Posted by bo~o~B! on April 12, 2000, at 19:45:15
In reply to Re: Guns and the mentally ill: a response to Mark, posted by Abby on April 12, 2000, at 16:59:53
> Well, since I seem !!obsessed!! with chiming in on every third thread on this site now... I can add that anyone convicted of domestic violence offenses, even misdemeanors, is now barred by federal law from not only owning, but also possessing a firearm. This had a real impact in some police departments and in the military within the past year. When you buy a gun at the store, you have to sign that you are not a chronic alcohol or drug user as well. So be it. That is where we are.
Me, I own a shotgun. They are legal in every state, the projectiles are less likely to travel through walls and you have a better chance of pulling off a shot at a leg or arm rather than having to hit the middle of somebody. I had been without a gun since I moved from a rural area into a metropolitan area. I covered some pretty scarry crimes recently and decided I would get a firearm. I sympathize with the fear of shooting an otherwise benign drunkard. I try to train my mind not to consider the firearm my only line of defense, pepper spray, obstructions near my doorway and well thought lighting are all intelligent elements to a physical defense plan. If someone is hurting my friends in a criminal act, though, I might decide to act decisively, including firing my shotgun. I was once in a situation where I refused to intervene per a woman's request who was being abused because my intervention would have put me in a situation where I might have relied on my handgun. She talked her way out of it.
I am just spilling some thoughts on this. I don't see anyone arguing here strictly for or against gun control - (no need to argue this next thought ---> its just thinking out loud, but I wonder if some people's mental distress is not correlated to their courageous willingness, or inescapable ability to see and believe opposing viewpoints).
For some of us, a gun provides a symbol, if not a practical device for assuring safety. For suicide prevention, there is a correlation between availability of efficient killing tools and suicide, but making it more difficult is far from the best idea for crisis intervention. There are likely some correlations between low community attachment, but it is not as easy for Joe Blow to win an election on a platform of building community attachment.
My feelings are mixed on the prohibition of firearms for domestic violence offenders. It seems to make sense, but I am also covering a story where the alleged victim cooked up her claim of abuse.
The hard part for me, when I owned a handgun in a rural area, was keeping up with trigger lock on, trigger lock off, loaded, unloaded, concealed (illegal but safe) not concealed (causes fear in peers), do I go into my very remote home armed, loaded and ready to fire? I was reporting conflicts that were later written up in books as being low grade war.
But, mental illness... this was about guns and mental illness. I guess that is part of why I defy diagnoses, because it is as much a legal nomenclature as a medical one. I am sad and lonely, if there is a medical name for that, I don't want to wear it. I know other peoples condition in more intractible than mine. I sat in a commitment hearing where this person said their problem was situational, but the I had earlier seen them publiclly demonstrating very bizarre facial expressions and behavior. The person said pmeds made them very sick. Anyway, meds or whatever, the person was typical of institutional populations in their strained countenance. And that is where the person went, under a court order.
Especially in poor black communities, guns have become a symbol of power. That bums me out bad, but the general powerlessness bothers me more than the choice of surrogate symbols. The BOOM sub-woofers actually bother me more. And the economic enequity bothers me most.
But all this "assault weapon" business, is pretty much symbolic. If you read the legal description of so called assualt weapons they are but a crude effort to reduce efficiency of legal firearms. Reducing magazine size would seem to tilt the odds a little bit in favor of the cops with better guns, but much of the language in those regs has to do with appearance. I was amused at a college paper, where students were likely forming opinions on regulation of assault weapons but could not even differentiate between a shotgun and a rifle in a story about a real crime. Anyhow, the laws effecting gun ownership by felons, people treated for mental illness and others deal with all firearms, not just handguns.
The thing I often consider odd is how we have so little fear of driving back and forth at high speeds, a few feet from a stranger who could collide with us at the flick of a wrist. I have been told of suicide by car events, and have heard of suicide/homicides by car. Guns, for all practical purposes, are regulated as symbols, and perhaps their regulation makes violence slightly less efficient, but controlling the tools of violence is hardly a way of controlling violence.
The control-the-governent aspect of gun ownership is not as archaic as people might think. during the vietnam war Nixon reportedly asked his aids how many people would be neccessary to storm and overcome whitehouse security. Unless a person has carefully considered the ways escalation of force serves political dialogue, they might be reacting more to a repulsion of force most of us feel (unless we were trained otherwise) than to a real understanding of the practical uses of limited force, as can be rendered with small arms. There is a strange kind of dialogue where people demand civility by threatening to withdraw civility. I can neither advocate nor strictly condemn the tactic. I just know it is there.
I would rather live in a world where everyone carrys than in one equipped with nukes. Unfortunatly, my choice is to live in this world as it is or not live. I guess I will live while i can.
poster:bo~o~B!
thread:29693
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20000411/msgs/29768.html