Conquer Club

Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby rdsrds2120 on Mon Dec 17, 2012 6:54 am

Phatscotty wrote:
CreepersWiener wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun


No guns = No bad guys with guns...period.


Isn't that the exact same "logic" as: Drugs are illegal = nobody can get drugs?

:-s


But doesn't drug proliferation result in increased usage of drugs, i.e., gun proliferation will result in them being used more? So, more total deaths? I'm not convinced that the number of lives saved from being able to stop sporadic shootings is greater than the amount of people killed in more...frequent...homocides/accidental misfires, or, if it's marginally the same, that guns should be advocated.

BMO
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class rdsrds2120
 
Posts: 6274
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 3:42 am

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby Night Strike on Mon Dec 17, 2012 7:50 am

Juan_Bottom wrote:We aren't even talking about taking away all guns. We're talking about controlling what guns can be sold and who can have access to them.


Good thing we already have such laws. Why do we need even MORE laws? Where are your calls for MORE limits on free speech, limits on the media, permitting more searches without warrants?

Juan_Bottom wrote:1) No more handgun sales to the public, but handguns that are already in private ownership can still be bought, sold, inherited, and traded.

2) No more sales of military/assault weapons, clips, jackets, ect.

3) Most guns sold are sold through gun shows where sales are not controlled. There are no background checks, allowing gun manufacturers to sell indirectly to criminals. So either we need to:
    a) strictly enforce background checks
    b) allow victims of gun violence to sue gun manufacturers
    c) ban gun shows

4) Anyone who houses or has an unsound or unstable mind may not have a gun in the home. No exceptions.


No to all of those, especially the first and fourth. You now want to take away the Constitutional rights of people who already sacrifice so much of their time and freedom to take care of those who need extra help? This will simply cause more people with mental issues to either live on the streets or be turned over to the state (although you probably prefer the latter anyway).


Juan_Bottom wrote:Is this not a respectable compromise? This is fair and addresses the problems that both sides have. Gun enthusiasts can keep all the rifles and shotguns that they like, while liberals can rest easier knowing that insane and violent people wont have access to handguns or assault rifles. You even get to keep your hand guns.
If you don't budge an inch you wont get anything you want at all. Because Democrats have repeatedly shown, over and over, that if you wont compromise then we will wait and wait until we have the majority. And then Conservatives get nothing.


Juan_Bottom, you are no longer allowed to have a trial by jury and the rest of us can search your person and property at any time for any reason without a warrant. Because if you don't budge an inch on that, we'll just take away all your other Constitutional rights as well. Your arguments are ludicrous because we have a Constitutional right to own and bear arms. There is no compromise when it comes to rights: the government's sole purpose is to protect those rights from being violated by other people, including the government itself. And every liberal ban will be continuously challenged in courts until they are overturned, just like the bans in liberal bastions of Washington D.C. and Chicago have been overturned. The people have already budged well more than an inch as the right to own arms is the most regulated of any Constitutional right. We can't be forced to continue to budge as your nudges are simply pushing us closer and closer to all out bans. It's always "you must compromise here" or "you must give this area up" until every facet of that right is gone from the individual. We can't continue to allow such encroachments on our rights.
Image
User avatar
Major Night Strike
 
Posts: 8512
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:52 pm

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby Night Strike on Mon Dec 17, 2012 7:52 am

rdsrds2120 wrote:But doesn't drug proliferation result in increased usage of drugs, i.e., gun proliferation will result in them being used more? So, more total deaths? I'm not convinced that the number of lives saved from being able to stop sporadic shootings is greater than the amount of people killed in more...frequent...homocides/accidental misfires, or, if it's marginally the same, that guns should be advocated.

BMO


Good thing you don't have to be convinced of its benefit in order for such a Constitutional right to be protected.
Image
User avatar
Major Night Strike
 
Posts: 8512
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:52 pm

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby The Bison King on Mon Dec 17, 2012 10:55 am

Phatscotty wrote:The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun

I think you literally have to be in 2nd grade to honestly believe that all humans can either be categorized as either a "good guy" or a "bad guy".
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class The Bison King
 
Posts: 1957
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2009 5:06 pm
Location: the Mid-Westeros

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby warmonger1981 on Mon Dec 17, 2012 2:30 pm

This gun shit is all a front for the government to make more laws to take away the ability to defend ourselves from an over reaching government. A well armed citizen can try to keep the government in check. Why do you think the US government is giving guns to Rebels in the Middle East?????? So the Rebels (once citizens) can overthrow their own government ... It almost make me cry to see how blind people are to the bigger picture. Its really not about guns its about taking away the basic right of a human to defend themselves ..Once guns are banned then it will be any knife over 6 inches or a machete or crossbow. If it was all about saving a persons life alcohol should be illigal because it kills way more people a year. Lets make smoking illigal as well since science says it kills innocent bystandards by second hand smoke. Its all about MONEY AND CONTROLL!!!!!!! A utopian type world will never be as their will always be a way to kill each other. OPEN YOUR EYES PEOPLE.
User avatar
Captain warmonger1981
 
Posts: 2554
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 7:29 pm
Location: ST.PAUL

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby Lootifer on Mon Dec 17, 2012 3:01 pm

Night Strike wrote:
rdsrds2120 wrote:But doesn't drug proliferation result in increased usage of drugs, i.e., gun proliferation will result in them being used more? So, more total deaths? I'm not convinced that the number of lives saved from being able to stop sporadic shootings is greater than the amount of people killed in more...frequent...homocides/accidental misfires, or, if it's marginally the same, that guns should be advocated.

BMO


Good thing you don't have to be convinced of its benefit in order for such a Constitutional right to be protected.

Sounds a lot like blind faith to me.
I go to the gym to justify my mockery of fat people.
User avatar
Lieutenant Lootifer
 
Posts: 1084
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 7:30 pm
Location: Competing

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby Phatscotty on Mon Dec 17, 2012 3:19 pm

rdsrds2120 wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
CreepersWiener wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun


No guns = No bad guys with guns...period.


Isn't that the exact same "logic" as: Drugs are illegal = nobody can get drugs?

:-s


But doesn't drug proliferation result in increased usage of drugs, i.e., gun proliferation will result in them being used more? So, more total deaths? I'm not convinced that the number of lives saved from being able to stop sporadic shootings is greater than the amount of people killed in more...frequent...homocides/accidental misfires, or, if it's marginally the same, that guns should be advocated.

BMO


Actually, death's from gun shot rank among the lowest reasons for deaths in America. Death by medical malpractice is 20 times the rate of death by gunshot
Last edited by Phatscotty on Mon Dec 17, 2012 3:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby Lootifer on Mon Dec 17, 2012 3:20 pm

Thats cause you're all fat and die of heart disease before the local thugs can cap yo fat ass!

(Today is "not take anything seriously" day, FYI)
I go to the gym to justify my mockery of fat people.
User avatar
Lieutenant Lootifer
 
Posts: 1084
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 7:30 pm
Location: Competing

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby Phatscotty on Mon Dec 17, 2012 3:21 pm

The Bison King wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun

I think you literally have to be in 2nd grade to honestly believe that all humans can either be categorized as either a "good guy" or a "bad guy".


all humans? I think only a second grader would try to get away with interchanging 1 good guy and 1 bad guy with "all humans"

Thanks for playing

Image
Last edited by Phatscotty on Mon Dec 17, 2012 3:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby Phatscotty on Mon Dec 17, 2012 3:22 pm

Lootifer wrote:Thats cause you're all fat and die of heart disease before the local thugs can cap yo fat ass!

(Today is "not take anything seriously" day, FYI)


Image

;)
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby Night Strike on Mon Dec 17, 2012 7:45 pm

For Woodruff:

Adam Lanza, 20, who killed 20 children and 6 adults on Friday, has brought incalculable grief to dozens of families and stunned our nation.

Now, the debate begins about what to do in the wake of his carnage in Newtown, Connecticut and the multiple murders in Aurora, Colorado and at Columbine High School, the Red Lake Indian Reservation in Minnesota and the West Nickel Mines School in Pennsylvania, Virginia Tech and Chardon High School in Ohio.

Some will say that gun control is the answer, but that ignores the obvious: Too many guns isn’t the issue; too little mental health care is.

We now have a mental health care system that simply ignores those among us who suffer with incapacitating symptoms of psychiatric illness and whose suffering can—only in a very, very small percentage of cases, thankfully—lead to terrible violence.

-

Focusing on gun control does more than squander the time and effort of our public officials and state resources and town police forces, it distracts us dangerously from the real work that must be done.

America’s mental health care system is shattered and on its knees.

After decades of deconstructing our inpatient psychiatric hospitals and community mental health centers and after decades of insurance companies demanding that they pay only for social workers and nurses to treat even the most extremely mentally ill and potentially violent individuals (rather than including psychologists and psychiatrists) we now have a mental health care system that simply ignores those among us who suffer with incapacitating symptoms of psychiatric illness and whose suffering can—only in a very, very small percentage of cases, thankfully—lead to terrible violence.

What is wrong, exactly?

Here is the truth: Today, even a mentally ill young man with a known propensity for violence, or even a history of serious violence, is likely to receive just an hour a week of counseling (if that) by a social worker.

He is likely have an unclear diagnosis of his condition and to be on a list of constantly changing, very powerful psychoactive medications prescribed by a nurse.

He is also likely to be turned away -- repeatedly --by emergency room social workers who act as gatekeepers for insurance companies to restrict access to inpatient psychiatric treatment.
If admitted to a psychiatric hospital, he will likely be triaged quickly through an often-incompetent ā€œtune upā€ of medications that might accomplish nothing and then be sent back home as soon as he ā€œcontracts for safetyā€ā€”simply promising a social worker that he won’t kill anyone.

That young man’s good parents might well pray that he be arrested for another violent crime so that the terms of his probation might (but probably still wouldn’t) include mandatory visits to a mental health professional (though not always the right one for their child’s needs) and mandatory drug testing. At least then he can be jailed if he refuses all treatment or gets hold of some heroin that could worsen his hallucinations.

Imagine the sort of anemic services made available to someone who clearly needs help, and might well be dwelling on very dark thoughts, but has yet to act out violently.

How could this be? What has happened to render such a great nation so incapable or unwilling -- or both -- of caring for the mentally ill?

The following list is not exhaustive, but, though short, it will give you an important window into just how bad our mental health care system has become and why I can only call it a national disgrace:

1) The essential art of helping understand the roots of psychiatric illness in emotion is not available to the vast majority most families, now being reserved for people who can find the small number of professionals who are expert in that skill set, many of whom would never be paid by insurance companies at all, or given only three or six or a dozen hours to treat a very disturbed patient.

Not only have insurance companies demanded that empathy be dispensed in tiny doses, in favor of ten minute medication appointments, but many, many American training programs for psychiatric residents have responded by curtailing education in that healing art such that most new psychiatrists have never even been in therapy themselves and have limited ability to perform it.

The mental health care system is now itself dangerously devoid of the ability to understand patients’ lives, empathize with their suffering and help them beyond their depression and rage.

The constantly changing, partly insurance-company driven, "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders"—which pretends to accurately describe the range of psychiatric suffering through the use of 300 sterile diagnostic labels (conveniently ready for matching up to medications), is part of the problem, too.

2) The demands of insurance companies, including Medicare and Medicaid and every public insurance program, has been to cram down the educational level of clinicians more and more and more.

People with complex histories of abuse and neglect and extremely toxic interpersonal dynamics are now routinely in the case loads of mental health counselors with little more than college degrees (if that) and social workers and nurses, many of whom are very talented and extremely dedicated people, but many of whom simply do not have the ability or training to do what psychiatrists trained for at least 8 years in medical school and residency could do for them.

3) The holistic view of the patient—essential to understanding his view of himself and others and assessing whether dangerous behavior could result—has all but disappeared, having yielded to simplifying and splitting the patient into someone with some emotional problems who should talk to a counselor about his feelings once a week (or less) and someone who needs medicine to think clearly or stop hallucinating or stop being paranoid who should visit a doctor or nurse ten minutes a month for prescriptions. These two professionals often never speak to one another and never even compare notes via email.

Thus, the crucial subtleties of how medicines are impacting the psyche are ignored and the possibilities for bad results are exponentially increased.

4) The use of inpatient psychiatry units as healing environments in which more sophisticated assessments of psychiatric patients are performed is now mostly relegated to rare hospitals that can cost as much as $20,000 or $40,000 or $80,000 a month, which people must pay for themselves, since insurance companies will not.

Insurance companies will only pay for overcrowded psychiatric units, often in disrepair, in which the violent mentally ill are often lumped into one space (and share rooms) with depressed young adults, drug addicted homeless folks and the elderly suffering with dementia.

Most of these units are revolving doors where someone can assault his mother or threaten to kill her on a Friday and be discharged with a new prescription on Monday.

5) There is no system in place—at all—that routes very sick mentally ill individuals, especially those at risk for violence, to forensic psychiatry professions truly skilled to evaluate them. In any case, the numbers of such professionals are extremely low and their use largely limited to evaluating and treating those who have already committed sex crimes or very violent acts, including murder.

Clinicians in ERs and in clinics, whose resources are already stretched dangerously thin—are loathe to file the paperwork that would force hospitalization on the unwilling or force medications on individuals who need them and refuse them, if they are lucky enough to get hospital care.

6) There is no effective, ongoing line of communication between law enforcement
officials and psychiatry professionals about the status of dangerous patients, even those who have broken the law, already, in very significant ways. The expectation of most probation officers for sex offenders or those mentally ill people charged with violent crimes including guns is a letter faxed to them once a month stating that visits are ongoing—if that. And if the letter were not to arrive, many probation officials would not take notice or take action.

7) In most communities, there are no real psychological/psychiatric resources available within the schools, nor any established and effective line of communication between the schools and outside mental health professionals or agencies.

When I was medical director of the Tri-City Community Mental Health Centers in Massachusetts, I appointed a clinician to act as a liaison to every school we could afford to reach out to. But that was too thin a safety net and a very rare one at that. And centers like Tri-City (where we had 10,000 clients) are so poorly funded that it is an embarrassment.

8) In most states there is no way to arrange court-ordered, involuntary outpatient use of medications (including antipsychotic medications) even if someone is very violent or has reported extremely violent thoughts in the hospital, even if that person is psychotic and also addicted to cocaine or heroin, and even if that person is court-ordered to take such antipsychotic medications in the hospital.

Once that person hits the streets he or she is too often free to never visit a psychiatrist, again, to never take another medication and to never be drug-tested.

That is where we are. And that defines what poses as a mental health care system, but does not merit that label.

It is a cruel ruse to suggest to American families struggling with mentally ill loved ones that they can receive effective and healing psychiatric care without spending tens of thousands or, more likely, hundreds of thousands of dollars to do it.

With the dehumanizing forces of media, entertainment and, especially, technology gathering steam every day, we can expect more and more horrific violence, until we come up with a real strategy and a real system to prevent it.

You might think that the system is so far gone that it cannot be rebuilt and built better than ever. But that is not true. All that stands in the way is a clear plan and clear resolve.
Psychiatry and psychology are amazingly effective disciplines, when properly harnessed and deployed. And it doesn’t even have to cost billions of dollars to do that. Within the week, I will post the rough framework of such a plan here on FoxNews.com.

Until then, when you hear well-meaning politicians or community leaders talk about gun control as a solution to school shootings, remember that Adam Lanza was mentally ill (in a way that I would label as ā€œviolently illā€) in a nation that has no real mental health care system at all, that he used firearms that were legally obtained by his mother and that he could just as easily have used other means to inflict horrible casualties.

We have no time for misplaced efforts. Our will to heal, not bluster, will define how much senseless, horrific, preventable violence we are yet to see in our schools.


http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/12/17/why-cant-america-care-for-mentally-ill/#ixzz2FMNPaUQP
Image
User avatar
Major Night Strike
 
Posts: 8512
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:52 pm

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby spurgistan on Mon Dec 17, 2012 8:52 pm

warmonger1981 wrote:This gun shit is all a front for the government to make more laws to take away the ability to defend ourselves from an over reaching government. A well armed citizen can try to keep the government in check. Why do you think the US government is giving guns to Rebels in the Middle East?????? So the Rebels (once citizens) can overthrow their own government ... It almost make me cry to see how blind people are to the bigger picture. Its really not about guns its about taking away the basic right of a human to defend themselves ..Once guns are banned then it will be any knife over 6 inches or a machete or crossbow. If it was all about saving a persons life alcohol should be illigal because it kills way more people a year. Lets make smoking illigal as well since science says it kills innocent bystandards by second hand smoke. Its all about MONEY AND CONTROLL!!!!!!! A utopian type world will never be as their will always be a way to kill each other. OPEN YOUR EYES PEOPLE.


1) If the government wants more control, why has the overwhelming move over the last 30 years been to liberalize gun laws and increase the overall supply of guns? This isn't opinion. It's a question based on empirical fact.
2) It's always fun to hear survivalists talk about how we need guns to keep government tyranny away. We have a respectable amount of government tyranny (at the very least, our president is black, should be enough for most of them NOT YOU OR ANYBODY IN THIS FORUM, NECESSARILY). We have guns. Nobody's gonna do shit about it. And anyways, Tunisia has had literally one of (if not the, I forget) smallest concentration of guns per capita, and they had themselves an actual tyrant, and he still stood down (also an actual fact).
3) And the fact that the NRA has an extremely strong voice in government has nothing to do with money and/or control, I assume, right?
Mr_Adams wrote:You, sir, are an idiot.


Timminz wrote:By that logic, you eat babies.
Sergeant spurgistan
 
Posts: 1868
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 11:30 pm

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby stahrgazer on Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:32 pm

Woodruff wrote:Well, I'm thoroughly disappointed in this community. I guess I really was wasting my time in thinking that there could be a good discussion about the problems of how mental illness in the United States is viewed and treated, but it's clear that nobody on the conservative side of things here has any interest in it, and even the liberals here don't seem interested in giving it a serious discussion. Most likely because it would cost significant money to help protect those kids, and we can't have that because personal greed is far more important than safety. I guess I was wrong to come to this thread in the hope for it.


Ever listen to Tom Sullivan, conservative talk show host?

He had several mental health professionals on today. Their consensus was that in most cases of multiple homicides, (including shooting, knives, bombs, baseball bats) there are no signs people are going to snap to that extent; they do not appear to be "sociopaths" beforehand. One of the professionals who called also indicated that there's a similar problem with pedofiles. He pointed out an example of a coworker who was well-respected in this field of mental health. One day, no coworker... he'd been arrested for molesting 22 young boys. The man's point was, sometimes there really are no clues until the "snap."

Ted Bundy... nice guy, right? Everyone who "knew" him thought so. Turned out he wasn't so nice after all. BUT THERE WEREN'T REALLY ANY CLUES THAT HIS MIND WAS AS MESSED UP AS IT WAS.

Now, perhaps we can say, "lock everyone with Asperger's.. autism... depression...behind bars in padded cells." Point of fact, we used to do that, in places called, "asylums." The the ACLU came along and said, "Wait. You can't lock people up just because they act a little strange." Everyone acts a little strangely at some point in their lives; but damned few do stuff like this boy did.

As for mass murders, there are less occurring now than there were at the turn of the century; peak year for mass murders was 1929 (probably includes things like Capone's St. Val. Massacre) but before that the U.S. was much bloodier than it is now, even for those that harmed children. The MOST child victims occurred in Michigan, 38 kids dead, not from guns, but from a bomb.

Now, someone pointed out that at gun shows, people don't do the background checks that are usually REQUIRED BY LAW which means those guns were sold and obtained illegally, so we're back to: if guns were outlawed, only outlaws would have guns.

The mother took her boys target shooting to help her bond with them. I doubt she'd have done that if she'd had any clue her eldest was gonna snap, killing her and a bunch of little kids in a school.

Interestingly enough, when the kid heard the cops (who had guns) arrive, that's when he shot himself. Maybe if a teacher or teachers had a gun and he saw it aimed at him, maybe, just maybe, he'd have shot himself before he'd murdered an extra dozen children.

One law enforcement official discussed the fact that more violent crimes are performed in "gun free zones" - like schools - because the twisted cowards who do the acts KNOW that, in a gun-free zone, they've got a lot of sitting ducks, and no one will be able to stop them for a good long while.

Connecticut has one of the most strict sets of laws about buying, owning, using guns; yet this horror took place in Connecticut.

It wasn't the guns. It was a kid who snapped, without enough warning, for anyone to do anything to prevent him from harming others and himself.

It's a human condition, and you can't prevent it or legislate against it.

Those who believe in the Bible or similar religious texts would call it evil. And evil will find a way.

When it found its way to me, I'm sure glad I had a gun to prevent worse than happened to me. And if they make my guns illegal, then I'll just be a criminal owning a gun, cuz I'm NOT giving up my protection!
Image
User avatar
Sergeant stahrgazer
 
Posts: 1411
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 11:59 am
Location: Figment of the Imagination...

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby rdsrds2120 on Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:53 pm

Phatscotty wrote:
rdsrds2120 wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
CreepersWiener wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun


No guns = No bad guys with guns...period.


Isn't that the exact same "logic" as: Drugs are illegal = nobody can get drugs?

:-s


But doesn't drug proliferation result in increased usage of drugs, i.e., gun proliferation will result in them being used more? So, more total deaths? I'm not convinced that the number of lives saved from being able to stop sporadic shootings is greater than the amount of people killed in more...frequent...homocides/accidental misfires, or, if it's marginally the same, that guns should be advocated.

BMO


Actually, death's from gun shot rank among the lowest reasons for deaths in America. Death by medical malpractice is 20 times the rate of death by gunshot


But how does malpractice effect the gun problem? It doesn't. Implying that it could be worse doesn't warrant a free pass from saying it could be better.

BMO
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class rdsrds2120
 
Posts: 6274
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 3:42 am

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby stahrgazer on Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:58 pm

crispybits wrote:Or he would have gone to a playground, or a mall, or a cinema.

Arming the teachers does nothing except (possibly) moving it of of the school buildings. There are plenty of other kid-rich targets out there to go and hit if you want to massacre a lot of kids.

Unless we then arm all the park wardens, and all the mall security guards, and all the cinema ushers.

Or.... remove guns from society. It won't be easy, and it won't be perfect, and it won't be quick, but in the end you'll have a situation where the nutters either just can't get guns or have to take much bigger risks to do so.

There will always be nutters. There will always be guns. What is alarming to many people (and not just resident in America, I have friends there and I visit every year or two so I'm at reduced risk but I still take the risk and people I care about live with the risk every day) is the way it is ridiculously easy for the two to get together. You don't even need to murder or assault anyone, just wait til they go out, break into a house and the majority of the time you'll be able to find a gun somewhere in there.


Or the nutter can use a bomb that he makes at home, like some do.

Interesting you speak of moving to a mall... the recent mall shooter shot himself when he saw one of the mall patrons had pulled HIS gun and was aiming at him which is probably why only a few got shot.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant stahrgazer
 
Posts: 1411
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 11:59 am
Location: Figment of the Imagination...

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby Juan_Bottom on Mon Dec 17, 2012 10:40 pm

Night Strike wrote:Good thing we already have such laws. Why do we need even MORE laws? Where are your calls for MORE limits on free speech, limits on the media, permitting more searches without warrants?

Because the laws that we do have are useless, obviously. As I said, again and again, you can buy any gun you want from a gun show without a background check. Furthermore, you're making it too easy for people with mental health problems to have guns.

Night Strike wrote:No to all of those, especially the first and fourth. You now want to take away the Constitutional rights of people who already sacrifice so much of their time and freedom to take care of those who need extra help? This will simply cause more people with mental issues to either live on the streets or be turned over to the state (although you probably prefer the latter anyway).

So you think that gun owners would rather throw their violently schizophrenic kids out onto the streets than remove their hand guns from their home?
Well now I know that I'm on the right side of the debate.
And, as I said, you already support the privilege for states to decide when and how long to suspend Constitutional rights, in the case of Felons. And you may argue that Felons volunteered to give up their rights, but the Bill of Rights doesn't exactly provide that those rights can be suspended. Hence the reason states all have different methods of punishment.

Night Strike wrote: Because if you don't budge an inch on that, we'll just take away all your other Constitutional rights as well. Your arguments are ludicrous because we have a Constitutional right to own and bear arms.

Not for long.
You refuse to compromise or address the issues. You want to argue that 1800s era-Constitutional Rights to own any gun is more important than the safety of America's children 210 years later, fine. But you're going to lose some of your guns no matter what. Personally I prefer that the nutters don't compromise, so we don't have to compromise either. Congress is going to start passing more gun bans as soon as it meets again. The assault weapons ban of 2009, which the NRA supported, will just be the starting point.

Night Strike wrote: There is no compromise when it comes to rights: the government's sole purpose is to protect those rights from being violated by other people, including the government itself

Here you go again. Nobody argued as hard as you did that gay people don't deserve the right to get married, but you also don't care who gets an assault rifle.
Nice.

Night Strike wrote:The people have already budged well more than an inch as the right to own arms is the most regulated of any Constitutional right. We can't be forced to continue to budge as your nudges are simply pushing us closer and closer to all out bans. It's always "you must compromise here" or "you must give this area up" until every facet of that right is gone from the individual. We can't continue to allow such encroachments on our rights.

My reply ->
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Juan_Bottom
 
Posts: 1110
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: USA RULES! WHOOO!!!!

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby Juan_Bottom on Mon Dec 17, 2012 10:50 pm

stahrgazer wrote:Now, someone pointed out that at gun shows, people don't do the background checks that are usually REQUIRED BY LAW which means those guns were sold and obtained illegally, so we're back to: if guns were outlawed, only outlaws would have guns.

Or, you could stop selling guns directly to criminals at gun shows, by banning gun shows.

No one with serious credibility on either side is talking about an all-out ban on weapons.

stahrgazer wrote:One law enforcement official discussed the fact that more violent crimes are performed in "gun free zones" - like schools - because the twisted cowards who do the acts KNOW that, in a gun-free zone, they've got a lot of sitting ducks, and no one will be able to stop them for a good long while.

Another thing that they have in common is that someone is putting a gun into the hand of a twisted coward.

stahrgazer wrote:It wasn't the guns. It was a kid who snapped, without enough warning, for anyone to do anything to prevent him from harming others and himself.

It's a human condition, and you can't prevent it or legislate against it.

But you can deny easy access to weapons used for mass killings. We do it all the time.
Yet here we are after Connecticut and the nation's gun enthusiasts are offering the defense of "well the occasional school shooting is just the price of freedom." & I don't accept that.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Juan_Bottom
 
Posts: 1110
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: USA RULES! WHOOO!!!!

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby The Bison King on Mon Dec 17, 2012 10:52 pm

Phatscotty wrote:
The Bison King wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun

I think you literally have to be in 2nd grade to honestly believe that all humans can either be categorized as either a "good guy" or a "bad guy".


all humans? I think only a second grader would try to get away with interchanging 1 good guy and 1 bad guy with "all humans"

Thanks for playing

Image

My point is that all people are both good and bad. Good people make bad decisions, and if those people have guns those bad decisions have the potential to be far worse decisions than they would have been otherwise. I'm just saying the world isn't black and white.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class The Bison King
 
Posts: 1957
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2009 5:06 pm
Location: the Mid-Westeros

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby The Bison King on Mon Dec 17, 2012 10:53 pm

If you want to debate gun control seriously you have to shed the notion that someone with out a criminal background isn't capable of criminal action. Point and case James Eagan Holmes. Prior to the Aurora shooting he had no criminal background, no reason to be denied purchase of fire arms, in you're black and white world he would be considered a "good guy". Obviously he made a pretty bad decision and became a "bad guy"
Last edited by The Bison King on Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class The Bison King
 
Posts: 1957
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2009 5:06 pm
Location: the Mid-Westeros

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby warmonger1981 on Mon Dec 17, 2012 11:46 pm

Spurgistan. To answer question #1 thanks to the Constitution helps with that. Its liberals in our country but its mostly the United Nations who really want all guns banned world wide. They have a statue of a gun with the barrel tied in a knot in front of the UN building. #2 The American government is completely out of control in all aspects. I was refering to Syria. #3 Ever heard of lobbyist working to preserve the 2nd amendment for profits to their company.
User avatar
Captain warmonger1981
 
Posts: 2554
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 7:29 pm
Location: ST.PAUL

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby Night Strike on Tue Dec 18, 2012 12:04 am

Juan_Bottom wrote:
Night Strike wrote:Good thing we already have such laws. Why do we need even MORE laws? Where are your calls for MORE limits on free speech, limits on the media, permitting more searches without warrants?

Because the laws that we do have are useless, obviously. As I said, again and again, you can buy any gun you want from a gun show without a background check. Furthermore, you're making it too easy for people with mental health problems to have guns.


Because the liberal bastion of the ACLU effectively banned involuntary treatment of mental illnesses and replaced it with an over-medicated population.

Juan_Bottom wrote:
Night Strike wrote:No to all of those, especially the first and fourth. You now want to take away the Constitutional rights of people who already sacrifice so much of their time and freedom to take care of those who need extra help? This will simply cause more people with mental issues to either live on the streets or be turned over to the state (although you probably prefer the latter anyway).

So you think that gun owners would rather throw their violently schizophrenic kids out onto the streets than remove their hand guns from their home?
Well now I know that I'm on the right side of the debate.


People don't lose their Constitutional rights simply because they have the wrong type of kid.


Juan_Bottom wrote:
Night Strike wrote: Because if you don't budge an inch on that, we'll just take away all your other Constitutional rights as well. Your arguments are ludicrous because we have a Constitutional right to own and bear arms.

Not for long.
You refuse to compromise or address the issues. You want to argue that 1800s era-Constitutional Rights to own any gun is more important than the safety of America's children 210 years later, fine. But you're going to lose some of your guns no matter what. Personally I prefer that the nutters don't compromise, so we don't have to compromise either. Congress is going to start passing more gun bans as soon as it meets again. The assault weapons ban of 2009, which the NRA supported, will just be the starting point.


We already have plenty of laws restricting gun ownership in addition to mandatory registrations of all guns people owned (which means the government has the ability to track personal property). When does the compromising to enact more and more restrictions end? If we compromise to pass more restrictions and those restrictions don't work (and they won't), you'll be demanding we make more compromises on more restrictions. Owning a gun is a fundamental Constitutional right, and will remain such until it is repealed. It has nothing to do with the year it was passed because it's an inalienable right.
Image
User avatar
Major Night Strike
 
Posts: 8512
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:52 pm

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby Metsfanmax on Tue Dec 18, 2012 12:06 am

Night Strike wrote:Because the liberal bastion of the ACLU effectively banned involuntary treatment of mental illnesses and replaced it with an over-medicated population.


Silly liberals, thinking that liberty is an inalienable constitutional right.

Oh, wait...
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby Juan_Bottom on Tue Dec 18, 2012 12:41 am

Metsfanmax wrote:
Night Strike wrote:Because the liberal bastion of the ACLU effectively banned involuntary treatment of mental illnesses and replaced it with an over-medicated population.


Silly liberals, thinking that liberty is an inalienable constitutional right.

Oh, wait...

I laughed out loud.
To recap, NS will fight to prevent homosexuals from being married, and he will fight so that anyone can buy any gun. And he also believes in forced treatment of mental illnesses.
And he's trying his very best to explain what rights are to us.


Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Juan_Bottom
 
Posts: 1110
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: USA RULES! WHOOO!!!!

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby TA1LGUNN3R on Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:10 am

Lookit, I'm all for guns for self-defense, but PS and NS et al, you're deluded if you think that owning some rifles and a handgun is gonna save you from the U.S. gov't. If some ridiculous scenario plays out as you say and the feds hammer down on you, you're gonna get shot down, plain and simple. Cops won't even ask questions, they'll shoot you and frame you. You live in a dream world.

-TG
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class TA1LGUNN3R
 
Posts: 2699
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 12:52 am
Location: 22 Acacia Avenue

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

Postby Nobunaga on Tue Dec 18, 2012 7:12 am

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:Lookit, I'm all for guns for self-defense, but PS and NS et al, you're deluded if you think that owning some rifles and a handgun is gonna save you from the U.S. gov't. If some ridiculous scenario plays out as you say and the feds hammer down on you, you're gonna get shot down, plain and simple. Cops won't even ask questions, they'll shoot you and frame you. You live in a dream world.

-TG


If and when the government turns its weapons on its own citizens, even liberals may begin to rethink things. Of course many of them will cheer, "KILL EM! KILL EM' ALL! Damned flag-wavin' bible-thumpin' anti-labor, pro-"personal responsibility hillbillies!... KILL THEIR KIDS, TOO!"

But it couldn't continue for long. The nation would not survive it.

How many soldiers would continue to kill citizens before just quitting, or signing up with the opposition? How many military commanders would carry out orders to kill citizens... damned few I would guess.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Nobunaga
 
Posts: 1058
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 10:09 am
Location: West of Osaka

PreviousNext

Return to Acceptable Content

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users