PDA

View Full Version : How to keep someone from buying a gun?


greg36f
05-03-2012, 3:23 PM
Well, here is a question that will in some peoples mind's certainly cement my reputation as an "anti" or a "statist" (neither is true).

Is there a way to prohibit someone from buying a gun?

I have a friend who has a relative that is mentally disabled and really should not own a gun. I'm talking to a degree that most of us would agree on. The problem is that his issue is hit and miss. If he's on his meds (a rare occasion) he can be ok, if he's not on his meds or having a bad day, he can be dangerous.

He is now interested in buying a gun and this is scaring those that know him.

He really should not have one.

He has never been 51/50'd, so that is out.

Any suggestions?

curtisfong
05-03-2012, 3:29 PM
If he can't be trusted with a gun, he can't be trusted alone in public. Period.

CSACANNONEER
05-03-2012, 3:29 PM
All freedoms come with risks. I'm just glad that EVERYONE is "innocent until proven guilty". Sorry. if the guy is legally able to purchase a gun, car, hammer, etc., you should not try to seek legal action to stop him from enjoying his freedoms. However, being a good friend and trying to talk him out of making a bad decision and purchasing something that is not for him is a good idea.

HowardW56
05-03-2012, 3:36 PM
All freedoms come with risks. I'm just glad that EVERYONE is "innocent until proven guilty". Sorry. if the guy is legally able to purchase a gun, car, hammer, etc., you should not try to seek legal action to stop him from enjoying his freedoms. However, being a good friend and trying to talk him out of making a bad decision and purchasing something that is not for him is a good idea.

I agree with the Banned guy above.... :iagree:

EDIT: I have read the responses below, if anyone were to try to prevent him from obtaining a firearm, it should be his family.

pointedstick
05-03-2012, 3:57 PM
I think you should try to persuade him, not marshall society's force against him. That said, I sympathize. It's a tough situation.

curtisfong
05-03-2012, 4:00 PM
I still don't see what is special about a gun.

What can he do with a gun that he can't do with any other dangerous item?

Like a knife?

Or a bow and arrow?

Or a car?

greg36f
05-03-2012, 4:10 PM
I still don't see what is special about a gun.

What can he do with a gun that he can't do with any other dangerous item?

Like a knife?

Or a bow and arrow?

Or a car?



Well, when he is off his meds, I really don't want him to have those either, but this is a gun forum, so that is what I am asking about.

stix213
05-03-2012, 4:27 PM
What has he done to make you think he shouldn't have a gun? Maybe that would put it in context so you'll get more agreement.

As far as I know, the usual ways someone loses gun rights are 5150/5250, getting a TRO, and getting convicted of certain crimes.

So you'll need to get a TRO against him (but you probably don't have cause), or need to get him on a 5150 hold. If he hasn't done anything to deserve it, then I think you just have to live with him having normal people rights until he proves otherwise that he can't have them.

AragornElessar86
05-03-2012, 4:33 PM
What has he done to make you think he shouldn't have a gun? Maybe that would put it in context so you'll get more agreement.

As far as I know, the usual ways someone loses gun rights are 5150/5250, getting a TRO, and getting convicted of certain crimes.

So you'll need to get a TRO against him (but you probably don't have cause), or need to get him on a 5150 hold. If he hasn't done anything to deserve it, then I think you just have to live with him having normal people rights until he proves otherwise that he can't have them.
Winner winner chicken dinner.

Kukuforguns
05-03-2012, 4:36 PM
The office of California's Attorney General identifies (http://oag.ca.gov/firearms/pfecfaqs#6) the grounds that disqualify a person from being able to possess a firearm. None of the disqualifying grounds include the person being mentally unstable when not on medication. While your situation is obviously concerning, I believe there is a powerful argument that we should not deprive people of a fundamental human right because those people suffer from a condition that can be treated with medicine. If the person had previously posed a risk to himself or others, I presume those who know him would have acted to have him involuntarily committed for psychiatric evaluation. Similarly, if he poses a risk to himself or others in the future, those who know him should consider taking steps to have him committed for observation.

dantodd
05-03-2012, 4:38 PM
What are you people smoking. If the guy is a danger to himself he should be kept away from weapons. We aren't talking about taking someone's rights away without due process here. Greg wants to know how to navigate the Due Process so the family can protect this guy from himself.

I wish I knew the answer to your question. You might want to contact Don Kilmer. In addition to his firearms practice he also has a family law practice so I suspect he would be well versed in the process necessary.

stix213
05-03-2012, 4:43 PM
What are you people smoking. If the guy is a danger to himself he should be kept away from weapons. We aren't talking about taking someone's rights away without due process here. Greg wants to know how to navigate the Due Process so the family can protect this guy from himself.

I wish I knew the answer to your question. You might want to contact Don Kilmer. In addition to his firearms practice he also has a family law practice so I suspect he would be well versed in the process necessary.

Correct, so if he is a danger to himself or others than a 5150 should be pursued. Though the OP already for some reason said that a 5150 was out, and hasn't mentioned any conduct (beyond the OP's personal opinion) that would warrant one.

dantodd
05-03-2012, 5:02 PM
Correct, so if he is a danger to himself or others than a 5150 should be pursued. Though the OP already for some reason said that a 5150 was out, and hasn't mentioned any conduct (beyond the OP's personal opinion) that would warrant one.

First of all, he did not say that a 51/50 could not be pursued, only that he had not been held under a 51/50 previously. You will notice that the op didn't mention any specific conduct so deciding, on your own that whatever conduct the OP did observe is or isn't grounds for getting someone prohibited is inappropriate. He expressed his concern and any action that he would counsel the family to take would require due process, whereby the person could face those claiming he isn't competent . This is how it is supposed to work. If someone has a valid concern they can start proceedings so that their concerns for their loved one can be heard as well and the other side can challenge the evidence so that they aren't denied a fundamental right without due process.

I agree that the 2A isn't as respected as it should be by our courts but that doesn't mean there should be no process by which it can be removed.

Obviously a Plant
05-03-2012, 5:31 PM
"Correct, so if he is a danger to himself or others than a 5150 should be pursued."

5150 is not a light matter, often it involves being held against your will for a number of days and medicated as the hospital sees fit-- not something friends do to friends unless it is truly necessary. Some Reason is that it takes away most of a persons rights, not just that to bear arms.

Talking to a Lawyer, your friend's family and the doctor who proscribes his meds are all much better options.
The folks who say "arm him and see what happens" would surprise me if we weren't all behind our computers and apparently far enough away to not concern ourselves about your fears or judgment...

Good luck, being a friend isn't always easy.

alfred1222
05-03-2012, 5:40 PM
What are you people smoking. If the guy is a danger to himself he should be kept away from weapons. We aren't talking about taking someone's rights away without due process here. Greg wants to know how to navigate the Due Process so the family can protect this guy from himself.

I wish I knew the answer to your question. You might want to contact Don Kilmer. In addition to his firearms practice he also has a family law practice so I suspect he would be well versed in the process necessary.


I agree with this

Shellshocker66
05-03-2012, 5:43 PM
Greg, I applaud you for trying to find a solution to a possible problem with your friends relative owning a gun. Too many times people ignore mental health problems in a family/friend and the next thing you know... "I didn't think he would do anything like that"!

Now that being said, here is the slippery slope. There is not much that can be done. If he is being seen by a therapist maybe the family member can contact them about his new desire to own a gun and not being comfortable. If he is living with someone maybe they should take a hard stand and kick him out so he doesn't have the funds to make a purchase.

I have a friend who's brother was a decorated marine officer, went to the naval academy, and had a very bright future till one day he just snapped. The military did the fastest separation they could to get him out, and he moved in with his parents and was non compliant with taking his medications. He was making plans to purchase an AR when he lost it and attacked his parents putting them both in the hospital. Thankfully the mother managed to club him over the head and knock him out before he finished choking his father to death. The police came and he got thrown in jail. The parents continued to advocate getting him treatment but it took him stabbing a jail guard and pulling his own eyeball out before he was moved to a mental health facility.

He did enough damage without a gun, and I wouldn't want to know what he could of done with one. Although his little manifesto was pretty graphic on what he had planned and it would of made the news and the Brady bunch would of capitalized on way guns are evil.

I know people don't like someone losing their rights but some folks just don't need to have a gun and shouldn't own a gun. Or any other dangerous objects they can do harm with.

Librarian
05-03-2012, 5:50 PM
5150 is kind of an emergency matter.

It's possible to pursue a conservatorship without that; but really do need to get the lawyers involved here pretty soon.

d4v0s
05-03-2012, 5:58 PM
I still don't see what is special about a gun.

What can he do with a gun that he can't do with any other dangerous item?

Like a knife?

Or a bow and arrow?

Or a car?

I am in no way an anti gunner. but seriously, do you not realize that guns are an effective method of doing insane amounts of damage in relatively short order? I am against the assault weapons ban, I want standard cap mags and I want to drop them freely on my non bullet button AR15. But come on, A gun is much easier to conceal and then kill people with. You really do not see that?

I think that we should all be trusted with the responsibility to own these weapons, but i am not going to hide under a rock and believe that a knife is even as close to dangerous as an evil assault weapon.

ghettojet
05-03-2012, 6:09 PM
You sounds pretty anti using the term "evil assault rifle". I prefer simply rifle or shooting iron if you want to get fancy

chillincody
05-03-2012, 6:15 PM
I am in no way an anti gunner. but seriously, do you not realize that guns are an effective method of doing insane amounts of damage in relatively short order? I am against the assault weapons ban, I want standard cap mags and I want to drop them freely on my non bullet button AR15. But come on, A gun is much easier to conceal and then kill people with. You really do not see that?

I think that we should all be trusted with the responsibility to own these weapons, but i am not going to hide under a rock and believe that a knife is even as close to dangerous as an evil assault weapon.

Um how about the OK city bombing thats the biggest mass murder I know about and didnt involve a gun just common items and a truck? . my points is anyone with INTENT to kill is gonna do it .

lilro
05-03-2012, 6:25 PM
You should have a talk with the guy about WHY he wants to get a gun. I just don't see how this guy can be "dangerous" when he is off his meds so frequently and hasn't ran into something that would disallow him from owning a firearm. If he has a legit reason, just try to make sure he develops good habits around firearms. If not, try to talk him out of it with the various BS CA laws and 10 day waits, tell him ammo is really expensive, etc.

SilverTauron
05-03-2012, 6:52 PM
Short answer:nothing.

He has a Right to Keep and Bear Arms, just like you and I do. I understand and support your decision to help your friend, but instead of focusing on getting a gun you should see about connecting him with the mental health professionals capable of addressing things. Theres no way to prevent him from getting a gun:he can steal one, ask someone you don't know to lend theirs, or go about buying one on his own time and effort. Start trying to discourage him, and he'll just get his hardware and leave you out of the loop.

A better way to manage this were I in your shoes, ironically,is to HELP him buy a gun. By being there through the buying and acquisition process,youll be in a trusted position and might be able to sell the idea of hanging on to the weapon yourself. That way if he loses his marbles, you have control of the weapon, instead of your relative just going down to the dark side of MLK street and buying a Lorcin from some guy's trunk.

five.five-six
05-03-2012, 6:57 PM
What are you people smoking. If the guy is a danger to himself he should be kept away from weapons. We aren't talking about taking someone's rights away without due process here. Greg wants to know how to navigate the Due Process so the family can protect this guy from himself.

I wish I knew the answer to your question. You might want to contact Don Kilmer. In addition to his firearms practice he also has a family law practice so I suspect he would be well versed in the process necessary.

Confused, in your opinion, what other civil rights and privileges should he be denied?

serious question

orangeusa
05-03-2012, 7:16 PM
But - OP - are you serious? What if you were my neighbor and I decided that you were not competant to own a gun..... how would you like it if I had a way of stopping you?

So, you think the laws won't work - do we need MORE laws?

EVERYTHING is a dual edged sword. GGAM.

"In criminal law, Blackstone's formulation (also known as Blackstone's ratio or the Blackstone ratio) is the principle: "better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer", expressed by the English jurist William Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, published in the 1760s."

Trolling in 2A is not a smart proposition......

EDIT : Seems like you have been busy recently... Post #90 and #91 caught my eye.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=8515253#post8515253


.

greg36f
05-03-2012, 7:22 PM
Thank you ALL for your opinions. He has not been 51/ 50'd because he has a family that is supportive and they do the best they can to keep him out of situations that would lead to that. If was homeless or had no support, he would have been.

They do not want to force a 51 / 50 because of the lifelong repercussions that could result.

I have a friend that was 51 / 50's about 5 times.........All for good cause........That's was 10 years ago,,,,now, he is on meds, and somehow he just came on back to us as a normal person. Yeah, I know that that demon is still there in him somewhere, but he seems to be kicking it's butt.

I will pass on your advice and again,

Thank you all.....

greg36f
05-03-2012, 7:26 PM
But - OP - are you serious? What if you were my neighbor and I decided that you were not competant to own a gun..... how would you like it if I had a way of stopping you?

So, you think the laws won't work - do we need MORE laws?

EVERYTHING is a dual edged sword. GGAM.

"In criminal law, Blackstone's formulation (also known as Blackstone's ratio or the Blackstone ratio) is the principle: "better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer", expressed by the English jurist William Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, published in the 1760s."

Trolling in 2A is not a smart proposition......

.

For god's sake, can we PLEASE stop calling anyone who we do not agree with a "troll"?

Are we all here to just slap each other on the back and tell each other how perfectly right we are?

Without different opinions and perceptions what is this forum?

greg36f
05-03-2012, 7:31 PM
But - OP - are you serious? What if you were my neighbor and I decided that you were not competant to own a gun..... how would you like it if I had a way of stopping you?

So, you think the laws won't work - do we need MORE laws?

EVERYTHING is a dual edged sword. GGAM.

"In criminal law, Blackstone's formulation (also known as Blackstone's ratio or the Blackstone ratio) is the principle: "better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer", expressed by the English jurist William Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, published in the 1760s."

Trolling in 2A is not a smart proposition......

EDIT : Seems like you have been busy recently... Post #90 and #91 caught my eye.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=8515253#post8515253


.

Yeah, I got a bit caustic there; but who here has not? I had some valid points in the thread. Nothing says that a point has to popular to be valid. I still think that I took a "real world" view when others engaged in hyperbole and silly "worst case" scenarios.

Besides, Kestryll gave me a swift kick to the Jimmy and I'm better now...:D

d4v0s
05-03-2012, 7:44 PM
You sounds pretty anti using the term "evil assault rifle". I prefer simply rifle or shooting iron if you want to get fancy

It twas sarcasm sir. People on this forum think that simply putting your head in the sand equals truth. I wont touch a hybrid, but im not going to try and tell people that the V8 dodge 440 in my garage is "better" economically because I dont like the hybrid crap. Yes the dodge uses more fuel, yes its not eco friendly, but guess what? we are free in this country to choose what we like.

I understand that crazy will do what crazy does. But crazy with a full auto weapon and 100 round drum mags will do more damage then if he had a pen. Yes he can still kill people, im very aware of that fact. But being a gun owner carries alot of responsibility, you cannot just bury your head in the sand because you want to be able to own weapons.

And yes, the OK city bombing was pretty devastating. where did I say that a gun could only cause harm, and where did I say that if evil is done then a firearm had to do it? Im not saying we shouldnt own arms. Im saying we need to be responsible, as a test I want you to imagine in your head a gang banger and his friends holding bats. OR that same group holding AKS.... you dig?

And for the record, I support fully the right of the people to keep and bear arms. my collection just passed 30. Im in no way and ANTI

OleCuss
05-03-2012, 8:00 PM
I'm with dantodd and company. I don't want people who are out of their gourds driving vehicles, handling knives, messing with firearms, etc.

The difficulty is in preventing that from happening. I don't want it to be too easy to remove someone's rights. There needs to be a legal process specific to that individual's case and circumstances.

For those who say to reason with him? There are some people who are seriously mentally ill with whom you can reason - and some that are not. Those who quit taking their meds usually do not have good reasoning ability which they exercise well even when on their meds (which is why they stop the meds).

Just think about it. Do you really want a paranoid schizophrenic who is having threatening visual hallucinations to have a firearm ready to hand with which they can start shooting at all those nasty critters crawling down the walls toward them? And no, they do not 5150 you simply for having hallucinations.

Part of ensuring that all the competent citizenry can be/is armed is recognizing that there are a few of us who just aren't competent and should not be part of the armed militia. If we don't recognize that, then we are going to be rightly viewed as nutty and our rights will be violated wholesale.

five.five-six
05-03-2012, 8:01 PM
I have been a LEO for over 20 years. I am a pistol, patrol rifle, shotgun, a full auto weapons instructor and a live firs shoot house instructor. I am better than average with all of those weapons. All of the bolded it true. I cannot argue with that.

no kidding :rolleyes:

orangeusa
05-03-2012, 8:11 PM
My point is - if I had someone next door who was a concern to my family and he HAD a gun.... (yes - you have a friend, who has a neighbor... and does not have a gun, but read on)

1. I wouldn't be posting on a public gun forum about what to do.
2. I WOULD be privately contacting legal experts - probably someone from CGF for advice.
3. I WOULD call my local PD anonymously - YES it can be done - for advice.
4. I WOULD be contacting friends in mental health industry for advice.

And given that advice - which is still confidential, no names ect, I would then make a decision if my family was threatened. And then persue legal avenues of making my family safe with the minimum impact to the neighbor. Find out if he has relative and talk to them ALSO.

But you are concerned because the person is talking about buying a gun and posting on a public forum... and you think he has no right owning one.

Granted, you have not done a very good job of explaining WHY you think he would be a threat owning a weapon.

But what did you expect as a response on a gun forum?

.

greg36f
05-03-2012, 8:16 PM
no kidding :rolleyes:

No kidding about what?

That post was me agreeing with someone who disagreed with a point I made. It was me saying "this is my qualification to make a judgement and "That's a good point and you are right".....

Yeah, I can be a bit caustic, but I can take what I give and I respect others right to another opinion even if I strongly disagree. Sometimes I get carried away,,,,,From what I have read here over the past three years, that's not just an issue that I have. Most of us have gotten a bit snarky at times.

Yes, I have issue with people who only see stuff in black and white, but that's an issue that I will have to learn to deal with I guess.

And yes, I do know when to quit.....I'm off to the sofa and a drink.

Good night sir.....

five.five-six
05-03-2012, 8:16 PM
3. I WOULD call my local PD anonymously - YES it can be done - for advice.


I have been a LEO for over 20 years. I am a pistol, patrol rifle, shotgun, a full auto weapons instructor and a live firs shoot house instructor. I am better than average with all of those weapons. All of the bolded it true. I cannot argue with that.



I am thinking #3 has already been done

five.five-six
05-03-2012, 8:18 PM
No kidding about what?

20 years LEO and you are asking these sorts of questions? seriously?


sleep tight

HowardW56
05-03-2012, 8:31 PM
What are you people smoking. If the guy is a danger to himself he should be kept away from weapons. We aren't talking about taking someone's rights away without due process here. Greg wants to know how to navigate the Due Process so the family can protect this guy from himself.

I wish I knew the answer to your question. You might want to contact Don Kilmer. In addition to his firearms practice he also has a family law practice so I suspect he would be well versed in the process necessary.

If he is a danger to himself, or others, he needs to be involuntarily committed. That would end the concern about him lawfully obtaining firearms. His family needs to talk to his doctors. His friends should raise the concerns with the family, they may not be aware of his desire for a gun.

Southwest Chuck
05-03-2012, 8:40 PM
He has not been 51/ 50'd because he has a family that is supportive and they do the best they can to keep him out of situations that would lead to that. If was homeless or had no support, he would have been.

They do not want to force a 51 / 50 because of the lifelong repercussions that could result. ......



From my perspective, it's on them, then, if the guy gets a gun and does harm. Nothing worse than well meaning family who tries to over protect a relative, rather than face reality and do what needs to be done. It's not easy, granted, but necessary.

They need to ask themselves this question: If the guy was homeless, would he most likely have already been 5150'ed by this time? If so, then it really is on them, period and by your statement above, you're in full agreement that he would have been.

stix213
05-03-2012, 8:46 PM
First of all, he did not say that a 51/50 could not be pursued, only that he had not been held under a 51/50 previously. You will notice that the op didn't mention any specific conduct so deciding, on your own that whatever conduct the OP did observe is or isn't grounds for getting someone prohibited is inappropriate. He expressed his concern and any action that he would counsel the family to take would require due process, whereby the person could face those claiming he isn't competent . This is how it is supposed to work. If someone has a valid concern they can start proceedings so that their concerns for their loved one can be heard as well and the other side can challenge the evidence so that they aren't denied a fundamental right without due process.

I agree that the 2A isn't as respected as it should be by our courts but that doesn't mean there should be no process by which it can be removed.

You're mischaracterising my posts. I haven't decided anything on my own since I don't have enough information, and you'll notice I suggested in two separate posts that pursuing a 5150 is a valid option if it really is appropriate (again I have no idea if it is appropriate, the OP hasn't said anything either way to indicate if it really is, I even suggested giving us some examples of his conduct so those in this thread who would say to just leave him alone with his gun buying would understand the situation better). We're in more agreement than your comments about my posts give credit.

Best of luck to the OP however he or this individual's family choose to handle this.

stix213
05-03-2012, 8:56 PM
Thank you ALL for your opinions. He has not been 51/ 50'd because he has a family that is supportive and they do the best they can to keep him out of situations that would lead to that. If was homeless or had no support, he would have been.

They do not want to force a 51 / 50 because of the lifelong repercussions that could result.

I have a friend that was 51 / 50's about 5 times.........All for good cause........That's was 10 years ago,,,,now, he is on meds, and somehow he just came on back to us as a normal person. Yeah, I know that that demon is still there in him somewhere, but he seems to be kicking it's butt.

I will pass on your advice and again,

Thank you all.....

I'm not sure what other long term effects happen from a 5150, but as far as gun rights it is only a temporary ban (5 years I believe). If he were to later get his act together like your other friend, he would be able to even buy a gun again at a later date. A 5250 that is the lifetime ban.

gl0ckc0ma
05-03-2012, 9:04 PM
I would talk to him and advise him to see someone clinically (psychiatric) and with the understanding that the said pschiatric consultation is to deem him mentaly stable enough to have a gun.

You could let him know that everyone that loves him, is afraid for him, and are completely against him having a firearm, and feel he doesnt have the mental capacity to own, but if the psychatrist deems him fit, he can prove everyone wrong, then everyone could support him owning a firearm and even all pitch in to get him one.

And if the psych deems him unfit then at least you will have documentation and a firm position as to why he shouldnt get one.

HowardW56
05-03-2012, 9:08 PM
And if the psych deems him unfit then at least you will have documentation and a firm position as to why he shouldnt get one.

It is unlikely that a doctor would discuss his diagnosis with anyone, without his approval. If the doctor is discussing his diagnosis without his approval, it will be in support of a 5150/5250, otherwise it is confidential......

RomanDad
05-03-2012, 9:09 PM
This sounds like one of those situations where everybody sees a train headed down the tracks, but nobody tells the engineer the bridge is out, until its too late....

If it was me, and I knew somebody was severely mentally ill to the point that they required medication, and that without that medication, they are "DANGEROUS", (you and I may have different definitions of that word, but you used it) and they are talking about buying a gun, I'd be calling Cal DOJ, ATF, and Local PD... Then the ball is in their court.

At least ID know I did everything I could to prevent a PREVENTABLE tragedy.

Having said all that, you need to be able to DOCUMENT the accusation. Whats the exact nature of the mental illness? Whats the medication? What have they done to exhibit this "dangerous" behavior off of the meds?

Meplat
05-03-2012, 9:19 PM
I think that we should all be trusted with the responsibility to own these weapons, but i am not going to hide under a rock and believe that a knife is even as close to dangerous as an evil assault weapon.

Depends on the circumstances.

gl0ckc0ma
05-03-2012, 9:27 PM
It is unlikely that a doctor would discuss his diagnosis with anyone, without his approval. If the doctor is discussing his diagnosis without his approval, it will be in support of a 5150/5250, otherwise it is confidential......

I think a doctor by law has to warn authorities if there is a potential danger of someone harming themselves or another person. If the doctor sees this person and know he is there to be seen for the reason of buying a gun and feels he isnt capable mentaly and could be a danger then I am sure the doc can do something about it.

Or he could just sign a release of info document, releasing the info to a certain individual.

Meplat
05-03-2012, 9:31 PM
You should have a talk with the guy about WHY he wants to get a gun. I just don't see how this guy can be "dangerous" when he is off his meds so frequently and hasn't ran into something that would disallow him from owning a firearm. If he has a legit reason, just try to make sure he develops good habits around firearms. If not, try to talk him out of it with the various BS CA laws and 10 day waits, tell him ammo is really expensive, etc.

I wondered how long it would take for someone to figure out that if this guy is such a nut job and so dangerous how come he has never gotten into a scrape that would prohibit him. Iím not saying this is the case, but I donít think I would want to give any free advice on how to mess with law abiding gun owners and cause them grief and expense.

Meplat
05-03-2012, 9:58 PM
He claims to be a 20 year veteran LEO, you would think he would have better resources than this to get the info?


My point is - if I had someone next door who was a concern to my family and he HAD a gun.... (yes - you have a friend, who has a neighbor... and does not have a gun, but read on)

1. I wouldn't be posting on a public gun forum about what to do.
2. I WOULD be privately contacting legal experts - probably someone from CGF for advice.
3. I WOULD call my local PD anonymously - YES it can be done - for advice.
4. I WOULD be contacting friends in mental health industry for advice.

And given that advice - which is still confidential, no names ect, I would then make a decision if my family was threatened. And then persue legal avenues of making my family safe with the minimum impact to the neighbor. Find out if he has relative and talk to them ALSO.

But you are concerned because the person is talking about buying a gun and posting on a public forum... and you think he has no right owning one.

Granted, you have not done a very good job of explaining WHY you think he would be a threat owning a weapon.

But what did you expect as a response on a gun forum?

.

dantodd
05-03-2012, 10:02 PM
Confused, in your opinion, what other civil rights and privileges should he be denied?

serious question

You can be denied any of your rights, up to and including life, via due process. If you are found legally incompetent you cannot enter into a legal contract. If you pose a threat to yourself or others you may well be denied your right to travel and held in a hospital indefinitely. There are NO absolute rights.

In this case the op said that a friend of his is concerned about the ability of a relative to safely handle a firearm and is afraid that he may himself or others and wanted to know the process by which the person can be kept safe and disarmed until such a time as he is past this problem. This is no different than someone reaching out to ask about the process of having grandma's driver's license revoked because she is no longer safe driving, or how to have someone involuntarily committed to an assisted living facility because they have Alzheimer's and can no longer care for themself.

curtisfong
05-03-2012, 10:04 PM
But crazy with a full auto weapon and 100 round drum mags

There is nothing inherently magically deadly about a large magazine or full auto.

A crazy person would do better with a car in an area with a lot of pedestrians.

orangeusa
05-03-2012, 10:10 PM
The part about the 20 year LEO was deleted before I posted that. So, yes, we agree - I would think a LEO w/ 20 years experience WOULD know folks who can help with this issue.

He claims to be a 20 year veteran LEO, you would think he would have better resources than this to get the info?

I'm not helping anybody by posting stuff like this. I hope your problem gets resolved... I misread the situation.

greg36f
05-03-2012, 10:58 PM
20 years as a LEO does not mean that I know everything. Sorry if I am as not arrogant and all knowing as you think I should be.

I have reached out here on other topics before and I have gotten great advice and more importantly a different perspective.

As a mature adult, I realize that I do not have ALL the answers and I like to explore ALL my options and resourceses; this being one of them.

A non LEO friend of mine reached out to me on this and I told him that I had some answers, but that I knew where to turn to get more....

five.five-six
05-03-2012, 11:01 PM
20 years as a LEO.

Why don't I believe you :confused:

five.five-six
05-03-2012, 11:35 PM
The part about the 20 year LEO was deleted before I posted that. So, yes, we agree - I would think a LEO w/ 20 years experience WOULD know folks who can help with this issue.



I'm not helping anybody by posting stuff like this. I hope your problem gets resolved... I misread the situation.



WAT? Do you think he is going to reach out through the interwebs and arrest you for impeding an investigation?

stix213
05-03-2012, 11:40 PM
Why has this thread about the OP's concern for another turned into an argument over his LEO creds? Isn't one of our biggest gripes on this forum that LEOs are generally uninformed on gun law? Wouldn't it also be reasonable that many LEOs aren't all knowing in other areas of law in the same way? For all you know he is a federal officer patrolling the NF all day looking for MJ grows and citing for dogs off a leash, having little to do with the topic at hand.

five.five-six
05-03-2012, 11:48 PM
Why has this thread about the OP's concern for another turned into an argument over his LEO creds?

well,

OP's question is suspicious at best... when pressed for specifics as to why OP thinks this guy would be a danger to himself or others, OP comes up empty.. then it comes to light that OP is a LE an it never occurred to him to discuss / attempt to persuade this guy about not buying a gun.... does not compute :shrug:

Veggie
05-04-2012, 12:09 AM
All freedoms come with risks.

Perfectly said. People need to realize this. There are risks to being free. Its up to the society to decide if they are comfortable with those risks.

dantodd
05-04-2012, 7:05 AM
well,

OP's question is suspicious at best... when pressed for specifics as to why OP thinks this guy would be a danger to himself or others, OP comes up empty.. then it comes to light that OP is a LE an it never occurred to him to discuss / attempt to persuade this guy about not buying a gun.... does not compute :shrug:

For someone with so many posts you show a surprising lack of knowledge about your fellow members. Anyone who has been paying attention in the 2A forum would know that Grwg is a cop. He's posted hundreds of times and has mentioned his occupation often. As he put right in the OP many folks here have a broader vision of the 2A than he does. I too feel he is a bit of a statist but he is a fellow gunnie and you can either believe or disbelieve that he has genuine concern for a friend.

If you think he is just trolling then all you are doing is prolonging the thread and feeding his toll by whining. If you think he really is sincere then asking for "specific" behaviors that have made him feel his friend isn't safe is prurient at best.

A cop doesn't have magic knowledge wrt these sorts of matters. They genially know what they need to do their job which would normally not involve anything like this until AFTER the guy does something bad which is what he's trying to avoid. Or maybe serving the warrant to find and remove any weapons in the house.

If this poor guy was off his meds and shoot a bunch of people we'd hear all sorts of complaining about why the family didn't do anything etc.

QQQ
05-04-2012, 7:14 AM
Part of being a grown-up means working to resolve conflicts without getting the police involved. Calling law enforcement should be reserved for emergencies or for actual crimes.
OP, it doesn't sound like you've done diddly-squat yourself to prevent this from happening; it sounds like you just want the government to do it all for you.
So let me ask, what have you done to prevent this "friend" of yours from obtaining a firearm if you think he shouldn't have one?

OleCuss
05-04-2012, 7:21 AM
It is unlikely that a doctor would discuss his diagnosis with anyone, without his approval. If the doctor is discussing his diagnosis without his approval, it will be in support of a 5150/5250, otherwise it is confidential......

No disagreement.

However, if you know who his psychiatrist is, you can call that psychiatrist and tell him that his patient is considering/planning to buy a firearm. That will get the attention of the psychiatrist although it is possible they won't be able to do too much depending on circumstances.

The key is that the physician can collect info from anyone but cannot give out info except in specific, limited circumstances.

The psychiatrist's office likely won't even acknowledge that the person is their patient, but they are highly likely to be interested in the info that you give.

OleCuss
05-04-2012, 7:25 AM
Part of being a grown-up means working to resolve conflicts without getting the police involved. Calling law enforcement should be reserved for emergencies or for actual crimes.
OP, it doesn't sound like you've done diddly-squat yourself to prevent this from happening; it sounds like you just want the government to do it all for you.
So let me ask, what have you done to prevent this "friend" of yours from obtaining a firearm if you think he shouldn't have one?

Have you spent significant time with someone with a serious/severe mental disorder? Just try, sometime, to get a paranoid schizophrenic who chooses not to take their meds to be reasonable?

Key to understanding the situation is that this is someone who will choose not to take their meds. That can mean an awful lot about whether you can really reason with the person and have it stick.

And several decades ago the decision was made to leave the seriously mentally ill out in the community. Having someone "committed" doesn't usually work out all that well. . .

I fail to see anything stupid or anti-liberty in the OP. It sounds to me like someone trying to do the right thing for everyone but caught in a situation with no good answers.

AragornElessar86
05-04-2012, 8:35 AM
Anybody who is on meds can decide to stop taking them at any time. Everyone I know who is prescribed psych meds occasionally decides not to take them for a while. If you're going to say that people who aren't taking their meds should be denied 2A, I think you have to say that anyone who has ever had those kinds of meds prescribed should be denied. Anyone can decide to go off their meds at any time.

greg36f
05-04-2012, 8:49 AM
Why don't I believe you :confused:

That's the best thing about this country, you are free to believe whatever you want.

OleCuss
05-04-2012, 9:14 AM
Anybody who is on meds can decide to stop taking them at any time. Everyone I know who is prescribed psych meds occasionally decides not to take them for a while. If you're going to say that people who aren't taking their meds should be denied 2A, I think you have to say that anyone who has ever had those kinds of meds prescribed should be denied. Anyone can decide to go off their meds at any time.

Gross oversimplification.

Someone who is depressed and takes Zoloft for a while (or maybe even a brief Rx for Zyprexa) is not in the same league as are some of the others. I also can't think of a single bipolar individual bad enough off to remove their RKBA.

It helps if you've worked in a psych facility for at least a little while or have spent a bit of time trying to talk people who are actively hallucinating and didn't want to take their meds. It can be a very interesting and educational experience - and can change your confidence in the perceptions of reality.

There needs to be a way to prohibit certain individuals from keeping and bearing arms. There needs to be judicial involvement and the qualifying impairment needs to be severe - but it needs to be available.

I think most members of the forum would not believe just how severely mentally impaired are some of the people walking our streets. Most of them are not homicidally inclined even while very bad off - but a few should not be trusted with anything.

greg36f
05-04-2012, 9:27 AM
For someone with so many posts you show a surprising lack of knowledge about your fellow members. Anyone who has been paying attention in the 2A forum would know that Grwg is a cop. He's posted hundreds of times and has mentioned his occupation often. As he put right in the OP many folks here have a broader vision of the 2A than he does. I too feel he is a bit of a statist but he is a fellow gunnie and you can either believe or disbelieve that he has genuine concern for a friend.

If you think he is just trolling then all you are doing is prolonging the thread and feeding his toll by whining. If you think he really is sincere then asking for "specific" behaviors that have made him feel his friend isn't safe is prurient at best.

A cop doesn't have magic knowledge wrt these sorts of matters. They genially know what they need to do their job which would normally not involve anything like this until AFTER the guy does something bad which is what he's trying to avoid. Or maybe serving the warrant to find and remove any weapons in the house.

If this poor guy was off his meds and shoot a bunch of people we'd hear all sorts of complaining about why the family didn't do anything etc.



The above in bold is basically a true statement. I have come here to Cal Guns for information and advice numerous times and I am grateful for this resource and for the help from fellow Cal Gunners. Although I can be opinionated, I realize that I do not know everything (despite what I think sometimes).

As far as being a "statist"; yeah, I guess that in this forum, I am a bit more statist than many, however, I probably come off more as a statist in print than in real life. The internet allows for a bit of hype and bluster.

The short answer here is as I posted before. A friend called me and asked for some help regarding a mutual friend. I could easily have said for him to call the police next time there is an issue, get the 51/50 and hope for a longer committal that would take gun rights. That's not the answer that I wanted to give, so I reached out to the Cal Guns community for advice. I am not willing or able to share "all the details" out of respect for my friends privacy.

It was just a general question, not a question about "Fred" who lives in Tustin.

Thank you for all that have helped.

M. D. Van Norman
05-04-2012, 9:33 AM
Is he licensed to drive? If so, work on getting that revoked first. He is far more likely to cause death and destruction behind the wheel of a car than he is with a firearm.

And without a license, he canít ďlegallyĒ buy a gun.

dantodd
05-04-2012, 10:34 AM
The above in bold is basically a true statement. I have come here to Cal Guns for information and advice numerous times and I am grateful for this resource and for the help from fellow Cal Gunners. Although I can be opinionated, I realize that I do not know everything (despite what I think sometimes).

As far as being a "statist"; yeah, I guess that in this forum, I am a bit more statist than many, however, I probably come off more as a statist in print than in real life. The internet allows for a bit of hype and bluster.

The short answer here is as I posted before. A friend called me and asked for some help regarding a mutual friend. I could easily have said for him to call the police next time there is an issue, get the 51/50 and hope for a longer committal that would take gun rights. That's not the answer that I wanted to give, so I reached out to the Cal Guns community for advice. I am not willing or able to share "all the details" out of respect for my friends privacy.

It was just a general question, not a question about "Fred" who lives in Tustin.

Thank you for all that have helped.

I'm pretty sure that a 51/50 carries a general 5 yr. prohibition (with a right to challenge the prohibition in court.) A longer hold would result in a lifetime loss. I think in this case a 51/50 would accomplish what the family needs by keeping him disarmed for a few years without the risk for permanent denial of rights. However, I do understand the concerns about the other implications of a 51/50.

Meplat
05-04-2012, 10:39 AM
WAT? Do you think he is going to reach out through the interwebs and arrest you for impeding an investigation?


I think he was trying to be a peace maker. A noble endeavor that I support.

Meplat
05-04-2012, 10:51 AM
No disagreement.

However, if you know who his psychiatrist is, you can call that psychiatrist and tell him that his patient is considering/planning to buy a firearm. That will get the attention of the psychiatrist although it is possible they won't be able to do too much depending on circumstances.

The key is that the physician can collect info from anyone but cannot give out info except in specific, limited circumstances.

The psychiatrist's office likely won't even acknowledge that the person is their patient, but they are highly likely to be interested in the info that you give.


I know a psyc or two and it is my understanding that there has to be a specific threat to a specific person, persons, or property to require a report.

OleCuss
05-04-2012, 11:08 AM
I know a psyc or two and it is my understanding that there has to be a specific threat to a specific person, persons, or property to require a report.

That fits with my understanding. However, it is still something which gets the attention of a psychiatrist - and can modify their approach to the patient.

For instance, if one has a suitable weapon and tells a psychiatrist that they wish harm to someone - the psychiatrist's knowing of the weapon can turn the opinion of the psychiatrist from "hey, this guy has very unpleasant fantasies" into something like, "hey, this may be a serious threat".

It is also quite possible that the psychiatrist may be able to dissuade their patient from obtaining the firearm. I've seen cases where the family physician was more trusted by a paranoid individual than was their dearly beloved family.

Meplat
05-04-2012, 11:09 AM
There needs to be judicial involvement and the qualifying impairment needs to be severe - but it needs to be available.


The bold is mine and it is the key. Due Process. Not rumors not peculiar behavior, not a neighborís opinion, but the opinions of mental health professionals (more than one) submitted to a judge. To do that the OP is probably going to have to talk to the family, awkward or not.

wash
05-04-2012, 11:29 AM
It shouldn't be up to anyone to make a person's choices when it comes to individual (as opposed to collective) civil rights.

The most you should do is help them to make a good decision.

If you are really worried so much about him, tell him that if he purchases a firearm you will no longer associate with him. If he cares about your feelings on the matter he will chose your relationship over gun ownership but it's still his choice.

If he values his rights more than your relationship, you won't see him any more, it won't be your problem and it still was his choice.

Meplat
05-04-2012, 11:36 AM
Is he licensed to drive? If so, work on getting that revoked first. He is far more likely to cause death and destruction behind the wheel of a car than he is with a firearm.

Not necessarily, mental disorders come in a bewildering number of flavors. The loss of mobility could just aggravate his condition. This is going to take mental health professionals to sort out.

And without a license, he canít ďlegallyĒ buy a gun.

Are you sure? I think a DMV issued ID would suffice.

orangeusa
05-04-2012, 12:02 PM
Correct - A California ID card carries same weight as a CDL.

Are you sure? I think a DMV issued ID would suffice.

.

SPROCKET
05-04-2012, 12:45 PM
Well, here is a question that will in some peoples mind's certainly cement my reputation as an "anti" or a "statist" (neither is true).

Is there a way to prohibit someone from buying a gun?

I have a friend who has a relative that is mentally disabled and really should not own a gun. I'm talking to a degree that most of us would agree on. The problem is that his issue is hit and miss. If he's on his meds (a rare occasion) he can be ok, if he's not on his meds or having a bad day, he can be dangerous.

He is now interested in buying a gun and this is scaring those that know him.

He really should not have one.

He has never been 51/50'd, so that is out.

Any suggestions?

Definitely contact his mental health provider.

Here's a little more information http://www.disabilityrightsca.org/pubs/542501.htm

I spent several years working in psychiatric hospitals; have no doubt you are pursuing the correct course of action. I am sure there are a few people who wish they'd brought Jared Loughner to the authorities attention.

M. D. Van Norman
05-04-2012, 1:20 PM
The loss of the CDL would slow him down at least brieflyóthough again only in the ďlegalĒ sense.

However, I think anything other than trying to get him the psychiatric help he allegedly needs is a wasted effort.

Meplat
05-04-2012, 1:50 PM
Gerg:
A few words.

The above in bold is basically a true statement. I have come here to Cal Guns for information and advice numerous times and I am grateful for this resource and for the help from fellow Cal Gunners. Although I can be opinionated, I realize that I do not know everything (despite what I think sometimes).

As far as being a "statist"; yeah, I guess that in this forum, I am a bit more statist than many, however, I probably come off more as a statist in print than in real life.

I honestly don’t care if you are a statist. Heck, I don’t care if you are an anti, as long as we can have a civil discussion, and the object is not turmoil and disruption for its own sake. We never learn if we are not exposed to different points of view. We may examine and reject them, but the exposure is a good thing.

The internet allows for a bit of hype and bluster.

But one needs to get a feel for the specific venue. Even the different sub forums here have different tolerance levels. Words that might not get a raised eyebrow in off topic will get one permabanned from the Ladies forum. Jumping in with both feet with a lot of hype and unpleasantness can result in a reputation that is hard to live down.
Your recent posts have been a lot more tolerant and well reasoned, so in the spirit of reasonable doubt, I apologize for posting the trolls. I should have considered your low post count before jumping to the conclusion that you understood the tolerance level spectrum around here.

The short answer here is as I posted before. A friend called me and asked for some help regarding a mutual friend. I could easily have said for him to call the police next time there is an issue, get the 51/50 and hope for a longer committal that would take gun rights. That's not the answer that I wanted to give, so I reached out to the Cal Guns community for advice. I am not willing or able to share "all the details" out of respect for my friends privacy.

It was just a general question, not a question about "Fred" who lives in Tustin.

Thank you for all that have helped.

A word of caution and advice from the last guy you probably want it from. If all is as represented, and reading between the lines, this sounds like you are being recruited by one family member or faction to bolster their position against other family members. If that is the case, the usual result is, when all is said and done, they all still love each other, but they all hate you. Good luck

My guess is that the faction recruiting you is not the one or ones who have conservatorship, as this would be a fairly easy fix for them. If that is the case you are smart to stay as far away from initiating a 5150 or 5250 as possible.


Meplat

hawk1
05-04-2012, 2:08 PM
I still don't see what is special about a gun.

What can he do with a gun that he can't do with any other dangerous item?

Like a knife?

Or a bow and arrow?

Or a car?

A gallon of gasoline... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire)

frankm
05-04-2012, 2:30 PM
Doesn't sound like he is so bad off that his family wants to do anything about it. Until they do, he's a free man.

Meplat
05-04-2012, 2:33 PM
A gallon of gasoline... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire)


And don't forget the Styrofoam.

Actually an argument could be made that the availability of guns actually reduces the number of casualties in whack job disasters. And greater availability of full auto guns would reduce it even more.

May all your enemies be on full auto

five.five-six
05-04-2012, 2:58 PM
That's the best thing about this country, you are free to believe whatever you want.

I think I owe you an apology..

greg36f
05-04-2012, 3:06 PM
Gerg:
A few words.



I honestly donít care if you are a statist. Heck, I donít care if you are an anti, as long as we can have a civil discussion, and the object is not turmoil and disruption for its own sake. We never learn if we are not exposed to different points of view. We may examine and reject them, but the exposure is a good thing.



But one needs to get a feel for the specific venue. Even the different sub forums here have different tolerance levels. Words that might not get a raised eyebrow in off topic will get one permabanned from the Ladies forum. Jumping in with both feet with a lot of hype and unpleasantness can result in a reputation that is hard to live down.
Your recent posts have been a lot more tolerant and well reasoned, so in the spirit of reasonable doubt, I apologize for posting the trolls. I should have considered your low post count before jumping to the conclusion that you understood the tolerance level spectrum around here.



A word of caution and advice from the last guy you probably want it from. If all is as represented, and reading between the lines, this sounds like you are being recruited by one family member or faction to bolster their position against other family members. If that is the case, the usual result is, when all is said and done, they all still love each other, but they all hate you. Good luck

My guess is that the faction recruiting you is not the one or ones who have conservatorship, as this would be a fairly easy fix for them. If that is the case you are smart to stay as far away from initiating a 5150 or 5250 as possible.


Meplat

Thank you for this. I guess if we all agreed with each other this would be a boring forum. In the interest of fairness ( but not to get all man lovey) "bite me" was a little to much. I knew it when I wrote it and kestrylls swat as expected ( i kinda hoped he was on vacation or something)And just because I probably won't agree with does not mean that I don't want to hear your opinion. It keeps it fun and I do learn a bit now and then.

macadamizer
05-04-2012, 3:51 PM
And don't forget the Styrofoam.

Seriously?

If styrofoam and gasoline and cars and knives were equally as good -- or better -- at killing people than guns, why wouldn't we fight wars with styrofoam? Arm cops with knives? Seems like it would be a lot cheaper and require less training.

We use guns because they are way better at killing people than are knives and styrofoam.

I get the point -- that a gun is a tool, and it is the motive to kill that is the real threat -- but it is disingenuous to say that a gun is no more lethal than knives, or styrofoam. It simply isn't correct. While there may be some styrofoam-fu expert out there that can kill anyone instantly with styrofoam, it is simply a fact that the average person, in most situations, is going to be far more lethal with a gun than with styrofoam or a knife.

If you were in a situation where someone decided to kill some people, would you prefer the killer have a gun, a knife, or styrofoam? Or is it all equally bad?

If your point is that someone with a motive to kill will find a way to kill, gun or otherwise, then just say that. It is simply illogical to assert that a gun is equally or less deadly than a piece of styrofoam or a knife.

Actually an argument could be made that the availability of guns actually reduces the number of casualties in whack job disasters. And greater availability of full auto guns would reduce it even more.

May all your enemies be on full auto

That may be correct, but it has no bearing on the relative lethality of the instrument.

orangeusa
05-04-2012, 3:54 PM
Um, ever heard of napalm? We do fight wars with it. nuff said.. moving on....

macadamizer
05-04-2012, 4:01 PM
Um, ever heard of napalm? We do fight wars with it. nuff said.. moving on....

I don't think we have a lot of soldiers tossing napalm at each other typically, but thanks for missing the point and moving along.

orangeusa
05-04-2012, 4:10 PM
Hard to argue with flawed logic......

lilro
05-04-2012, 4:15 PM
I don't think we have a lot of soldiers tossing napalm at each other typically, but thanks for missing the point and moving along.

Ever hear of flamethrowers? Or molotov cocktails? Rioters typically toss those. Gasoline and styrofoam is poor man's napalm. I think you're missing the point.

five.five-six
05-04-2012, 4:25 PM
Napalm is exactly the type of arms protected by the 2nd amendment

Meplat
05-04-2012, 4:28 PM
I don't think we have a lot of soldiers tossing napalm at each other typically, but thanks for missing the point and moving along.

Would you rather be shot with a gun or a flamethrower? Much harder way to go.

davidbanner
05-04-2012, 4:40 PM
Has he ever hurt anybody before? If so, may his previous crime prevent him from owning a gun. If not, then leave him alone.
:p

macadamizer
05-04-2012, 5:25 PM
Ever hear of flamethrowers? Or molotov cocktails? Rioters typically toss those. Gasoline and styrofoam is poor man's napalm. I think you're missing the point.

Then why don't we equip all of our soldiers with flamethrowers then? Why do we use guns if flamethrowers or molotov cocktails are so much more deadly than guns?

I think you are kind of making my point for me. I never said or implied that there weren't lots of ways for one person to kill another. Some are even more effective than guns in certain situations. I get that.

Napalm is exactly the type of arms protected by the 2nd amendment

Again, missing the point. I wasn't making any suggestion about rights, simply pointing out that guns are, in fact, more lethal in the hands of the average person than most other ways of killing someone.

Would you rather be shot with a gun or a flamethrower? Much harder way to go.

I didn't bring up a flamethrower, you did. But seriously -- would you rather be in a crowded room with a deranged gunman or deranged knifeman? Because that was the whole point of my post.

I agree that in a crowded room, a flamethrower is at least as bad, and probably worse, than a gun, from the potential victim's perspective. I am not sure why it is so hard for many on this board to concede that a gun is, in virtually all cases, a lot worse than a knife, from a victim's perspective.

That's my point. A gun is, by its very nature, inherently more dangerous than a knife -- that's why we use guns in battle, and not knives like we used to long ago. There is nothing wrong with that, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't be allowed to own guns, or that everyone with a gun is a potential killer.

But it does defy logic to assert that a gun is no more dangerous than a knife.

curtisfong
05-04-2012, 5:45 PM
Seriously?
If styrofoam and gasoline and cars and knives were equally as good -- or better -- at killing people than guns, why wouldn't we fight wars with styrofoam?


1) Because indiscriminate destruction isn't tactically smart
2) Because you are trying to kill people who are trying to kill you back and/or are actively defending themselves.


it is simply a fact that the average person, in most situations, is going to be far more lethal with a gun than with styrofoam or a knife.


Disagree. Being lethal with a gun requires training. Killing a bunch of pedestrians with a car requires none.


If you were in a situation where someone decided to kill some people, would you prefer the killer have a gun, a knife, or styrofoam? Or is it all equally bad?


Depends entirely on the situation. If you are properly prepared, you'd rather he didn't have a gun.

If, however, you are minding your own business and walking around town, i'd rather he didn't have a car.

And if I'm sleeping in my house, i'd rather he didn't have gas and styrofoam to start a fire.

macadamizer
05-04-2012, 5:55 PM
1) Because indiscriminate destruction isn't tactically smart
2) Because you are trying to kill people who are trying to kill you back and/or are actively defending themselves.

But that is kind of the point right there -- you use the most lethal weapon available. You don't use a knife if you have a gun.

Not everything is as equally lethal.

Disagree. Being lethal with a gun requires training. Killing a bunch of pedestrians with a car requires none.

I wasn't talking about a car. And there are plenty of people with limited training who have managed to off a lot of folks with guns. But to the point -- is it easier for an untrained person to kill multiple people with a gun or with a knife?

Depends entirely on the situation. If you are properly prepared, you'd rather he didn't have a gun.

What does being prepared have anything to do with it?

If, however, you are minding your own business and walking around town, i'd rather he didn't have a car.

And if I'm sleeping in my house, i'd rather he didn't have gas and styrofoam to start a fire.

Seems like everything is going around in circles here. maybe I need to go back to the original post:

Originally Posted by curtisfong
I still don't see what is special about a gun.

What can he do with a gun that he can't do with any other dangerous item?

Like a knife?

Or a bow and arrow?

Or a car?

Are all four equally as inherently dangerous as one another? If they are, why don't we arm troops with knives? Or bows and arrows? Or cars?

lilro
05-04-2012, 6:23 PM
Are all four equally as inherently dangerous as one another? If they are, why don't we arm troops with knives? Or bows and arrows? Or cars?

Because they are in a warzone...They are fighting people that are expecting them and fighting back. And I don't know any troops that don't carry a knife. Or get around in vehicles. Just because they aren't driving on walkways in Honda Civics in Afghanistan doesn't mean they don't use vehicles. They do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AN0udPRnd2M

On a late night in a CITY, a guy could kill far more people with a knife before police are even NOTIFIED, than if he had a gun. Same with a car. The bow would take some training, but with training they could take out a bunch of people before being stopped as well. None of those go bang.

greg36f
05-04-2012, 7:08 PM
I think I owe you an apology..




OMG, please tell me that I am not going to regret asking this question:pinch:?

Why do you owe me an apology?

five.five-six
05-04-2012, 7:09 PM
for doubting your veracity

macadamizer
05-04-2012, 7:10 PM
Because they are in a warzone...They are fighting people that are expecting them and fighting back. And I don't know any troops that don't carry a knife. Or get around in vehicles. Just because they aren't driving on walkways in Honda Civics in Afghanistan doesn't mean they don't use vehicles. They do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AN0udPRnd2M

That's not really the point, though. The military uses firearms because they are the most effective weapon for the uses needed. At one time it was bows and arrows and swords, but then firearms came along, and the bows and arrows and swords were relegated to museums and collectors.

On a late night in a CITY, a guy could kill far more people with a knife before police are even NOTIFIED, than if he had a gun.

Seriously? I assume you must mean that some stealthy ninja is going around knifing people or something. Maybe that is true in that narrow circumstance, I don't know. Maybe not. It takes time to run up to people and shank them, seems like you could shoot a lot of people in the time it takes to run up to everyone.

Same with a car. The bow would take some training, but with training they could take out a bunch of people before being stopped as well. None of those go bang.

Again, unless you are some sort of archer sniper, relying on stealth to pick off a few people, that just doesn't seem reasonable at all.

The car is the only weapon that might come close, and only then if you have a group of people bunched up and room to accelerate to run into them. A car isn't much of a concern if you are indoors.

I guess I am not sure why we are dancing around this point.

greg36f
05-04-2012, 7:38 PM
for doubting your veracity


In that case, thank you.......However, you do not know me and I do not know you so I was not really offended.

The truth on the internet really is an elusive critter......

I mean, on other forums I am 6'03, 230 pounds and an ex MMA fighter who turned swimsuit model.....:D.......

Again, thank you....

Having said, that I apologize for everything I said to my self and thought about you after I read your post,,,,,:43:

five.five-six
05-04-2012, 8:35 PM
I mean, on other forums I am 6'03, 230 pounds and an ex MMA fighter who turned swimsuit model.....:D.......

Cool because, I am a 23 year old 5'8" 115 pound blond with blue eyes and a very full "C" cup. I am just so board with 73 year old husband, we should meet up for drinks

dixieD
05-04-2012, 10:20 PM
If he can't be trusted with a gun, he can't be trusted alone in public. Period.
:iagree:

orangeusa
05-04-2012, 10:33 PM
Wow - a lawyer with NO knowledge of military history? Or tactics?

That's not really the point, though. The military uses firearms because they are the most effective weapon for the uses needed. At one time it was bows and arrows and swords, but then firearms came along, and the bows and arrows and swords were relegated to museums and collectors.

Seriously? I assume you must mean that some stealthy ninja is going around knifing people or something. Maybe that is true in that narrow circumstance, I don't know. Maybe not. It takes time to run up to people and shank them, seems like you could shoot a lot of people in the time it takes to run up to everyone.



Again, unless you are some sort of archer sniper, relying on stealth to pick off a few people, that just doesn't seem reasonable at all.

The car is the only weapon that might come close, and only then if you have a group of people bunched up and room to accelerate to run into them. A car isn't much of a concern if you are indoors.

I guess I am not sure why we are dancing around this point.

sharxbyte
05-04-2012, 10:55 PM
Probably been said already, but if he's been committed to a mental institution he is prohibited.

curtisfong
05-04-2012, 11:03 PM
I guess I am not sure why we are dancing around this point.

Because an obviously irrational fear of *specifically* guns is irritating to the extreme.

If the person can't be trusted with a gun, he shouldn't be trusted with *any* tool that can be used as a weapon.

There isn't anything inherently special about guns. People who think this way are usually ignorant of how firearms work and automatically assume every bullet that comes out of a gun instantly kills somebody.

That's the stereotype you're working against.

Meplat
05-04-2012, 11:30 PM
Cool because, I am a 23 year old 5'8" 115 pound blond with blue eyes and a very full "C" cup. I am just so board with 73 year old husband, we should meet up for drinks

Good lord! will you guys please get a room!

Meplat
05-04-2012, 11:42 PM
Because an obviously irrational fear of *specifically* guns is irritating to the extreme.

If the person can't be trusted with a gun, he shouldn't be trusted with *any* tool that can be used as a weapon.

There isn't anything inherently special about guns. People who think this way are usually ignorant of how firearms work and automatically assume every bullet that comes out of a gun instantly kills somebody.

That's the stereotype you're working against.

The shoot-um-up movie mentality is quite grating is it not? I think it is better to have people who want to do specific damage to specific targets able to access a tool that will do it than have to resort to less precise improvised methods. Matter of logic. But then logic is not the long suit of most who fear, say, a pistol more than a bomb.

macadamizer
05-05-2012, 12:06 AM
Wow - a lawyer with NO knowledge of military history? Or tactics?

Not exactly. I was an 11B in a former life. But that's neither here nor there, really. If you don't want to discuss this, then don't.

Meplat
05-05-2012, 12:14 AM
That's not really the point, though. The military uses firearms because they are the most effective weapon for the uses needed. At one time it was bows and arrows and swords, but then firearms came along, and the bows and arrows and swords were relegated to museums and collectors.



Seriously? I assume you must mean that some stealthy ninja is going around knifing people or something. Maybe that is true in that narrow circumstance, I don't know. Maybe not. It takes time to run up to people and shank them, seems like you could shoot a lot of people in the time it takes to run up to everyone.



Again, unless you are some sort of archer sniper, relying on stealth to pick off a few people, that just doesn't seem reasonable at all.

The car is the only weapon that might come close, and only then if you have a group of people bunched up and room to accelerate to run into them. A car isn't much of a concern if you are indoors.

I guess I am not sure why we are dancing around this point.

The military still uses all those things that you relegate to museums. Just depends on the circumstances.

BTW: The reason the US no longer uses napalm is because it was so horrendously effective it shocked the sensibilities of some of the public so badly that we unilaterally quit using it after Viet Nam. Too bad, it was better than cluster bombs. We also no longer use other effective weapons, like land mines, because of public and world opinion. I do not think we have actually said we would never use some of them but the western civilized world just doesnít any more. Pushed to the wall, who knows?

The point is this. If a nut job gets it in for his Dr., or anyone for that matter, he goes and gets himself a Raven, legit or not, walks in and gets lucky and gets three .25 autos into the victim before it jams, the nut gets committed, and the victim is out of the hospital in a couple days. If he canít get a gun he burns down an office building or a home with god knows how many victims inside.

It ainít the tool!

macadamizer
05-05-2012, 12:20 AM
Because an obviously irrational fear of *specifically* guns is irritating to the extreme.

How did you come up with this strawman? This has nothing to do with the discussion at all. Nobody in this thread is talking about fear, rational or irrational, of guns. Nobody.

If the person can't be trusted with a gun, he shouldn't be trusted with *any* tool that can be used as a weapon.

That may be the right position to take. I am not sure myself, but at least it is a supportable position.

There isn't anything inherently special about guns.

But that is not true at all, and it is really disingenuous to say so. It also undermines any other positions you might take.

Like it or not, guns were developed for killing. Killing soldiers in war, or killing animals for food. It's a tool for killing. Nowadays we also use firearms for other sporting and non-sporting purposes besides its original design function -- in fact, the vast majority of firearms, in this country especially, are used for purposes other than their original intended design function.

But that doesn't change the nature of the original purpose. And it is different from cars and other tools that are perfectly capable of being used as weapons, but aren't designed as weapons. And most people can recognize this distinction, and that's why I think it is unhelpful to pretend that the distinction doesn't exist.

People who think this way are usually ignorant of how firearms work and automatically assume every bullet that comes out of a gun instantly kills somebody.

I think that is probably not at all correct. I don't think most antis think that guns kill people automatically, or have minds of their own. I think both pro- and anti-gunners recognize that a person with a gun (and a willingness to use it) is generally a more powerful person than a person without a gun. I think the biggest difference is who people believe should have that extra power. Most of us here -- myself included -- think the answer to that question ranges from "most people" to "everybody," whereas the antis would probably range from "very few" to "nobody."

That's the stereotype you're working against.

I am not trying to work against any stereotype. For whatever reason, it frustrates me whenever I see the argument "but, but, cars can kill just as easily" as if that makes the nature of what guns are go away. It's a lame argument, and I think saying it undermines whatever legitimacy the person saying it might have.

I think that simply acknowledging that guns have a purpose that is different from other tools, but that they are still tools, is a much more accurate and defensible position to take. But it doesn't seem like people want to acknowledge that position as a rational position.

curtisfong
05-05-2012, 12:27 AM
But that doesn't change the nature of the original purpose. And it is different from cars and other tools that are perfectly capable of being used as weapons, but aren't designed as weapons. And most people can recognize this distinction, and that's why I think it is unhelpful to pretend that the distinction doesn't exist.


Weapons are designed to kill something specific. That doesn't mean that something that isn't designed to kill something specific is magically less dangerous. In fact, the opposite is often true; the thing NOT designed for killing can be far more dangerous than something designed to kill something specific. Why? Because it also wasn't designed to discriminate.


I think that simply acknowledging that guns have a purpose that is different from other tools, but that they are still tools, is a much more accurate and defensible position to take. But it doesn't seem like people want to acknowledge that position as a rational position.

The problem is that anti-gunners aren't the only ones who recklessly abuse the phrase "designed specifically to kill" to give it an emotional impact that is hardly rational.

macadamizer
05-05-2012, 12:28 AM
The military still uses all those things that you relegate to museums. Just depends on the circumstances.

I don't remember the last time the U.S. fielded a platoon of archers, or a platoon of swordsman. I am not talking about ceremonial uses. I am sure that someone, somewhere, has used an obsolete or archaic weapon in a recent battle. That's not the point. We don't field units armed with those weapon, we field units armed with modern rifles, because they are better for the job at hand.

If we can't even agree on this point, I am not sure we have much to discuss.

BTW: The reason the US no longer uses napalm is because it was so horrendously effective it shocked the sensibilities of some of the public so badly that we unilaterally quit using it after Viet Nam. Too bad, it was better than cluster bombs. We also no longer use other effective weapons, like land mines, because of public and world opinion. I do not think we have actually said we would never use some of them but the western civilized world just doesnít any more. Pushed to the wall, who knows?

I think we got sidetracked into napalm. Napalm isn't really relevant to the discussion. I was more making a joke about your styrofoam post, and using styrofoam as a weapon itself. Sorry to have let the sidetracking occur.

The point is this. If a nut job gets it in for his Dr., or anyone for that matter, he goes and gets himself a Raven, legit or not, walks in and gets lucky and gets three .25 autos into the victim before it jams, the nut gets committed, and the victim is out of the hospital in a couple days. If he canít get a gun he burns down an office building or a home with god knows how many victims inside.

It ainít the tool!

Saying "it ain't the tool" is too simplistic. Mechanics and others often talk about the right tool for a particular job. Some tools are better suited for certain tasks than others.

Meplat
05-05-2012, 12:36 AM
How did you come up with this strawman? This has nothing to do with the discussion at all. Nobody in this thread is talking about fear, rational or irrational, of guns. Nobody.



That may be the right position to take. I am not sure myself, but at least it is a supportable position.



But that is not true at all, and it is really disingenuous to say so. It also undermines any other positions you might take.

Like it or not, guns were developed for killing. Killing soldiers in war, or killing animals for food. It's a tool for killing. Nowadays we also use firearms for other sporting and non-sporting purposes besides its original design function -- in fact, the vast majority of firearms, in this country especially, are used for purposes other than their original intended design function.

But that doesn't change the nature of the original purpose. And it is different from cars and other tools that are perfectly capable of being used as weapons, but aren't designed as weapons. And most people can recognize this distinction, and that's why I think it is unhelpful to pretend that the distinction doesn't exist.



I think that is probably not at all correct. I don't think most antis think that guns kill people automatically, or have minds of their own. I think both pro- and anti-gunners recognize that a person with a gun (and a willingness to use it) is generally a more powerful person than a person without a gun. I think the biggest difference is who people believe should have that extra power. Most of us here -- myself included -- think the answer to that question ranges from "most people" to "everybody," whereas the antis would probably range from "very few" to "nobody."



I am not trying to work against any stereotype. For whatever reason, it frustrates me whenever I see the argument "but, but, cars can kill just as easily" as if that makes the nature of what guns are go away. It's a lame argument, and I think saying it undermines whatever legitimacy the person saying it might have.

I think that simply acknowledging that guns have a purpose that is different from other tools, but that they are still tools, is a much more accurate and defensible position to take. But it doesn't seem like people want to acknowledge that position as a rational position.


The only difference between guns and any other thing we may talk about is that it is purpose built to be a weapon. That is not even true for all guns as you your self point out. Being purpose built does not necessarily make it any more dangerous than an improvised weapon. You have not persuaded me, so far Iím still a lot more worried about the nut with a gallon of gas.

macadamizer
05-05-2012, 12:37 AM
Weapons are designed to kill something specific. That doesn't mean that something that isn't designed to kill something specific is magically less dangerous. In fact, the opposite is often true; the thing NOT designed for killing can be far more dangerous than something designed to kill something specific. Why? Because it also wasn't designed to discriminate.

That may be true in the abstract -- again, I am not sure I agree with that point, but I think it is certainly arguable. My point -- at least originally -- was a little more specific.

The problem is that anti-gunners aren't the only ones who recklessly abuse the phrase "designed specifically to kill" to give it an emotional impact that is hardly rational.

But is it really inaccurate to say that though? Seems to me that by arguing around that position, you give that position more legitimacy. Seems to me that the better position is to take ownership of it, and force the antis to attack the problem from a different perspective.

I don't think it is a good argument to say "its just a tool" because I don't think anyone really believes that. Hell, we don't believe it ourselves, we are constantly debating about the best home defense round, or which round has the most knockdown power, 9mm v. .45, etc. We already acknowledge that some firearms are better than others for home defense, or whatever. We recognize that these are tools designed for a specific purpose. We might use them for target practice or skeet, or just collect them because we like them, but we all recognize that they do have a particular purpose. And that's fine, that's the whole point.

But we should expect others to believe "it's just a tool" when we ourselves know that it is not really true.

curtisfong
05-05-2012, 12:41 AM
But we should expect others to believe "it's just a tool" when we ourselves know that it is not really true.

I understand your point, and I agree we should be careful about being dismissive if we want to be taken seriously (this goes for all positions). However, I feel the flip side is far too dangerous to ignore.

The phrase "designed specifically to kill" is used too carelessly, and re-enforces the hoplophobia that generally accompanies ignorance of how firearms really work. In particular, the OP, who singled out "guns" as being "too dangerous" for somebody who is unstable, makes it far too easy for a hoplophobe to assume that "guns" are the only thing to worry about, because they are "designed to kill".

If you like, we can agree to disagree.

macadamizer
05-05-2012, 12:45 AM
The only difference between guns and any other thing we may talk about is that it is purpose built to be a weapon.

I think that's a rather large difference, though. Not a bad one, just a large one.

That is not even true for all guns as you your self point out.

That's not exactly what I said. What I said is that not all guns get used for other purposes -- but their original design purpose remains the same.

Being purpose built does not necessarily make it any more dangerous than an improvised weapon. You have not persuaded me, so far Iím still a lot more worried about the nut with a gallon of gas.

I disagree. If improvised weapons were equally as effective as purpose-built weapons, why would we ever need to purpose-build weapons in the first place?

Maybe the word "dangerous" isn't the right term to use. Maybe "effective" is a better term to use. My point being that someone with little training would be more likely to be able to kill multiple people using a firearm than a knife or a bow and arrow, because the firearm is more effective.

Maybe changing "inherently dangerous" to "inherently dangerous in the wrong hands" would make the positions a little clearer?

curtisfong
05-05-2012, 12:49 AM
I disagree. If improvised weapons were equally as effective as purpose-built weapons, why would we ever need to purpose-build weapons in the first place?


Because improvised weapons often aren't very good at discriminating what they are hazardous to, including the person wielding the weapon in question.

Meplat
05-05-2012, 11:01 AM
This discussion notwithstanding, in general, the best answer to the ‘guns are made to kill’ argument is the plain truth.

Some people just need killing.

QQQ
05-05-2012, 11:26 AM
Cool because, I am a 23 year old 5'8" 115 pound blond with blue eyes and a very full "C" cup. I am just so board with 73 year old husband, we should meet up for drinks

5'8"? Too tall for a woman. 115 pounds with a full "C" cup? Too top-heavy and weird-shaped. There's a reason why fashion models tend to be smaller- nobody wants to buy drinks for a girl who could crush skulls with her chest. Bleh.

"Board"? Poor spelling ability doesn't bode well for the intelligence aspect, which is all you have going for you at this point since the appearance side of things is already out the window. Also, being bored is an indication that you're not much fun to be around.

73-year old husband? Probably just a gold digger. Or maybe an alcoholic who only cares about getting money to purchase more booze, which seems to be the entire goal of your post.

2/10 would not bang

(Note: this post was a joke, in response to 556's post, which was also clearly a joke. Don't call the board police on me! If someone out there actually fits the description and feels offended, I will gladly buy you a few drinks to make up for it! :D )

Meplat
05-05-2012, 11:59 AM
I disagree. If improvised weapons were equally as effective as purpose-built weapons, why would we ever need to purpose-build weapons in the first place?

Because the guys in the white hats have this quaint notion that it is not OK to blow up a daycare center on the first floor to get the guys at the ATF office on the third floor.

Maybe the word "dangerous" isn't the right term to use. Maybe "effective" is a better term to use. My point being that someone with little training would be more likely to be able to kill multiple people using a firearm than a knife or a bow and arrow, because the firearm is more effective.

Both terms have validity; guns are more effective than dangerous; improvised weapons are more dangerous than effective. Knives and arrows are in the same class as guns. Bows and arrows are purpose built to kill. Some knives are, some are not. Some guns are, some are not. I take exception to the idea that all guns are made to kill. A Hammerli Olympic Free Pistol (outlawed in CA as an AW BTW) is not made to kill any more than a carving knife is made to kill. Both can kill, both can trace their linage to weapons made to kill, they are just not made for it. So they can hardly be described as ‘improvised’ weapons. On the other hand truly improvised weapons, pipe bombs, gasoline bombs, trucks full of fertilizer, are inherently more dangerous. Purpose built weapons, including the cross-overs are inherently more effective.

Maybe changing "inherently dangerous" to "inherently dangerous in the wrong hands" would make the positions a little clearer?

The reason you are getting so much push back on this is because preconceived knee jerk ‘if it’s a gun it must be bad’ notions have already gotten us to the state we are in (no pun intended). I mean, a Hammerli, possibly the most accurate but tactically unwieldy pistol in the world, an assault weapon?

Meplat
05-05-2012, 12:14 PM
Not exactly. I was an 11B in a former life. But that's neither here nor there, really. If you don't want to discuss this, then don't.

11B would be a really weird bra size? Or is this a diagnosis? Maybe a tax loophole?

JOAK!!! No insult intended!