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 18:18:02 GMT -5
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. Do you know if it means being locked up in an institution, or could it also include going to see a psychiatrist? For instance, I had routine psychiatric appointments throughout my childhood so that my psychiatrist could observe and interact with me. She worked in a mental health facility. Would that forever bar me from owning a firearm?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 15:23:01 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2015 18:21:49 GMT -5
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. Do you know if it means being locked up in an institution, or could it also include going to see a psychiatrist? For instance, I had routine psychiatric appointments throughout my childhood so that my psychiatrist could observe and interact with me. She worked in a mental health facility. Would that forever bar me from owning a firearm? Would you take your child to see a psychiatric counselor if that appointment would follow him or her for a lifetime? I put off asking about anti-depressents for about a year because I was worried about the medical records database and having depression listed there.
|
|
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 18:31:52 GMT -5
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. Do you know if it means being locked up in an institution, or could it also include going to see a psychiatrist? For instance, I had routine psychiatric appointments throughout my childhood so that my psychiatrist could observe and interact with me. She worked in a mental health facility. Would that forever bar me from owning a firearm? neither. it means being "held for observation". there is a specific legal standard for that in the US. it has to do with "endangerment". edit: again, i have to state for the record that the law reads a very specific way right now. could it be expanded? imo, no, it really couldn't. there is no political will to do it, and has not been in half a century. is it THEORETICALLY possible? sure. putting people in barbed wire prisons and robbing them of their possessions is also theoretically possible. it has even happened within the collective memory of our citizenry, and under a supposedly "great" president.
|
|
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 18:35:03 GMT -5
Do you know if it means being locked up in an institution, or could it also include going to see a psychiatrist? For instance, I had routine psychiatric appointments throughout my childhood so that my psychiatrist could observe and interact with me. She worked in a mental health facility. Would that forever bar me from owning a firearm? Would you take your child to see a psychiatric counselor if that appointment would follow him or her for a lifetime? I put off asking about anti-depressents for about a year because I was worried about the medical records database and having depression listed there. Therein lies the rub. As soon as one's freedoms are tied to diagnosis or treatment of mental illness, it strongly discourages being diagnosed and treated. Imposing restrictions on individuals who've been committed to mental institutions doesn't bother me as much. Firstly, because treatment is rarely voluntary anyway. Secondly, because one basically does have to break the law in order to be committed, at least in Canada. Thirdly, because the kinds of mental illness that get one committed (paranoia, schizophrenia, dementia, mania, etc.) are genuinely strong contraindicators for gun ownership. If that's the extent of the prohibition, I support it. Extending it to anybody who's ever consulted a psychiatrist, stayed overnight in a hospital for observation, sought treatment for PTSD, etc.: absolutely not.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 15:23:01 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2015 20:55:43 GMT -5
Would you take your child to see a psychiatric counselor if that appointment would follow him or her for a lifetime? I put off asking about anti-depressents for about a year because I was worried about the medical records database and having depression listed there. Therein lies the rub. As soon as one's freedoms are tied to diagnosis or treatment of mental illness, it strongly discourages being diagnosed and treated. Imposing restrictions on individuals who've been committed to mental institutions doesn't bother me as much. Firstly, because treatment is rarely voluntary anyway. Secondly, because one basically does have to break the law in order to be committed, at least in Canada. Thirdly, because the kinds of mental illness that get one committed (paranoia, schizophrenia, dementia, mania, etc.) are genuinely strong contraindicators for gun ownership. If that's the extent of the prohibition, I support it. Extending it to anybody who's ever consulted a psychiatrist, stayed overnight in a hospital for observation, sought treatment for PTSD, etc.: absolutely not. so why not tie the 'no gun' rule to that? Why criminalize mental illness? If it takes away rights I think it to say it has been criminalized. I thought schizophrenia was usually non-violent. Are people with schizophrenia more violent then those without? Do they normally have less morals? I do not think that is the case. I am not going to ask you for a source for your statement though
|
|
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 21:29:00 GMT -5
Therein lies the rub. As soon as one's freedoms are tied to diagnosis or treatment of mental illness, it strongly discourages being diagnosed and treated. Imposing restrictions on individuals who've been committed to mental institutions doesn't bother me as much. Firstly, because treatment is rarely voluntary anyway. Secondly, because one basically does have to break the law in order to be committed, at least in Canada. Thirdly, because the kinds of mental illness that get one committed (paranoia, schizophrenia, dementia, mania, etc.) are genuinely strong contraindicators for gun ownership. If that's the extent of the prohibition, I support it. Extending it to anybody who's ever consulted a psychiatrist, stayed overnight in a hospital for observation, sought treatment for PTSD, etc.: absolutely not. so why not tie the 'no gun' rule to that? Why criminalize mental illness? If it takes away rights I think it to say it has been criminalized. I thought schizophrenia was usually non-violent. Are people with schizophrenia more violent then those without? Do they normally have less morals? I do not think that is the case. I am not going to ask you for a source for your statement though People with schizophrenia can't differentiate between fantasy and reality. They might hear voices telling them to commit heinous acts, they might come to believe certain individuals are out to get them, they might come to believe that a family member is demon-possessed and needs to be killed to be "saved", they might transpose elements from violent movies/games into real life and come to believe they're a commando in enemy territory. Certainly not all of them are violent, and there are many degrees of schizophrenia. But generally speaking I don't want an individual who can't fully tell fantasy from reality apart, and has been committed as a result of criminal or otherwise dangerous behaviour stemming from the condition, owning a firearm. Such an individual lacks the mental competence to qualify for firearm ownership, I'm sorry. It's asking for trouble. As for your "Why criminalize mental illness?", I don't think the US should criminalize mental illness unless it's severe enough to warrant an individual being committed to a mental institution. If an individual is schizophrenic but manages the condition with medication and has never been admitted to a mental institution, (s)he should be permitted to own firearms the same as anyone else. A large part of that is precisely the concern you've brought up: we don't want restrictions on freedoms to be a deterrent to voluntarily seeking help for mental illness.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,934
|
Post by happyhoix on Oct 20, 2015 7:04:20 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? The mental health checks are to prevent people who have murderous thoughts from having a gun. I'll buy my gun in a few years, before dementia kicks in, then keep it locked away, the gun locked in one place, the bullets in another, until the very first signs of dementia show up. The only violence I'll commit will be on myself, and my family will completely understand why I'm doing it. You only have to watch one parent die from Alzheimers to know. I've watched one die from Alzheimers and am watching one die with dementia and I've seen exactly what modern medicine does for them.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,934
|
Post by happyhoix on Oct 20, 2015 7:31:41 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 thought I made myself clear. Since I didn't, let me try again. If a person is having fantasies about murdering a lot of people and he shares this with a therapist, a teacher, his doctor, these should all be mandatory reporters to the police that this guy shouldn't be able to buy guns, at least not for a certain time period, after which he will be re-evaluated. Is a person is stockpiling weapons and has online posts/video diaries/hardcopy notebooks where he outlines his mass shooting fantasies and his parents/teachers/police find out about it, he shouldn't be able to buy or own guns, at least for a certain time period. I'm not advocating locking up everyone with MH issues. Most people with MH problems are not violent. I'm not even advocating suicidal people be kept from having guns - although I think a lot of people who commit suicide with guns really could be helped (like my DH's cousin) but still, their violence is only directed at themselves. If an old person becomes a dangerous driver, we have no problem taking their car keys away to prevent them from mowing down a pack of strangers at a bus stop. No one hestitates to take away that freedom to drive where they want, when they want. Keeping violent people with MH issues from owning guns is just as sensible as preventing felons from legally buying guns - but the people on this board who are pushing back on this are doing so because they imagine it's a slippery slope - first we restrict the violent mentally ill from legally buying guns, and next it will be some other group. They think that way because that's what the NRA has been preaching for years. We can't have any limits on the rights to purchase guns or ammo - at all. Ever. Even most of the NRA membership wants tighter controls on gun purchases - but the NRA still stands defiant, because they don't work for their membership, they work for the gun industry.
|
|
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 20, 2015 10:27:30 GMT -5
If a person is having fantasies about murdering a lot of people and he shares this with a therapist, a teacher, his doctor, these should all be mandatory reporters to the police that this guy shouldn't be able to buy guns, at least not for a certain time period, after which he will be re-evaluated. Impact #1: You've just thrown away doctor-patient confidentiality and dissuaded legions of angry young men from ever discussing their fantasies with therapists, teachers, or doctors. Is a person is stockpiling weapons and has online posts/video diaries/hardcopy notebooks where he outlines his mass shooting fantasies and his parents/teachers/police find out about it, he shouldn't be able to buy or own guns, at least for a certain time period. Impact #2: You've just driven online posts and video diaries onto the deep web or anonymizing servers where identity can't be tracked. Alternatively, would-be shooters will simply don masks in their videos. You've dissuaded numerous parents, worried about their weapons being confiscated, from involving the authorities and/or seeking professional help for their sons. You've also inadvertently created a huge furor in the music industry, since many rap music videos include fantasies about gang justice in the form of mass shootings. If an old person becomes a dangerous driver, we have no problem taking their car keys away to prevent them from mowing down a pack of strangers at a bus stop. No one hestitates to take away that freedom to drive where they want, when they want. Keeping violent people with MH issues from owning guns is just as sensible as preventing felons from legally buying guns - but the people on this board who are pushing back on this are doing so because they imagine it's a slippery slope - first we restrict the violent mentally ill from legally buying guns, and next it will be some other group. Firstly, there are many good reasons to believe gun control is a slippery slope, not the least of which is the fact that the policies you've just described won't reduce the number of mass shootings one whit, leaving the door open for "we haven't gone far enough" arguments. Anybody who dismisses the notion of a slippery slope vis a vis gun control is sorely ignorant of gun control proponents' stated goals, ignorant of history, and is not to be taken seriously. Secondly, driving competence tests can't be foiled by simply omitting certain details or anonymizing/hiding certain materials. The checks you've mentioned can. Driving competence tests are effective only insofar as seniors are proactive. Seniors seek out testing in order to be able to drive lawfully. Disturbed teenagers and their guardians already can own firearms lawfully. They have no impetus to seek evaluation, and your policy gives them at least one more reason not to. Finally, I don't know what planet you live on where the government banning me, a mass shooter, from purchasing and owning firearms, is going to stop me from purchasing and owning firearms. I'm a guy with no concern for my own life, willing to shoot as many people dead as I possibly can. I'm probably not going to have qualms obtaining arms illegally, stealing them, or blowing some guy away at his front door and claiming his arsenal. I've already spent weeks building bombs, planning out the attacks, poring over the details. Prevailing in the midst of challenges is a mark of pride for me, as the New Yorker article makes clear. By what conceivable logic do you think a ban is going to stop me from doing what I've set out to do?
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Oct 20, 2015 10:49:55 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 15:23:01 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2015 13:29:55 GMT -5
You seem to have a lot of questions for me and yet no answers for mine. The only question I could find in any of your posts directed at me was the following: Because the public doesn't want it? I never said that was a no-no, so I really don't know. You suggested that eliminating guns is not going to eliminate the ability of people to kill other people. In general, I agree. But since guns seem to be the weapon of choice of 99.9% of U.S. spree killers, I am wondering why that is. More than one person talking to me at the same time does that sometimes, sorry. We used to have spree killings at the post offices which seldom happen now (If any). Maybe it's knowing they can go out in a blaze of media coverage or have time to do the deed because it's a gun free zone. I really don't know. I'd really like it to stop now, without gun control nuts taking away my constitutional rights a bit at a time.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 15:23:01 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2015 13:31:30 GMT -5
doesn't fit the narrative, so doesn't count, sorry
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 15:23:01 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2015 13:42:01 GMT -5
1) Depends on where the guns are kept. Teachers packing heat would be too dangerous IMHO. A high school boy could knock one down, grab her gun, and suddenly you've created a school shooter incident where you didn't have one before. If, on the other hand, you want to keep fire arms in a locked safe in some central spot and only give keys to trained employees - ok, although you still run the risk of a student getting hold of a key. At my HS, students took the gym teacher's sports car and put it on the gym roof - so I have a feeling a locked gun safe would be catnip to them. 2) One word -crossfire 3) Our school system had to stop offering art, drivers ed and restricted the school bus service. I'm pretty sure most educators, asked to decide between purchasing and installing a gun safe, providing training for teachers, pay the higher insurance rate they would have to pay (see number 2 above) and weapons vs school buses, they would vote for having the school buses. Most school systems are probably about as broke as ours are, so arming themselves would have to come at the expense of other, more normal school expenses. I'll try to answer as best I can. 1.) Gun location (or carry) would have to be tailored to each school situation. 2) Crossfire is possible in any shooting situation, that's what training is for. It's kind of a reduced threat cost. 26 killed in Newtown vs. a possible two killed in hypothetical protection error crossfire. 3) I think only child bearing couples should be paying for school costs. They can have a school district vote to raise their taxes to cover/not cover this cost.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 15:23:01 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2015 13:54:11 GMT -5
In response to your ETA; They are designed to protect me/family , and mostly supply fresh dinner. You shoot game with a handgun?
Yes, but just small game, varmints. I carry a long barrel (6 1/2") single action revolver (from Heritage Firearms located in Florida) in a open carry holster whenever I'm out checking fence lines, pond levees etc. Sometimes I cross paths with edible critters and am accurate out to about 50/60 feet. Once or twice a week it's fresh instead of store bought. I've had a feral pig problem on and off for about 15 years, but have only bagged one with a handgun.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 15:23:01 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2015 14:02:05 GMT -5
No mistake and not in those exact words, but if I took the time and backtracked and found that discussion and showed it to you I would just get another semantic spin. Not important enough to me. give it to Virgil. he seems to be made for such tasks. in the mean time, let's just say you are categorically wrong, rather than mistaken. i never said anything remotely like what you accused me of saying. OK.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 15:23:01 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2015 14:35:01 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. One could say we have more gun deaths because we have more people. The population increases everyday. Same logic. There is hope though. Now that California has legalized the killing of terminal patients with drugs, we're going to have more "drug deaths" instead of "gun deaths" where terminal ill patients used to use guns to kill themselves. This argument, in the spirit of fair play, should be used in any argument for the legalization of more drugs. Less drugs equals less "drug deaths", right ?
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,934
|
Post by happyhoix on Oct 21, 2015 6:34:50 GMT -5
If a person is having fantasies about murdering a lot of people and he shares this with a therapist, a teacher, his doctor, these should all be mandatory reporters to the police that this guy shouldn't be able to buy guns, at least not for a certain time period, after which he will be re-evaluated. Impact #1: You've just thrown away doctor-patient confidentiality and dissuaded legions of angry young men from ever discussing their fantasies with therapists, teachers, or doctors. Is a person is stockpiling weapons and has online posts/video diaries/hardcopy notebooks where he outlines his mass shooting fantasies and his parents/teachers/police find out about it, he shouldn't be able to buy or own guns, at least for a certain time period. Impact #2: You've just driven online posts and video diaries onto the deep web or anonymizing servers where identity can't be tracked. Alternatively, would-be shooters will simply don masks in their videos. You've dissuaded numerous parents, worried about their weapons being confiscated, from involving the authorities and/or seeking professional help for their sons. You've also inadvertently created a huge furor in the music industry, since many rap music videos include fantasies about gang justice in the form of mass shootings. If an old person becomes a dangerous driver, we have no problem taking their car keys away to prevent them from mowing down a pack of strangers at a bus stop. No one hestitates to take away that freedom to drive where they want, when they want. Keeping violent people with MH issues from owning guns is just as sensible as preventing felons from legally buying guns - but the people on this board who are pushing back on this are doing so because they imagine it's a slippery slope - first we restrict the violent mentally ill from legally buying guns, and next it will be some other group. Firstly, there are many good reasons to believe gun control is a slippery slope, not the least of which is the fact that the policies you've just described won't reduce the number of mass shootings one whit, leaving the door open for "we haven't gone far enough" arguments. Anybody who dismisses the notion of a slippery slope vis a vis gun control is sorely ignorant of gun control proponents' stated goals, ignorant of history, and is not to be taken seriously. Secondly, driving competence tests can't be foiled by simply omitting certain details or anonymizing/hiding certain materials. The checks you've mentioned can. Driving competence tests are effective only insofar as seniors are proactive. Seniors seek out testing in order to be able to drive lawfully. Disturbed teenagers and their guardians already can own firearms lawfully. They have no impetus to seek evaluation, and your policy gives them at least one more reason not to. Finally, I don't know what planet you live on where the government banning me, a mass shooter, from purchasing and owning firearms, is going to stop me from purchasing and owning firearms. I'm a guy with no concern for my own life, willing to shoot as many people dead as I possibly can. I'm probably not going to have qualms obtaining arms illegally, stealing them, or blowing some guy away at his front door and claiming his arsenal. I've already spent weeks building bombs, planning out the attacks, poring over the details. Prevailing in the midst of challenges is a mark of pride for me, as the New Yorker article makes clear. By what conceivable logic do you think a ban is going to stop me from doing what I've set out to do? OK I give in, you're right, there isn't any possible advantage to try to identify people with the potential to be mass killers before they become mass killers. We just need to wait until they pop and then bring in the brooms and pressure washers to clean up the mess afterwards, and then shrug and wait for the next one to blow. While we're at it, since we can't catch all the people who are breaking the speed limit in their cars, let's stop writing speeding tickets completely. Obviously writing speeding tickets doesn't do any good because people still speed every day. Some people speed all the time and never get caught, and that's not fair to the people who do get a ticket. We don't want to violate the driving rights of some people while not violating the driving rights of all the rest. So let's just let the cops sit in the doughnut shops all day and we'll just go out and sweep up the wreckage when it occurs. In fact, maybe we should elect the next guy who proposes that we hand out free souped up Range Rovers with big cow catcher bumpers and machine guns mounted on the roofs and we'll all live like Mad Maxx, racing around the countryside at high speeds and shooting the hell out of each other with rapid fire guns, until we run out of ammo and gas or until we're all dead. I'm going to have to quit this discusion thread. The steadfast resistance to trying to find ways to abate gun violence is making me cranky.
|
|
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 21, 2015 7:44:53 GMT -5
Impact #1: You've just thrown away doctor-patient confidentiality and dissuaded legions of angry young men from ever discussing their fantasies with therapists, teachers, or doctors. Impact #2: You've just driven online posts and video diaries onto the deep web or anonymizing servers where identity can't be tracked. Alternatively, would-be shooters will simply don masks in their videos. You've dissuaded numerous parents, worried about their weapons being confiscated, from involving the authorities and/or seeking professional help for their sons. You've also inadvertently created a huge furor in the music industry, since many rap music videos include fantasies about gang justice in the form of mass shootings. Firstly, there are many good reasons to believe gun control is a slippery slope, not the least of which is the fact that the policies you've just described won't reduce the number of mass shootings one whit, leaving the door open for "we haven't gone far enough" arguments. Anybody who dismisses the notion of a slippery slope vis a vis gun control is sorely ignorant of gun control proponents' stated goals, ignorant of history, and is not to be taken seriously. Secondly, driving competence tests can't be foiled by simply omitting certain details or anonymizing/hiding certain materials. The checks you've mentioned can. Driving competence tests are effective only insofar as seniors are proactive. Seniors seek out testing in order to be able to drive lawfully. Disturbed teenagers and their guardians already can own firearms lawfully. They have no impetus to seek evaluation, and your policy gives them at least one more reason not to. Finally, I don't know what planet you live on where the government banning me, a mass shooter, from purchasing and owning firearms, is going to stop me from purchasing and owning firearms. I'm a guy with no concern for my own life, willing to shoot as many people dead as I possibly can. I'm probably not going to have qualms obtaining arms illegally, stealing them, or blowing some guy away at his front door and claiming his arsenal. I've already spent weeks building bombs, planning out the attacks, poring over the details. Prevailing in the midst of challenges is a mark of pride for me, as the New Yorker article makes clear. By what conceivable logic do you think a ban is going to stop me from doing what I've set out to do? OK I give in, you're right, there isn't any possible advantage to try to identify people with the potential to be mass killers before they become mass killers. We just need to wait until they pop and then bring in the brooms and pressure washers to clean up the mess afterwards, and then shrug and wait for the next one to blow. While we're at it, since we can't catch all the people who are breaking the speed limit in their cars, let's stop writing speeding tickets completely. Obviously writing speeding tickets doesn't do any good because people still speed every day. Some people speed all the time and never get caught, and that's not fair to the people who do get a ticket. We don't want to violate the driving rights of some people while not violating the driving rights of all the rest. So let's just let the cops sit in the doughnut shops all day and we'll just go out and sweep up the wreckage when it occurs. In fact, maybe we should elect the next guy who proposes that we hand out free souped up Range Rovers with big cow catcher bumpers and machine guns mounted on the roofs and we'll all live like Mad Maxx, racing around the countryside at high speeds and shooting the hell out of each other with rapid fire guns, until we run out of ammo and gas or until we're all dead. I'm going to have to quit this discusion thread. The steadfast resistance to trying to find ways to abate gun violence is making me cranky. I believe in laws as a deterrent, the same as you do. I believe that preventing mass shootings is worth sacrificing some modest freedoms, the same as you do. Having said this, you cannot approach these problems with the attitude "We need to do something, and I don't care what." I do care what. I care how effective the laws and policies will be. I care about what freedoms are sacrificed in purchasing the laws. I care if the laws undermine other fundamental rights such as privacy rights. I care about their unintended consequences. I care about how they fit into the bigger picture, which includes their role as a stepping stone to stricter laws. Some gun control proposals are more sensible than others. Loophole-free nationwide criminal background checks in order to purchase firearms, for example. I doubt such checks will have any meaningful effect on homicides, much less school shootings, but I see no unintended consequences besides fuller US prisons and a bootstrapping of the US arms black market. Perhaps homicides will drop enough to justify these consequences; it's not wholly unreasonable to think so. Just as importantly, ex-criminals have many other rights suspended on a probational basis, hence the laws aren't treading into unconstitutional territory. Firearm bans based on the mental checks you've proposed are not a sensible proposal. They're a proposal rooted in your longing to live in a world where we can exploit mass shooters' hubris to prevent tragedies without any undesirable side effects. We don't live in such a world. There are tremendous consequences and sacrifices, which I enumerated above. There's no reasonable basis to conclude the laws will be effective, and plenty of reason to believe they'll impede the last line of defense we currently have by compromising trust between doctor and patient. We'll never know how many would-be mass shooters never became mass shooters because they confided in their therapists and were subsequently treated, their trust and privacy remaining intact, but I'd bet my right arm it's at least tenfold greater than the number of potential shooters that would be neutralized by your proposal. And that's to say nothing of the ramifications of throwing away doctor-patient confidentiality when it suits the state. The only "out" I see for you is billisonboard's proposal: repeal the Second Amendment via the constitutionally-established procedure. If you genuinely consider an over-armed populace to be a greater liability than an under-armed one: repeal constitutional protection for the right to bear arms, put in bans and restrictions similar to Canada's, weather the resulting blood and carnage (in industry as well as in the streets), hope the initiative doesn't end up like the "war on drugs", and pray that your increasingly tyrannical government is indeed the lesser of two evils.
|
|
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 21, 2015 8:16:43 GMT -5
happyhoix, it occurs to me: I despise abortion as much as you despise mass shootings. I consider it genocide. You know this. What is this whole furor with Republicans defunding Planned Parenthood based on some of the abuses/atrocities witnessed in these undercover videos? It's "We need to do something, and we don't care what.", the same attitude you're embracing re gun control. It seems obvious enough to me that the Republicans don't care whether defunding PP will reduce the overall number of abortions (and that there's plenty of reasons to believe it won't). They don't care about the side effects of defunding PP's other functions. They don't care about the precedent they're setting by shutting down an agency without a solid legal basis for doing so. They see an evil, they want to do something, and they don't care what. You can make up a litany of excuses about how mental checks are a totally different situation from PP funding, but the principle is the same: you're not tempering your emotions with disciplined reasoning. You're not giving due consideration to whether your proposals actually mesh with your objectives. You're an intelligent, reasonable individual. You should.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Oct 21, 2015 8:37:56 GMT -5
doesn't fit the narrative, so doesn't count, sorry I didn't realize that there was a narrative on this board, I thought that it was throw anything at the wall let's see what sticks.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 15:23:01 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2015 9:09:03 GMT -5
OK I give in, you're right, there isn't any possible advantage to try to identify people with the potential to be mass killers before they become mass killers. We just need to wait until they pop and then bring in the brooms and pressure washers to clean up the mess afterwards, and then shrug and wait for the next one to blow. While we're at it, since we can't catch all the people who are breaking the speed limit in their cars, let's stop writing speeding tickets completely. Obviously writing speeding tickets doesn't do any good because people still speed every day. Some people speed all the time and never get caught, and that's not fair to the people who do get a ticket. We don't want to violate the driving rights of some people while not violating the driving rights of all the rest. So let's just let the cops sit in the doughnut shops all day and we'll just go out and sweep up the wreckage when it occurs. In fact, maybe we should elect the next guy who proposes that we hand out free souped up Range Rovers with big cow catcher bumpers and machine guns mounted on the roofs and we'll all live like Mad Maxx, racing around the countryside at high speeds and shooting the hell out of each other with rapid fire guns, until we run out of ammo and gas or until we're all dead. I'm going to have to quit this discusion thread. The steadfast resistance to trying to find ways to abate gun violence is making me cranky. I believe in laws as a deterrent, the same as you do. I believe that preventing mass shootings is worth sacrificing some modest freedoms, the same as you do.
BOOO!!!! Go throw away your freedoms, not mine. Are those freedoms yours to give away? The posters who want to limit how you practice your religioin are will to give away some modest freedoms too. Someone elses modest freedoms.
|
|
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 21, 2015 9:40:12 GMT -5
I believe in laws as a deterrent, the same as you do. I believe that preventing mass shootings is worth sacrificing some modest freedoms, the same as you do.
BOOO!!!! Go throw away your freedoms, not mine. Are those freedoms yours to give away? The posters who want to limit how you practice your religioin are will to give away some modest freedoms too. Someone elses modest freedoms. It will comfort you to know that my influence on your freedoms is limited to persuasion via discussion on this message board. Generally speaking, that degree of influence and $0.99 will buy you a $0.99 cup of coffee. Like it or not, you support sacrificing some freedoms for some security too. You probably wouldn't repeal speeding laws, for example, or laws prohibiting jaywalking, or laws regulating the sale of high explosives. We could no doubt come up with hundreds of examples of laws restricting citizens' freedoms that you nevertheless agree are sensible laws. I'm not arguing that all gun control laws are sensible, but I do believe that some freedoms, such as the right to purchase firearms soon after committing a violent felony, may be justly suspended.
|
|
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 21, 2015 9:46:34 GMT -5
BOOO!!!! Go throw away your freedoms, not mine. Are those freedoms yours to give away? The posters who want to limit how you practice your religioin are will to give away some modest freedoms too. Someone elses modest freedoms. It will comfort you to know that my influence on your freedoms is limited to persuasion via discussion on this message board. Generally speaking, that degree of influence and $0.99 will buy you a $0.99 cup of coffee. Like it or not, you support sacrificing some freedoms for some security too. You probably wouldn't repeal speeding laws, for example, or laws prohibiting jaywalking, or laws regulating the sale of high explosives. We could no doubt come up with hundreds of examples of laws restricting citizens' freedoms that you nevertheless agree are sensible laws. I'm not arguing that all gun control laws are sensible, but I do believe that some freedoms, such as the right to purchase firearms soon after committing a violent felony, may be justly suspended. furthermore, there is always a balance struck in societies between freedom and order. most of the time, the order is so ingrained that we scarcely notice it. we don't loiter, go nude in public, randomly j-walk, block traffic with our cars, ignore stop signs, etc. why? because we have learned that doing these things will entice police action, and/or harm others. and sure, our lives would be MORE FREE if we could do all of those things- but it would harm non-consenting others to exercise that freedom. this childish notion of freedom- this hedonistic, self centered, all-others-be-damned way of looking at it- is not in keeping with a civil society. it is chaos and infantile.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Oct 21, 2015 9:50:52 GMT -5
Mass murders, Just what does this have to do with me, A law bidding citizen, NRA member. Just because I have a constitutional right to bear arms, I am some how responsible for some sociopath killing people. You can add all the laws you want, It will not stop the sociopath that truly want to kill a bunch of people. Stop trying to unload your guilt on me. Let me point out that a couple of mass murders that caused the most deaths had nothing to do with sociopaths or guns. They did it with box cutters and a truck load of fertilizer.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 15:23:01 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2015 9:51:28 GMT -5
BOOO!!!! Go throw away your freedoms, not mine. Are those freedoms yours to give away? The posters who want to limit how you practice your religioin are will to give away some modest freedoms too. Someone elses modest freedoms. It will comfort you to know that my influence on your freedoms is limited to persuasion via discussion on this message board. Generally speaking, that degree of influence and $0.99 will buy you a $0.99 cup of coffee. Like it or not, you support sacrificing some freedoms for some security too. You probably wouldn't repeal speeding laws, for example, or laws prohibiting jaywalking, or laws regulating the sale of high explosives. We could no doubt come up with hundreds of examples of laws restricting citizens' freedoms that you nevertheless agree are sensible laws. I'm not arguing that all gun control laws are sensible, but I do believe that some freedoms, such as the right to purchase firearms soon after committing a violent felony, may be justly suspended. I would repeal speeding laws and jaywalking laws. I would replace the speeding and jaywalking laws with some kind of recklessness law. High explosives, I agree with you, but high explosives are not guns. Small arms are a human right. There are "reasonable" laws that we could implement on religion. Some of the fundamental Christians have awful practices. You may be one, but you know some of the others are terrible. In my opinion you should not give in to any tossing away of someone elses personal freedoms. It is wrong morally and it opens the door to throwing away more and more.
|
|
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 21, 2015 10:31:07 GMT -5
It will comfort you to know that my influence on your freedoms is limited to persuasion via discussion on this message board. Generally speaking, that degree of influence and $0.99 will buy you a $0.99 cup of coffee. Like it or not, you support sacrificing some freedoms for some security too. You probably wouldn't repeal speeding laws, for example, or laws prohibiting jaywalking, or laws regulating the sale of high explosives. We could no doubt come up with hundreds of examples of laws restricting citizens' freedoms that you nevertheless agree are sensible laws. I'm not arguing that all gun control laws are sensible, but I do believe that some freedoms, such as the right to purchase firearms soon after committing a violent felony, may be justly suspended. I would repeal speeding laws and jaywalking laws. I would replace the speeding and jaywalking laws with some kind of recklessness law. High explosives, I agree with you, but high explosives are not guns. Small arms are a human right. There are "reasonable" laws that we could implement on religion. Some of the fundamental Christians have awful practices. You may be one, but you know some of the others are terrible. In my opinion you should not give in to any tossing away of someone elses personal freedoms. It is wrong morally and it opens the door to throwing away more and more. female circumcision is, i believe, a religious practice. so is eating Peyote. we already outlaw many religious practices on the "reasonable" grounds. do i think it is right? not in cases where it violates the rights of the non-consenting, i don't.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,195
|
Post by tallguy on Oct 21, 2015 19:49:01 GMT -5
I believe in laws as a deterrent, the same as you do. I believe that preventing mass shootings is worth sacrificing some modest freedoms, the same as you do.
BOOO!!!! Go throw away your freedoms, not mine. Are those freedoms yours to give away? The posters who want to limit how you practice your religioin are will to give away some modest freedoms too. Someone elses modest freedoms.And after hundreds of posts in a dozen different threads you are still able to demonstrate that you have not a clue about what the actual argument is. But you are perfectly free to remain ignorant. You have the right. Ain't America great?
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Oct 21, 2015 20:15:54 GMT -5
And after hundreds of posts in a dozen different threads you are still able to demonstrate that you have not a clue about what the actual argument is. But you are perfectly free to remain ignorant. You have the right. Ain't America great?At what point does your opinion go from being an opinion, cross the line into being an insult. I think you crossed that line.
|
|
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 21, 2015 22:13:17 GMT -5
It will comfort you to know that my influence on your freedoms is limited to persuasion via discussion on this message board. Generally speaking, that degree of influence and $0.99 will buy you a $0.99 cup of coffee. Like it or not, you support sacrificing some freedoms for some security too. You probably wouldn't repeal speeding laws, for example, or laws prohibiting jaywalking, or laws regulating the sale of high explosives. We could no doubt come up with hundreds of examples of laws restricting citizens' freedoms that you nevertheless agree are sensible laws. I'm not arguing that all gun control laws are sensible, but I do believe that some freedoms, such as the right to purchase firearms soon after committing a violent felony, may be justly suspended. I would repeal speeding laws and jaywalking laws. I would replace the speeding and jaywalking laws with some kind of recklessness law. High explosives, I agree with you, but high explosives are not guns. Small arms are a human right. There are "reasonable" laws that we could implement on religion. Some of the fundamental Christians have awful practices. You may be one, but you know some of the others are terrible. In my opinion you should not give in to any tossing away of someone elses personal freedoms. It is wrong morally and it opens the door to throwing away more and more. Let's exclude religious definitions of human rights (since you're not religious), and ask: What are human rights? Human rights are nothing more or less than what you can convince people to take up arms and fight to defend. You can have all rights in the world, but if society at large isn't willing to do anything to prevent John Doe from shooting you and isn't willing to punish John if he does shoot you, what good is your right to life? If you bring religion into the matter, you can appeal to human rights as codified in spiritual law. For example, the Bible plainly lays out punishments for sins such as murder. Unfortunately scripture won't be of much use to you here since it in no way characterizes the right to bear arms as a fundamental human right. It doesn't characterize living free of persecution as a fundamental human right either, for that matter--especially for Christians. Hence what are you left with on which to base your human rights? You can appeal to reason and hope to convince enough (powerful) people to see things your way. Ergo the Second Amendment. But the Second Amendment is subject to interpretation, and it can be repealed just as easily and arbitrarily as it came into existence. Failing that, you can defend your rights with your shed blood. Go to war. Join a community of like-minded individuals and gun down the men that come to confiscate your weapons following the repeal of the Second Amendment. If the SA were repealed today, I have no doubt that millions of Americans would do just that. I'm not going to judge them except to say that if you live by the sword, you die by the sword. It had better be worth it to you. Aside from these three avenues, you have no human rights. You might as well claim it's your human right to eat pancakes and maple syrup for breakfast every morning. I'm sad to say that in the near future, western society, and the US and British Commonwealth especially, are going to discover just how few human rights they actually have.
|
|
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 21, 2015 22:27:40 GMT -5
i think that outcome is quite likely, Virgil. looks like we lost WW2, after all. we were fighting fascism, remember?
|
|