Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #251  
Old 08-06-2019, 12:38 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,109
Quote:
Originally Posted by sps49sd View Post
Yes. Constitutional carry.
The right to carry a flintlock musket as long as you're wearing the tricorn hat and knee breeches of your militia unit?

Quote:
Originally Posted by sps49sd View Post
Now you have to define crazy. What criteria will you use to deprive someone of their rights?
What criteria do you use when deciding when to deprive someone else of their life?

Last edited by ElvisL1ves; 08-06-2019 at 12:39 PM.
  #252  
Old 08-06-2019, 12:38 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
There's murder and terrorism everywhere, including nations with very strict gun control.

Gun control doesnt stop those things, or even slow them down.



https://www.vox.com/2019/8/5/2075379...mass-shootings
Quote:
Researchers have found that stricter gun laws could help. A 2016 review of 130 studies in 10 countries, published in Epidemiologic Reviews, found that new legal restrictions on owning and purchasing guns tended to be followed by a drop in gun violence — a strong indicator that restricting access to guns can save lives. A review of the US evidence by RAND also linked some gun control measures, including background checks, to reduced injuries and deaths. A growing body of evidence, from Johns Hopkins researchers, also supports laws that require a license to buy and own guns.

That doesn’t mean that bigots and extremists will never be able to carry out a shooting in places with stricter gun laws. Even the strictest gun laws can’t prevent every shooting.

Guns are also not the only contributor to violence. Other factors include, for example, poverty, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and the strength of criminal justice systems.

But when researchers control for other confounding variables, they have found time and again that America’s loose access to guns is a major reason the US is so much worse in terms of gun violence than its developed peers.
  #253  
Old 08-06-2019, 12:39 PM
sps49sd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
This here is for you

[snip]
You can't engage in a discussion?

Last edited by sps49sd; 08-06-2019 at 12:40 PM.
  #254  
Old 08-06-2019, 12:39 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 10,829
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
Where did he buy that gun? It was Nevada. In fact I read that when there is gun show near the Nevada California border, the shooting rate in California goes up.
Gun control in California is not the problem - gun control in Nevada is.
More specifically, the root of the problem is the lack of nation-wide federal legislation that reflects the true dangers of firearms. Again, every advanced democracy on earth has such legislation, and every advanced democracy on earth has very much lower rates of gun violence. The gun lobby would seem to want us to believe that this is some kind of strange coincidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sps49sd View Post
We're back?

538 has a nice interactive graphic:

here

and the closing statement is "The common element in all these deaths is a gun. But the causes are very different, and that means the solutions must be, too."
It's completely incomprehensible why anyone would reach or even consider such a bizarre conclusion. If the common element is that all these deaths are the result of guns, yet gun policy is not allowed to be a major part of the solution, it can only be because the unstated assumption is that gun control must be rejected out of hand. The further unstated assumption is that instead of controlling access to guns -- the common factor here -- a myriad of other solutions must be enacted instead, most of them ridiculous or impossible, such as magically identifying anyone who is, or might be, emotionally disturbed or even just vulnerable to being emotional, or angry, or depressed, or intoxicated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JXJohns View Post
Do we really have to do this again? No, they didn't ban ALL guns. Yes they did heavily restrict SOME guns to the point of making them unavailable to the common person. From your link:


Category D
All self-loading centrefire rifles, pump-action or self-loading shotguns that have a magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds, semi-automatic rimfire rifles over 10 rounds, are restricted to government agencies, occupational shooters and primary producers
This describes a policy where the most dangerous guns are only available to people who genuinely need them, while everyone else still has access to the normal class of unrestricted guns. And this is a problem, why? To most of us, at least to anyone outside the US gun culture, this just sounds like sensible gun policy, one which balances public safety with an individual's ability to own most normal types of guns, even if it's just for fun. How on earth could this possibly be described as a "gun ban"? Furthermore, it's hard to see how anyone other the most ardent gun zealot would consider this an unacceptable balance.
  #255  
Old 08-06-2019, 12:40 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by sps49sd View Post
Now you have to define crazy. What criteria will you use to deprive someone of their rights?
The very same used by doctors and judges after those doctors and judges declare someone as having a mental issue.
  #256  
Old 08-06-2019, 12:41 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
...

But what I see from the pro-gun side is: a whole bunch of other people getting killed is an acceptable price to pay for our rights.

When I see pro-gun folks using their superior knowledge of the subject matter that they always flaunt in these debates, to try to find that sweet spot that reduces the carnage by a great deal at minimal reduction to their access to weapons of mass slaughter, I'll change my mind. But I've never seen such an attempt. It's always your rights trumping other people's lives.....
In America, having the right to free expression causes many deaths- bigots and haters are allowed free rein to spread their hate and racism. The media is free to glorify the mass killers (which is the primary cause of mass killing in the USA). But, allowing people to die from the right to free expression and free press is a acceptable price to pay for our rights. Or would you curtail the 1st Ad also?

Criminals get off all the time as the police are hampered by the 5th and other amendments. The police must read suspect their right, give them a lawyer, they police cant beat confessions out of them, etc. This causes more deaths.But, allowing people to die from the Bill or Rights is a acceptable price to pay for our rights. Or would you curtail the rest of the Bill of Rights also?

But what's most important is that gun control simply has never worked in the uSA. Gun owners dont think that more of what never worked will 'this time" now magically work. So, we dont think that other people being killed is caused by our right.
  #257  
Old 08-06-2019, 12:42 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eonwe View Post
Ah yes! There is no way to prevent mass shootings other than repealing the first amendment.
Sure. If we'd just stop hearing about them, they wouldn't be real and we wouldn't have to find excuses for them.
  #258  
Old 08-06-2019, 12:43 PM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,519
Quote:
Originally Posted by sps49sd View Post
When a shooter has to consider the realistic chance that there will be someone to oppose them, they will rethink their plans- and if they armor up, they are much more likely to be spotted and stopped first.
Or they just shoot people from a hotel window instead of ground level.
  #259  
Old 08-06-2019, 12:44 PM
sps49sd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 454
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
The right to carry a flintlock musket as long as you're wearing the tricorn hat and knee breeches of your militia unit?
Militia is a reason, not a requirement; and weapons have advanced since the military style flintlock musket.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
What criteria do you use when deciding when to deprive someone else of their life?
If my life (or others' in certain circumstances) is under immediate threat by that someone. Why, what are your criteria?
  #260  
Old 08-06-2019, 12:44 PM
Airbeck is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by sps49sd View Post
Now you have to define crazy. What criteria will you use to deprive someone of their rights?
Why don't you tell us what you would find acceptable. If you can't or won't, then is it fair to assume that you think there isn't any acceptable criteria, therefore we can't prevent crazy people from having guns, and we just have to accept that we need to allow crazy people to be armed? Because I keep hearing from right wingers that it is a mental illness issue, but I have not heard a single suggestion from them on how that could be fixed.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #261  
Old 08-06-2019, 12:46 PM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,519
Quote:
Originally Posted by sps49sd View Post
You can't engage in a discussion?
I require a certain level of, let's call it... reasonableness... in order to have a discussion. The good Dr is flat out stating that policies that effectively reduce homicides and mass killings in dozens of other countries "don't work".

I'm not discussing that, it is pointless to discuss things with people that don't accept reality.
  #262  
Old 08-06-2019, 12:46 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
It's a notion that's supported by historical evidence. See the Mulford Act, and see the Cruikshank decision (and Code Noire).

I guarantee you: arm people of color, give them concealed weapon and open carry privileges, and you'll see gun control. Nothing scares white men like seeing black and brown men having the ability to turn the barrel of the gun around.

...
What makes you think that "people of color" dont already have concealed weapon and open carry privileges? They do. Thinking they dont is pretty racist.

The Mulford act had nothing to do with racism.
  #263  
Old 08-06-2019, 12:47 PM
sps49sd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
Or they just shoot people from a hotel window instead of ground level.
If that POS had had to worry about counterfire, he would have been more concerned about cover and less about aiming.
  #264  
Old 08-06-2019, 12:47 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,109
Quote:
Originally Posted by sps49sd View Post
Militia is a reason, not a requirement
The amendment says otherwise.

Quote:
and weapons have advanced since the military style flintlock musket.
Then let's not hear from you about the intent of the Framers, okay?

Quote:
If my life (or others' in certain circumstances) is under immediate threat by that someone.
Or if you can convince yourself of that, and I suspect it doesn't take much.
  #265  
Old 08-06-2019, 12:47 PM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,516
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Then show us how it's wrong.
You don't want to be shown it's wrong; that would undermine your illusory sense of moral superiority

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Would you at least admit that they hold possessing the means to kill in far greater regard than other people's right to life?
Just who is violating those peoples' rights? Millions of gun owners who don't want to be punished for what someone else did, and thus (in your eyes) are collectively responsible for stubbornly blocking a simple(not), easy(not) solution(doubtful)? Or-maybe... the evil bastard who actually killed them?

Quote:
Can we further agree that that is psychopathic?
No.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
So we gain McConnell's soul just by outbidding the NRA?

Hmm, maybe you got a point there.
You do know that it's the votes of millions of gun owners which congresscritters pay attention to?
  #266  
Old 08-06-2019, 12:48 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
But what's most important is that gun control simply has never worked in the uSA.
also.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/histo...est-180968013/
Quote:
Historian Robert Dykstra focused on established cattle towns, recording homicides after a full season of cattle shipments had already passed and by which time they'd have typically passed firearm law. He found a combined 45 murders from 1870-1885 in Kansas' five largest cattle towns by the 1880 census: Wichita (population: 4,911), Abilene (2,360) Caldwell (1,005), Ellsworth (929), and Dodge City (996).

Averaged out, there were 0.6 murders per town, per year. The worst years were Ellsworth, 1873, and Dodge City, 1876, with five killings each; because of their small populations, their FBI homicide rates would be high. Another historian, Rick Shenkman, found Tombstone's (1880 pop: 3,423) most violent year was 1881, in which also only five people were killed; three were the cowboys shot by Earp's men at the OK Corral.

As Dykstra wrote, frontier towns by and large prohibited the “carrying of dangerous weapons of any type, concealed or otherwise, by persons other than law enforcement officers.” Most established towns that restricted weapons had few, if any, killings in a given year.

The settlements that came closest to unchecked carry were the railroad and mining boom towns that tended to lack effective law enforcement, a functioning judicial system, and firearm law, says Aron, and it reflected in higher levels of violence. Like Bodie, California, which was well-known during the 1870s and 1880s for vigilantism and street violence.
  #267  
Old 08-06-2019, 12:49 PM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,519
Quote:
Originally Posted by sps49sd View Post
If that POS had had to worry about counterfire, he would have been more concerned about cover and less about aiming.
Counterfire from what, a pistol? Or do you expect people to attend concerts armed with hunting rifles?
  #268  
Old 08-06-2019, 12:50 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
The amendment says otherwise. ...
Not according to the people whose opinion on the subject matters:


Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 08-06-2019 at 12:50 PM.
  #269  
Old 08-06-2019, 12:50 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
Other gun laws, nationwide gun laws, would be effectively enforceable where local gun laws are not.

No they're not. Any semi automatic rifle with a large magazine can fire over 30 shots in 30 seconds.
That's not what you said "I'd like to make all guns illegal that allow, among other things, one to kill or maim 30 or more people in 30 seconds, yes."


Firing rapidly is not the same as killing rapidly.

As for firing rapidly- So can a bolt action or a lever action.
  #270  
Old 08-06-2019, 12:53 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
You don't want to be shown it's wrong; that would undermine your illusory sense of moral superiority
Unfortunately, civilization decrees that the right to life is at or near the top of the list of rights, while the right to kill is, well, not.

Quote:
Just who is violating those peoples' rights?
Every Law-Abiding Citizen who suddenly stops being one. Who do you think shot all those people in El Paso?
Quote:
Millions of gun owners who don't want to be punished for what someone else did
"Punished" means having to abide by sort of regulations that control every other dangerous item and their owners, even those whose primary purpose is not causing death? Nope.
Quote:
No.
Helluva an argument there. Care to expound on it?

Quote:
You do know that it's the votes of millions of gun owners which congresscritters pay attention to?
And that's why the Republicans are quaking in fear.
  #271  
Old 08-06-2019, 12:54 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Godot View Post
The problem with these stats is that they ignore extraneous factors.

1) As others have pointed out it is difficult for a single state or city's gun laws to be effective when there are lax gun laws in neighboring states and no way to prevent guns crossing state lines. This is why any gun control legislation needs to be enacted nation wide.

....
3) Having a high rate of gun homicide is leads to the enacting of gun laws, not the other way around. I see all the time statistics that say "Chicago has the strongest gun laws but also the highest gun death rate, That proves they just need more good guys with guns Hur Hur". But saying this makes a much sense as saying Chemotherapy is counter productive in fighting Cancer because a much larger proportion of people undergoing Chemotherapy die of cancer than so die among the general population who don't take chemotherapy.
Great, so lets pass a federal law that prevents you from going to a state where it is easy to buy a gun, and taking it back where they have strict gun control! Nationwide law, right? Wait- they already have such a law.



Sure, except it doesnt work to reduce gun crime after the laws go into effect.
  #272  
Old 08-06-2019, 12:54 PM
sps49sd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 454
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
More specifically, the root of the problem is the lack of nation-wide federal legislation that reflects the true dangers of firearms. Again, every advanced democracy on earth has such legislation, and every advanced democracy on earth has very much lower rates of gun violence. The gun lobby would seem to want us to believe that this is some kind of strange coincidence.

It's completely incomprehensible why anyone would reach or even consider such a bizarre conclusion. If the common element is that all these deaths are the result of guns, yet gun policy is not allowed to be a major part of the solution, it can only be because the unstated assumption is that gun control must be rejected out of hand. The further unstated assumption is that instead of controlling access to guns -- the common factor here -- a myriad of other solutions must be enacted instead, most of them ridiculous or impossible, such as magically identifying anyone who is, or might be, emotionally disturbed or even just vulnerable to being emotional, or angry, or depressed, or intoxicated.

This describes a policy where the most dangerous guns are only available to people who genuinely need them, while everyone else still has access to the normal class of unrestricted guns. And this is a problem, why? To most of us, at least to anyone outside the US gun culture, this just sounds like sensible gun policy, one which balances public safety with an individual's ability to own most normal types of guns, even if it's just for fun. How on earth could this possibly be described as a "gun ban"? Furthermore, it's hard to see how anyone other the most ardent gun zealot would consider this an unacceptable balance.
But other nations still have levels of violence. What you advocated is removing a self defense option from those who need it.

And Australia's Category D? In the real world, a Ruger Mark IV (.22 caliber) can kill just as well as what the New Zealand, Orlando, El Paso, or Port Arthur murderers used. Which is why I, for one, oppose efforts to effectively ban such weapons from the general public- when rifles are banned (oh, excuse me, (regulated) and someone remembers Virginia Tech, then pistols will follow. Then shotguns. Then whatever is left.
  #273  
Old 08-06-2019, 12:57 PM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,519
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
That's not what you said "I'd like to make all guns illegal that allow, among other things, one to kill or maim 30 or more people in 30 seconds, yes."


Firing rapidly is not the same as killing rapidly.

As for firing rapidly- So can a bolt action or a lever action.
Nitpicking stats a few days after 9 people were killed and 14 others shot in 30 seconds is pretty fucking ugly.

Do you want the claim adjusted to "kill or maim 23 people in 30 seconds"? Would that soothe your precious fee fees?
  #274  
Old 08-06-2019, 12:57 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Same way we register that many cars. And examine and license their owners, too.

You got any constructive ideas? You even recognize mass murder as a problem?
It's a bit too late to register those 300 million guns at the time of purchase. And guns are a tad easier to hide than a car is.

Yes, I do. Get the media to voluntarily stop glorifying the killers. Have them not name them. Sociologists have made it clear that is the cause of mass shootings.

Stop straw man sellers. Tighten up background checks.
  #275  
Old 08-06-2019, 12:58 PM
sps49sd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
Counterfire from what, a pistol? Or do you expect people to attend concerts armed with hunting rifles?
YES, a pistol. When someone is shot at, or even shot toward, the impulse is to seek cover.
  #276  
Old 08-06-2019, 12:58 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
And to prevent this, what do you propose?
The laws already in place which check to see if a potential buyer is listed as insane.
  #277  
Old 08-06-2019, 01:00 PM
Airbeck is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by sps49sd View Post
YES, a pistol. When someone is shot at, or even shot toward, the impulse is to seek cover.
You guys watch too many action movies. Possessing a gun does not make you John Wick or John McClain. These shootout fantasies are downright disturbing.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #278  
Old 08-06-2019, 01:02 PM
sps49sd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
Nitpicking stats a few days after 9 people were killed and 14 others shot in 30 seconds is pretty fucking ugly.

Do you want the claim adjusted to "kill or maim 23 people in 30 seconds"? Would that soothe your precious fee fees?
I think it's ugly to use a tragedy to accomplish your aims. Like former Australian PM John Howard:

-During the same television interview, Howard also stated that he saw the outpouring of grief in the aftermath of the Port Arthur massacre as "an opportunity to grab the moment and think about a fundamental change to gun laws in this country".
  #279  
Old 08-06-2019, 01:03 PM
Airbeck is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by sps49sd View Post
I think it's ugly to use a tragedy to accomplish your aims. Like former Australian PM John Howard:

-During the same television interview, Howard also stated that he saw the outpouring of grief in the aftermath of the Port Arthur massacre as "an opportunity to grab the moment and think about a fundamental change to gun laws in this country".
I think it's ugly to impugn the motives of your opponents in an attempt to prevent discussion when we are discussing the repeated slaughter of our fellow citizens.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes

Last edited by Airbeck; 08-06-2019 at 01:04 PM.
  #280  
Old 08-06-2019, 01:04 PM
sps49sd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
You guys watch too many action movies. Possessing a gun does not make you John Wick or John McClain. These shootout fantasies are downright disturbing.
You want to be dismissive and condescending, fine. But have you seen what people do when they are shot at? Have you been in the military and in the line of fire, or spoken to anybody that was?
  #281  
Old 08-06-2019, 01:05 PM
sps49sd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
I think it's ugly to impugn the motives of your opponents in an attempt to prevent discussion when we are discussing the repeated slaughter of our fellow citizens.
I don't want to prevent discussion, but I prefer reason to emotional appeals.
  #282  
Old 08-06-2019, 01:06 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,109
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
It's a bit too late to register those 300 million guns at the time of purchase. And guns are a tad easier to hide than a car is.
Excuses.

Quote:
Yes, I do. Get the media to voluntarily stop glorifying the killers. Have them not name them. Sociologists have made it clear that is the cause of mass shootings.
They have? Cite?

Quote:
Stop straw man sellers. Tighten up background checks.
And you think that's realistically going to have an effect, while actual regulation of ownership and owners will not.
  #283  
Old 08-06-2019, 01:07 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
Except Trump.. and his enablers in congress.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...ld-cut-program
Yep, because that was a bad bill. What is did was say that anyone on SocSec disability was too crazy to own a gun, no matter their mental issue. Getting a benefit from the Govt should not stop your Constitutional rights. There are mental issues that dont make you a danger to others, for example Agoraphobia. But just because a person is afraid to leave her home, that doesn't mean she can't own a gun to protect herself. Or would you make her defenseless in her own home because she gets a check?


If a person has been judged a danger to himself or others by a court, they are already banned from owning or buying a gun. That is Due Process. That bill took away due process, the repeal of it simple brought back Due process.

The ACLU lobbied hard to get that bill repealed. that shoudl tell you something- it aint the NRA- its the ACLU.
  #284  
Old 08-06-2019, 01:09 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
The right to carry a flintlock musket as long as you're wearing the tricorn hat and knee breeches of your militia unit?
Yes, like the right to only publish a newspaper or book as long as it is printed on a 18th century hand press,- which means you have no right to free expression on the Internet or over the phone.
  #285  
Old 08-06-2019, 01:10 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by sps49sd View Post
You can't engage in a discussion?
Nope, he apparently just wants to rant.
  #286  
Old 08-06-2019, 01:11 PM
sps49sd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 454
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
[post 764]
None of your responses makes any sense to me, so... you go on thinking you made points.

Last edited by sps49sd; 08-06-2019 at 01:12 PM.
  #287  
Old 08-06-2019, 01:11 PM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,519
Quote:
Originally Posted by sps49sd View Post
I think it's ugly to use a tragedy to accomplish your aims.
I'm not using the tragedy to accomplish my aim... THE TRAGEDY IS THE AIM.

Your guns are irrelevant lumps of metal, I couldn't give a rat fuck about any of them, it's the people being killed in bunches, people killed by the thousands every year, that is the thing that matters.

So, talking about the tragedy isn't ugly because the tragedy is the problem to be solved.
  #288  
Old 08-06-2019, 01:11 PM
Airbeck is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by sps49sd View Post
You want to be dismissive and condescending, fine. But have you seen what people do when they are shot at? Have you been in the military and in the line of fire, or spoken to anybody that was?
I live in civilized society. Or at least I used to think I did. I chose not to enter the military because I did not want to put myself in a position where I could be shot at any time. Shouldn't we want to not live in that world? Is that the world you want your kids to live in? I never had to do active shooter drills when I was in school. My heart breaks that our kids will never know what it was like to not live in fear that they might not make it back home from school on any given day. This is the world we've created for them and it's shameful.

As the adults in this country it is our duty to do everything we can to make the world a better place for those that come after us. We are utterly failing to do that. Some of us still want to try. Apparently some of us don't.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #289  
Old 08-06-2019, 01:13 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Yep, because that was a bad bill. What is did was say that anyone on SocSec disability was too crazy to own a gun, no matter their mental issue. Getting a benefit from the Govt should not stop your Constitutional rights. There are mental issues that dont make you a danger to others, for example Agoraphobia. But just because a person is afraid to leave her home, that doesn't mean she can't own a gun to protect herself. Or would you make her defenseless in her own home because she gets a check?


If a person has been judged a danger to himself or others by a court, they are already banned from owning or buying a gun. That is Due Process. That bill took away due process, the repeal of it simple brought back Due process.

The ACLU lobbied hard to get that bill repealed. that shoudl tell you something- it aint the NRA- its the ACLU.
Therefore then a new bill that concentrates on the relevant mental issues should be made.

Not holding my breath for this president and his enablers to make one.
  #290  
Old 08-06-2019, 01:13 PM
Airbeck is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by sps49sd View Post
I don't want to prevent discussion, but I prefer reason to emotional appeals.
You just accused anyone who is trying to solve this problem of being disingenuous and only coldy using the tragedies to achieve pre-existing goals. This is saying that your opponents don't actually care about the slaughters.

That is a very ugly thing to say.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #291  
Old 08-06-2019, 01:14 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
The very same used by doctors and judges after those doctors and judges declare someone as having a mental issue.
Not just a "mental issue", why is that? Fear of cats is a mental issue.


The reason to take someones right to own a gun away is that if they have a mental issue that makes them a danger to themselves or others.

We have a process for that- it's called, oddly "Due Process" and it makes you ineligible to own or buy a gun. Its been that way for decades.

Have people on SocSec disability been killing people in large numbers? Got a cite?
  #292  
Old 08-06-2019, 01:14 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,109
Quote:
Originally Posted by sps49sd View Post
None of your responses makes any sense to me
Thanks for admitting you're part of the problem.
  #293  
Old 08-06-2019, 01:16 PM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,519
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
We have a process for that- it's called, oddly "Due Process" and it makes you ineligible to own or buy a gun. Its been that way for decades.
And how's that been workin out for us so far? Lots of dangerous people unable to get guns these days?
  #294  
Old 08-06-2019, 01:17 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,109
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Yes, like the right to only publish a newspaper or book as long as it is printed on a 18th century hand press,- which means you have no right to free expression on the Internet or over the phone.
The principle of free expression has remained constant. The role of militias, and the need for a guarantee of their arming and training, disappeared the day the standing army was established.

I think you know that.
  #295  
Old 08-06-2019, 01:17 PM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,519
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Nope, he apparently just wants to rant.
Sometimes, that's the response that's deserved, just not in this thread.
  #296  
Old 08-06-2019, 01:17 PM
Jonathan Chance is online now
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 22,782

The Moderator Speaks


Quote:
Originally Posted by dhricenak View Post
Maybe if someone brought an assault rifle to the Senate floor and opened fire.
That’s quite enough of that. No more threats of violence, even in jest, against anyone in this thread.
  #297  
Old 08-06-2019, 01:17 PM
sps49sd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
I'm not using the tragedy to accomplish my aim... THE TRAGEDY IS THE AIM.

Your guns are irrelevant lumps of metal, I couldn't give a rat fuck about any of them, it's the people being killed in bunches, people killed by the thousands every year, that is the thing that matters.

So, talking about the tragedy isn't ugly because the tragedy is the problem to be solved.
People are defended by these irrelevant lumps of metal, including my mother, once.

And check out the 538 linked graphic I cited above and count your thousands.
  #298  
Old 08-06-2019, 01:18 PM
JXJohns's Avatar
JXJohns is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Middle of the Midwest
Posts: 2,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
I know this has been floated a few times but I don't know what to do with this thought other than to point and laugh at it.
It's a ridiculous notion.
Especially since one of the leading spokesman for the NRA is. Black man.
  #299  
Old 08-06-2019, 01:23 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Not just a "mental issue", why is that? Fear of cats is a mental issue.


The reason to take someones right to own a gun away is that if they have a mental issue that makes them a danger to themselves or others.

We have a process for that- it's called, oddly "Due Process" and it makes you ineligible to own or buy a gun. Its been that way for decades.

Have people on SocSec disability been killing people in large numbers? Got a cite?
So much for telling others they are just ranting, what you did here propping up a straw man.
  #300  
Old 08-06-2019, 01:24 PM
sps49sd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 454
Originally Posted by sps49sd
... But have you seen what people do when they are shot at? Have you been in the military and in the line of fire, or spoken to anybody that was?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
I live in civilized society. Or at least I used to think I did. I chose not to enter the military because I did not want to put myself in a position where I could be shot at any time. Shouldn't we want to not live in that world? Is that the world you want your kids to live in? I never had to do active shooter drills when I was in school. My heart breaks that our kids will never know what it was like to not live in fear that they might not make it back home from school on any given day. This is the world we've created for them and it's shameful.

As the adults in this country it is our duty to do everything we can to make the world a better place for those that come after us. We are utterly failing to do that. Some of us still want to try. Apparently some of us don't.
That sounds like "no". I suggest you seek that information out, rather than tell me how sad you are, because you asked me a question and I think I answered it fairly.
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:03 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017