Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: The Official Gun Control Thread. « previous next »
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 40

Bucman

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 12565
Offline
#45 : June 09, 2013, 04:33:57 PM

Since when does a normal person go crazy and kill a bunch of people. Every single shooting involves someone that has something mental about them. Normal people don't go off the rails and do things like this. Your not going to stop them from getting guns, if they want a gun they will find a way to get it.


CalcuttaRain

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 20294
Online
#46 : June 09, 2013, 04:36:48 PM

on the challenges of dealing with #1 above, mental health issues, here's a great discussion in the context of this actual case:

"Even now, before that bill has passed the Assembly, California has strict guidelines in place regarding gun control and mental illness. Regulations include a prohibition against anyone owning or buying a firearm who "has been adjudicated to be a danger to others as a result of a mental disorder or mental illness."

While the details of Zawahri's case are not yet known and could take the case in a different direction, Friday's massacre clearly does not hit California unawares. In passing the recent bill, California Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D) said: "We all can recite the horrific acts that have occurred in our country over the last year. These bills attempt to respond to those well-publicized tragedies and many more that go unpublicized."

For mental-health professionals, the danger is in going too far and stigmatizing the mentally ill as dangerously violent, which is not true in the vast majority of cases, they say.

"There are mental illness diagnoses that do increase your risk of violence," Josh Horwitz, executive director of the gun control group Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, told US News & World Report. "But identifying which [diagnoses] those are and who those people are is going to be difficult."


This excerpt illustrate how difficult the mental health issue is from a legal perspective. Laws by their nature are very limited. In this case, all the law could do would be to stop someone from owning a gun who has been "adjudicated to be a danger to others as a result of a mental disorder or mental illness."  Do you know how few people fit that mold? Adam Lanza did not and I doubt Zwahiri fits that definition and the Colorado shooter did not, neither did the Columbine kids. As much as the pro-gun people hate to think about it, guns are the easiest thing in the equation to control.

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\\\\\\\'s Cancer Center

CalcuttaRain

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 20294
Online
#47 : June 09, 2013, 04:39:48 PM

Since when does a normal person go crazy and kill a bunch of people. Every single shooting involves someone that has something mental about them. Normal people don't go off the rails and do things like this. Your not going to stop them from getting guns, if they want a gun they will find a way to get it.

MUCH EASIER to reduce access to guns then to identify a person with SUFFICIENT mental issues to take away a Constitutional right . . . and even if you could identify them it would be a long legal battle before their rights could be restricted. 

A very motivated person is going to get a gun or build a bomb or drive a car into a crowd. That does not mean we should abandon all efforts. Its simply easier to restrict access to guns than anything else

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\\\\\\\'s Cancer Center

Dolorous Jason

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 17901
Online
#48 : June 09, 2013, 05:04:02 PM

Since when does a normal person go crazy and kill a bunch of people. Every single shooting involves someone that has something mental about them. Normal people don't go off the rails and do things like this. Your not going to stop them from getting guns, if they want a gun they will find a way to get it.

Amen.

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

           

spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 7110
Offline
#49 : June 09, 2013, 05:30:12 PM


So I think the following is your position:
1. against universal background checks because they are "flawed"

I am against the current proposals as laid down by the Senate because they are flawed.

2. Want any background check system to include an exemption for CWP to CWP sales (I agree, fine . .  BUT note you said "for one," which implies additional exemptions, right?)

No. You asked what measures would be acceptable. This is one measure that is acceptable. It does not suggest or imply that it is the Golden Egg. Other measures would be required IN ADDITION to that ONE.

3. lending a gun to a friend TO USE AT A RANGE and ranges in general shouldn't require a background check (I agree, who wouldn't the gun is AT A RANGE  . . . but my guess - and I have to guess because you still havent said what you would support -- is that you want to be able to cede control of a gun to a friend outside a range. That's more complicated but as a base line if you were accepting civil (and potentially even criminal -aid/abet) then perhaps. The point is to keep the guns out of some peoples hands so what if your friend is a criminal or has mental issues etc.?

"Here, have a look at my new gun" = felony. The proposals as presented have not been thought through. Major, major flaws. I am not a lawyer and I can see it, so why can't our esteemed law makers? Unless of course they don't give a crap and that is not their intent.

4. On anonymous, I still dont know if you mean all sales or private sales or just some private sales? I am guessing you want anonymous because of a concern that the government will come take your guns?

Its really not that complicated though. You questioned why you should take me serious, I guess I would respond with the same. Ive given you several opportunities, but let me try again.  If you start from the premise that the loophole now is that many sales are exempt from the background check requirement, that means the solution is to close the loophole, (i.e., universal background checks).  So . . .  we'll try again if you want:

What would it take for you to accept universal background checks?  Just number 2, 3 and 4?

Yes to Private sales.  And, yes to a concern the Govt will come and take our guns. Look back at the headlines of the last few weeks and try to convince me the Govt won't abuse their power and authority. Add onto that stories out of NY and California of the State already using the information they have to, at best for what could be construed as surreptitious reasons, confiscate guns and I think I have genuine reasons to be concerned.

spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 7110
Offline
#50 : June 09, 2013, 05:44:27 PM

on the challenges of dealing with #1 above, mental health issues, here's a great discussion in the context of this actual case:

"Even now, before that bill has passed the Assembly, California has strict guidelines in place regarding gun control and mental illness. Regulations include a prohibition against anyone owning or buying a firearm who "has been adjudicated to be a danger to others as a result of a mental disorder or mental illness."

While the details of Zawahri's case are not yet known and could take the case in a different direction, Friday's massacre clearly does not hit California unawares. In passing the recent bill, California Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D) said: "We all can recite the horrific acts that have occurred in our country over the last year. These bills attempt to respond to those well-publicized tragedies and many more that go unpublicized."

For mental-health professionals, the danger is in going too far and stigmatizing the mentally ill as dangerously violent, which is not true in the vast majority of cases, they say.

"There are mental illness diagnoses that do increase your risk of violence," Josh Horwitz, executive director of the gun control group Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, told US News & World Report. "But identifying which [diagnoses] those are and who those people are is going to be difficult."


This excerpt illustrate how difficult the mental health issue is from a legal perspective. Laws by their nature are very limited. In this case, all the law could do would be to stop someone from owning a gun who has been "adjudicated to be a danger to others as a result of a mental disorder or mental illness."  Do you know how few people fit that mold? Adam Lanza did not and I doubt Zwahiri fits that definition and the Colorado shooter did not, neither did the Columbine kids. As much as the pro-gun people hate to think about it, guns are the easiest thing in the equation to control.

Vin,

You need to be careful what you post. This just destroyed your argument for background checks. It essentially states that no background check would have identified, caught or stopped any of those responsible for the most recent shootings. It also implies the only solution I (which I said months ago) is to remove guns out of the equation. Now please continue with that "we don't to take your guns away" thing.

CalcuttaRain

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 20294
Online
#51 : June 09, 2013, 05:45:16 PM


So I think the following is your position:
1. against universal background checks because they are "flawed"

I am against the current proposals as laid down by the Senate because they are flawed.

2. Want any background check system to include an exemption for CWP to CWP sales (I agree, fine . .  BUT note you said "for one," which implies additional exemptions, right?)

No. You asked what measures would be acceptable. This is one measure that is acceptable. It does not suggest or imply that it is the Golden Egg. Other measures would be required IN ADDITION to that ONE.

3. lending a gun to a friend TO USE AT A RANGE and ranges in general shouldn't require a background check (I agree, who wouldn't the gun is AT A RANGE  . . . but my guess - and I have to guess because you still havent said what you would support -- is that you want to be able to cede control of a gun to a friend outside a range. That's more complicated but as a base line if you were accepting civil (and potentially even criminal -aid/abet) then perhaps. The point is to keep the guns out of some peoples hands so what if your friend is a criminal or has mental issues etc.?

"Here, have a look at my new gun" = felony. The proposals as presented have not been thought through. Major, major flaws. I am not a lawyer and I can see it, so why can't our esteemed law makers? Unless of course they don't give a crap and that is not their intent.

4. On anonymous, I still dont know if you mean all sales or private sales or just some private sales? I am guessing you want anonymous because of a concern that the government will come take your guns?

Its really not that complicated though. You questioned why you should take me serious, I guess I would respond with the same. Ive given you several opportunities, but let me try again.  If you start from the premise that the loophole now is that many sales are exempt from the background check requirement, that means the solution is to close the loophole, (i.e., universal background checks).  So . . .  we'll try again if you want:

What would it take for you to accept universal background checks?  Just number 2, 3 and 4?

Yes to Private sales.  And, yes to a concern the Govt will come and take our guns. Look back at the headlines of the last few weeks and try to convince me the Govt won't abuse their power and authority. Add onto that stories out of NY and California of the State already using the information they have to, at best for what could be construed as surreptitious reasons, confiscate guns and I think I have genuine reasons to be concerned.

So, unless I am missing something, you are kind of illustrating my point, right?  You have a lot of objections for current proposals because they are "flawed"  BUT you are unable or unwilling to put forth any proposal you would accept?  Am I understanding that correctly?

 If so, then as I said when I thought we agreed before, your position almost precisely illustrate why gun owner run the serious risk of having almost all of their rights trampled.  In order for differing views to reach a mutually-agreeable settlement BOTH SIDES have to negotiate in good faith. If one side puts up a proposal and the other side only objects, never putting up a counter proposal, then that side is not negotiating in good faith.  Typically when that happens the parties forfeit their rights to control their own destiny because they are forcing a third-party to resolve things.  In this case, it will be Congress or the Supreme Court or both. 

Gun owners may feel that is a better strategy for them, although I don't see how one could come to that conclusion given the most recent gun case decided by the Supreme Court, but so be it.  As I said months ago, another Sandy Hook is around the corner . . . well, we just had one similar . . . more to come . . . one (or several) will come and there will be a backlash against the minority position.

any way, I understand where your'e coming from (even if Escobar does not -lol) . . . but I am not sure why you question taking me serious if you don't have an acceptable counter? I still take your position seriously even if I think it is flawed. Again, maybe I am missing something.

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\\\\\\\'s Cancer Center

Biggs3535

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 31642
Offline
#52 : June 09, 2013, 05:45:19 PM

That is not only what I said is it? And what is more, I specifically said I am against the background check proposals as they are now because they are flawed. Totally different  to what you just said. Taking that into consideration, explain to me why I should now take you seriously?

Yes, but if you take away the false premise from the PeanutButterCheeseBoy, he'll have nothing.  Let him put words in your mouth and frame the argument how he pleases, and everything will be fine.


CalcuttaRain

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 20294
Online
#53 : June 09, 2013, 05:50:53 PM

on the challenges of dealing with #1 above, mental health issues, here's a great discussion in the context of this actual case:

"Even now, before that bill has passed the Assembly, California has strict guidelines in place regarding gun control and mental illness. Regulations include a prohibition against anyone owning or buying a firearm who "has been adjudicated to be a danger to others as a result of a mental disorder or mental illness."

While the details of Zawahri's case are not yet known and could take the case in a different direction, Friday's massacre clearly does not hit California unawares. In passing the recent bill, California Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D) said: "We all can recite the horrific acts that have occurred in our country over the last year. These bills attempt to respond to those well-publicized tragedies and many more that go unpublicized."

For mental-health professionals, the danger is in going too far and stigmatizing the mentally ill as dangerously violent, which is not true in the vast majority of cases, they say.

"There are mental illness diagnoses that do increase your risk of violence," Josh Horwitz, executive director of the gun control group Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, told US News & World Report. "But identifying which [diagnoses] those are and who those people are is going to be difficult."


This excerpt illustrate how difficult the mental health issue is from a legal perspective. Laws by their nature are very limited. In this case, all the law could do would be to stop someone from owning a gun who has been "adjudicated to be a danger to others as a result of a mental disorder or mental illness."  Do you know how few people fit that mold? Adam Lanza did not and I doubt Zwahiri fits that definition and the Colorado shooter did not, neither did the Columbine kids. As much as the pro-gun people hate to think about it, guns are the easiest thing in the equation to control.

Vin,

You need to be careful what you post. This just destroyed your argument for background checks. It essentially states that no background check would have identified, caught or stopped any of those responsible for the most recent shootings. It also implies the only solution I (which I said months ago) is to remove guns out of the equation. Now please continue with that "we don't to take your guns away" thing.

no it doesn't,  let see how he got the guns first, but secondly I have never said that things need to be a perfect solution, I have said the opposite, that is YOUR (gun owners) argument not mine.  But, Spartan you do realize, I hope, that MANY people would come to the conclusion -- particularly if they were motivated by emotion -- that the "only solution . .  is to remove guns out of the equation.'  That is PRECISELY the type of overreaction gun owners are setting themselves up for. That has been my point. Heck, its in my last response to you.

There will always be the potential for a Sandy Hook because there is a Constitutional right to bear arms and there are bad people in the world. That does NOT mean however that we shouldn't try to reduce the likelihood BY improving our understanding of mental health issues AND restricting access to guns. I simply said the latter is much easier to do UNDER THE LAW

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\\\\\\\'s Cancer Center

CalcuttaRain

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 20294
Online
#54 : June 09, 2013, 05:52:47 PM

That is not only what I said is it? And what is more, I specifically said I am against the background check proposals as they are now because they are flawed. Totally different  to what you just said. Taking that into consideration, explain to me why I should now take you seriously?

Yes, but if you take away the false premise from the PeanutButterCheeseBoy, he'll have nothing.  Let him put words in your mouth and frame the argument how he pleases, and everything will be fine.

the scarecrow cant help himself . . .  Thanks for being you Buggsy, you make it very easy for me . . . . . .

 3 . . .  . .2 ........ 1 ....


Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\\\\\\\'s Cancer Center

olafberserker

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 21323
Offline
#55 : June 09, 2013, 06:29:14 PM

They should put seat belts on guns, then we will be safe.

CalcuttaRain

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 20294
Online
#56 : June 09, 2013, 06:48:33 PM

Nearly 800,000 deaths prevented due to declines in smoking; NIH study examines the impact of tobacco control policies and programs, and the potential for further reduction in lung cancer deaths
Twentieth-century tobacco control programs and policies were responsible for preventing more than 795,000 lung cancer deaths in the United States from 1975 through 2000, according to an analysis funded by the National Cancer Institute (NCI), part of the National Institutes of Health.


http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/newsfromnci/2012/TobaccoControlCISNET

"Gun logic"  === Tobacco causes preventable death BUT we should do NOTHING about it because people will still smoke  ???

"Gun logic" === do NOTHING about obesity, people will still be fat. Do NOTHING about alcohol, diseases, poisons, auto accidents . . .  people will still die  ???



curious thing, logic . . . .  it can be a **CENSORED** when you're on the wrong side of it

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\\\\\\\'s Cancer Center

CalcuttaRain

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 20294
Online
#57 : June 09, 2013, 09:21:28 PM

ammo found in a room in the burned out home.  I am going to guess the weapons were his brothers . . . just a guess

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\\\\\\\'s Cancer Center

CalcuttaRain

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 20294
Online
#58 : June 10, 2013, 12:29:14 PM

on the challenges of dealing with #1 above, mental health issues, here's a great discussion in the context of this actual case:

"Even now, before that bill has passed the Assembly, California has strict guidelines in place regarding gun control and mental illness. Regulations include a prohibition against anyone owning or buying a firearm who "has been adjudicated to be a danger to others as a result of a mental disorder or mental illness."

While the details of Zawahri's case are not yet known and could take the case in a different direction, Friday's massacre clearly does not hit California unawares. In passing the recent bill, California Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D) said: "We all can recite the horrific acts that have occurred in our country over the last year. These bills attempt to respond to those well-publicized tragedies and many more that go unpublicized."

For mental-health professionals, the danger is in going too far and stigmatizing the mentally ill as dangerously violent, which is not true in the vast majority of cases, they say.

"There are mental illness diagnoses that do increase your risk of violence," Josh Horwitz, executive director of the gun control group Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, told US News & World Report. "But identifying which [diagnoses] those are and who those people are is going to be difficult."


This excerpt illustrate how difficult the mental health issue is from a legal perspective. Laws by their nature are very limited. In this case, all the law could do would be to stop someone from owning a gun who has been "adjudicated to be a danger to others as a result of a mental disorder or mental illness."  Do you know how few people fit that mold? Adam Lanza did not and I doubt Zwahiri fits that definition and the Colorado shooter did not, neither did the Columbine kids. As much as the pro-gun people hate to think about it, guns are the easiest thing in the equation to control.

This kid had a pretty bad history IN HINDSIGHT

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2013/06/10/threatening-encounter-with-santa-monica-gunman-and-teachers-7-years-ago-raised-concerns/

But, just to emphasize how difficult it would be to prevent this encounter by simply addressing the mental health side, even this kid, with this history would not fit this legal defintion in order to prevent him from buying guns:

"Regulations include a prohibition against anyone owning or buying a firearm who "has been adjudicated to be a danger to others as a result of a mental disorder or mental illness."

There is no reason he would have been adjudicated to be a danger, even with that background.

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\\\\\\\'s Cancer Center

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
#59 : June 10, 2013, 06:49:36 PM

Nearly 800,000 deaths prevented due to declines in smoking; NIH study examines the impact of tobacco control policies and programs, and the potential for further reduction in lung cancer deaths
Twentieth-century tobacco control programs and policies were responsible for preventing more than 795,000 lung cancer deaths in the United States from 1975 through 2000, according to an analysis funded by the National Cancer Institute (NCI), part of the National Institutes of Health.


http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/newsfromnci/2012/TobaccoControlCISNET

"Gun logic"  === Tobacco causes preventable death BUT we should do NOTHING about it because people will still smoke  ???

"Gun logic" === do NOTHING about obesity, people will still be fat. Do NOTHING about alcohol, diseases, poisons, auto accidents . . .  people will still die  ???



curious thing, logic . . . .  it can be a **CENSORED** when you're on the wrong side of it

I would just like to applaud Vin for being so spot on in this thread. Nicely done.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 40
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: The Official Gun Control Thread. « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools