Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: The Official Gun Control Thread. « previous next »
Page: 1 ... 14 15 16 17 18 ... 40

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17629
Offline
#225 : June 19, 2013, 01:42:19 PM

A wackjob can kill a lot more people with ANFRO (see Ok City) than with an AR-15, but we can't ban diesel or fertilizer. But we can watch known wackjobs and see if they are buying large amounts of either ingredient.

1. but you cannot, for example, watch the Colorado shooter or the Santa Monica killer stockpile ammo (Colorado/Santa Monica) or buy parts to build a gun (Santa Monica).  Why?  Because that would be a form of gun control . .  . and that doesnt work  . .  and the government is actually secretly planning to come take us all away so we cannot let them know here the guns and ammo is located . .  I learned that last part from Wayne.

2. any MOTIVATED person can find a way to kill people, this isnt a Steven Spielberg movie, but that does not mean that we make no efforts to reduce gun deaths like we do all sorts of preventable death. It's a Public Health issue, just like seatbelts in cars . . . except there are more guns than cars even there are relatively few gun users . . . and guns dont serve a valid non-violent purpose in sociaety like cars do.


Because I can buy an AR-15 and a ton of ammo right now -- even if I was a felon or incompetent -- the status quo is akin to the Wild West even though the majority of citizens are NOT goone owners.  There are PLENTY of reasonable steps than can be taken to reduce gun violence/death.

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17629
Offline
#226 : June 19, 2013, 01:46:56 PM

Suicide is the number one source of gun deaths. If you would like to present a case that there's no connection between suicide and mental illness, I'll gladly critique it for you.


Any connection is irrelevant and is merely an attempt to sidetrack us from the real need for a ban on guns, knives, razor blades, rope and tall buildings or bridges.

knives, razor blades, rope, tall buildings, bridges . .  . all serve a purpose other than to kill people . . . with the exception of sports like hunting, target shooting etc., the only purpose of a gun is to kill someone. Sometimes that is a valid purpose, such as self-defense, but it only makes sense that we would regulate guns a little more than we would "rope and tall buildings and bridges" . . . . and yet . .  WE DONT . . .  other than symbolically.

I can buy rope, a building or a bridge right now . . . no questions asked . . .  oh wait. .  . and an AR-15 too . . . no questions asked.

http://www.armslist.com/posts/1377757/tampa-rifles-for-sale--m-p-ar-1522

John Galt?

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 18831
Offline
#227 : June 19, 2013, 01:51:36 PM

even accepting your premise, when is someone one mentally incompetent to own a gun? Stated differently, what is the legal bar to denying a citizen a constitutional right based on a mental illness?  Is it enough that someone says, "that guy is nuts" or does the person have to be adjudicated mentally incompetent first?

I look forward to your thoughts on the questions in bold

what are your thoughts?


Well you are focusing on ownership. Ownership isn't the problem, possession and use are. If I buy an AR-15 and keep it locked in my gunsafe, it will cause no harm. If someone steals a gun, they still do not own it, but they do posses it and may use it.

The focus needs to be on possession and use, not ownership or sales. A guy with multiple DUIs can still OWN a car, he just isn't allowed to drive it. If a person is found to be mentally "wacko" by a certified doctor or psychologist, he should not be allowed to POSSESS a weapon. He can then be denied the ability to purchase guns in the future and any guns he already has can be kept "in trust" until he is no longer incompetent. We already have the legal structure to have someone adjudicated as "incompetent to handle their own financial matters" in which a Representative Payee is appointed to pay their bills, handle their bank accounts, etc. etc. Why is it so hard to say " handling a gun is of greater concern that handling your own financial matters" IOW "you aren't competent to possess a weapon"


Bucfucious

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 3668
Offline
#228 : June 19, 2013, 01:51:50 PM

Christ amighty, Vin, all this blathering about gun control and you've never even bothered to look up the statistics? Do it now.

I'll answer your question after you answer my question about why the problem behind the majority of gun deaths wouldn't be the best place to start in preventing them.

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17629
Offline
#229 : June 19, 2013, 01:51:53 PM

Suicide is the number one source of gun deaths. If you would like to present a case that there's no connection between suicide and mental illness, I'll gladly critique it for you.

suicide is the "number one source of gun deaths"?   link?

In any event, since you link suicide and mental illness, why did you skip by the mental illness question:

even accepting your premise, when is someone one mentally incompetent to own a gun? Stated differently, what is the legal bar to denying a citizen a constitutional right based on a mental illness?  Is it enough that someone says, "that guy is nuts" or does the person have to be adjudicated mentally incompetent first?

I look forward to your thoughts on the questions in bold

what are your thoughts?

Von?

deadzone

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 3552
Offline
#230 : June 19, 2013, 01:55:59 PM

Yo  Vin...drop by and we'll burn a few thousand rounds.....drink lakes of beer and eat massive slabs of ribs........

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17629
Offline
#231 : June 19, 2013, 01:56:11 PM

Christ amighty, Vin, all this blathering about gun control and you've never even bothered to look up the statistics? Do it now.

I'll answer your question after you answer my question about why the problem behind the majority of gun deaths wouldn't be the best place to start in preventing them.

so you'll answer my question when I respond to your false premise . . . great that sound fun.

I dont even agree that mental health (unless you define it very broadly) is the number one cause of gun deaths, but accepting that as true . . I am happy to start there . . . as i have said many times . . I have only said that there is no reason to start with mental health to the EXCLUSION of dealing with guns as well. . . but sure let's start with mental health.  Now, to do so on of the first things you would have to do is answer my question because we need to know th dividing line . . . so . . .for the third or fourth time . . . I look forward to your response

even accepting your premise, when is someone one mentally incompetent to own a gun? Stated differently, what is the legal bar to denying a citizen a constitutional right based on a mental illness?  Is it enough that someone says, "that guy is nuts" or does the person have to be adjudicated mentally incompetent first?

I look forward to your thoughts on the questions in bold

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17629
Offline
#232 : June 19, 2013, 02:04:12 PM

even accepting your premise, when is someone one mentally incompetent to own a gun? Stated differently, what is the legal bar to denying a citizen a constitutional right based on a mental illness?  Is it enough that someone says, "that guy is nuts" or does the person have to be adjudicated mentally incompetent first?

I look forward to your thoughts on the questions in bold

what are your thoughts?


Well you are focusing on ownership. Ownership isn't the problem, possession and use are. If I buy an AR-15 and keep it locked in my gunsafe, it will cause no harm. If someone steals a gun, they still do not own it, but they do posses it and may use it.

The focus needs to be on possession and use, not ownership or sales. A guy with multiple DUIs can still OWN a car, he just isn't allowed to drive it. If a person is found to be mentally "wacko" by a certified doctor or psychologist, he should not be allowed to POSSESS a weapon. He can then be denied the ability to purchase guns in the future and any guns he already has can be kept "in trust" until he is no longer incompetent. We already have the legal structure to have someone adjudicated as "incompetent to handle their own financial matters" in which a Representative Payee is appointed to pay their bills, handle their bank accounts, etc. etc. Why is it so hard to say " handling a gun is of greater concern that handling your own financial matters" IOW "you aren't competent to possess a weapon"

I used the word "own," but I am fine with defining it as "possession" . . . but here's the problem with your solution . . .  none of the recent mass murders would have been stopped because none of them  . . . including even the Santa Monica killer who had a recorded bomb threat . .  was ADJUDICATED or found "mentally wacko" by a certified doctor or psychologist.  I agree that the law should do what you suggest and California was actually considering an adjudication law, but you are essentially talking about stopping no one or, at best very very few people from owning/possesing a gun.

This is why I have said on here many times that we should do all of those things you mention AND we should dump a lot more effort into mental health issues BUT you cant do that stuff to the exclusion of also trying to limit access to guns, especially not with 300 million guns out there. Is limiting acces to guns a perfect solution? Absolutely NOT . . . but think of it this way . . . how many people in California did NOT go through the trouble of building an AR-15 from parts evn though they were angry at life?  Laws that are less than a perfect solution STILL HELP
: June 19, 2013, 02:06:15 PM VinBucFan

John Galt?

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 18831
Offline
#233 : June 19, 2013, 02:04:41 PM

"A change in the Doctor/patient confidentiality rules could have easily deterred both killers without any change to gun laws that affect the 99.9% of law abiding gun owners."

Doctors are already required by law to report any patient that threatens to harm someone, or if they believe that they intend to. Let's not open this huge can of worms, there are numerous reasons why doctor/patient confidentiality is sacrosanct.


The real issue here is tort reform             (holy derailed thread Batman!!!)

The problem is the "if they believe they intend to". If a doctor thinks but is unable to prove a patient is dangerous and they notify police, they could be subject to lawsuits by the crazy. If they keep quiet, and a crime does happen, the police will say "why didn't you notify us?" and the Dr.'s response is "I wasn't sure enough". Far more likely a doc gets sued than he gets any repercussions from any "requirement to report" law.

The point is if a Dr. prescribes medication for serious mental issues or prescribes medications that can cause (side effects) dangerous behavior, this should be reported to a database available to law enforcement.


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17629
Offline
#234 : June 19, 2013, 02:07:15 PM

"A change in the Doctor/patient confidentiality rules could have easily deterred both killers without any change to gun laws that affect the 99.9% of law abiding gun owners."

Doctors are already required by law to report any patient that threatens to harm someone, or if they believe that they intend to. Let's not open this huge can of worms, there are numerous reasons why doctor/patient confidentiality is sacrosanct.


The real issue here is tort reform             (holy derailed thread Batman!!!)

It's okay, Von wasnt even going to try to answer my question anyway . . even with this ironic twist:

Burden of proof falls on the claimant.


thanks for responding yourself though
: June 19, 2013, 02:21:27 PM VinBucFan

Bucfucious

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 3668
Offline
#235 : June 19, 2013, 02:21:43 PM

I can answer your question quite easily, Vin. I just wanted you to first admit that you hadn't even bothered to educate yourself on the subject you're trying to lecture us on.

The difference in our views on mental illness is that you want to approach the problem with an eye towards controlling them, where I see the solution as making help available to those who need it. In order to control them, a means must be instituted to identify them. If you make help available to those who need it, they can identify themselves. No legions of government employees required to tell everyone what they can or cannot do, much as some might wish for the opportunity of such employment.


Bucfucious

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 3668
Offline
#236 : June 19, 2013, 02:25:22 PM

Oh, and I'm here at my own leisure, jackwagon. I'll answer when I damn well please. I'm not the one who has put myself in a position of needing to stand behind an endless tirade.

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17629
Offline
#237 : June 19, 2013, 02:34:14 PM

I can answer your question quite easily, Vin. I just wanted you to first admit that you hadn't even bothered to educate yourself on the subject you're trying to lecture us on.

 ::)

The difference in our views on mental illness is that you want to approach the problem with an eye towards controlling them, where I see the solution as making help available to those who need it. In order to control them, a means must be instituted to identify them. If you make help available to those who need it, they can identify themselves. No legions of government employees required to tell everyone what they can or cannot do, much as some might wish for the opportunity of such employment.

In the first quote you took a shot at me saying I needed to educate myself, while in the second quote mistating my views but then saying something I have already said I agree with??  ::)

I am all for helping people with mental health issues, AS I HAVE SAID MANT TIMES. The simple fact that I asked you a control-related question does NOT mean that I believe that to be the ONLY solution or approach to mental illness .. .  you know what they say about assumptions.

So, anyway, you essentially punted on my question, right? Either that, or you dont want ANY control of mentally incompetent people . .  you know, in addtion to sitting around waiting for them to identify themselves? Is that right?

Here, since you are "educated" and I am in need of education . . . . educate me:

1. Do you think there should be any effort to control access to guns for people with mental issues? If so, then could you answer my question?
2. Do you think that efforts to address mental health issues should be done to the exclusion of any measures to curtail acces to guns?

Those are not very hard questions to answer . .  well, not for an educated person at least  ;)

Dolorous Jason

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 15397
Offline
#238 : June 19, 2013, 02:35:08 PM

Best way to treat mental health is to shoot the crazy bastards.

What is your point? I was wrong? Ok. You win. I was wrong.

           

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17629
Offline
#239 : June 19, 2013, 02:38:04 PM

Oh, and I'm here at my own leisure, jackwagon. I'll answer when I damn well please. I'm not the one who has put myself in a position of needing to stand behind an endless tirade.

lol . . . you sure do like to post a bunch of nonsense.  I am simply posting my comments too, just like you, so my comments are no more a "endless tirade" than yours . . . and I am here at my leisure too . . . but I have have answered your questions even though they are, in my view, repeatedly based on a false premise..

Btw . . . its okay to disagree
Page: 1 ... 14 15 16 17 18 ... 40
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: The Official Gun Control Thread. « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools