fishy999
Familiar Member
Joined: Aug 9, 2015 20:40:43 GMT -5
Posts: 629
|
Post by fishy999 on Oct 15, 2015 20:34:54 GMT -5
I wasn't talking about hunting. OK, let's talk about mass shootings. Do you think the Sandy Hook shooter would have been able to kill 26 people in 5 minutes if armed only with a knife, crossbow, box-cutter, etc.? Without someone tackling him to take him down? I don't. Removing the tool (from those who have indicated an inability to responsibly handle it) may not change a killer's innate desire to kill, but it can at least mitigate the collateral damage. Exactly. In fact many times mass shooters are stopped by good guys without guns- tackled when they are reloading. So with that in mind- does banning magazines that hold hundreds of rounds make citizens 'defenseless'? Sounds like a good start to attacking the problem of these incidents since they are the favorite tool used.
|
|
mollyc
Familiar Member
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 2:12:25 GMT -5
Posts: 874
|
Post by mollyc on Oct 16, 2015 1:26:27 GMT -5
Whenever people talk about teachers having guns in the classroom, I think of incidents like what happened on Thursday. Man Injured, Bear KilledThe short version is Bear wanders into tent and bites nearest hunter. Second hunter can't make head shot as bullet will likely pass through and hit his friend. Second hunter shoots Bear in stomach. Somehow bullet hits friend in elbow anyway. Some fun ensues in camp until other hunters are able to get clear shots and take out wounded bear.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,934
|
Post by happyhoix on Oct 16, 2015 7:17:45 GMT -5
Yes, Mollyc, that's what I think about, too.
Even well trained people hit folks in the crossfire. There was a cop in Baltimore who responded to a woman calling for an ambulance. As he approached the house, he claimed her dog ran at him. He fired his weapon at the dog, missed, and struck her four year old daughter in the leg. It shattered her bone. She survived but will probably always limp. All because her mom cut herself on some glass, was bleeding a lot, and called for an ambulance.
This was a trained cop, trained with a gun, trained in cross fire situations, and someone who carried a gun all day every day.
Give a teacher a gun, maybe she uses it once every ten years, and then she's firing in a room full of other kids plus a shooter - and add on top of that, the police showing up while a gun fight is in progress. Who will the police shoot? Probably anyone with a gun, including the teacher.
I think proponents of the idea of guns in school think the teachers will be able to respond like Clint Eastwood or Rambo in the event of a school shooting - when in fact, it's more likely to be a bloody and tragic version of a three stooges short.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Oct 16, 2015 15:13:15 GMT -5
The truth of the matter is that for all the challenges we face, all the problems that we have,...if you had to choose any moment to be born in human history, not knowing what your position was going to be, who you were going to be, you'd choose this time. The world is less violent than it has ever been. It is healthier than it has ever been. It is more tolerant than it has ever been. It is better fed then it's ever been. It is more educated than it's ever been.
Terrible things happen around the world every single day, but the trend lines of progress are unmistakable.
President Obama Boy will his eyes be big when the crap hits the fan. I want some of what he's smoking with the "violence" one. I suppose if you ignore the entirety of the Middle East and northern Africa, and the Ukraine, and Venezuela, and the perpetual rioting in the PIIGS nations, and the Chinese military build up, and the doomsday clock at two minutes to midnight, it's true that it's been a while since the last massive world war.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 17:29:32 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2015 15:23:04 GMT -5
The truth of the matter is that for all the challenges we face, all the problems that we have,...if you had to choose any moment to be born in human history, not knowing what your position was going to be, who you were going to be, you'd choose this time. The world is less violent than it has ever been. It is healthier than it has ever been. It is more tolerant than it has ever been. It is better fed then it's ever been. It is more educated than it's ever been.
Terrible things happen around the world every single day, but the trend lines of progress are unmistakable.
President Obama Boy will his eyes be big when the crap hits the fan. I want some of what he's smoking with the "violence" one. I suppose if you ignore the entirety of the Middle East and northern Africa, and the Ukraine, and Venezuela, and the perpetual rioting in the PIIGS nations, and the Chinese military build up, and the doomsday clock at two minutes to midnight, it's true that it's been a while since the last massive world war. 150 years ago there was slavery here. How violent was that compared to today? 50 years ago, it was somewhat routine for government to sic dogs on minorities and lynching was a real fear for some. How many years ago was it that Pol Pot killed his millions, 40? Stalin, Hitler, Mao all killed millions in the last century. If you think we are a more violent world now then it is you who are smoking something. Or do you want evidence that the 1800's were worse? Other then the slavery here, there was slavery in South America and the Caribean (sp). I have read that was brutal beyond words. Those on the sugar plantations worked until they died. And if they didn't work were killed or brutalized until they did. Look up the Belgium king Leopold to see some of the violence of the 1800's. The knights of the middle ages fought by killing civilians of opposing regions. The world is less violent now then ever. That is not to say that there are not big problems now, it is to say we are on the right path.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Oct 16, 2015 15:52:00 GMT -5
Boy will his eyes be big when the crap hits the fan. I want some of what he's smoking with the "violence" one. I suppose if you ignore the entirety of the Middle East and northern Africa, and the Ukraine, and Venezuela, and the perpetual rioting in the PIIGS nations, and the Chinese military build up, and the doomsday clock at two minutes to midnight, it's true that it's been a while since the last massive world war. 150 years ago there was slavery here. How violent was that compared to today? 50 years ago, it was somewhat routine for government to sic dogs on minorities and lynching was a real fear for some. How many years ago was it that Pol Pot killed his millions, 40? Stalin, Hitler, Mao all killed millions in the last century. If you think we are a more violent world now then it is you who are smoking something. Or do you want evidence that the 1800's were worse? Other then the slavery here, there was slavery in South America and the Caribean (sp). I have read that was brutal beyond words. Those on the sugar plantations worked until they died. And if they didn't work were killed or brutalized until they did. Look up the Belgium king Leopold to see some of the violence of the 1800's. The knights of the middle ages fought by killing civilians of opposing regions. The world is less violent now then ever. That is not to say that there are not big problems now, it is to say we are on the right path. You're using a highly unusual definition of "today". I think of "today" as being "within the past 50 years", and violence has nicely simmered the world over during the past 50 years. ucdp.uu.se/ged/www.economist.com/content/inner-turmoilI wouldn't say the world is more violent than ever before, and I think it's fair to say that on a per capita basis we're in a period of below-normal conflict and relative political stability. That could change in a heartbeat. On a non-normalized basis, (I believe; I'd have to look it up) more people have been wiped out by conflicts since WWI than in wars throughout the rest of human history combined. Why even bring the issue up in this thread? Are you arguing that because people have more guns than ever before, there's "less violence than ever before"? Peace and safety! I think I've heard that somewhere before.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 17:29:32 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2015 20:18:43 GMT -5
150 years ago there was slavery here. How violent was that compared to today? 50 years ago, it was somewhat routine for government to sic dogs on minorities and lynching was a real fear for some. How many years ago was it that Pol Pot killed his millions, 40? Stalin, Hitler, Mao all killed millions in the last century. If you think we are a more violent world now then it is you who are smoking something. Or do you want evidence that the 1800's were worse? Other then the slavery here, there was slavery in South America and the Caribean (sp). I have read that was brutal beyond words. Those on the sugar plantations worked until they died. And if they didn't work were killed or brutalized until they did. Look up the Belgium king Leopold to see some of the violence of the 1800's. The knights of the middle ages fought by killing civilians of opposing regions. The world is less violent now then ever. That is not to say that there are not big problems now, it is to say we are on the right path. You're using a highly unusual definition of "today". I think of "today" as being "within the past 50 years", and violence has nicely simmered the world over during the past 50 years. ucdp.uu.se/ged/www.economist.com/content/inner-turmoilI wouldn't say the world is more violent than ever before, and I think it's fair to say that on a per capita basis we're in a period of below-normal conflict and relative political stability. That could change in a heartbeat. On a non-normalized basis, (I believe; I'd have to look it up) more people have been wiped out by conflicts since WWI than in wars throughout the rest of human history combined. Why even bring the issue up in this thread? Are you arguing that because people have more guns than ever before, there's "less violence than ever before"?Peace and safety! I think I've heard that somewhere before. Gun deaths are also declining. The world is a better place now then most anytime in history. I get caught up in all the problems and float towards cynicism and despair. I am trying to see more the facts. And one of the facts is is that we live in one of the best times in history in many many ways. Gun violence among them. I do think more guns in the hands of more good guys is partly responsible for the decline in gun violence.
|
|
fishy999
Familiar Member
Joined: Aug 9, 2015 20:40:43 GMT -5
Posts: 629
|
Post by fishy999 on Oct 16, 2015 21:09:17 GMT -5
I think the more apt quote is more Americans have been killed by guns since 1968 than in all wars in American History www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/aug/27/nicholas-kristof/more-americans-killed-guns-1968-all-wars-says-colu/I also think that violence is declining regardless of more or less guns- and that in the big picture the mass shootings are just a blip in the numbers- though I support taking steps to prevent more of them. The truth is that while there are more guns, they are concentrated in fewer households. We simply have more gun deaths because we have more guns and I give zero credit to 'good guys with guns' for any drop in crimes or violence- because there is zero proof.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 17:29:32 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2015 21:18:33 GMT -5
I think the more apt quote is more Americans have been killed by guns since 1968 than in all wars in American History www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/aug/27/nicholas-kristof/more-americans-killed-guns-1968-all-wars-says-colu/I also think that violence is declining regardless of more or less guns- and that in the big picture the mass shootings are just a blip in the numbers- though I support taking steps to prevent more of them. The truth is that while there are more guns, they are concentrated in fewer households. We simply have more gun deaths because we have more guns and I give zero credit to 'good guys with guns' for any drop in crimes or violence- because there is zero proof. More people have died of hospital infections since 1968 then died from all the wars in American history plus the people killed by guns since 1968.
|
|
fishy999
Familiar Member
Joined: Aug 9, 2015 20:40:43 GMT -5
Posts: 629
|
Post by fishy999 on Oct 16, 2015 22:47:21 GMT -5
And? We took steps to eliminate hospital infections We found it unacceptable. And you can stop with the false equivalence.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 17:29:32 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2015 22:56:24 GMT -5
And? We took steps to eliminate hospital infections We found it unacceptable. And you can stop with the false equivalence. we did not eliminate hospital infections. I think the problem people have with guns have little to nothing to do with people getting killed. Far more people are killed needlessly in other ways. I think the problem people have with guns is a problem with people having power, and not being weak.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Oct 17, 2015 7:57:00 GMT -5
A couple of people were fired, But because of their actions more than 300 people died. Let compare that with a gun shop that "MAY" have sold a gun to a straw buyer under less than perfect conditions, You know helped with filling the form.That happens a thousand time a day when people help fill out forms for the government free phone program or liberal voter registration.
So one act results in a $6,000,000 judgement, Over 300 acts that resulted in death and a unplanned early retirement.
Lots of justice served here Wisconsin gun shop ordered to pay nearly $6 million to injured police officersYou believe everything authorities say? Government spokespersons, politicians, etc?
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,615
|
Post by Tennesseer on Oct 17, 2015 8:40:34 GMT -5
You believe everything authorities say? Government spokespersons, politicians, etc? Well I know for fact I am better off believing what authorities say than anything you post. That has been proven plenty of times.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Oct 17, 2015 9:32:24 GMT -5
Wow, where do I start, How about the lies from the "authorities about bombing the hospital, or almost any report out of a police "authority when we have the death of an unarmed person. How many pages do you want me to fill, There is an unlimited amount of lies coming out of the "authorites mouths!
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Oct 17, 2015 9:39:12 GMT -5
Wow, where do I start, How about the lies from the "authorities about bombing the hospital, or almost any report out of a police "authority when we have the death of an unarmed person. How many pages do you want me to fill, There is an unlimited amount of lies coming out of the "authorites mouths! I've got a question. How do you actually know what happened in any given case that turns up through the media? Unless you're there, the answer has to be: "I don't." Therefore, people have a tendency to believe that which fits their viewpoint - whatever that may be. Because and authority says something doesn't make it true. If a purported eye-witness says something, that doesn't make it true, either. We don't know. That's the real truth the vast majority of the time.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,615
|
Post by Tennesseer on Oct 17, 2015 9:41:52 GMT -5
Wow, where do I start, How about the lies from the "authorities about bombing the hospital, or almost any report out of a police "authority when we have the death of an unarmed person. How many pages do you want me to fill, There is an unlimited amount of lies coming out of the "authorites mouths! Re, more come out of your mouth than the authorities.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 17:29:32 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2015 9:51:46 GMT -5
Wow, where do I start, How about the lies from the "authorities about bombing the hospital, or almost any report out of a police "authority when we have the death of an unarmed person. How many pages do you want me to fill, There is an unlimited amount of lies coming out of the "authorites mouths! I've got a question. How do you actually know what happened in any given case that turns up through the media? Unless you're there, the answer has to be: "I don't." Therefore, people have a tendency to believe that which fits their viewpoint - whatever that may be. Because and authority says something doesn't make it true. If a purported eye-witness says something, that doesn't make it true, either. We don't know. That's the real truth the vast majority of the time. Knowledge is a justified, true belief. All anyone has to do to know something that is a fact is to have a justified belief. The belief part is easy enough, just believe it. Justification is harder. You can have sufficient justification without first hand experience, imo. If Moonbeam said I posted "x" and you never saw that you might have justification even if you did not see the post. Moonbeam's word might be ample justification for you to have knowledge. It is the same for any second hand testimony. You look at past experience. You judge motives. etc. I have never seen Virgil's ---------, yet I am justified in knowing he is a man.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Oct 17, 2015 9:55:30 GMT -5
Good morning mmhmm, When I speak of "Authorities" I truly expect that person is in that position because of honesty and ethics that they have Earned.
But what we get is hours, days, weeks, later when some of the truth starts coming out, we find that the "Authorities" was lying through their teeth.
How many examples do you want?
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Oct 17, 2015 12:52:53 GMT -5
We see things differently. It's probably one of the reasons why I comment so much less on these stories. My needs aren't satisfied by what is expected unless I know from personal experience that what is expected is what is delivered. My needs aren't satisfied by what someone else says another did, or said. I need to see that for myself in a form that, for me, is irrefutable. I may define, for myself, what's reasonable to believe but I cannot assign upon that the essence of truth, or fact. I just don't know - and that doesn't trouble me. If forced to act, I'll act based upon what I find reasonable. If not forced to act, I have a tendency to wait, and watch. Each to his/her own, as "they" say.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 17, 2015 13:23:40 GMT -5
We see things differently. It's probably one of the reasons why I comment so much less on these stories. My needs aren't satisfied by what is expected unless I know from personal experience that what is expected is what is delivered. My needs aren't satisfied by what someone else says another did, or said. I need to see that for myself in a form that, for me, is irrefutable. I may define, for myself, what's reasonable to believe but I cannot assign upon that the essence of truth, or fact. I just don't know - and that doesn't trouble me. If forced to act, I'll act based upon what I find reasonable. If not forced to act, I have a tendency to wait, and watch. Each to his/her own, as "they" say. if you can prove what you think and see, then no belief is necessary. for everything else, we have religion.
|
|
Robert not Bobby
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 29, 2013 17:45:55 GMT -5
Posts: 1,392
|
Post by Robert not Bobby on Oct 17, 2015 13:38:26 GMT -5
We see things differently. It's probably one of the reasons why I comment so much less on these stories. My needs aren't satisfied by what is expected unless I know from personal experience that what is expected is what is delivered. My needs aren't satisfied by what someone else says another did, or said. I need to see that for myself in a form that, for me, is irrefutable. I may define, for myself, what's reasonable to believe but I cannot assign upon that the essence of truth, or fact. I just don't know - and that doesn't trouble me. If forced to act, I'll act based upon what I find reasonable. If not forced to act, I have a tendency to wait, and watch. Each to his/her own, as "they" say. That was almost brilliant (well, very well said). I am the same way...someone tells me "I will like or dislike him or her"...I think to myself, sorry, but let me meet them and I'll form my own opinion and make up my own mind.
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Oct 17, 2015 20:07:57 GMT -5
That statement is true, but misleading. If I recall correctly, 60-65% of those gun deaths were suicides. It was generally felt that had those people not had access to a gun, they would have still committed suicide. It's not an apt quote at all, but rather someone defending their views with deception.
ETA: This is what I recall reading about that study. It may not be completely correct as far as percentages, but it isn't far off.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 17, 2015 21:09:32 GMT -5
That statement is true, but misleading. If I recall correctly, 60-65% of those gun deaths were suicides. It was generally felt that had those people not had access to a gun, they would have still committed suicide. It's not an apt quote at all, but rather someone defending their views with deception.
ETA: This is what I recall reading about that study. It may not be completely correct as far as percentages, but it isn't far off. i think those numbers are really close. 12-13k are homicides, and 23-24k are suicides. i actually find it interesting that a more intense discussion about suicides is not part of the anti-gun crusade, but it really isn't.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,934
|
Post by happyhoix on Oct 19, 2015 13:35:38 GMT -5
That statement is true, but misleading. If I recall correctly, 60-65% of those gun deaths were suicides. It was generally felt that had those people not had access to a gun, they would have still committed suicide. It's not an apt quote at all, but rather someone defending their views with deception.
ETA: This is what I recall reading about that study. It may not be completely correct as far as percentages, but it isn't far off. i think those numbers are really close. 12-13k are homicides, and 23-24k are suicides. i actually find it interesting that a more intense discussion about suicides is not part of the anti-gun crusade, but it really isn't. That surprises me too, but I'm sure I'm biased, my DH's cousin's cousin had a 30 something year old daughter with two small children who killed herself with her brother's hand gun that he had left on the top shelf of his closet - out of the reach of kids but not out of the reach of his sister, who had been depressed for the last 18 months, since the birth of her second child. She killed herself sitting in her dad's car in the garage. Two little kids now motherless. Wouldn't have happened if the brother had locked his gun up someplace, or even locked it in a locker at the gun club rather than bringing it into his parents' house where his depressed sister lived. You can claim she would have found another way to kill herself, but she'd been living there 18 months, undergoing therapy for depression, and hadn't killed herself. Then her brother moves home and brings his gun, and she was dead within the month. Guns make suicide very easy. I've got a game plan to purchase a gun to kill myself if I start to develop Alzheimers or dementia, because overdoses aren't always a sure thing. I want something quick and reliable and that doesn't end up with me squashed flat as a pancake, and I'm sure that's what many other suicides want, too.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Oct 19, 2015 16:04:11 GMT -5
Guns make suicide very easy. I've got a game plan to purchase a gun to kill myself if I start to develop Alzheimers or dementia, because overdoses aren't always a sure thing. I want something quick and reliable and that doesn't end up with me squashed flat as a pancake, and I'm sure that's what many other suicides want, too. You realize that the "mental health checks" everybody is demanding to (somehow) curb mass shootings would almost certainly prohibit you from purchasing a gun the moment you were diagnosed with Alzheimer's or dementia?
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Oct 19, 2015 16:15:09 GMT -5
Guns make suicide very easy. I've got a game plan to purchase a gun to kill myself if I start to develop Alzheimers or dementia, because overdoses aren't always a sure thing. I want something quick and reliable and that doesn't end up with me squashed flat as a pancake, and I'm sure that's what many other suicides want, too. You realize that the "mental health checks" everybody is demanding to (somehow) curb mass shootings would almost certainly prohibit you from purchasing a gun the moment you were diagnosed with Alzheimer's or dementia? Demented people shouldn't have guns. "Now, where did I leave that thing? Oh yeah...in the grandbaby's crib."
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Oct 19, 2015 16:20:26 GMT -5
You realize that the "mental health checks" everybody is demanding to (somehow) curb mass shootings would almost certainly prohibit you from purchasing a gun the moment you were diagnosed with Alzheimer's or dementia? Demented people shouldn't have guns. "Now, where did I leave that thing? Oh yeah...in the grandbaby's crib."
Well fine. But it complicates happy's well-thought-out "if I'm ever diagnosed with dementia, I'll just buy a gun and shoot myself" plan.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Oct 19, 2015 16:23:28 GMT -5
Demented people shouldn't have guns. "Now, where did I leave that thing? Oh yeah...in the grandbaby's crib."
Well fine. But it complicates happy's well-thought-out "if I'm ever diagnosed with dementia, I'll just buy a gun and shoot myself" plan. Well, if Happy lives in the USA, then Happy could buy a gun on any street corner.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Oct 19, 2015 16:37:35 GMT -5
Well fine. But it complicates happy's well-thought-out "if I'm ever diagnosed with dementia, I'll just buy a gun and shoot myself" plan. Well, if Happy lives in the USA, then Happy could buy a gun on any street corner. Not if "mental health checks" become the national law of the land. Admittedly, nobody in this thread, including happyhoix, has given us any idea as to what such checks might comprise, despite my repeated questioning. I'm just interested to know how happy thinks these checks are going to work. They're somehow supposed to stop nutters from shooting up schools while at the same time not preventing her from suiciding-by-gun out of a degenerative mental illness. happyhoix: How about this? Read the New Yorker article profiling mass shooters a few pages back, which really is the final nail in the coffin of the "mental health checks could help" argument. Sealed up in that coffin are the same laws that would prevent you from suiciding by gun in future, which is apparently a freedom you value and plan on conditionally exercising. Maybe it's best that coffin stay nailed shut.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 19, 2015 18:10:05 GMT -5
Well, if Happy lives in the USA, then Happy could buy a gun on any street corner. Not if "mental health checks" become the national law of the land. Admittedly, nobody in this thread, including happyhoix, has given us any idea as to what such checks might comprise, despite my repeated questioning. I'm just interested to know how happy thinks these checks are going to work. They're somehow supposed to stop nutters from shooting up schools while at the same time not preventing her from suiciding-by-gun out of a degenerative mental illness. happyhoix: How about this? Read the New Yorker article profiling mass shooters a few pages back, which really is the final nail in the coffin of the "mental health checks could help" argument. Sealed up in that coffin are the same laws that would prevent you from suiciding by gun in future, which is apparently a freedom you value and plan on conditionally exercising. Maybe it's best that coffin stay nailed shut. i'm not sure that was ever the plan. the way the law reads now, it is if you were "ever admitted to a mental health facility for observation". i have already stated that i see problems with this screening device, but that is currently where it stands in US law.
|
|