Poll: Do you Support Assault Weapons Ban?

  1. #48961
    Quote Originally Posted by Boomzy View Post
    Because other countries also have mentally ill people and don't have mass shootings this often.
    You know what those other countries do have? They have standardized, single payer, government regulated health systems, including mental health.

    Know what they don't have? Our 2nd Amendment, or our 4th, or 5th, or 14th, maybe its not all about the guns.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mardhyn View Post
    Now this is just blatant trolling, at least before you had the credibility of maybe being stupid.
    Quote Originally Posted by SourceOfInfection View Post
    Sometimes you gotta stop sniffing used schoolgirl panties and start being a fucking samurai.

  2. #48962
    Quote Originally Posted by Svifnymr View Post
    There's also a general feeling of distrust that "a liberal doctor" (government psychologist) would be impartial in deciding if you should have a gun anyway. I don't mean the militiamen out in the hills who don't trust gubmint. I mean the corporate culture of medical professionals that believe guns are a problem and no one should have them, so if you are applying for a gun or defending your possesion of a gun, they might view that as a defect on it's own. "Subject needs to have his gun rights revoked, he has paranoid delusions that his gun is the only thing standing between the government and tyranny. Also believes he needs a gun for self defense, when it's well known that you don't."


    I'd still prefer a call in system, rather than an FFL being involved, and I'm not sure why folks want to involve FFL's.
    I'm with you on the call in system. Hell why don't we have an app for this? Damn near everyone over the age of 10 has a smart phone anyways. It could have a 4473 built into it, have it take a snapshot of their ID and forward it all to the FBI, give you an answer in under 5 min. In the event of a denial, it could even forward the ID snapshot and the GPS location of the phone to state/local LEOs.


    As to the straw purchase issue, I'd like to see more states take Pennsylvania's approach, but taken to the next level. They passed a mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years for anyone convicted of straw purchasing and they're already a POC (point of contact) state, meaning the 4473 goes to the State Police who contact the NICS system. What needs to be added is a direct contact from local LEOs when a background check is failed (not the 30 day wait, if ever) that way police have made initial contact with the individual and can start an investigation then without giving them 4-6 weeks to find another means of acquiring a firearm.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mardhyn View Post
    Now this is just blatant trolling, at least before you had the credibility of maybe being stupid.
    Quote Originally Posted by SourceOfInfection View Post
    Sometimes you gotta stop sniffing used schoolgirl panties and start being a fucking samurai.

  3. #48963
    Quote Originally Posted by Tasttey View Post
    I'm with you on the call in system. Hell why don't we have an app for this? Damn near everyone over the age of 10 has a smart phone anyways. It could have a 4473 built into it, have it take a snapshot of their ID and forward it all to the FBI, give you an answer in under 5 min. In the event of a denial, it could even forward the ID snapshot and the GPS location of the phone to state/local LEOs.
    Florida is a POC, so I don't know what other states have/ NICS has, but FDLE has an online interface. Dealers only. There is also a (non-gunrelated) background system, but I've never monkeyed with it. I figured a system that says "Yes, procede" or "Unknown delay, see FFL to complete transaction" if it's a conditional or non-approval or whatever.

    As to the straw purchase issue, I'd like to see more states take Pennsylvania's approach, but taken to the next level. They passed a mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years for anyone convicted of straw purchasing and they're already a POC (point of contact) state, meaning the 4473 goes to the State Police who contact the NICS system. What needs to be added is a direct contact from local LEOs when a background check is failed (not the 30 day wait, if ever) that way police have made initial contact with the individual and can start an investigation then without giving them 4-6 weeks to find another means of acquiring a firearm.
    The issue there, is that the 4473 is a federal form, so it's the fed's jurisdiction. Pennsylvania's investigation would be limited to what they can find out, whereas ATF can prosecute you for lying on the form.

    There is another problem, the solution of which is counter intuitive, that the penalties are so big that the case has a long defense and hence big bill. Like revoking an FFL, ATF can either give you a "warning" or try to revoke your license. So ATF asked for a system where they could fine you like $250 or $500 for each minor infraction. It's not worth defending, but it is a bite that might lead to corrective action.

    So with a straw purchase, rather than a major court case for a felony, 10 years/ $10,000, they could alter the system to 1-2 guns is a $1000 fine/ 6 months probation or something. 3-5 guns is a felony with a year or so. So the cases cost the person a lot, show that the system is aware of them, but at the same time cost the SYSTEM less overall, especially if routinely plead down. Heck, I'd like them to alter the 4473 so that if someone is ever convicted of a "straw purchase" they can no longer purchase a gun, even if it's not a felony.

    A felony has a lot of downsides, job and otherwise. While straw purchasers may be law breakers, they may not understand the impact or something. Lots of girlfriends doing a favor for their (felon) boyfriend.

    Rather than infringe on everybody's rights, nickel and dime the criminals sources so it is not profitable.
    "I only feel two things Gary, nothing, and nothingness."

  4. #48964
    Quote Originally Posted by Boomzy View Post
    It's not all about the guns, but guns are a large part of the equation, and ignoring them is just as ridiculous as ignoring mental illness.

    Also the same ideological side of the argument in the US wants both single payer healthcare and gun regulation so... Either way. If Republicans or Democrats want to talk about single payer healthcare instead of gun control I'm all for it. It would certainly save more lives, objectively, but as usual the "mental illness" thing is a deflection because nobody on the right gives a fuck about mentally ill people or providing healthcare. They just want their guns.
    While guns add to the issue, I believe its more of a problem of who has access to them, not the weapons themselves. Hell 99.9% of all firearms owned by civilians in the US aren't used to kill anyone, FDA approved pharmaceuticals kill more people in the US every year than guns do (and that doesn't even include the poor folks who end up switching to heroin/fentanyl because they can't get their fix off prescribed opiods.)

    I think the biggest point of divisiveness between the "gun control" and "mental health" people is the lack of attention from "progressive" Democrats on the matter of healthcare in general, not just mental health. Yet these same people will push relentlessly for gun control at every opportunity.

    Elizabeth Warren, Nancy Pelosi, and Chuck Schumer represent 3 of the wealthiest states in the Union, all constantly push for gun control, yet none of them have managed to get a single payer system going in their home states. Hell even Grandpa Bernie got pretty close, too bad Vermont couldn't find a way to pay for it.

    Maybe that's the biggest issue, money. Healthcare is expensive, and its hard to get people to give up their hard earned money to pay for something they may rarely use, just to pay for those who would use it a lot more. Its a lot cheaper to just make law abiding citizens into criminals with the stroke of a pen, which might explain why none of the recently proposed (or passed) gun control laws include a buy back program; just flat out bans, that and in the event that one of these previously law abiding citizens chooses to retain their now "illegal" firearms you get the bonus money from fines, court fees, and for profit prisons.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mardhyn View Post
    Now this is just blatant trolling, at least before you had the credibility of maybe being stupid.
    Quote Originally Posted by SourceOfInfection View Post
    Sometimes you gotta stop sniffing used schoolgirl panties and start being a fucking samurai.

  5. #48965
    The Unstoppable Force Ghostpanther's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    USA, Ohio
    Posts
    24,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Tasttey View Post
    While guns add to the issue, I believe its more of a problem of who has access to them, not the weapons themselves. Hell 99.9% of all firearms owned by civilians in the US aren't used to kill anyone, FDA approved pharmaceuticals kill more people in the US every year than guns do (and that doesn't even include the poor folks who end up switching to heroin/fentanyl because they can't get their fix off prescribed opiods.)

    I think the biggest point of divisiveness between the "gun control" and "mental health" people is the lack of attention from "progressive" Democrats on the matter of healthcare in general, not just mental health. Yet these same people will push relentlessly for gun control at every opportunity.

    Elizabeth Warren, Nancy Pelosi, and Chuck Schumer represent 3 of the wealthiest states in the Union, all constantly push for gun control, yet none of them have managed to get a single payer system going in their home states. Hell even Grandpa Bernie got pretty close, too bad Vermont couldn't find a way to pay for it.

    Maybe that's the biggest issue, money. Healthcare is expensive, and its hard to get people to give up their hard earned money to pay for something they may rarely use, just to pay for those who would use it a lot more. Its a lot cheaper to just make law abiding citizens into criminals with the stroke of a pen, which might explain why none of the recently proposed (or passed) gun control laws include a buy back program; just flat out bans, that and in the event that one of these previously law abiding citizens chooses to retain their now "illegal" firearms you get the bonus money from fines, court fees, and for profit prisons.
    So true. They also know, gun control will not cost a lot of money, which health care reform would. So they play on the emotions of many and know others who will vote for them, will not lose their social welfare pay outs. So getting all up in arms for more gun control is a win win political battle for them.
    " If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher.." - Abraham Lincoln
    The Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to - prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms..” - Samuel Adams

  6. #48966
    The Unstoppable Force Ghostpanther's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    USA, Ohio
    Posts
    24,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Boomzy View Post

    - - - Updated - - -

    I mean an overwhelming majority of citizens are in support of more gun control, so it would really be a win win political battle for any politician that isn't funded by the NRA or doesn't have an opponent that is. Because in the end money wins politics not good ideas.
    This is true. However the NRA has good ideas. Help protect our Second Amendment rights. Once you give up a tiny bit of any right, you rarely gain it back. The far left Democrats have their wealthy donators.
    " If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher.." - Abraham Lincoln
    The Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to - prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms..” - Samuel Adams

  7. #48967
    The Unstoppable Force Ghostpanther's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    USA, Ohio
    Posts
    24,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Boomzy View Post
    That's not even close to true. The US has been putting limits on the second amendment since it's inception, because rights need to strike a balance that makes sense for society... and right now the balance we have doesn't make any sense.

    Also making you take a background check doesn't infringe on your rights, that's already settled constitutional law.
    There are reasonable limits and there are unreasonable ones. I have no issue with improving back ground checks and universal ones across the board for any gun sales or transfers. Ohio at the present has such a bill in the State House to consider. I support that bill.

    Banning bumpstocks or any device which allows a semi-auto rifle to mimic automatic fire, is another one I support.

    Banning AR-15's and limiting magazine capacity is just a over emotional reaction without any tangible proof they are any more dangerous or deadly than any other semi-auto rifle with only a 10 round magazine. But it takes those who are very familiar with firearms to know it is very easy and fast to switch them out with not a lot of training. The school shooting with the highest death count ( 32 ) was done when the shooter only used 2 handguns.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Boomzy View Post
    - - - Updated - - -



    Wow, what a good rebuttal to "Money wins politics"

    Except no it's a fucking dogshit rebuttal you are only proving my point because you fucking hate democrats yet they still win most of the time if they have more money behind them. If you hate Democrats then you should be in agreement.
    But they do. I know, the truth can be a bitch at times.
    " If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher.." - Abraham Lincoln
    The Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to - prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms..” - Samuel Adams

  8. #48968
    The Unstoppable Force Ghostpanther's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    USA, Ohio
    Posts
    24,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Boomzy View Post
    Wow sure dropping knowledge on me there buddy. I had no idea that politicians on both sides were bought and paid for woweee what a time to be alive.
    Lol. Good to see you know the truth.
    " If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher.." - Abraham Lincoln
    The Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to - prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms..” - Samuel Adams

  9. #48969
    The Unstoppable Force Ghostpanther's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    USA, Ohio
    Posts
    24,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Boomzy View Post
    Okay well the NRA is against all of those, because they are "defending your rights" to turn a semi-auto rifle into an auto rifle, so it doesn't really matter what you personally support if you support an organization having the influence to stop even the things you agree should be done.

    - - - Updated - - -



    My post was literally "Money in politics is bad" and you reply with "Yeah but Democrats get money too!"

    Like wowee could you be more of a partisan meme spewer?
    The NRA ( like any large private organization ) is not one I would agree with all the time. I do know according to a poll taken a while back, 74% of NRA members do support universal back ground checks. But overall, they are strong advocates for the Second Amendment and for this reason, I do support them. So you have to look at the overall picture to judge if you should support something or not.

    Money in politics is a fact of life and it has been going on long before ether of us were born. Not that I like it necessarily, but it is just the way it is. But even with that, it is not always a bad thing if the donated money is helping to protect something you feel is important. The American Medical Association do their own influence in politics.
    " If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher.." - Abraham Lincoln
    The Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to - prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms..” - Samuel Adams

  10. #48970
    The Unstoppable Force Ghostpanther's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    USA, Ohio
    Posts
    24,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Boomzy View Post
    You act like that is supposed to mean something to me. The AMA being able to buy out politicians is just as cancerous as the NRA being able to do it.

    - - - Updated - - -



    And yet the organization they support are against it, and they don't care. So it's sort of a moot point.

    - - - Updated - - -



    But it doesn't HAVE to be that way. All it requires is not being a complacent propaganda spewer protecting the status quo.
    Well, you do have your own support agenda. That is all I was referring to. And you will vote according to how any candidate supports what you feel is important. Just like myself.

    A private organization/club are usually not run using a democratic process from it's members. They have a board of directors who determine what the organizations will stand for or against. If they start to lose members on a large scale, then of course they would look at why. The NRA does not have a membership number issue. Because it's members support what they do as a whole.

    Well, you are free to write your representatives and ask them to support and introduce bills which would address donations for political candidates. Just remember, getting what you want, you may lose some of the things you do support.
    " If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher.." - Abraham Lincoln
    The Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to - prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms..” - Samuel Adams

  11. #48971
    Quote Originally Posted by Antiganon View Post
    None of this solves the two biggest issues with mental health care in the US:

    1) It is exceedingly difficult to get someone to accept treatment against their will. In order to be committed, you need to be an immediate risk to yourself or others. "Sometimes I feel like killing myself" is not enough. "I want to kill myself tonight" is.

    2) HIPAA prevents reporting of any mental health (or other health, for that matter) issues except in cases where it is required to provide medical care, bill a patient, or to report involuntary commitment (see above) to NICS for purposes of background checks.

    What you are suggesting would be considered unlawful imprisonment. Even if it was legal:

    1) Allowing people to anonymously report "loved ones" they are "concerned" about has huge issues. Hey, I am a divorced parent who doesn't want to fight a custody battle, let me anonymously report that my ex-wife is crazy and wants to hurt our children, have her committed, and use the commitment against her in court as a reason I should have custody.

    2) Family and friends reporting loved ones and having them committed is almost never a good situation when the committed person gets back to real life. Unless they were having serious problems and recognize that while in an institution, they will come out bitter and resentful of the loved ones who put them there, which means you now have at-risk people actively retreating from the support system that does essential tasks like checking on them regularly and making sure they stay on their meds.

    3) Family and friends may be less likely to report somebody as having issues if they know that everyone will know their loved one was committed.

    4) None of this does a thing to reduce the social stigma of mental health issues. You can't legislate that, nor can you even really encourage it. The only way that stigma will be reduced is with time. When I was a child growing up and dealing with severe depression issues (severe as in multiple suicide attempts), I was told by my family members, parents included, that I should just "Deal with it like everyone else" and "Figure out how to be happy on my own". I was told I didn't need help, or medication, I just needed to man up. Until the generations that push that type of thinking are out of the public discourse about mental health, we will never see that social stigma fade.
    Let me first start out by saying I appreciate your well thought out response and honest dialog with zero name calling and talking down to. Its refreshing. There is so much here to unpack I dont know if I will get to address all your points but here goes.

    I realize there are issues with my approach of reporting other people. However to be honest that is the only way you will get someone who needs help the help they need. Even if it is just a call to police and have the police evaluate the situation to see if the person in question needs treatment. I dont see it as "unlawful imprisonment" I see it as "treatment". I wasnt suggesting we legislate the stigma away, I am aware that cant be done. WE as a nation, as a society must view mental health as a serious issue. Even if it wasnt an issue with guns. Why should we be content allowing our "crazy" paranoid uncles all over this county to continue to be a danger to anyone who they may come in contact with? Having a therapist to talk to about problems could mean the difference between a kid being bullied at school from getting real help dealing with an issue or shooting up the school.

    Quote Originally Posted by Antiganon View Post
    Which is why gun control should be focused on three things:

    1) Elimination of private transfer absent an FFL dealer. Straw purchasing is illegal already, but very difficult to identify and enforce. If all non-FFL transfers were illegal on their face, there would be no question about whether a given purchase was for personal use or a straw purchase, they would all be equally criminal. Vastly simplifies enforcement.

    2) Strengthening of background check enforcement. Require the reporting agencies to update their information to NICS whenever a person has an update, good or bad. Levy exceedingly (and increasingly) heavy fines for anyone failing to do so, both on the individual and the organization level.

    Let's say hypothetically NYPD arrests somebody for domestic violence, doesn't report, the offender buys a gun and shoots their spouse. The individual officer who made the arrest and wrote up the report, the individual officer who is responsible for updating to NICS, and the NYPD in general would all be fined for noncompliance. The fines should increase for subsequent violations by the same entities (so a separate incident with a different arresting officer and a different reporting officer would be hit with the same fine as the first officers, but the fine to the NYPD in general would increase substantially).

    3) Add a Pass/Fail, Must-Report system to people seeking mental health care for issues associated with dissociative disorders, violent tendencies, sociopathy, etc. These individuals would be reported to NICS and would fail a background check, and would then be able to appeal this decision in court if desired. They would be required to be examined by a court-appointed psychiatrist, and would be adjudicated as mentally fit to possess a firearm. That decision could be appealed in higher courts like any other ruling. Include SSDI beneficiaries with mental health issues who have a third party manage their benefits (essentially the Obama regulation that Trump repealed).

    With those three systems in place, we would be in the best possible position to prevent people from getting guns that obviously should not have guns. When people talk about near-universally agreeable, "common sense gun control", this is the kind of thing they are talking about (at least the people I have spoken to, including politicians here in CT).
    I agree with these steps, however I would just like to mention that the item in bold doesnt mean squat. Just because you have a third part managing benfits does no mean you are not fit to own a firearm. There is nothing wrong with having a court appointed psychiatrist deal with them as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Antiganon View Post
    I personally would go one step further:

    1) Mandatory firearms safety and marksmanship training required in order to obtain a Gun License. This Gun License would be issued by the Federal Government on a Shall-Issue basis for anyone completing the training and passing an exam. There would be no fee to the citizen for the training or licensing. The exam would include both a written and practical portion, require 80% correct or better on the written portion, and require perfect gun discipline (not perfect marksmanship) to pass the practical. Get 3 questions wrong on a 20 question test and you are fine. Inadvertently point the barrel of your gun at anything you aren't immediately prepared to shoot, fail to put the safety on when finished, fail to clear the chamber before storing the gun, etc - immediate failure of the practical portion. This would only need to be completed once in the lifetime of the individual.

    I would also have a Federal level CCW permit, on a Shall Issue basis, separate from the basic exam. The CCW permit would require a free training course, and the permit would be paid for by the citizen. This would be valid nationwide, and would replace individual state CCW permits. This would need to be renewed every 5 years.

    This ensures that all of the law-abiding citizens who purchase guns know how to use and store them safely and responsibly. It also ensures that all of the law-abiding citizens who wish to carry guns on their person in public know how to do so safely, responsibly, and legally, and eliminates any issues stemming from non-reciprocity of existing CCW permits.

    Once all that is done, we have made sure that dangerous individuals who shouldn't have guns can't get them legally, that everyone who buys a gun legally has an understanding of how to use guns safely and responsibly, and that everyone who regularly carries guns knows how to do so safely, responsibly, and legally, and can do so nationwide without fear of violating local laws when traveling.

    If all that was enacted tomorrow, we could prevent a LOT of avoidable gun violence and accidental deaths.

    We will never prevent all gun violence, because criminals who operate outside the law will continue to operate outside the law, but this would at least be a good start.
    I have absolutely nothing against this and proposed training for every class of weapon a person wants to own. The problem is this, people are people. What does that mean. Go for a drive around town, witness all the people who disobey traffic laws. Its not because they werent trained. Its because they dont care, there are no cops around to enforce the traffic laws. The moment a cops appears, people do the speed limits, they use turn signals, they obey stop signs and traffic lights. This is all to say, people will do whatever they need to do to pass a silly test. No amount of training will force them to use what they learned once they leave the testing facility.

  12. #48972
    The Unstoppable Force Ghostpanther's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    USA, Ohio
    Posts
    24,112
    Quote Originally Posted by petej0 View Post
    Let me first start out by saying I appreciate your well thought out response and honest dialog with zero name calling and talking down to. Its refreshing. There is so much here to unpack I dont know if I will get to address all your points but here goes.

    I realize there are issues with my approach of reporting other people. However to be honest that is the only way you will get someone who needs help the help they need. Even if it is just a call to police and have the police evaluate the situation to see if the person in question needs treatment. I dont see it as "unlawful imprisonment" I see it as "treatment". I wasnt suggesting we legislate the stigma away, I am aware that cant be done. WE as a nation, as a society must view mental health as a serious issue. Even if it wasnt an issue with guns. Why should we be content allowing our "crazy" paranoid uncles all over this county to continue to be a danger to anyone who they may come in contact with? Having a therapist to talk to about problems could mean the difference between a kid being bullied at school from getting real help dealing with an issue or shooting up the school.



    I agree with these steps, however I would just like to mention that the item in bold doesnt mean squat. Just because you have a third part managing benfits does no mean you are not fit to own a firearm. There is nothing wrong with having a court appointed psychiatrist deal with them as well.



    I have absolutely nothing against this and proposed training for every class of weapon a person wants to own. The problem is this, people are people. What does that mean. Go for a drive around town, witness all the people who disobey traffic laws. Its not because they werent trained. Its because they dont care, there are no cops around to enforce the traffic laws. The moment a cops appears, people do the speed limits, they use turn signals, they obey stop signs and traffic lights. This is all to say, people will do whatever they need to do to pass a silly test. No amount of training will force them to use what they learned once they leave the testing facility.
    Which is why repealing the order Obama put in place was a good thing. Any rights the citizens lose, needs to be done thru the court officials. Due process and all.

    Another good example of why we should have stricter punishment and enforcement of the gun control laws we already have on the books.

    Well said pete.
    " If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher.." - Abraham Lincoln
    The Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to - prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms..” - Samuel Adams

  13. #48973
    The Unstoppable Force Ghostpanther's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    USA, Ohio
    Posts
    24,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Boomzy View Post
    So does everyone. Nobody gets everything they want in a Democratic system. It's about compromise.

    But it's hard to compromise when the people who are supposed to represent you are corrupt.
    True. And only time proves if a candidate will live up to their campaign promises or stances.
    " If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher.." - Abraham Lincoln
    The Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to - prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms..” - Samuel Adams

  14. #48974
    The Unstoppable Force Ghostpanther's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    USA, Ohio
    Posts
    24,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Boomzy View Post
    I mean you can look at their donations, and their voting record, and make a pretty educated guess.

    If somebody is against net neutrality and Comcast is their top donator it's a pretty safe bet they should gtfo.
    Yep. Just like I like what I heard about the Democrat who won the Penn special election. He said he was pro gun rights, among some other conservative rights. Going to be interesting to see what his record reveals later on this stance he claimed. But it was good to see a moderate Democrat winning.
    " If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher.." - Abraham Lincoln
    The Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to - prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms..” - Samuel Adams

  15. #48975
    The Insane Underverse's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    The Underverse
    Posts
    16,333
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghostpanther View Post
    False. https://www.investors.com/politics/e...e-saved-lives/

    The deputy and the backup he immediately called for exchanged fire with the shooters a second time and helped begin the evacuation of students, all before SWAT teams arrived, and before Harris and Klebold eventually killed themselves in the library.

    Harris and Klebold also carried improvised explosive devices, some that detonated, others that didn't. One thing is certain — the armed resistance of Gardner and his backup bought time and saved lives.

    There is no way of knowing how many lives were saved that day by an armed sheriff's deputy, and how many would have been slaughtered if nobody had been there with a gun at all.

    We have noted that days before Sandy Hook, an armed citizen stopped a shooter threatening a massacre at a mall in Clackamas, Ore. It echoed what happened in 2007 during a rampage in Trolley Square, Utah, which was put to an end after an officer who was on a date with his wife, confronted the shooter and kept the 18-year-old shooter pinned down until more police arrived and killed the shooter.
    Let's take a look at some numbers, shall we? Opinion articles just don't do it for me.

    According to the FBI:

    - Between 2000 and 2013, there were 160 mass shootings.

    - In 13.1% of incidents, unarmed citizens stopped the shooting by restraining the shooter

    - In 3.1% of incidents, armed citizens stopped the shooting by killing or wounding the shooter, or causing the shooter to commit suicide

    - In 38.7% of incidents, law enforcement stopped the shooting by killing or wounding the shooter, or causing the shooter to commit suicide

    - In 23.1% of incidents, the shooter committed suicide without being engaged by citizens or law enforcement

    - In 18.7% of incidents, the shooter fled before law enforcement arrived and without being engaged

    So, 3.1% of mass shootings are ended by citizens with guns in a country where there are as many guns as citizens. Is this the evidence you're citing? By the way, compare this to the 3.1% of mass shootings wherein security guards were killed. Those aren't good odds. While I wouldn't claim that armed civilians or security guards are useless for stopping mass shootings, I would question this strategy as a potential solution for the problem at hand, and I don't think it's reasonable to extrapolate from this data that posting armed security guards in schools will end mass shootings (as we saw most recently with the armed deputy who didn't even engage the shooter at Parkland).

    But this is only a consideration of the benefits. What about the costs? Posting security guards at every school has obvious costs, and comes with obvious risks (escalation of petty high school conflicts, accidents, etc). Arming teachers comes with risks that are definitely too high to warrant implementation. Are these risks worth the meager benefits? I don't think so. And your emotion-laden op-ed hasn't changed my opinion on this.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Ghostpanther View Post
    True. This causes far more preventable death's of children than school shootings. A lot more. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ckled/5204127/

    "More than 650 children 12 and under were killed in crashes in 2011," Sauber-Schatz said. "That's more than a dozen children every week."
    Guns don't have the same utility as cars. Next.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by petej0 View Post
    shitty strawman arguments
    - Forcing medical care on people is not constitutional and violates rights to autonomy.
    - It's not just harder because of stigma - it's harder because people with mental health problems often do not seek aid or are unwilling to get help. Which goes back to the previous point of forcing medical care on people.
    - We already have a system in place where mental health concerns can be reported to police. Police cannot arrest someone on the basis of them having mental health problems unless there is a direct threat. Are you suggesting that this be changed?
    - Saying that all mass shooters have mental health problems simply because they are mass shooters is disingenuous. Before they commit the crime, do they have mental health problems? What if they suddenly just snap and kill people? Did they have mental health problems before then? How would you identify those people? How would you convince them that they need help if they are planning to kill people? Do you think that they would reveal all of their plans to medical professionals? Also, everyone has bad days; guns make it easy to find 'solutions' to temporarily negative situations.
    - What is the treatment you propose? What happens when potential shooters do not want to seek care? Can you offer a single example of a shooter that attempted to get mental health care, but was denied or could not due to circumstance? Because those would be the only cases that could be potentially resolved by your proposed solutions.
    - Gun control is simple. And I said 'especially' dangerous ones. Some people might say that this definition includes all semi-automatic weapons, including handguns. I might agree. There are easy ways to quantify the killing potential of a firearm - and this is something that's much easier to do than quantifying mental health status.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Svifnymr View Post
    It seems like you're fixated on the guns, so you are willing to let nothing else happen just because you can't get gun control...
    You don't trust a teacher to choose to carry a concealed gun, so what other methods would you use to increase security at a school? Bullet proof windows seems a sensible enough thing, certainly, but what about the simple solution of a checkpoint, only having one entrance? I mean, obviously the classroom doors shouldn't be just hanging open during class, so if you had someone at the cameras (and didn't have the cameras on a 20 minute delay for some inexplicable reason) you could easily lock someone out. I agree it does cost money, so lets come together and find that money.

    Oh, wait, that doesn't have gun control in it, so it's not worth doing. Even if the same policies would aid against other interactions in a school, it doesn't involve gun control so screw the kids.

    "Kids shouldn't have to study in a closed campus", why? They don't have some "right" to feelings. You want to remove MY guns because of what someone else did, but you won't remove their off-campus lunchs or anything to make them safer. Seems logical. I guess the democrats can just do nothing until the next tragedy so they can use that to push their agenda some more.



    Mental Health, in so far as it affects many people that otherwise cannot support themselves, should be a major issue regardless of school violence. We already have disability programs that are federally linked, but homelessness/ drug addiction are generally local things. Broadening that to anyone having mental issues would be expensive, so both sides need to come together to find the money.

    I think a big part of the issue though is how subjective mental health is. We really can't quantify "how crazy" someone is.

    The main thing is, people should be discussing mental issues all the time, not saying "we aren't going to talk about this because it doesn't have gun control in it". Why don't the democrats that are all "free health care for everyone!" stand up and submit a bill that increases mental health care? Why isn't Bernie campaigning for such a plan? The republicans say it needs to happen, but instead of the democrats calling them on it and submitting a fucking bill, they change the topic to gun control. It's pitiful. And that's even knowing that the Republicans probably wouldn't vote for the bill if the democrats DID submit it. But we won't know, since the Democrats don't care.
    Teachers shouldn't carry guns - not just because I don't trust teachers in their high stress positions, but also because I don't trust students, who would have guns a few feet away from them at all times, should they feel the need to take out their frustration on their classmates or faculty.

    Bulletproof windows and cameras without delay - sure, that's something that should be looked into. Cost/benefit analyses need to be done. I don't know how expensive it would be to fit all of the windows in all of the schools in America with bulletproof glass. It doesn't sound cheap. And while we're doing that, let's take a look at policy. I'm not saying we should ignore other potential solutions. I am saying that we should NOT ignore the most obvious, and probably most effective potential solution. Be careful to note the difference.

    Mental health should be looked at, but it will not be the saving grace for gun violence, and we should not treat it as such. Like you said, it's much more complicated than gun control policies are, and approaching the problem from this angle would result in a need to curtail rights to autonomy - which makes it an inferior solution.

  16. #48976
    The Unstoppable Force Ghostpanther's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    USA, Ohio
    Posts
    24,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Quetzl View Post
    Let's take a look at some numbers, shall we? Opinion articles just don't do it for me.

    According to the FBI:

    - Between 2000 and 2013, there were 160 mass shootings.

    - In 13.1% of incidents, unarmed citizens stopped the shooting by restraining the shooter

    - In 3.1% of incidents, armed citizens stopped the shooting by killing or wounding the shooter, or causing the shooter to commit suicide

    - In 38.7% of incidents, law enforcement stopped the shooting by killing or wounding the shooter, or causing the shooter to commit suicide

    - In 23.1% of incidents, the shooter committed suicide without being engaged by citizens or law enforcement

    - In 18.7% of incidents, the shooter fled before law enforcement arrived and without being engaged

    So, 3.1% of mass shootings are ended by citizens with guns in a country where there are as many guns as citizens. Is this the evidence you're citing? By the way, compare this to the 3.1% of mass shootings wherein security guards were killed. Those aren't good odds. While I wouldn't claim that armed civilians or security guards are useless for stopping mass shootings, I would question this strategy as a potential solution for the problem at hand, and I don't think it's reasonable to extrapolate from this data that posting armed security guards in schools will end mass shootings (as we saw most recently with the armed deputy who didn't even engage the shooter at Parkland).

    But this is only a consideration of the benefits. What about the costs? Posting security guards at every school has obvious costs, and comes with obvious risks (escalation of petty high school conflicts, accidents, etc). Arming teachers comes with risks that are definitely too high to warrant implementation. Are these risks worth the meager benefits? I don't think so. And your emotion-laden op-ed hasn't changed my opinion on this.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Guns don't have the same utility as cars. Next.

    - - - Updated - - -
    Or yours mine.

    They both serve very important functions. To the Amish, it is horses, not cars. To a person who wants the right to protect themselves with a firearm, is not only a Constitutional right, it is a great equalizer. Still a choice which all US citizens should have.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Boomzy View Post
    You can be pro-gun rights and still in favor of regulating them.

    Just like you can love ice cream but agree that you shouldn't eat ice cream for every meal.
    Well yeah. But not to the extent New York does. For example ; a citizen should not have to give a reason to carry a handgun concealed in order to get a license to do so. This same type of gun control law in D.C. last year was ruled unconstitutional by a district federal judge.
    " If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher.." - Abraham Lincoln
    The Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to - prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms..” - Samuel Adams

  17. #48977
    Quote Originally Posted by Quetzl View Post
    Guns don't have the same utility as cars. Next.
    It's odd that the gun/car comparison keeps being brought up, but then dismissed when it doesn't work out. I mean, really the discussion isn't about people having guns, it's about private citizens having guns. Cops will still have guns, army, security guards probably. So yeah, cars have more utility, but private ownership of cars is not required, is it? The environment would be much better off without such. You could replace cars with public transportation and taxis as easily as taking guns away.

    Hell, in 50 years, I'm sure there WILL be a push for self-driving communal cars and less ownership.

    Teachers shouldn't carry guns - not just because I don't trust teachers in their high stress positions, but also because I don't trust students, who would have guns a few feet away from them at all times, should they feel the need to take out their frustration on their classmates or faculty.
    As shown by recent events ("gun safety" demonstration in anti-gun heaven cali, that teacher with mental issues in GA I think), guns can get into schools anyway. I think the main difference is that you're not used to the idea of people carrying regularly, whereas some of us are.

    Bulletproof windows and cameras without delay - sure, that's something that should be looked into. Cost/benefit analyses need to be done. I don't know how expensive it would be to fit all of the windows in all of the schools in America with bulletproof glass. It doesn't sound cheap. And while we're doing that, let's take a look at policy. I'm not saying we should ignore other potential solutions. I am saying that we should NOT ignore the most obvious, and probably most effective potential solution. Be careful to note the difference.
    The issue is, the democrats will not vote for a bill that has bulletproof glass or a better security system. If it's not gun control, they don't want it. Maybe the two sides can't come up with a workable plan they can pay for, but one side isn't part of the discussion because they want gun control.

    Mental health should be looked at, but it will not be the saving grace for gun violence, and we should not treat it as such. Like you said, it's much more complicated than gun control policies are, and approaching the problem from this angle would result in a need to curtail rights to autonomy - which makes it an inferior solution.
    Again, though, my issue is that congress doesn't need to pass the Giant School Help Bill that addresses gun control, locking doors and mental health. They should be drafting some measures to increase accessibility to health care now. They don't need to ban magazines at the same time they increase school psychologist access.
    "I only feel two things Gary, nothing, and nothingness."

  18. #48978
    Quote Originally Posted by petej0 View Post
    Let me first start out by saying I appreciate your well thought out response and honest dialog with zero name calling and talking down to. Its refreshing. There is so much here to unpack I dont know if I will get to address all your points but here goes.

    I realize there are issues with my approach of reporting other people. However to be honest that is the only way you will get someone who needs help the help they need. Even if it is just a call to police and have the police evaluate the situation to see if the person in question needs treatment. I dont see it as "unlawful imprisonment" I see it as "treatment". I wasnt suggesting we legislate the stigma away, I am aware that cant be done. WE as a nation, as a society must view mental health as a serious issue. Even if it wasnt an issue with guns. Why should we be content allowing our "crazy" paranoid uncles all over this county to continue to be a danger to anyone who they may come in contact with? Having a therapist to talk to about problems could mean the difference between a kid being bullied at school from getting real help dealing with an issue or shooting up the school.



    I agree with these steps, however I would just like to mention that the item in bold doesnt mean squat. Just because you have a third part managing benfits does no mean you are not fit to own a firearm. There is nothing wrong with having a court appointed psychiatrist deal with them as well.



    I have absolutely nothing against this and proposed training for every class of weapon a person wants to own. The problem is this, people are people. What does that mean. Go for a drive around town, witness all the people who disobey traffic laws. Its not because they werent trained. Its because they dont care, there are no cops around to enforce the traffic laws. The moment a cops appears, people do the speed limits, they use turn signals, they obey stop signs and traffic lights. This is all to say, people will do whatever they need to do to pass a silly test. No amount of training will force them to use what they learned once they leave the testing facility.
    If you have mental health issues that qualify you for SSDI, and you have a 3rd party collecting your benefits for you, there is a greater than zero chance you might have a condition that means gun ownership is not a great idea. Alzheimer's, for example. An Alzheimer's patient in a lucid moment might be an accomplished marksman with zero risk of committing violence. In a less-than-lucid moment, they also might forget the names and faces of their entire family and shoot the perceived strangers in their house in self defense. Their rights shouldn't be unduly infringed, so I would refuse the initial sale, refer them to a court hearing to be adjudicated as mentally fit to own a gun, and grant the sale following the hearing based on the judge's ruling. This also affords the possibility of appeal in higher courts.

    Say what you will about people violating the laws when no one is around to heck, and you would be right.

    Gun training isn't about that.

    It is about teaching people to respect the weapon, not the laws relating to the weapon. People violate traffic laws because it is easy to do so and fairly low risk if you (and everyone else) are paying attention. Violating basic gun safety has potentially catastrophic results that you have little if any way to mitigate. I can swerve on to the side of the road to avoid a collision. There is almost nothing I can do if my toddler picks up a loaded gun that wasn't stored safely, I just have to hope I can get to the gun before they pull the trigger.

    The CCW training is meant as a means to standardize the requirements nationwide and make sure that a law abiding gun owner in Indiana doesn't suddenly become a felon by crossing state lines into Illinois.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Woods View Post
    LOL never change guys. I guess you won't because conservatism.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghostpanther View Post
    I do care what people on this forum think of me.
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    This site is amazing. It's comments like this, that make this site amazing.

  19. #48979
    The Unstoppable Force Ghostpanther's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    USA, Ohio
    Posts
    24,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Antiganon View Post
    If you have mental health issues that qualify you for SSDI, and you have a 3rd party collecting your benefits for you, there is a greater than zero chance you might have a condition that means gun ownership is not a great idea. Alzheimer's, for example. An Alzheimer's patient in a lucid moment might be an accomplished marksman with zero risk of committing violence. In a less-than-lucid moment, they also might forget the names and faces of their entire family and shoot the perceived strangers in their house in self defense. Their rights shouldn't be unduly infringed, so I would refuse the initial sale, refer them to a court hearing to be adjudicated as mentally fit to own a gun, and grant the sale following the hearing based on the judge's ruling. This also affords the possibility of appeal in higher courts.

    Say what you will about people violating the laws when no one is around to heck, and you would be right.

    Gun training isn't about that.

    It is about teaching people to respect the weapon, not the laws relating to the weapon. People violate traffic laws because it is easy to do so and fairly low risk if you (and everyone else) are paying attention. Violating basic gun safety has potentially catastrophic results that you have little if any way to mitigate. I can swerve on to the side of the road to avoid a collision. There is almost nothing I can do if my toddler picks up a loaded gun that wasn't stored safely, I just have to hope I can get to the gun before they pull the trigger.

    The CCW training is meant as a means to standardize the requirements nationwide and make sure that a law abiding gun owner in Indiana doesn't suddenly become a felon by crossing state lines into Illinois.
    There are different degrees/stages of that disease. If a loved one or a relative feels they are a danger to others, then they should have them visit a doctor and then a medical determination can be made by a medical professional to decide if their firearms should be taken from them and then if necessary, a court order. Not just because they are diagnosed with the early stages of the disease.

    We need to come up with a standard for CCW licenses which all states will recognize to avoid such. I seriously do not think Ohio's requirements for a citizen to obtain a CHL ( Carry Conceal Handgun ) license is less stringent than the requirements for one in New York. Except in New York, you have to prove you have a need for one and in Ohio, if you are a law abiding citizen, you have the right under the US Constitution. :P
    " If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher.." - Abraham Lincoln
    The Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to - prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms..” - Samuel Adams

  20. #48980
    For the Nth time, firearm ownership enjoys an express civil liberty protection in the Constitution and cars do not. That is because armed self-defense is a human right, and motor vehicle operation is not.

    I love the cloyingly idiotic statistic flogging there. The first thing that 3.1% statistic confirms is what everybody already knows -- mass shooters almost always choose targets where armed self defense is prohibited. Every school shooting, the Ft. Hood shooting, the Aurora shooting, it's very hard to find examples of shootings where the target area was one in which CCW was permitted, let alone likely. There is also a pretty obvious baserate fallacy being committed -- of fucking course there are more examples of unarmed defense than armed defense, because the rate of people who are capable of trying to resist with bare hands is ~100% barring disability, and the rate of people who can attempt armed defense is far less (since it requires someone be armed, shockingly). So, that 13.1% is out of 100% of mass shootings, in every mass shooting, it's possible for people to attempt resistance with bare hands. The 3.1% number is out of only whatever percentage of mass shootings in which a civilian owned firearm was present and accessible at the time. We don't have stats on that, but wouldn't you guess that it's probably... 10%? 15% at most? So an effective success rate between 20-30% ish, vs the 13.1% for unarmed defense?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •