Gunman opens fire at Oregon college in mass killing

[billisonboard]

Oct 11, 2015 20:00:26 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

...

Let the state put them in. ...

...

See how state regulations might not be that effective for an urban area like St. Louis?

[Tennesseer]

Or worse.  Memphis is the third most violent city in the country.

[tallguy]

U.S. health researchers began to take a hard look at gun violence about 30 years ago, when firearm homicide rates were climbing to what were described as epidemic proportions.

"The line is: 'If it's not a public health issue, why are so many people dying?'" said Philip Cook, a Duke University economist who in the 1970s began studying the impact of guns on society.

The CDC, the federal government's lead agency for the detection and prevention of health threats, took an early leading role in fostering more research into violence. But beginning in the 1980s, the National Rifle Association tried to discredit CDC-funded studies, accusing the agency and the researchers the agency funded of incompetence and falsifying data.

NRA officials in Washington did not respond to repeated AP requests for comment for this story.

In 1996, lawmakers sympathetic to the NRA took the $2.6 million CDC had budgeted for firearm injury research and earmarked it for traumatic brain injury. Congressional Republicans also included language directing that no CDC injury research funding could go to research that might be used, in whole or in part, to advocate or promote gun control.

Exactly what that language meant wasn't clear. But CDC officials, aware of how vulnerable their injury research center was becoming, ultimately adopted a conservative interpretation. The agency ceased to be the main engine driving gun violence research.

Then came the December 2012 carnage in Newtown, Connecticut, where a an armed 20-year-old man entered an elementary school and used a semiautomatic rifle to slay 20 first graders and six adult school staff members before killing himself. It was the deadliest mass slaying at a school in U.S. history.

The White House directed the CDC to research the causes and prevention of gun violence. The actions included a call for Congress to provide $10 million to the CDC for gun violence research. The prestigious Institute of Medicine convened a special committee of experts to develop a research agenda.

But Congress did not budget money to the CDC for gun violence research. It didn't strip away the legislative language that had chilled CDC activity on guns, either. The research agenda was not formally adopted by anybody.

Gun violence researchers becoming an endangered species?

How can we expect lawmakers to enact legislation (even fairly simple and publicly-favored things like background checks) if they are too cowed to even allow RESEARCH?

[Virgil Showlion]

tallguy, billisonboard, Tennesseer: Two wrongs don't make a right.

I don't like fact that lobbies may have swayed state legislatures away from public opinion any more than you do, but i) public opinion appears to be, at best, split, and ii) the impact of gun control measures is nowhere near critical enough to justify a heavy-handed response from the federal government.

Think of the bright side: If somewhere down the line studies come out proving that measures like background checks and mental illness checks are a big fat placebo, which I contend is almost certainly the case, and some federal administration gets it in their heads that such measures are unconstitutional and must be lifted nation-wide, you'll have an ally in Virgil telling them to butt out. Furthermore, you'll no doubt be glad at that point that no precedent exists whereby a federal administration mandated nationwide gun control laws by EO.

I've oft quoted Napoleon: "A man will fight harder for his interests than his rights."  Don't. State sovereignty is valuable.

[Deleted]

Oct 11, 2015 18:54:49 GMT -5 tallguy said:

You'll have to do better than 44%. Give it time.

The relevant takeaway is that 44% of Texas gun owners wanted gun laws to be more strict, while only 16% wanted them to be less so.  That means that of those who professed a desire for change in gun laws, 73% wanted them to be made more stringent.  If Texas is indeed the most gun-crazy state, does that not indicate to you that current laws are overbroad in what they allow?  And again, that is of gun owners.  The number as pertains to the general public is substantially higher.

Pro-gun groups tried to spin it as 52% being against gun control.  The opposing view is that 80% are against looser gun laws.  Should I guess which view you would hold? 

That 44% of any group wants to limit others is not saying anything good about that 44%.

 --% of Texas gun owners want  laws to restrict-----. It is not their right to restrict guns or -----.

I and you  have a God given right to self protection and self defense.  I and you have a God given right to freedoms.  (*&^ that 44% who wants to take away those freedoms and rights.  Mine  are not theirs to give away.

[billisonboard]

Oct 12, 2015 4:28:21 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

tallguy, billisonboard, Tennesseer: Two wrongs don't make a right.

I don't like fact that lobbies may have swayed state legislatures away from public opinion any more than you do, but i) public opinion appears to be, at best, split, and ii) the impact of gun control measures is nowhere near critical enough to justify a heavy-handed response from the federal government.

Think of the bright side: If somewhere down the line studies come out proving that measures like background checks and mental illness checks are a big fat placebo, which I contend is almost certainly the case, and some federal administration gets it in their heads that such measures are unconstitutional and must be lifted nation-wide, you'll have an ally in Virgil telling them to butt out. Furthermore, you'll no doubt be glad at that point that no precedent exists whereby a federal administration mandated nationwide gun control laws by EO.

I've oft quoted Napoleon: "A man will fight harder for his interests than his rights."  Don't. State sovereignty is valuable.

I don't support any action by Executive Order. I am indifferent to cosmetic federal action. I believe nothing short of a widespread shift in the national mindset which would allow for following the constitutionally established procedure to repeal the Second Amendment and changing gun possession from a right to a privilege will make a difference. FWIW, I don't believe we are anywhere close to that shift in mindset. I am not sure we will ever get there and I certainly don't see it happening in my lifetime.

I just like to point out that the argument that city "X" or state "Y" has strict laws but has high gun violence so it proves the laws don't work is absurd when one can walk unrestricted across an imaginary line to an area without strict laws.

Again FWIW, I interned with the Idaho state legislature when in college. I have less admiration for the institution for the experience.

[The Walk of the Penguin Mich]

Oct 11, 2015 22:03:58 GMT -5 tallguy said:

U.S. health researchers began to take a hard look at gun violence about 30 years ago, when firearm homicide rates were climbing to what were described as epidemic proportions.

"The line is: 'If it's not a public health issue, why are so many people dying?'" said Philip Cook, a Duke University economist who in the 1970s began studying the impact of guns on society.

The CDC, the federal government's lead agency for the detection and prevention of health threats, took an early leading role in fostering more research into violence. But beginning in the 1980s, the National Rifle Association tried to discredit CDC-funded studies, accusing the agency and the researchers the agency funded of incompetence and falsifying data.

NRA officials in Washington did not respond to repeated AP requests for comment for this story.

In 1996, lawmakers sympathetic to the NRA took the $2.6 million CDC had budgeted for firearm injury research and earmarked it for traumatic brain injury. Congressional Republicans also included language directing that no CDC injury research funding could go to research that might be used, in whole or in part, to advocate or promote gun control.

Exactly what that language meant wasn't clear. But CDC officials, aware of how vulnerable their injury research center was becoming, ultimately adopted a conservative interpretation. The agency ceased to be the main engine driving gun violence research.

Then came the December 2012 carnage in Newtown, Connecticut, where a an armed 20-year-old man entered an elementary school and used a semiautomatic rifle to slay 20 first graders and six adult school staff members before killing himself. It was the deadliest mass slaying at a school in U.S. history.

The White House directed the CDC to research the causes and prevention of gun violence. The actions included a call for Congress to provide $10 million to the CDC for gun violence research. The prestigious Institute of Medicine convened a special committee of experts to develop a research agenda.

But Congress did not budget money to the CDC for gun violence research. It didn't strip away the legislative language that had chilled CDC activity on guns, either. The research agenda was not formally adopted by anybody.

Gun violence researchers becoming an endangered species?

How can we expect lawmakers to enact legislation (even fairly simple and publicly-favored things like background checks) if they are too cowed to even allow RESEARCH?

Research funding has dried up everywhere.  In biomedical research, we go for industrial support when the federal support decreases.  It's not as if there are not large corporations that are against guns, but the researchers need to go banging the doors for money.


money.cnn.com/2014/08/26/technology/gates-gun-control/

[Deleted]

Oct 11, 2015 22:03:58 GMT -5 tallguy said:

U.S. health researchers began to take a hard look at gun violence about 30 years ago, when firearm homicide rates were climbing to what were described as epidemic proportions.

"The line is: 'If it's not a public health issue, why are so many people dying?'" said Philip Cook, a Duke University economist who in the 1970s began studying the impact of guns on society.

The CDC, the federal government's lead agency for the detection and prevention of health threats, took an early leading role in fostering more research into violence. But beginning in the 1980s, the National Rifle Association tried to discredit CDC-funded studies, accusing the agency and the researchers the agency funded of incompetence and falsifying data.

NRA officials in Washington did not respond to repeated AP requests for comment for this story.

In 1996, lawmakers sympathetic to the NRA took the $2.6 million CDC had budgeted for firearm injury research and earmarked it for traumatic brain injury. Congressional Republicans also included language directing that no CDC injury research funding could go to research that might be used, in whole or in part, to advocate or promote gun control.

Exactly what that language meant wasn't clear. But CDC officials, aware of how vulnerable their injury research center was becoming, ultimately adopted a conservative interpretation. The agency ceased to be the main engine driving gun violence research.

Then came the December 2012 carnage in Newtown, Connecticut, where a an armed 20-year-old man entered an elementary school and used a semiautomatic rifle to slay 20 first graders and six adult school staff members before killing himself. It was the deadliest mass slaying at a school in U.S. history.

The White House directed the CDC to research the causes and prevention of gun violence. The actions included a call for Congress to provide $10 million to the CDC for gun violence research. The prestigious Institute of Medicine convened a special committee of experts to develop a research agenda.

But Congress did not budget money to the CDC for gun violence research. It didn't strip away the legislative language that had chilled CDC activity on guns, either. The research agenda was not formally adopted by anybody.

Gun violence researchers becoming an endangered species?

How can we expect lawmakers to enact legislation (even fairly simple and publicly-favored things like background checks) if they are too cowed to even allow RESEARCH?

What if the research showed that black populated neighborhoods were more dangerous when guns were there?  Would you expect lawmakers to be able to respond to that?  Posters here seem okay with denial of rights.

[happyhoix]

Oct 10, 2015 20:06:44 GMT -5 @hickle said:

Oct 10, 2015 20:01:47 GMT -5 tallguy said:

I don't listen to arguments from the fringe, and would never be persuaded by them.  I am perfectly comfortable putting the odds of that happening at virtually zero.  You can listen to whoever you want.  Doesn't make it any more likely.

I go to a website where the blogger said that he left New York, I think.  They changed the laws and made certain types of guns outlawed.  He had moved to Montana, and did not respond to the law.  New York officials expected him to conform to the new laws. He had mail forwarded to him or something. He wasnt allowed that gun in that state anymore and the state meant to enforce that.

I could be wrong that it was New York.  It was one of those north eastern states that banned some stuff after Sandy Hook.

It is not an argument from the fringe.  It is recent history.  Does that story not make sense?  It does to me.

Do you think the government makes you register your car so that they can come confiscate your car?

[Deleted]

Oct 12, 2015 13:15:50 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Oct 10, 2015 20:06:44 GMT -5 @hickle said:

I go to a website where the blogger said that he left New York, I think.  They changed the laws and made certain types of guns outlawed.  He had moved to Montana, and did not respond to the law.  New York officials expected him to conform to the new laws. He had mail forwarded to him or something. He wasnt allowed that gun in that state anymore and the state meant to enforce that.

I could be wrong that it was New York.  It was one of those north eastern states that banned some stuff after Sandy Hook.

It is not an argument from the fringe.  It is recent history.  Does that story not make sense?  It does to me.

Do you think the government makes you register your car so that they can come confiscate your car?

I gave a real life example of where registering a gun resulted in government coming and trying to take away someone's gun.

[happyhoix]

I'm guessing the 78% in favour of mental health background checks don't realize how many people would be excluded from owning firearms. In truth, I don't even know how "mental illness checks" would work. Would anybody who's ever been to a psychiatrist, or anybody prescribed an antidepressant/antianxiety pill be blacklisted from owning a gun? If so, there goes 60% of the population right away.

We have rules that say you have to be physically able to drive a car. Does this mean if you are in a wheelchair you can't drive a car? If you don't have 20 20 vision you can't drive a car? Obviously, if we were to do some kind of mental health check, it wouldn't be looking for someone who gets depressed sometimes, or someone who is obsessive compulsive. The screen would just be for people who have expressed the wish to harm people, or who have acted in a violent/psychotic way in the past.

What else is there in a mental illness background check? Anything said to a psychiatrist is protected and confidential, for good reason. If patients express violent thoughts or tendencies, I see no way for psychiatrists to disclose facts like this to authorities without violating that privilege. That kind of disclosure would undermine trust, and if there's no trust, there's no reason to speak forthrightly to a psychiatrist.

To help try to pick up on child abuse, there is a law that requires certain types of people to notify the police if they suspect child abuse is occurring. Teachers, child care workers, doctors and nurses are all mandatory reporters, and must have training from their employers on how to detect child abuse. If they do NOT report it, and later it was determined that they must have had some idea what was happening, they can be prosecuted. I'm not a Catholic, but I think even the Catholic church has a way for priests to report child abuse (probably by reporting what they have seen on the child, rather than what was said in the confessional).

It would be easy to make the same kind of law for mentally ill people. Some guy tells his therapist he has an irresistible urge to bring a weapon to church. Or some college student submits a picture of a mass murder as his art project, or he tells his school advisor that he hates his Jewish roommate and really wants to kill a lot of Jews. Make a law that they are mandatory reporters.

And seriously, the kinds of people who are so mentally disturbed the think mass slayings are a fun thing to do aren't going to be hung up on whether or not they can trust their therapist. They're in the state of mind where they probably think people would applaud their desire to murder.

[Deleted]

do you think that if government wanted to take certain guns away from people, that they would appreciate a list of who has those guns?

[billisonboard]

.

Oct 10, 2015 20:06:44 GMT -5 @hickle said:

I go to a website where the blogger said that he left New York, I think.  They changed the laws and made certain types of guns outlawed.  He had moved to Montana, and did not respond to the law.  New York officials expected him to conform to the new laws. He had mail forwarded to him or something. He wasnt allowed that gun in that state anymore and the state meant to enforce that.

I could be wrong that it was New York.  It was one of those north eastern states that banned some stuff after Sandy Hook.

It is not an argument from the fringe.  It is recent history.  Does that story not make sense?  It does to me.

Oct 12, 2015 13:25:41 GMT -5 @hickle said:

...

I gave a real life example of where registering a gun resulted in government coming and trying to take away someone's gun.

You posted that some blogger from some state posted he got a letter or something.

[happyhoix]

Oct 12, 2015 13:25:41 GMT -5 @hickle said:

Oct 12, 2015 13:15:50 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Do you think the government makes you register your car so that they can come confiscate your car?

I gave a real life example of where registering a gun resulted in government coming and trying to take away someone's gun.

You have one real life example of one gun that a state government was trying to take away.

What about all the other millions of guns Americans own? How many registered guns per year does the government attempt to take away? I have never once heard of that ever happening  - ever - and I know lots of people own lots of guns.

More NRA bullet points designed to stir the masses and create paranoia among gun owners.

[Deleted]

Oct 12, 2015 13:31:25 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

I'm guessing the 78% in favour of mental health background checks don't realize how many people would be excluded from owning firearms. In truth, I don't even know how "mental illness checks" would work. Would anybody who's ever been to a psychiatrist, or anybody prescribed an antidepressant/antianxiety pill be blacklisted from owning a gun? If so, there goes 60% of the population right away.

We have rules that say you have to be physically able to drive a car. Does this mean if you are in a wheelchair you can't drive a car? If you don't have 20 20 vision you can't drive a car? Obviously, if we were to do some kind of mental health check, it wouldn't be looking for someone who gets depressed sometimes, or someone who is obsessive compulsive. The screen would just be for people who have expressed the wish to harm people, or who have acted in a violent/psychotic way in the past.

What else is there in a mental illness background check? Anything said to a psychiatrist is protected and confidential, for good reason. If patients express violent thoughts or tendencies, I see no way for psychiatrists to disclose facts like this to authorities without violating that privilege. That kind of disclosure would undermine trust, and if there's no trust, there's no reason to speak forthrightly to a psychiatrist.

To help try to pick up on child abuse, there is a law that requires certain types of people to notify the police if they suspect child abuse is occurring. Teachers, child care workers, doctors and nurses are all mandatory reporters, and must have training from their employers on how to detect child abuse. If they do NOT report it, and later it was determined that they must have had some idea what was happening, they can be prosecuted. I'm not a Catholic, but I think even the Catholic church has a way for priests to report child abuse (probably by reporting what they have seen on the child, rather than what was said in the confessional).

It would be easy to make the same kind of law for mentally ill people. Some guy tells his therapist he has an irresistible urge to bring a weapon to church. Or some college student submits a picture of a mass murder as his art project, or he tells his school advisor that he hates his Jewish roommate and really wants to kill a lot of Jews. Make a law that they are mandatory reporters.

And seriously, the kinds of people who are so mentally disturbed the think mass slayings are a fun thing to do aren't going to be hung up on whether or not they can trust their therapist. They're in the state of mind where they probably think people would applaud their desire to murder.

I have a problem with depression and I almost did not go to my doctor to ask for anti-depressents because I do not want that to be known on some national health index.  It is hard for some people to ask for mental health.  Your idea would make it even more unlikely for some to ask for the help they need.

[happyhoix]

Oct 12, 2015 13:31:29 GMT -5 @hickle said:

do you think that if government wanted to take certain guns away from people, that they would appreciate a list of who has those guns?

Can you think of a reason why the government would want a list of registered fire arms that does not involve the government wanting to seize your weapons?

I'll give you a hint. When you watch Law and Order and the cops find a gun, what's the first thing they do to it?

[Deleted]

Oct 12, 2015 13:34:34 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Oct 12, 2015 13:25:41 GMT -5 @hickle said:

I gave a real life example of where registering a gun resulted in government coming and trying to take away someone's gun.

You have one real life example of one gun that a state government was trying to take away.

What about all the other millions of guns Americans own? How many registered guns per year does the government attempt to take away? I have never once heard of that ever happening  - ever - and I know lots of people own lots of guns.

More NRA bullet points designed to stir the masses and create paranoia among gun owners.

I am pretty sure it was not just the one guy.  Are you saying that state governments that change what guns are allowed do not look at lists to see if people comply with the new laws?

[happyhoix]

Oct 12, 2015 13:35:37 GMT -5 @hickle said:

Oct 12, 2015 13:31:25 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

We have rules that say you have to be physically able to drive a car. Does this mean if you are in a wheelchair you can't drive a car? If you don't have 20 20 vision you can't drive a car? Obviously, if we were to do some kind of mental health check, it wouldn't be looking for someone who gets depressed sometimes, or someone who is obsessive compulsive. The screen would just be for people who have expressed the wish to harm people, or who have acted in a violent/psychotic way in the past.


To help try to pick up on child abuse, there is a law that requires certain types of people to notify the police if they suspect child abuse is occurring. Teachers, child care workers, doctors and nurses are all mandatory reporters, and must have training from their employers on how to detect child abuse. If they do NOT report it, and later it was determined that they must have had some idea what was happening, they can be prosecuted. I'm not a Catholic, but I think even the Catholic church has a way for priests to report child abuse (probably by reporting what they have seen on the child, rather than what was said in the confessional).

It would be easy to make the same kind of law for mentally ill people. Some guy tells his therapist he has an irresistible urge to bring a weapon to church. Or some college student submits a picture of a mass murder as his art project, or he tells his school advisor that he hates his Jewish roommate and really wants to kill a lot of Jews. Make a law that they are mandatory reporters.

And seriously, the kinds of people who are so mentally disturbed the think mass slayings are a fun thing to do aren't going to be hung up on whether or not they can trust their therapist. They're in the state of mind where they probably think people would applaud their desire to murder.

I have a problem with depression and I almost did not go to my doctor to ask for anti-depressents because I do not want that to be known on some national health index.  It is hard for some people to ask for mental health.  Your idea would make it even more unlikely for some to ask for the help they need.

It might. But my idea could also mean that some fraction of these mass murders could be caught before they happen. What's better for society in general?

[Deleted]

Oct 12, 2015 13:36:49 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Oct 12, 2015 13:31:29 GMT -5 @hickle said:

do you think that if government wanted to take certain guns away from people, that they would appreciate a list of who has those guns?

Can you think of a reason why the government would want a list of registered fire arms that does not involve the government wanting to seize your weapons?

I'll give you a hint. When you watch Law and Order and the cops find a gun, what's the first thing they do to it?

None of my guns have ever been used in a murder.  I am pretty sure that is true of most guns.  I imagine the people on Law and Order would like DNA samples too, doesnt mean they should have them.   The people on Law and Order often want to know who the victim slept with last, maybe we should get a government database of that.  What the government wants and what they have rights to are two different things.

[Deleted]

Oct 12, 2015 13:40:24 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Oct 12, 2015 13:35:37 GMT -5 @hickle said:

I have a problem with depression and I almost did not go to my doctor to ask for anti-depressents because I do not want that to be known on some national health index.  It is hard for some people to ask for mental health.  Your idea would make it even more unlikely for some to ask for the help they need.

It might. But my idea could also mean that some fraction of these mass murders could be caught before they happen. What's better for society in general?

Freedom from government dictates.

eta:  Your first sentence would be more correct if you changed "might" to "definitely would".

[happyhoix]

Oct 12, 2015 13:37:15 GMT -5 @hickle said:

Oct 12, 2015 13:34:34 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

You have one real life example of one gun that a state government was trying to take away.

What about all the other millions of guns Americans own? How many registered guns per year does the government attempt to take away? I have never once heard of that ever happening  - ever - and I know lots of people own lots of guns.

More NRA bullet points designed to stir the masses and create paranoia among gun owners.

I am pretty sure it was not just the one guy.  Are you saying that state governments that change what guns are allowed do not look at lists to see if people comply with the new laws?

You're pretty sure?

I'm not getting worked up about one guy, somewhere, that once had a letter from his state asking him about his weapon. That unhappiness of that one guy is far outweighed by the advantages of having a registry of weapons that the police can access when someone is murdered (or when many people are murdered) and they are trying to trace back how those weapons got into the murderer's hands.

[happyhoix]

Oct 12, 2015 13:41:16 GMT -5 @hickle said:

Oct 12, 2015 13:36:49 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Can you think of a reason why the government would want a list of registered fire arms that does not involve the government wanting to seize your weapons?

I'll give you a hint. When you watch Law and Order and the cops find a gun, what's the first thing they do to it?

None of my guns have ever been used in a murder.  I am pretty sure that is true of most guns.  I imagine the people on Law and Order would like DNA samples too, doesnt mean they should have them.   The people on Law and Order often want to know who the victim slept with last, maybe we should get a government database of that.  What the government wants and what they have rights to are two different things.

You realize the government already has a DNA database and that many criminals are convicted that way (and many innocent people have been released through DNA testing)?

They can arrest a guy for one crime and find out he's a serial rapist - do you think that's bad for society that they can do that?

[happyhoix]

Oct 12, 2015 13:42:01 GMT -5 @hickle said:

Oct 12, 2015 13:40:24 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

It might. But my idea could also mean that some fraction of these mass murders could be caught before they happen. What's better for society in general?

Freedom from government dictates.

eta:  Your first sentence would be more correct if you changed "might" to "definitely would".

The rights of the many have to be weighed against the rights of the few.

A mass murderer might be unhappy his rights are violated because his therapists snitched on him to the cops. Does his right to privacy outweigh the rights of his potential victims to the right of life and liberty? Or must we wait until he murders 20 people before we infringe on his rights?

[Deleted]

Oct 12, 2015 13:49:06 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Oct 12, 2015 13:41:16 GMT -5 @hickle said:

None of my guns have ever been used in a murder.  I am pretty sure that is true of most guns.  I imagine the people on Law and Order would like DNA samples too, doesnt mean they should have them.   The people on Law and Order often want to know who the victim slept with last, maybe we should get a government database of that.  What the government wants and what they have rights to are two different things.

You realize the government already has a DNA database and that many criminals are convicted that way (and many innocent people have been released through DNA testing)?

They can arrest a guy for one crime and find out he's a serial rapist - do you think that's bad for society that they can do that?

The police cannot demand my DNA without probable cause or a court order.  Yes I think that is a good idea and good for society.  DNA is having some problems these days.  Some DNA tests that were labeled one in a million were tested a second time and showed one in thirty. Somehow the government screwed up the testing and put people at risk of wrong evidence.

I am pretty close to anarchist on what the government should be allowed.  Certainly not a list of my guns or my fingerprints or DNA or phone records or etc.  If you want the government to have a list of your guns send them one.   Send them some spent bullets so they can get the rifling data.   Do whatever you want with your rights.  You do not have the right to dismiss my or anyone else's rights just for you to feel safer.  My opinion.

[Deleted]

Oct 12, 2015 13:51:22 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Oct 12, 2015 13:42:01 GMT -5 @hickle said:

Freedom from government dictates.

eta:  Your first sentence would be more correct if you changed "might" to "definitely would".

The rights of the many have to be weighed against the rights of the few.

A mass murderer might be unhappy his rights are violated because his therapists snitched on him to the cops. Does his right to privacy outweigh the rights of his potential victims to the right of life and liberty? Or must we wait until he murders 20 people before we infringe on his rights?

Unintended consequences exist whether you want to admit them or not.  If a therapist snitches on one and ten do not seek the help they need is that okay with you?  Should priests be made to snitch?

[djAdvocate]

Oct 12, 2015 13:15:50 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Oct 10, 2015 20:06:44 GMT -5 @hickle said:

I go to a website where the blogger said that he left New York, I think.  They changed the laws and made certain types of guns outlawed.  He had moved to Montana, and did not respond to the law.  New York officials expected him to conform to the new laws. He had mail forwarded to him or something. He wasnt allowed that gun in that state anymore and the state meant to enforce that.

I could be wrong that it was New York.  It was one of those north eastern states that banned some stuff after Sandy Hook.

It is not an argument from the fringe.  It is recent history.  Does that story not make sense?  It does to me.

Do you think the government makes you register your car so that they can come confiscate your car?

if you have a history of drunk driving, or running down pedestrians?  you betcha.

why should guns be any different?

[weltschmerz]

Oct 10, 2015 20:06:44 GMT -5 @hickle said:

Oct 10, 2015 20:01:47 GMT -5 tallguy said:

I don't listen to arguments from the fringe, and would never be persuaded by them.  I am perfectly comfortable putting the odds of that happening at virtually zero.  You can listen to whoever you want.  Doesn't make it any more likely.

I go to a website where the blogger said that he left New York, I think.  They changed the laws and made certain types of guns outlawed.  He had moved to Montana, and did not respond to the law.  New York officials expected him to conform to the new laws. He had mail forwarded to him or something. He wasnt allowed that gun in that state anymore and the state meant to enforce that.

I could be wrong that it was New York.  It was one of those north eastern states that banned some stuff after Sandy Hook.

It is not an argument from the fringe.  It is recent history.  Does that story not make sense?  It does to me.

You sure about that? A banning assault weapons bill was proposed, but failed to pass. What, exactly, was banned?

[djAdvocate]

Oct 12, 2015 14:55:03 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Oct 10, 2015 20:06:44 GMT -5 @hickle said:

I go to a website where the blogger said that he left New York, I think.  They changed the laws and made certain types of guns outlawed.  He had moved to Montana, and did not respond to the law.  New York officials expected him to conform to the new laws. He had mail forwarded to him or something. He wasnt allowed that gun in that state anymore and the state meant to enforce that.

I could be wrong that it was New York.  It was one of those north eastern states that banned some stuff after Sandy Hook.

It is not an argument from the fringe.  It is recent history.  Does that story not make sense?  It does to me.

You sure about that? A banning assault weapons bill was proposed, but failed to pass. What, exactly, was banned?

clear thinking.

[Tennesseer]

Oct 12, 2015 13:25:41 GMT -5 @hickle said:

Oct 12, 2015 13:15:50 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Do you think the government makes you register your car so that they can come confiscate your car?

I gave a real life example of where registering a gun resulted in government coming and trying to take away someone's gun.

You gave an example from a blog writer. Do you believe everything you read in blogs? I don't.

[weltschmerz]

I gave a real life example of where registering a gun resulted in government coming and trying to take away someone's gun

No, you didn't. You gave an anecdote about some guy, somewhere, but you're not sure where.

Then you doubled down by saying they banned certain guns somewhere, but again, not sure what guns or where.