Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[TZucchini]

Natural rights are morally inherent. Not religiously inherent.

If you think that preposterous, then I shudder to think of how you view morality in general.

Whose morality? Different cultures have different morals. Even different people within the same cultures have different morals.

- - - Updated - - -

I already did. Are you even reading posts, or just jerking knees?

Please repost it for me. It should be really really easy to do and could quickly end this back and forth.

And you criticize me for not providing citations...

Many people with anorexia also have coexisting psychiatric and physical illnesses, including depression, anxiety, obsessive behavior, substance abuse, cardiovascular and neurological complications, and impaired physical development.

Gee that was hard.

[Tinykong]

Please repost it for me. It should be really really easy to do and could quickly end this back and forth.

It's your own post. I need to search for it and provide you with a link to it?

Many people with anorexia also have coexisting psychiatric and physical illnesses, including depression, anxiety, obsessive behavior, substance abuse, cardiovascular and neurological complications, and impaired physical development.

Gee that was hard.

Ahh, so not everyone with annorexia has deep depression. Wait, so you mean doctors have to actually have cause to restrict someone's rights? They can't just apply the blanket term "mental illness" and engage in gun grabbing? Shocking.

[PhaelixWW]

It's not just about mass shootings, and the undeniable connection to mental illness. It's also about giving a firearm to an individual that has significant disturbances in cognition, emotional regulation, and mental functioning. It makes absolutely zero sense. Why would we do that? Oh yeah, cause its a right!

...Aaaaaand if a medical professional determines that the "disturbance in cognition, emotional regulation, and mental functioning" is "significant" enough to consider them a danger to themself or others, then they can prohibit said person from owning a firearm.

I don't understand what problem you have with that stipulation. You'd ban firearms from 1/4 of the population, rather than only from those who are seen to be predisposed to increased violent behavior?

Once again, that makes you sound deeeeeeeply paranoid.

Recognized = given.

That = false.

If you recognize someone's ownership of something, that's not the same as you giving it to them. Now you're just being completely disingenuous here.

Who decides what rights are inherently ours? It's completely subjective. They're created and protected by humans.

Morality.

The whole freaking concept is that rights are not "created", they are merely acknowledged and protected.

- - - Updated - - -

Whose morality? Different cultures have different morals. Even different people within the same cultures have different morals.

And different cultures argue about morality all the time. It doesn't change the fact that your government does not establish your morality.

Many people with anorexia also have coexisting psychiatric and physical illnesses, including depression, anxiety, obsessive behavior, substance abuse, cardiovascular and neurological complications, and impaired physical development.

So... some people who are anorexic also have depression. And some people who are depressed are a potential threat to themself or others. Therefore don't let anybody suffering from anorexia exercise their right to own a firearm for self/home-defense!

Yeah. Makes total sense. /sarcasm

[TZucchini]

Ahh, so not everyone with annorexia has deep depression. Wait, so you mean doctors have to actually have cause to restrict someone's rights? They can't just apply the blanket term "mental illness" and engage in gun grabbing? Shocking.

No. Not everyone with annorexia has deep depression. And not every person with a criminal record re offends. But we don't allow them to have firearms either. Cause, you know, logic!

[PhaelixWW]

No. Not everyone with annorexia has deep depression. And not every person with a criminal record re offends. But we don't allow them to have firearms either. Cause, you know, logic!

I think the term you're looking for is "predisposed".

A convicted criminal has been shown to be predisposed to amoral (and usually violent) behavior.

The same can not be said for those suffering from anorexia.

Cause, you know, logic!

Edit:
And of course, they don't prohibit all people with a criminal record. Only those with felonies and violent misdemeanors.

[Tinykong]

No. Not everyone with annorexia has deep depression. And not every person with a criminal record re offends. But we don't allow them to have firearms either. Cause, you know, logic!

Nice false equivalency.

[TZucchini]

...Aaaaaand if a medical professional determines that the "disturbance in cognition, emotional regulation, and mental functioning" is "significant" enough to consider them a danger to themself or others, then they can prohibit said person from owning a firearm.

I don't understand what problem you have with that stipulation. You'd ban firearms from 1/4 of the population, rather than only from those who are seen to be predisposed to increased violent behavior?

Once again, that makes you sound deeeeeeeply paranoid.

It's almost as paranoid as believing your life is in constant danger. So much so that you need to carry an item that's statistically more likely to harm yourself or others around you to ward off such paranoia.

If you recognize someone's ownership of something, that's not the same as you giving it to them. Now you're just being completely disingenuous here.

And the countries that have banned firearm ownership. Do those citizens still have an inherent right to own firearms?

Morality.

The whole freaking concept is that rights are not "created", they are merely acknowledged and protected.

Which doesn't make any sense. Right's aren't trees or rocks. They wouldn't exist without humans. They're intangible. They're created by humans.

So... some people who are anorexic also have depression. And some people who are depressed are a potential threat to themself or others. Therefore don't let anybody suffering from anorexia exercise their right to own a firearm for self/home-defense!

Yeah. Makes total sense. /sarcasm

Denying firearm access to individuals with mental health disorders does make total sense. Glad we agree.

[Tinykong]

It's almost as paranoid as believing your life is in constant danger. So much so that you need to carry an item that's statistically more likely to harm yourself or others around you to ward off such paranoia.

And it's quoted again, without context or reference, as an anti-gun argument.

[TZucchini]

I think the term you're looking for is "predisposed".

A convicted criminal has been shown to be predisposed to amoral (and usually violent) behavior.

Usually violent behavior? The majority of prisoners and crimes are non-violent offenses. Most are drug related.

The same can not be said for those suffering from anorexia.

With things like anorexia, I'm more concerned about the whole mental instability aspect. Owning a firearm while being clinically mentally unstable is just stupid.

- - - Updated - - -

And it's quoted again, without context or reference, as an anti-gun argument.

If you need citations, all you need to do is ask. It's not like it hasn't been linked before.

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full
http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/news/News_...ession-safety/
http://www.examiner.com/article/poss...-not-more-safe

[Tinykong]

With things like anorexia, I'm more concerned about the whole mental instability aspect. Owning a firearm while being clinically mentally unstable is just stupid.

How about someone with insomnia?

What about someone who gets misdiagnosed? I'll reiterate: your application is too broad.

[petej0]

It's almost as paranoid as believing your life is in constant danger. So much so that you need to carry an item that's statistically more likely to harm yourself or others around you to ward off such paranoia.

People own guns for a variety of reasons. Protection is only one.

[Tinykong]

If you need citations, all you need to do is ask. It's not like it hasn't been linked before.

I don't need citations. You need some context.

Saying "you're more likely to kill yourself or a family member than an intruder" while quoting those studies is intellectually dishonest, since there is no context. People who own firearms are more likely to commit suicide with a firearm? No shit. However, the statement is intentionally being used as proof that by owning a firearm, somehow you are magically more likely to be killed by it.

[brirrspliff]

People own guns for a variety of reasons. Protection is only one.

yes. homicide is one of the others.

- - - Updated - - -

However, the statement is intentionally being used as proof that by owning a firearm, somehow you are magically more likely to be killed by it.

and that's true.

[TZucchini]

How about someone with insomnia?

In addition to major depression and dysthymic disorder, insomnia commonly occurs with bipolar disorder during depressive and manic episodes.

I haven't found evidence of insomnia being classified as a mental disorder, but rather a symptom of many mental disorders.

What about someone who gets misdiagnosed? I'll reiterate: your application is too broad.

I'd rather have my application be too broad (it's not), than too specific. I guess that's the difference between me and you.

[PhaelixWW]

It's almost as paranoid as believing your life is in constant danger.

I don't believe anything of the sort. And I doubt that many CCW carriers do, either.

Life would be easier, of course, if we all knew exactly when we'd be in danger. Not knowing when we might be in danger is a part of the human condition. Being prepared for potentially being in a dangerous situation is hardly the same thing as believing that the dangerous situation is a constant.

But I understand that you're just being disingenuous here to try and make your point, since you don't really have anything else.

So much so that you need to carry an item that's statistically more likely to harm yourself or others around you to ward off such paranoia.

Statistically... using biased and incomplete data. I've posted at length, earlier ITT, about the faults in the studies that were linked. Your "fact" is not scientifically proven, sorry.

And the countries that have banned firearm ownership. Do those citizens still have an inherent right to own firearms?

According to the prevailing morality of the people in this country, both past and present (even before it was a country), yes. I cannot speak with authority to the views on morality by the people in other parts of the world.

Which doesn't make any sense.

Le sigh.

Right's aren't trees or rocks.

Correct.

They wouldn't exist without humans.

Correct.

They're intangible.

Correct.

They're created by humans.

False.

We don't "create" our morality. It just is. It's an inherent part of our subconscious thinking process; we don't intentionally "create" morality. We try to define it, try to find a consensus, and definitely argue about it, but we don't "create" it.

Denying firearm access to individuals with mental health disorders [that have been shown to be predisposed to violence] does make total sense. Glad we agree.

Glad we agree, sure.

[TZucchini]

I don't need citations. You need some context.

Saying "you're more likely to kill yourself or a family member than an intruder" while quoting those studies is intellectually dishonest, since there is no context. People who own firearms are more likely to commit suicide with a firearm? No shit. However, the statement is intentionally being used as proof that by owning a firearm, somehow you are magically more likely to be killed by it.

The context is firearm ownership and safety. People own firearms to make themselves more safe, when in reality, they're statistically less safe.

How about women? Doesn't owning a firearm make them more safe from the big bad bogymen?

Nope and Nope.

This is controlled data.

[petej0]

The context is firearm ownership and safety. People own firearms to make themselves more safe, when in reality, they're statistically less safe.

Not all people own firearms for protection.

[PhaelixWW]

Usually violent behavior? The majority of prisoners and crimes are non-violent offenses. Most are drug related.

It's nice that you focused on the part in parentheses, rather than focusing on the "amoral" aspect.

And then, of course, you failed to read the edit, which pointed out that many criminals (you know, the non-violent ones) are not prohibited from owning a firearm, unless they're convicted of a felony, which shows a complete disregard for public morality.

With things like anorexia, I'm more concerned about the whole mental instability aspect. Owning a firearm while being clinically mentally unstable is just stupid.

Herp derp. That's the whole difference between "mentally ill" and "mentally defective". Mental illness does not prohibit you from owning a firearm. Mental deficiency does.

From the ATF 4473 form (the one you have to fill out to buy a firearm):

11.f. Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes a determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that you are a danger to yourself or to others or are incompetent to manage your own affairs) OR have you ever been committed to a mental institution? (See Instructions for Question 11.f.)

Question 11.f. Adjudicated Mentally Defective: A determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease: (1) is a danger to himself or to others; or (2) lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs. This term shall include: (1) a finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case; and (2) Those persons found incompetent to stand trial or found not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility.

Mentally ill and mentally unstable are not the same thing.

[lavafoxx]

I copied this down from somewhere, thought it'd fit nicely here:

"I think the reason a lot people oppose any and all new gun restrictions is because they think it's a slippery slope. And if you've seen how congress tends to pass legislation it's not an entirely baseless fear, though it's pretty overblown in this instance. But even I have some apprehension about "universal background checks" as a sloppily worded law could send you to jail for taking a friend or family member out to the the range or going hunting. And I doubt many people would approve of that. If they gave automatic exemptions to CCW permit holders, military members, and others that have already been vetted it would make a lot more sense. Background checks should be mandatory at gun shows though."

[TZucchini]

Being prepared for potentially being in a dangerous situation is hardly the same thing as believing that the dangerous situation is a constant.

You're creating potentially dangerous situations by carrying firearms. That's the point.

Statistically... using biased and incomplete data. I've posted at length, earlier ITT, about the faults in the studies that were linked. Your "fact" is not scientifically proven, sorry.

Peer reviewed studies were debunked by someone posting on MMOC! No way...

We don't "create" our morality. It just is. It's an inherent part of our subconscious thinking process; we don't intentionally "create" morality. We try to define it, try to find a consensus, and definitely argue about it, but we don't "create" it.

If we're able to pick and choose what we universally consider a right, then they are by definition created by humans.