So obviously there’s been an ongoing row about gun ownership in the US and whether it’s a – well, i’ll let the pro-gun guys characterize their own position -- or whether it should be seen, as I’m inclined to think of it, as a net detriment to society and a harmful vice in excess. In the interest of fleshing out my point of view on the latter, I’d like to suggest that we create a new legal and medical category-slash-diagnosis: “gun dependency.” I’m envisioning it as something like alcohol or drug dependency and would be modeled after the DSM-IV, with levels of definition and intensity based on the level of use. Obviously, as with alcohol, there is a level of use that’s deemed “normal” -- with alcohol that level has always struck me as a bit low, two drinks or less a day. So in keeping with this the level of gun ownership deemed normal would be pretty low too. As i was thinking about it this morning I saw it breaking out sorta like this:

0. Pre-Clinical Gun Use

The ownership of one handgun for personal use or up to two handguns for defense of a family would be seen as ‘pre-clinical,’ not medically diagnosable. Also, ownership of one rifle and/or one shotgun for hunting purposes would be preclinical. But ownership of more than three guns in any combination is indicative of stage I gun dependency.

I. Gun Dependency

Any individual (whether alone or part of a family) owning more than three guns, or any individual living alone owning more than two guns, can be defined as “gun dependent.” Membership in pro-gun-dissemination groups such as the NRA is not necessarily an indication of gun dependency, but should be considered with other factors. Mild signs of aberrant ideation -- such as the idea that the use of handguns or shotguns will be an effective form of resistance against government crackdown* -- may also be indicative of gun dependency. Harboring thoughts that ill-defined groups or individuals are “trying to take my guns away” can be considered a sign of gun dependency (as well as paranoid ideation), provided these ideas are not too intrusive and that they don’t distract or obsess the sufferer; otherwise, the individual may be suffering from...

II. Gun Addiction

This is somewhat arbitrary but any individual possessing more than five guns is a good candidate to be defined as gun-addicted. Anyone who has ever owned an assault rifle or has modified a firearm – e.g., making a semi-automatic rifle fully automatic, or sawing off the barrel of a shotgun – to enhance its lethality can be considered gun-addicted. Anyone who is a member of a militia, secessionist, racist militant or other organization that uses firearms as a key component of its activity is gun-addicted. Anyone who believes ill-defined groups or individuals are “trying to take my guns away” and has taken actions -- stocking up on canned goods, buying sandbags, and the like -- explicitly out of the false belief that gun confiscations are imminent is gun-addicted.

III. Gun Psychosis

Anyone owning “compulsive-hoarder”-style quantities of guns (something like in the multiple dozens) is likely suffering from a dissociative form of gun psychosis. Any gun owner who has ever publicly stated an interest in using his or her gun against a friend, relative, or political or other famous figure out of anger is likely suffering from gun psychosis. Anyone who has used a gun in the commission of a crime is a gun-psychotic. Anyone who has ever planned or taken steps to prepare for the commission of spree-violence with a firearm is suffering from gun psychosis. Anyone who has engaged in extreme self-isolation – such as barricading his or her home, setting booby traps, or threatening, with a firearm, people approaching his or her home – because he or she believes unspecified groups or individuals are “threatening to take my guns away” is likely a gun-psychotic. Anyone who has delivered a threat of violence by mail, phone, or otherwise to any public figure because that person believes the public figure is “threatening to take my guns away” can be considered gun-psychotic.

Diagnoses of gun dependency, addiction or psychosis would never be assigned proactively but only once an individual attracted the attention of law enforcement or the medical community.  These definitions wouldn’t have any legal penalty but would be more like psychiatric diagnoses, forms of mood disorder. In no way would these definitions be used to keep people from owning as many guns as they like, just as a diagnosis of alcoholism doesn’t prohibit the sufferer from legally buying any quantity of alcohol, or a diagnosis of gambling addiction doesn’t prevent people from going into casinos or playing lottery. However, as with sufferers of alcoholism and those others who are saddled with psychiatric diagnoses, gun dependents, addicts, etc. would need to deal with the mild stigma of being diagnosed with a mood disorder, and treatments would be made available for those who are interested in seeking recovery.

It might be useful also to distinguish between urban and rural settings, with the diagnoses for those who live in rural settings or settings where guns are endemic to the culture being a bit more lenient. A gun in a city is much more dangerous than one in the country, in my opinion.

*This is not to say that domestic government oppression should not be resisted, but only that the belief that small arms will be useful against an entity possessing things like anti-personnel helicopters, sophisticated crowd control devices, and the like demonstrates an unrealistic ideation possibly suggesting neurotic or dissociative thought disorder.

I wonder why the "gun owners" are not touching this one ::)

I live with my brother and have 2 guns.  I don't know where that puts me on the dependency level.

Then again, by your scale, I'm also alcohol dependent.  I'll go ahead and add forum-dependent too, given how much I post here.  ;)

I wonder why the "gun owners" are not touching this one ::)


Maybe...itchy trigger fingers?

Where would I fit in with this scheme?

I have a .45 Colt Auto pistol, a Mossberg Cruiser 12 gauge shotgun with 18" barrel and pistol grip, and a semiauto Benelli 12-gauge that can hold 9 shells and also has a pistol grip stock.

Oh yeah... and I am saving up for a .50 calibre target rifle.

Where would I fit in with this scheme?

I have a .45 Colt Auto pistol, a Mossberg Cruiser 12 gauge shotgun with 18" barrel and pistol grip, and a semiauto Benelli 12-gauge that can hold 9 shells and also has a pistol grip stock.

Oh yeah... and I am saving up for a .50 calibre target rifle.


Does the phrase "cold dead fingers" enter into the equasion?

We're still developing the criteria for the DSM.
;)

Karma for Tia, BTW.
;D

I wonder why the "gun owners" are not touching this one ::)


The guy would flip if he saw my kitchen.  Got a whole collection of knives.  And in the workship there's everything from an Sawzall to a Dremel tool. 

Don't even get me started on the electronics workbench with 4 different soldering irons, and for getting into things, the screwdriver set with 100 (!) bits from the plain old slotted screwdriver to a dozen hex heads (in English and Metric), 6 sizes of security Torx, and the elusive Y-wing design and t least three bits that I don't even know what their names are.

Worse than that, I'm proud of my affliction.  Check out the hoodie with gang insignia: "If you can't open it, you don't own it." 

I've even named some of the things in my collection.  Dig my Warranty Voider.  (I also know a guy who has a bomb defuser.)

We're Obsessed to the point of following not just guidelines, but a manifesto.

Demented, deranged, psychotic toolmongers, one and all.

I wonder why the "gun owners" are not touching this one ::)


Because it's not worthy of a reply, even from a non-gun owner. As misdirected as the original post is, I do give its poster credit for the creative effort. I also give him the honorary title of "bored-certified psychologist".

There's no real discussion or debate here, only bait, and I ain't taking it. This thread is so jokey that it ought to be moved to PPP.


Where would I fit in with this scheme?

I have a .45 Colt Auto pistol, a Mossberg Cruiser 12 gauge shotgun with 18" barrel and pistol grip, and a semiauto Benelli 12-gauge that can hold 9 shells and also has a pistol grip stock.

Oh yeah... and I am saving up for a .50 calibre target rifle.


You're clearly psychotic: you spelt "calibre" the British way.  :D

Ant

I wonder why the "gun owners" are not touching this one ::)


I own 2 .22 caliber rifles.

Therefore I am stupid and mentally unstable and I should probably delete my account.

How would this apply to me?

I only own a single .380 pistol.

However, on a daily basis I carry an M-16 rifle, with an M-203 grenade launcher.

I am also an M-249 alternate gunner, and a crew chief for an Mk-19 automatic grenade launcher.

I own 2 .22 caliber rifles.

Therefore I am stupid and mentally unstable and I should probably delete my account.



Everyone knows that if you leave 2 .22s together, they will breed like rabbits and make 44s. If you leave those together for long enough, they make Howitzers that are capable of taking out asteroids. RR's SDI doesn't have **** on me!

You can't delete your account. Neither can I. We're both too crazy to do so. Let's sit back and enjoy the handicapped license plates and government money that comes our way from being legally disabled, that is until we go Columbine and take out a whole load of straw men. Only if they are in season though, because I want to be a responsible, law-abiding nutjob. Are straw men in season? I dunno: I'm just a white guy in VA, i.e. (oops! Latin, and I failed that) I have a non-media fed view of firearms, but now I am deemed clinically retarded. Then again, we shouldn't have guns, because we are crazy. But I don't own a gun. Maybe I need to see a shrink. I know a good man...

For the uninformed: /heavy sarcasm off

To Tia and any others: if you'd like to discuss or debate REAL solutions to gun problems, then do so. Otherwise, take your baloney home and bury it. This is undoubtedly the lamest thread you have ever created.

And yes, I am pissed off, because you think that gun control and firearm deaths are an easy thing to solve. I know it's not, and properly responding and addressing each point would require several extremely long posts along the lines of something one would write if constructing a master's thesis.

Ant

I have what could be termed an eclectic circle of friends.  On one hand suburban soccer moms, on the other the guys at the bike shop(we are talking Harley).  I did notice when I was hanging around with the God Guns and Guts crowd that there was a certain amount of bravado attached to the ownership of guns.  They all talked of needing protection, and what gun was best and what they would do if. I started to fall into the trap.  They deny the fact that they were paranoid, but that is what they are and it is a self feeding addiction.  What they don't realize was the people they should be most wary of is the people just like themselves. 

To Tia and any others: if you'd like to discuss or debate REAL solutions to gun problems, then do so. Otherwise, take your baloney home and bury it. This is undoubtedly the lamest thread you have ever created.

i guess the point is that every attempt to actually talk about solutions to gun violence gets met with "guns don't kill people" and "when seconds count" and "what about cars and alcohol" and so forth. it's plain the gun owners are not interested in anything that alters the status quo ... mushroom excepted; credit where credit's due, he has actually suggested some common-sense stricter regulations on gun ownership that i think would go a long way in ameliorating the problem. but he's about it; other than that i seem to be hearing that the second amendment demands that tens of thousands of people die each year, and that everything's okay because there are also cars and knives. so in the face of such silliness we have to start trying to think of ways to marginalize gun owners who are unwilling to compromise, so that the rest of us can start actually working on solutions.

and yeah, i'm pissed off too. in what sense am i saying that largely unregulated gun ownership is an "easy problem to solve"? frankly i'm tired of being told that i have to live in an environment that's saturated with lethal firearms simply because certain gun owners use the 2nd amendment as an excuse to act in any way they like. i think it's a difficult problem to solve and i'm trying to come up with something that draws out the obvious connection between prosaic overly-machismoed gun fanatics and the virginia-tech killer, the nut who killed three cops because he thought they were "coming to take his guns away", the guy in tennessee who shot up that church because he couldn't get access to the liberals on jonah goldberg's hitlist, etc. these people who come up with an extremist reading of the second amendment deny there's a relationship between the obviously gun-obsessed and the truly unhinged who use guns to go on killing sprees but when confronted about it the gun-owners simply deny this relationship exists and insist that THEY are responsible and if everyone was like them then everything would be okay. as if that were remotely good enough.

as for "lamest thread" and all the personal insults, etc., i think your defensiveness speaks volumes. personally, i'm coming to find the vocal wing of the gun culture rather sad. it takes itself way too seriously, and has a highly trumped-up sense of self-importance. there's a certain arrogance in their thinking they're going to save the world from criminals and turn back the tide of fascist government, when in fact they're probably just going to get more kids killed and maimed and give more temporarily depressed people a fabulous opportunity to off themselves permanently before they can get the help they need.


And yes, I am pissed off, because you think that gun control and firearm deaths are an easy thing to solve. I know it's not, and properly responding and addressing each point would require several extremely long posts along the lines of something one would write if constructing a master's thesis.

Ant
since bringing up irrelevant things that can also kill people seems to have been the standard refrain for several days now, can't you just point out that you can also kill people with a spoon, and therefore guns should be no more regulated than spoons? hardly requires masters-degree level thought.  ;D

I own a couple of water pistols.




Cat

Mushroom's post was good. He wants stiffer penalties for serious gun crimes than you do (death penalty). He is not the only one. If a gun-control bill were proposed exactly as Mushroom's post, would you vote for or against it?

I think MacPhisto also mentioned another gun control point after that would reduce the numbers of them getting into the wrong hands. Adding in drug screenings for purchases wouldn't be a bad idea. Enforcement of existing laws is something I have mentioned in nearly every gun thread on this board for four years.

You wrote this:

"Anyone who has ever owned an assault rifle or has modified a firearm – e.g., making a semi-automatic rifle fully automatic, or sawing off the barrel of a shotgun – to enhance its lethality can be considered gun-addicted."

Anyone who does that is not a gun addict, they are a felon:

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-300

There is also Project Exile, which the NRA supported.

From the other thread, you were looking for reasons that gun owners could justify the high numbers of gun deaths each year, and it wasn't until late in the thread that gun solutions came up. Two different animals my friend.

It is a difficult problem to solve, and I apologize for making the statement that you 'think it's easy', because you did not write that.

The three examples you provide of irresponsible gun use amount to cherry picking, and you *appear* be painting gun owners with the same brush due to three cases. That's neither here nor there in the scope of solving problems though.

You are asking for the right to bear the responsibilty of fixing the problem, when it is all of our problem.

For every righty pro-gun nut, there is a lefty anti-gun nut. Dianne Feinstein would be the reverse Charleton Heston, with statements like these:

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it." (60 minutes inverview, 1995). 

If you want, I will start talking to every gun owner I know about implimenting better measures to reduce deaths caused by their misuse. You do the same with non-gun owners. Let's keep track of the "pry it out of my dead hands" and "ban all guns" people. There's too many of both out there, some in very high positions. How are we going to get such diametrically opposed people to come to a mutual agreement on guns?


can't you just point out that you can also kill people with a spoon, and therefore guns should be no more regulated than spoons? hardly requires masters-degree level thought.  ;D


Spoons are safe, but sporks are deadly!  :D

Back to productive for a moment, writing letters to the people who have the ability to change the laws would be a good start.  Just getting them to enforce what is already on the books would do volumes of good.

Ant

Mushroom's post was good. He wants stiffer penalties for serious gun crimes than you do (death penalty). He is not the only one. If a gun-control bill were proposed exactly as Mushroom's post, would you vote for or against it? probably not unless the death penalty for robbery were striken. i'm personally opposed to the death penalty but the other death penalty crimes he's talking about are i believe already punishable by death based on existing laws, depending on the state. as long as the bill didn't create more death penalty crimes than already exist, i would probably vote for it. but except for the robbery bit, that seems to be the case.


I think MacPhisto also mentioned another gun control point after that would reduce the numbers of them getting into the wrong hands. Adding in drug screenings for purchases wouldn't be a bad idea. Enforcement of existing laws is something I have mentioned in nearly every gun thread on this board for four years.

You wrote this:

"Anyone who has ever owned an assault rifle or has modified a firearm – e.g., making a semi-automatic rifle fully automatic, or sawing off the barrel of a shotgun – to enhance its lethality can be considered gun-addicted."

Anyone who does that is not a gun addict, they are a felon:

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-300

i wouldn't see being a gun addict and being a felon as exclusive categories by any stretch.

There is also Project Exile, which the NRA supported. sounds good except for the mandatory sentencing. i'm not in favor of three strikes, mandatory sentencing, or anything that takes discretion out of a judge's hands or removes human judgment from the sentencing process.

From the other thread, you were looking for reasons that gun owners could justify the high numbers of gun deaths each year, and it wasn't until late in the thread that gun solutions came up. Two different animals my friend.

It is a difficult problem to solve, and I apologize for making the statement that you 'think it's easy', because you did not write that.

The three examples you provide of irresponsible gun use amount to cherry picking, and you *appear* be painting gun owners with the same brush due to three cases. That's neither here nor there in the scope of solving problems though. well, i feel it's less "cherry-picking" than merely indicative. i can go on to talk about San Diego State University, Bethel Regional High School, Heath High School, Pearl High School, Parker Middle School, Thurston High School, Westside Middle School, Columbine High School, Heritage High School, Buell Elementary School, University of Arkansas, Granite Hills High School, Santana High School, Appalachian School of Law, Case Western Reserve University, Red Lion Area Junior High School, Rocori High School, Columbia High School, Fairleigh Dickinson University, Campbell County High School, Red Lake Senior High School, Nickel Mines Amish school, Essex Elementary School, Henry Ford Community College, Hampton University, University of Central Arkansas, Northern Illinois University, Mitchell High School, Louisiana Tech, Henry Ford High School, E.O. Green School, Dillard High School, Davidson High School, Central High School, Virginia Tech, University of Washington, SuccessTech, Delaware State University, Weston High School, Platte Canyon High School, Pine Middle School, Michael F. Griffin, Paul Jennings Hill, Tharin Robert Gartrell, Francisco Martin Duran, John Salvi, Japes Kopp, Bradley T. Kahle, Clayton Waagner, Shelley Shannon, Timothy Dale Johnson, Buford Furrow, Michael McLendon, etc., etc., etc.

gun violence in america is a phenomenon. this is indicated not only in the raw statistics but in the sheer weight of individual names, places and stories associated with irrational violence facilitated and exacerbated by guns.

You are asking for the right to bear the responsibilty of fixing the problem, when it is all of our problem.

For every righty pro-gun nut, there is a lefty anti-gun nut. Dianne Feinstein would be the reverse Charleton Heston, with statements like these:

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it." (60 minutes inverview, 1995).  i have to admit to rankling a bit at the claim that gun violence is 'all of our problem' when i don't own a gun and have no interest in acquiring one. i feel by rights that i should have no ownership of the gun problem and that it's on the heads of the people who feel the obligation to promote gun ownership to do something about the problem they've chosen, however unwittingly, to exacerbate.

that said, my attempt to come up with some kind of continuum that leads from the Charleton Heston types to the Wesley Neal Higdon types is in part an answer to the ban-all-guns people. it's an attempt to come up with a system that might start to indicate who's likely to be the next person to go on a killing spree or use a gun for violence and thereby shut the gun-banners up by suggesting an alternative. you appear not to like this alternative so you're free to suggest another one, but i think gun owners feel this need to disown the great violence done by people who use guns irresponsibly or maliciously, but i don't think gun owners should get to disown this. by promoting gun distribution, they help to contribute to it and i think it's incumbent on them to suggest solutions. i'm more than willing to help but frankly, i don't think the onus rests with me, or with others who would simply like to minimize the role and presence of guns in their own lives to the greatest possible extent. why do *I* have to come up with a solution to a problem that gunowners, not me, have caused? why should MY life be made less safe so others can own guns? yes, it's their right, but it should also be my right to feel safe on the street and at my place of work.

I have what could be termed an eclectic circle of friends.  On one hand suburban soccer moms, on the other the guys at the bike shop(we are talking Harley).  I did notice when I was hanging around with the God Guns and Guts crowd that there was a certain amount of bravado attached to the ownership of guns.  They all talked of needing protection, and what gun was best and what they would do if. I started to fall into the trap.  They deny the fact that they were paranoid, but that is what they are and it is a self feeding addiction.  What they don't realize was the people they should be most wary of is the people just like themselves. 


Those people make me nervous also.  They are the type that would pull a gun and wave it around at the slightest provocation, not thinking about the fact it is a deadly weapon.  To them, it is simply an extension of power.

I respect guns, both as a hobby, a means to get food if you are into that, and for me as a profession.  But I do not obsess over them.  In fact, a lot of guys I know turn up their nose at my "puny" .380.  But for my purpose (sport target shooting and home defense), it is enough.  I have no desire to either "blow the head off" of somebody, and I do not need the "biggest gun", thinking it some kind of enhancement for my manhood.  ::)


probably not unless the death penalty for robbery were striken. i'm personally opposed to the death penalty but the other death penalty crimes he's talking about are i believe already punishable by death based on existing laws, depending on the state. as long as the bill didn't create more death penalty crimes than already exist, i would probably vote for it. but except for the robbery bit, that seems to be the case.


I would not support that either.  Robbery is not justification for the death penalty if nobody is killed.

However, I believe that gun crimes should carry what is commonly considered to be "life", that is 25+ years in jail.  Felon with a gun under any circumstance, possession of an illegal gun, an unregistered gun (that is not grandfathered in from ownership 25+ years ago), those also gets 25+ years.

But for murder?  Death.  I really am a hard-ass when it comes to crime and punishment.

However, I also believe in the laws that state if anybody is killed in the comission of a crime (even another criminal), then that is murder.  So if 2 thugs rob a bank and one is killed in a shootout, the other faces murder charges.  That is a law already in most states, and I support it.

why do *I* have to come up with a solution to a problem that gunowners, not me, have caused?

Because you perceive it as a problem. I do as well, but problems are never solved by the people who think everything is running just fine.


why should MY life be made less safe so others can own guns? yes, it's their right, but it should also be my right to feel safe on the street and at my place of work.

Now I'm just plain confused. Your questions went from "do firearms diffuse more situations than they create?" to " net benefit for society?" to "what service do firearms provide that justifies the 20,000+ people shot to death every year? " to whatever next, then to here, about your own personal safety.

What are your TRUE concerns regarding guns? If it all boils down to personal safety, then that's fine, and something that is completely understandable. DC is no longer the murder capitol of the US, it has come a long ways in terms of overall decreased violence in the last 10-15 years, but yeah, it's probably still a scary place at times.

Using the premise that your own personal safety is your real concern, I want to quote something you wrote:


the suicide thing actually makes the statistic MORE tragic, in my opinion, not less.

Yes, statistically it is very tragic, but, based on a "your safety" argument, completely irrelevant. You don't own a gun, so your chances of being killed by a firearm drop 57% right there. I know that will be little to no comfort nor acceptable to you, but it is relevant.

Joking about suicide, even proverbially instead of literally does nothing but weaken your position regarding that point:


it's like theyre suicidal. which is fine with me.


Another question that needs to be asked: why the laundry list of high profile school/college shootings? Do you work at or attend a university, college, etc? If not, then those cases are also not applicable to your safety, because in order for you to be shot on campus you have to be there. You are still cherry picking high-profile, drama laden firearm deaths to support your argument. ~260 gun related deaths at schools in the last 80 years is so statistically insignificant* amongst total firearm deaths for even the worst single year on record that I'm surprised you even bring it up as a debating point.

Also, do you want to feel safe or be safe? There's a big difference in the two. Feeling safe could be no more than a different outlook on life, regardless of how you accomplish it. If it's really bothering you that much, and you want a easy, quick, relatively inexpensive fix, then try a hypnotist. I'm not joking. But, a feeling of safety does not curb violence, just like a feeling of being on a lucky streak doesn't affect your odds at a casino.

Being safe is a far more complex issue, but there are numerous steps one can take to ensure your immediate safety than trying to get more gun laws/psych forms in order. I'd rather you be safe than feel safe, but I'm not walking in your shoes.

I could have easily made a parody of this thread called "Hoplophobia" (fear of firearms), but it really doesn't accomplish anything productive. Besides, someone already did it for me over four years ago.

Mushroom: I just wanted to clarify for you I have no problem with the .380 round for self defense, just the make of the firearm. If you have had good performance with the Lorcin, then that's great.

*They are not any less tragic, but far less likely than media time coverage would suggest. Although I have no numbers to back it up at this time, I would surmise one is more likely to win $500k+ in a lottery or get struck by lightening than get killed by a firearm in a campus setting.


Ant