But she knew her son had problems and still allowed him access to guns.
And he could have bought them himself had he wanted to. There is nothing in place now that would have prevented that.
Yes, I consider anyone taking anyone’s property without permission “stealing” and that’s what I’d tell my daughter. Also, several writers have used the very same wording.
Adam Lanza stole his mother’s guns... (bellenews.com)
Adam Lanza killed his mother Nancy Lanza, 52, in the home they share, stole her guns... (hollywoodlife.com)
Lanza stole four guns belonging to his mother to carry out his heinous crime... (www.breitbart.com)
“Was she a law abiding gun owner? Most would say yes.”
Doesn’t this mean, as I mentioned before, that she could’ve easily gotten liability insurance? So, it wouldn’t have prevented the Newtown massacre even if they’ve had a liability insurance mandate enacted in Connecticut, would it?
And just in case you are misunderstanding me, let me say that again that I do not want the severely mentally-ill nowhere near a gun. I am not against, for once, “taking guns away” from those who are dangerously unstable. I actually support “involuntary psychiatric hold” and “assisted outpatient treatment”, but ACLU opposes them.
To me, depression is part of everyone's life. There are reasons why people should be depressed it is a normal emotion. I might consider someone who is not occasionally depressed to be somewhat abnormal. Normal life events are often good reason for depression.
My issue is with pharmaceutical companies and doctors who believe that anyone who "has the blues" as one commercial described it, needs to be medicated. The medications are very dangerous. Have you read about them? They wonder why so many in the military are committing suicide – the mixture is a recipe for suicide – despressing situation, guns and now often SSRI's that are not supposed to be prescribed to anyone 24 or under.
Now doctors a prescribing these brain altering medications to stop smoking or for pain relief. I recently heard that there will now be a focus on COLLEGE students and their mental health. Leaving for college is an upsetting experience for many kids who have not been away from home and their friends. They often adjust in a short period of time. But now they want to start medicating them with these drugs (it sometimes takes years to get off these drugs and some cause birth defects) and the NRA wants them all to have guns – another recipe for disaster when you mix it with the drinking that college kids are known for.
The pharmaceutical companies and doctors are working as pushers with serious consequences but they only see the money in it which is billions.
Again, you sound like you are demonizing psychiatrists and medications as if all the mental problems are because of them. An article in USA Today suggests about 10% of Americans (or 27 million people) are taking antidepressants, and how many out of them go off killing people in any given year? less than 10?? With that small ratio, blaming medications as all the main causes of creating killers sounds illogical to me.
I am fully aware there are cases where medications produce negative outcomes. But those people already had unstable conditions to begin with, you can’t always attribute their insanity solely to the medications. I don’t deny that there were some cases where the (wrong or too much or stop taking) meds made the situation worse, but what’s the alternative then, don’t treat them at all??? and take the risk creating more Jared Laughners?
“How do we prevent patients on these dangerous meds from buying guns? Or we shouldn't – just take the risk?”
I may sound cold by saying this, but the casualties of mass shootings caused by maniacs are significantly small, around 50 a year?, that’s about the same as the causalities of lightning strikes as someone posted somewhere before. If we really want to reduce gun victims, the focus should be on those gangs and criminals. And it’s been proven that new laws and regulations won’t work on criminals who are not gonna abide by the law. Severe punishment and longer jail time (or a life sentence for recidivists) make more sense to me. Let’s use the money to be able to keep more “bad guys” in jail and longer, instead of wasting it on implementing new gun laws that would not make much difference in reducing crimes.
Julie, what I find puzzling is that you (not just you, many other anti-gun people too) are taking much higher “risk” when you drive every day, and you are not complaining about it at all. I feel that people get too emotionally hyped over guns and make them out to be “the worst” problem in our society while forgetting there are bigger problems that kill a lot more. I don’t have a fear of being shot when I go out, because I know the chances are very rare, but I’m always afraid when I’m driving on a highway. All it takes is one irresponsible driver, and he doesn’t even have to be mentally unstable.
I’m merely pointing out our staggering complacency towards car accidents. The fact is, when a smaller number of people are killed here and there sporadically, and when those incidents don’t come with horrific imagery, somehow we don’t care that much. That is what is illogical to me.
WOW, Irene – I don't even want to copy and paste what you just said. I dare you to say that to one parent who has lost a child to gunfire. Do you have children?!? I am guessing not. A parent would NEVER say that risk is too small to be concerned about. ONE child dying from gunfire is one too many!!! End of that discussion on my end – of course you may continue if you really want to go on with that point. It's disgusting and I will not go there. Makes me sick just thinking that some people believe that.
Someone posted this in a different thread, and I think you should read it.
By far the most common type of injury accident involving children are those that also involve motor vehicle collisions. According to the National Center for Statistics and Analysis (NCSA), NEARLY 250,000 CHILDREN ARE INJURED EVERY YEAR IN CAR ACCIDENTS. This means that ON ANY GIVEN DAY NEARLY 700 CHILDREN ARE HARMED due to accidents on our roadways. Of the 250,000 kids injured each year, APPROXIMATELY 2,000 DIE FROM THEIR INJURIES. Children make up about 5% of total fatalities due to car accidents. IN FACT, FOR CHILDREN BETWEEN THE AGES OF 2 AND 14, “MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENTS ARE THE LEADING CAUSE OF DEATH.” CAR ACCIDENTS ARE ALSO THE LEADING CAUSE OF ACQUIRED DISABILITY (E.G., BRAIN INJURY, PARALYSIS, ETC.) FOR CHILDREN NATIONWIDE. And approximately 20% of the children who die in a car accident each year are killed in accidents involving a driver who is legally intoxicated. Nearly half of these children were killed while riding as passengers in an automobile driven by an intoxicated driver.
It doesn't make me feel any better if my child was not gunned down, but killed by a careless driver. The latter possibility is 3-4 times higher, I, for one, want to see something MORE gets done about it. Why on earth aren't we having heated national discussions over it? Why isn't Mr. Morgan hosting shows after shows after shows inviting traffic experts and talking about it??
“I dare you to say that to one parent who has lost a child to gunfire.”
So, are you going to say (it’s a question, not putting words in your mouth. I’m simply asking you, ok?) to parents who have lost a child in a car accident, “Oh, I’m sorry for your loss... but you know what, at least it was just an accident and not like being killed in a shooting, so it’s not that bad. And we really don’t need to talk more about traffic laws, you know, we already did a lot of improvements there, and who wants stricter traffic laws anyway?? I’m not so concerned about car accidents, even the odds are 600 times higher than being killed in a mass shooting, if it happens, well then, you know, just bad luck. But mass shootings are so scary. ONE child dying from gunfire is one too many!!! but, up to 2,000 kids dying in car accidents are kind of acceptable in exchange for being able to conveniently travel.” .... wow, that sounds DISGUSTING! But this is what I get from your comments. I dare you to say that to parents who have lost a child in a car accident, that their child’s death is different from that of gun victims, that they deserve less attention because their child didn’t die in gunfire.
Of course gun violence is horrible, but it’s not fair to pick only on gun owners as if they are selfish for not agreeing with new gun laws which actually may do more harm than good, especially when we are “willing to ignore automobile-related deaths and injuries” because we don’t want to be saddled with stricter traffic laws, even when we may “save thousands of lives.” How’s that for being selfish?
If you still think imposing insurance on gun owners could contribute to fewer gun crimes, why not double or triple our car insurance premiums, so insurance companies can use the money to educate the public on traffic safety and perhaps allocate some of it to local governments to hire more highway patrol officers, etc... Well, I somehow get the sense that you don’t like my ideas so much, am I right? When the tables are turned and when you are the one who has to make sacrifices, to “save lives”, you are not really eager about it, are you? That is what I call HYPOCRISY!!
I object to your thinking “cars and guns are ridiculous comparison”, because if someone thinks that, that can mean those people would take the necessity of stricter traffic laws lightly, and that mentality is an obstacle to reducing car accidents (= saving lives), and I find that to be a big problem in our society. Annual 30,000 deaths (including 2,000 kids’ deaths) are reasonable collateral damage for driving...?? MAKES ME SICK just thinking that some people believe that.
Julie, I’d like to clarify one of my remarks. When I said, “instead of wasting it on implementing new gun laws that would not make much difference in reducing crimes”(I said “crimes” and not “casualties”), I did not at all mean preventing another mass shooting is a waste of time because the casualties are small anyway. What I meant was, “the new gun laws will not help reduce gun crimes (including the mass shooting), because they focus on the restrictions on the lawful gun owners (who are not in the least the problem), and not the criminals who are responsible for the most of the gun violence. I was re-reading posts and realized that you might have mistaken my remark, which could explain why you used the word “disgusting” and said that “I make you sick”, which was a quite shock to me and quite honestly, angered me, so I responded in kind.
From my perspective, there are no differences whatsoever in the lives that were taken away unfairly, either by gunfire or in accidents of any sort. All we can do is to try reducing the unfortunate occurrences the best effective way we possibly can. That’s why I feel we have to go with the numbers to see “where we can save the most” and start from there.
We feel more distraught about the mass shooting because we were presented with the vivid images of the atrocity and experienced the anguish of the families of the victims as if it was our own. It is a very natural, empathetic human response. But we must also try to remember the 2,000 kids who die on our roadways each year, whom we may not ever get to know, but their lives are not in the slightest less valuable just because they are faceless to us, and we must not ignore them.
“you and the others forget that EVERYONE has the unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Many people consider smoking a part of their pursuit of happiness but it was decided that right treaded on others right to life.” The same goes for guns!!
If you say it like that, I’d say, “The same goes for cars!!” Cars have taken away far too many adult's and children's right to life, actually three to four times more than guns! Amish people may say, all of us drivers are “treading on their right to be safe (not to be hit by a car) and to breathe clean air.” but you don’t even think about them, do you? They could argue, we are in a way sacrificing them because we want a convenient way to travel. (Thank goodness they don’t have an aggressive activist mentality.)
And “EVERYONE has the unalienable right to life” also includes being able to protect our lives from harm when we can’t always rely on police officers to be right there when someone attacks us with deadly force.
Julie, countries like Jamaica, Mexico, whole of Central/South America or even South Africa has no civil war. On top of that – even if it was, the war deaths are not counted in homicide rates. (see Israel for example Looks like the glove doesn't fit :)
The World Homicide Rates Stat are hard to discount, no matter what the spinning.
How, for example, would you explain UK homicide rate double that of Switzerland, a country full real military rifles (not just look alikes as we have) in all their households?
You got to be kidding, You're saying Homicide Rates gathered by NRA??? Why not by Ginsu manufacturer?
I was just looking again at the World Homicide Rates in Wikipedia – at the bottom of that page is a link for "List of countries by firearm-related death rate" Very different info. There is data on 76 countries. Jamaica is 3rd highest, Mexico 8th highest (not technically civil war – drug wars), US 12th highest, Switzerland 20th, UK – 68th. So this makes a little more sense showing there are much higher firearm death rates where guns are prevalent doesn't it?
It also shows that in the US, Switzerland and the UK the firearm suicides far outnumber homicides. So, guns are used nearly twice as much in the US when people kill themselves than they are for killing others. I would like to see that number drop. We need to make some attempt to keep guns away from depressed people or people on anti-depressants. Because of doctor/patient privilege the only way I see of doing that is get insurance companies involved.
The statistics should be noted by those who keep guns in their homes. For all those buying guns for protection – the chance of those guns being used for suicide is extremely high. Suicide is the 10th leading cause of death according to the CDC.
Julie, did you find stats on knife deaths? How about baseball bat deaths? Crowbar deaths? Would you prefer to be beaten to death with steel pipe rather than shot?
HOMICIDE IS HOMICIDE, IS HOMICIDE. Any way you spin it as I already exlained.
So did you find out why is UK homicide rate is double that of Switzerland? Isn't that funny, Switzerlnd has military rifles in all households. Did you check Czech Rep. homicide rate? Same as Canada, yet firearms law as loose as USA. How come? Well, they don't have the black and latino gangs. So you see it has nothing to do with firearms.
I did not find those numbers Edward. As I said when I was looking for knife deaths the statistics were all for the UK so they obviously like to use knives more. So, maybe in the UK they should require insurance on knives. And since we have lower homicide rates than most countries but are right at the top of gun deaths – it kinda proves guns are the biggest problem in the US doesn't it?
I think its pretty bad that the US is 12th in gun related deaths. That's definitely not a number to be proud of.
And actually I would prefer not to die by any of those methods thanks but I still don't worry about it every day.
Sorry Julie, the "moderator spinner" won't allow further response. I may try later.
Piers Morgan is cleaning here.
What does that mean – you can't reply?
No specific posting.
(cont) on "Free CBC" Gun Registration thread.
Julie how would insurance stop 90% of the shooting, which are street gangs?
It's not going to stop anything tomorrow but should work toward keeping guns out of the hands of the street gangs. They get the guns from someone who originally purchased them legally correct?
Nope. Only sometimes, like when pile of guns got missing from Toronto policce storage. Or shipment of handguns got lost on the way to to Thunder Bay police.Or like when Liberal JustAss minister disarmed sport store clerks and owners after which few got killed and robbed.
Then there are tons of homemade firearms. How do you think drugs get across the border? If there's demand...... which brings us back to the real solution – locking criminals prevents them from getting any guns. They are all repeat offenders. Follow the $$$ trail to liberal lawyers.
Julie, you daid:
"""Do you know that the number of suicides per year are higher than the number of people who die in automobile accidents? 32,885 in auto accidents in 2010 and 38,364 died from suicide."""
I say it's time to make suicide illegal, and prosecutable to the fuillest extent.
Julie, you said:
""I said nothing has been done to improve the safety of guns.""
Guns have safety. For almost 200 years. Not even cars or knives are safe gainst intentional missuse.
"The Smart Gun or Personalized Gun is a concept gun that aims to reduce the misuse of guns through the use of RFID chips or other proximity devices, fingerprint recognition, or magnetic rings.""
The MOST ridiculous idea. It'll never happen for several obvious reasons.
Julie, you said:
""A parent would NEVER say that risk is too small to be concerned about. ONE child dying from gunfire is one too many!!!""
How about the many THOUSANDS a year dying of drug overdose, you ignore?? Where is your priority?
My priority is on gun violence. There are ways to control it that have not been tried. I cannot fix everything.
Me too. I make sure my firearm are not violent. And sure enough, every time I czech they just lay there peacefully.
But my first priority are lives, not poly-ticks. And I try to live by the 'Cowboy Rules for Life'. For example
#1) Never approach a bull from the front, a horse from the rear, or a fool from any direction.
#12) The easiest way to eat crow is while it's still warm. The colder it gets, the harder it is to swaller.
#13) If you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop diggin'.
Also, there are a couple of statements you made in response to other posters that have raised a question in my mind....
“If people have to give up their guns if they go on those meds – maybe they will think twice before taking them.”
So, Julie, in your opinion, it is better that the people suffering from insomnia “think twice before taking the meds” and have a sleepless few nights, drive or handle a gun with a sleep-deprived state of mind... Is that what you are saying?
“I oppose the mixture of certain meds with guns.”
You mean you oppose it only when they use “guns” under the influence, but not any other potentially dangerous objects? How about driving!? Perhaps we should mandate psychological and personality evaluations of all drivers to see if one is fit to drive “safely” when obtaining and renewing insurance...??
"“If people have to give up their guns if they go on those meds – maybe they will think twice before taking them.”
So, Julie, in your opinion, it is better that the people suffering from insomnia “think twice before taking the meds” and have a sleepless few nights, drive or handle a gun with a sleep-deprived state of mind… Is that what you are saying?"
You are joking right??? YES, I would rather someone be sleep deprived than suffering from the unbelievable side effects of those meds. YOU would rather they be driving in their sleep than being sleep-deprived?? That's ludicrous and this is getting boring because your questions and comments are no longer making any sense. I have a solution for people suffering insomnia – be thankful – sleep is a waste of time and maybe they are just getting too much of it. If someone can't sleep they should use the time to do something productive that will make them tired! Too many people believe meds are the answer to everything.
You are not suggesting “everyone” who takes sleeping aids will suffer the unbelievable side effects such as sleep-driving, are you? Do you know those cases are actually rare? For most people who don’t experience severe side effects, it is BETTER they take the medicine and have a restful sleep so they can function. Have you ever stayed up three nights almost straight only with a few hours of sleep? I have. Not because of insomnia, but I had to work for a client who had an urgent need. (I’m a publication translator.) The third day, I didn’t have energy to even water the plants in my backyard, let alone drive a car! I had to ask a friend to take me grocery shopping. If I drove myself, I would be completely irresponsible and be endangering the public! But it seems that’s what you suggest!
If you’ve never suffered from insomnia, you don’t know what it’s like. “– be thankful – sleep is a waste of time and maybe they are just getting too much of it”??? ARE YOU SERIOUS!?!? You are joking right???
Okay, Julie, I have a suggestion for you. Please don’t EVER take any medicines for your entire life, and just suffer through the problem no matter what, and then maybe you get to tell people not to take medicines for their health issues.
If you still want to push for mandatory liability insurance, please answer my questions. I have to know your thoughts on these issues if we are going to continue with this discussion. Without your answers, I cannot get a picture of how “your solution” would work. It’s the idea you are promoting, you should be able to explain how it works. I’ve been answering your questions, but if you don’t answer mine, how can we have a debate?
Who is going to assess the risk factor of each person’s mental health, if not psychiatrists? Who would the insurance company send to interview their potential customers to make sure they can be trusted with a gun? If not a psychiatrist, what kind of expert?
What are you going to do about the unintended and unwanted consequences of imposing the insurance on gun owners as I described in my earlier posts? If mentally unstable people did not see a doctor, there are no records of mental illness for the insurance companies to look into. People who really want (or want to keep) their guns will willfully avoid being diagnosed as mentally ill. That causes them not to receive treatment they need, which they would have otherwise sought. And those “untreated unstable people” still have their guns. How is this not counter-productive to ensuring public safety?
The cost of liability insurance becomes so expensive when it has to cover a criminal act. I think that’s why Assemblyman Ortiz’s proposal shows such a high estimate.
You said, “For some reason you are taking the highest estimate I have heard.”
So what are the estimates that you have heard?? (other than Edward’s $8 premium, which won’t really count, because he lives in a different country.) What estimates (you have heard) are you using as a gauge to say that I took the highest estimate?
By the way, I’d consider even a few hundred dollars could still be a burden on some people who are trying to get by a day at a time in this struggling economy. (that’s why we clamor over high gas prices, don’t we?) I was stunned when I saw the proposal by Assemblyman Ortiz. I almost feel like the Assemblyman is trying to harass gun owners.
And Julie, you said, “I am actually fine, for the most part, with the 2nd amendment,” which means you recognize that self-defense is a basic human right, am I right? Then how is it NOT unconst!tutional to make it so difficult or virtually impossible for people to exercise that fundamental right by placing a financial burden on them? You yourself said that you are not trying to take guns away, then why would you propose anything that could cause some (if not many) people’s guns being taken away?
I don't really think I need to justify any of my reasons for pushing this to you. You seem to now want a gun for some odd reason that I don't understand but I will go through all I've already said in previous posts....
1. Mental health experts should treat patients for mental health – insurance companies should have access to the records. Insurance companies gather infomation from mutliple sources to assess risk – this is their business they are experts at it.
2. I am not sure about your "unintended or unwanted consequences". I think the majority of the population would be better off NOT taking medication for despression – there are many other ways to deal with it. Doctors are too quick to prescribe dangerous drugs. I think those taking dangerous meds for insomnia, smoking cessation and pain would be much better off without the meds but if they are taking these meds they should not own guns while on the meds or recovering from addictions the meds cause.
Right now, Irene, all of these people can get guns? You think more money in this area would help – who will pay for that? The burden will fall on me because all of you want everyone to have guns. I am tired of that.
3. "The cost of liability insurance becomes so expensive when it has to cover a criminal act. I think that’s why Assemblyman Ortiz’s proposal shows such a high estimate."
The cost of gun violence is very high that's why the insurance is high! Again, I'm paying it and I don't want to. Those with low incomes also have to pay for gun violence right now. Those who insist on everyone's right to own any number and any type of gun need to take on this burden.
Good luck with your gun. I hope it brings you much happiness. I think you mention that they are expensive but you don't mind paying that – you just don't want to insure it. You would rather share the burden of gun violence with every taxpayer – that's kind of you! It's also a very socialist concept – there is NO reason why all taxpayers should be forced to cover this cost!!
You have any evidence Irene is violent??
What if you are?
Do you have access to gas and lighters?
Did I imply Irene was violent? If so, when did I imply that? I have no idea if she is.
I am not violent. I do not have gasoline sitting around. I do have a lighter. I do have knives and if needed for self defense or to protect someone else that's what I would have to count on because I don't own a gun and I am fine with that. I don't feel those who wrote the 2nd amendment had any idea what the issues of today would be or I believe they would have been clearer.
They were very clear with 2nd Amendment. If you don't like it move to UK :)
There's no "issue" here.
Why don't you move to the US? Until you do your opinion doesn't actually count. Your country seems to put more common sense into gun regulation.
Julie, why don't you move to the UK? And 'specially why Piers Morgan doesn't move back to his country? It's so great there he says.
I put my money where my mouth is and left "easten" Europe. Canada or USA I see little differnece. In 1968 I saw NO difference. And it was little faster to get visa in Vienna. Right now our PM Stephen Harper is FAR more Conservative than Obama.
Julie, if I moved to USA and pick some stupid place like Chicago etc. I would lose my handguns. Why would I do that?
And if my opinion doesn't count then neither does Piers Morgan's. In fact he's not citizen anywhere in North America.
“I don’t really think I need to justify any of my reasons for pushing this to you.”
Yes, you do. The idea you are pushing is going to make it very difficult for many people to own a gun which is a const!tutional right. You need to explain to everyone in this country who believes in the const!tution why your action is just. (Do you respect the const!tution, I wonder?) And I’m a potential gun owner, I do have a right to know why you are infringing on my fundamental right. If the government says “We will mandate 10 times higher price of car insurance for all drivers ”, you don’t think they need to explain why??
1. “Mental health experts should treat patients”
When you say “mental health experts”, you don’t mean psychiatrists? Then who?
When you say “should treat patients”, HOW?? because you are against using meds, right?
“insurance companies should have access to the records”
Like I said, what if the unstable individuals don’t go to see a doctor. What record can they access to find out he or she has a problem?
2. You didn’t answer my question. Do you deny the big possibility of the occurrence below?
People who really want (or want to keep) their guns will willfully avoid being diagnosed as mentally ill. That causes them not to receive treatment they need, which they would have otherwise sought. And those “untreated unstable people” still have their guns.
3. “there is NO reason why all taxpayers should be forced to cover this cost!!”
Okay, the real reason for your complaint is about the “cost” you think you are forced to pay unfairly, and NOT ABOUT “SAVING LIVES”, I take it?
How about the cost of police officers who have to attend and examine car accidents and also the roadway cleaning-up cost afterwards? Individual car insurance doesn’t pay for that, does it? Isn’t it all taxpayers’ money?
“you just don’t want to insure it.”
Again, your bad habit, jumping to a conclusion and deciding what I’d do. I said we should not be “forced” to have insurance since there are people who can’t afford it and, also again, because it’s unconst!tutional. I never said gun insurance is not good to have or I don’t want to buy it. I’d strongly consider getting the insurance the NRA offers to their members. It’s around $200-300, which covers accidental, non-criminal incidents. That’s good enough for me, right? since I’m not going to use it to commit a crime!
“You would rather share the burden of gun violence with every taxpayer”
What do you mean by this??? Why does my owning a gun contribute to gun violence (which means gun crimes, right?) that taxpayers have to pay??? Are you saying I’m violent and will harm someone with my gun???
“there is NO reason why all taxpayers should be forced to cover this cost!!”
Just in case you didn’t know... we all pay for what we don’t necessarily participate in. There are people who never use airplanes, yet, part of their tax money goes to build and maintain airports. There are people who never visit national parks, yet, they can’t say they shouldn’t be forced to pay for the parks. Since the Internet has become so efficient, I no longer need to go to a library, yet, I can’t stop part of my tax money from funding them, but I won’t complain.
And again, you did not answer my question.
You said, “For some reason you are taking the highest estimate I have heard.”
Julie, you said:
""10 Pro-Gun Myths, Shot Down Fact-checking some of the gun lobby's favorite arguments shows they're full of holes.""
Where are your facts? Google:
Raging Against Self Defense: A Psychiatrist Examines The Anti Gun
Mentality By Sarah Thompson, M.D.
This article is so insightful!! I’m only half way through, but it is very intriguing... I think I can learn a lot from this... thank you for posting it!
“You seem to now want a gun for some odd reason that I don’t understand”
Julie, I knew you wouldn’t understand and you probably never will. Those who don’t have a good knowledge of world history won’t get it. But just in case you are curious, the video featured in the link below explains it all. (someone posted this in a different thread recently.)
“GUNS (Virtual State of the Union 2013)” by Bill Whittle
The speaker is using the recent State of the Union and expressing what he would say if he was the president.
This video is great! He should run for office!
Then I think you may like this one too.
Bill Whittle Gives the Best Speech of 2012.
“This is what it sounds like when you actually believe in the civilization that you claim to represent us. This is what it sounds like when you believe that civilization is worth preserving...”
Yep! He's awesome!!
Virtues of the little .22 rimfire.
Thank you very much for the very helpful, instructive information!
Looks like the "moderator" is cleaning again :)
Edward, are you having a problem posting? Many posters here, myself included, experience that once in a while. They were talking about it in another thread and saying that the words that have “t!t”(the middle letter is “i”) always get blocked. For example, const!tution, pet!tion, inst!tution, const!tuent, subst!tute, etc... There are other words also, such as, “J*p*n” or “J*p*nese”, “r*v*ge”, “sn!tch”...
When my posts had one of those words, they always get blocked. And they’d appear as soon as I take those words out or replace them with a different word. But there are other posts that didn’t have any of those words and still did not go through... Odd, isn’t it? NO idea what’s wrong with the system...
Hmm, very weird. I remember this on some forum many years ago where some pinko programmed it similar way. But it went heywire. Like you just described. Maybe it got out of his hand and gasped "It's alive!"
Have to czech my text better :)
Why one needs firearm. For the very same reason police do, to protect themself. I use them for compet\t\on and huntng mostly. But here is another example;
Just like the store owners during LA riots who survived and protected their stores from looters. 50 unarmed ones died and their stores got looted and burned. Police were nowhere to be found – taking care of THEIR own families.
Some people don't realize that during home invasion or any violent crime it's ONLY between the criminal and victim. No one else is involved. Police only come after it's over. I would never rely on only tent fabric to protect us from a bear at night. There used to be a large poster in my work place:
"YOU ARE YOUR OWN SAFETY SUPERVISOR"
I completely agree! One needs to take charge of his/her own safety. We all know that disasters can happen and the town could go into anarchy... If lootings become prevalent, police may become too busy to save everyone, so we may be left to protect ourselves on our own. If that extraordinary situation ever happens, I’d rather not be hiding in a closet shrinking with fear, I’d very much rather be fighting against human predators who have no regard for others, standing next to my husband shooting at them together, aiding my husband’s better chance of survival. I’m not saying everyone should do that, I’m saying it’s my freedom to choose to do so. The government must not infringe on our right to self-defense in any smallest way whatsoever.
You're right Irene. But not everybody gets it. In the words of a great man,
"Most people, sometime in their lives, stumble across truth. Most jump up, brush themselves off, and hurry on about their business as if nothing had happened."
~ ~ ~ Sir Winston Churchill
I know... it’s sad isn’t it... You know, Sir Churchill also said,
The truth is incontrovertible; malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.
Aha, so we can talk say explosives, like TNT, but replacing N with I can be explosive LOL I imagine one can say clock as long as he won't forget the l. Good to know.
Here’s another story someone posted that inspired me...
The sounds of students going about their usual routine, laughing in the halls and learning in the classrooms, were punctuated by the sounds of gunfire as Luke Woodham entered the school and killed two students on Oct. 1, 1997, in Pearl, Miss.
Principal Roy Balentine saw Woodham with the rifle, and, rather than confronting him, ran to his office to call the police. As he waited for them, seven more students were shot.
Woodham had a very simple plan. He would continue to shoot students with his single-shot rifle until he heard sirens, then he would get in his car and drive to the junior high and continue his assault.
Fortunately, he didn't get that chance. Assistant Principal Joel Myrick ran out to his car where he kept a .45 pistol in his trunk. He retrieved the gun and confronted Woodham, holding him at gunpoint until the police arrived.
I’d rather be Mr. Myrick than Mr. Balentine and that’s MY CHOICE.
Here’s another inspiring patriot.
Ex-Secret Service Agent’s (Dan Bongino) Patriotic Speech Catches Fire...
"A nation can survive many things, but it cannot survive treason from within."
– – Cicero, 42 BC
Is there supposed to be a point to that?
Only to educated people with some life experience.
Do you know what is Fifth Column?
Notify me of new comments via email.